SERIOUSLY?! - IxDF UX Course Review by a Senior Designer

Product reviewed

IxDF UX course (“Become UX Designer from Scratch”) — reviewed by a senior designer with 22 years of experience.

Key features mentioned

• Course structure: delivered in weekly segments with progress gated by lesson quizzes and waiting for each week’s content.
• Content style: a mix of videos, readings, transcripts, plus occasional extra reading links (many described as old/not updated).
• Video controls: videos can be played up to 1.5x speed; transcripts are available.
• Assessment:
  • Quizzes under each lesson award points toward certificates.
  • Includes multiple-choice and some open-ended/graded items.
  • Feedback is slow, taking weeks to respond.
• Deliverable examples taught: includes customer journey mapping, low-fidelity wireframes, and “high-fidelity” UI examples.

Main pros (as stated)

• Intro/early lessons start strong and feel more engaging/easy to follow than expected.
• A framing that helps explain what UX is and where it applies (“UX all around us”).
• Early content is described as less academic than expected, using examples outside traditional UX contexts.
• Video flexibility: 1.5x playback and transcripts support different learning preferences.
• Some design-thinking text elements are short and easy to revisit.

Main cons (as stated)

1) Platform & UX problems (user experience of learning)

• Runs on a platform with poor UX (reviewer compares it to Coursera and says it’s slightly better, but still problematic).
• “Double scroll” requirement: users can’t proceed until they scroll to the bottom of comments.
• Quiz radio buttons appear gray, potentially making them feel inactive/disabled.
• Some “video” elements are actually images that don’t play video (they may look clickable, but only enlarge).

2) Learning experience & engagement

• The intro relies heavily on readings, which the reviewer finds boring/distracting and harder to continue.
• After the initial momentum, the course becomes academic, complex, confusing, and boring.
• No practical exercises or hands-on work; the reviewer says it’s mostly answering questions rather than creating deliverables.
• Slow/locked pacing: weekly release with no way to skip ahead, even though materials are pre-recorded.
• Peer/graded feedback delays: open-ended items take weeks to return points, increasing frustration.

3) Content currency & industry relevance

• Extra reading links are often old (examples cited: 2010/2008/2006; newest around 2017).
• Reviewer claims industry practice has shifted (more agile; real UX work may not follow certain processes strictly), making some content feel outdated.

4) Misplaced emphasis / self-promotion

• Heavy self-promotion of IxDF certificates and the point/grading system.
• Some quiz questions feel irrelevant, such as questions about a single expert’s personal opinion from an interview.
• Reviewer argues certificate-focused questions don’t meaningfully teach UX.

5) Teaching materials & example quality problems

• Visual overlays/UI style: inconsistent, low-fidelity icon/illustration overlays that may reinforce the wrong message about consistency.
• Customer journey map examples: described as overly complicated/intimidating.
• Low-fidelity wireframe example: too tiny/unreadable when enlarged to judge fidelity properly.
• “High-fidelity” UI example criticized heavily:
  • Labeled horrible and outdated/retro (phones from 2008–2009).
  • Issues cited include inconsistent shadows, spacing/alignment problems, non-responsive mobile readability, and a confusing mixture of layout types.
• Overall impression: graphics/visuals feel generic, like placeholder stock images and random illustrations.

6) Recruiter/portfolio messaging criticized

• Reviewer agrees: portfolio is king over certificates.
• However, the course’s portrayal of “good junior portfolios” is said to require unrealistic access to research/testing resources (e.g., test subjects/testing platforms).
• Reviewer argues real value is showing process and informed decisions with a final deliverable—not an encyclopedia-length “perfect” case study.

Comparisons made

• Compared to Google UX course (on Coursera):
  • Platform: IxDF is “a little better than Coursera,” but still flawed.
  • Learning value: reviewer says Google is better for engagement, visuals, and speed.
  • Content style: Google teaches principles more directly with better structure; IxDF is more “in your face” (self-promotion) and less engaging.
  • Instructors: Google allegedly uses real designers; IxDF uses “gurus/experts” (reviewer argues gurus not actively designing aren’t ideal guidance).
• Overall comparison verdict: reviewer repeatedly concludes Google seems better, even if it’s “Google’s view,” and even though learners may need to understand differences across companies.

User experience summary (how it feels to take the course)

• Begins promising, but becomes slow, quiz-driven, academically dull, with:
  • Poor platform interactions
  • Limited hands-on practice
  • Delayed feedback that hurts motivation.
• Reviewer also describes a test-like behavior: skimming and answering quizzes without reading, finding many questions easy to predict—suggesting assessment design is not robust.

Ratings / numerical scores

• No explicit star ratings or numeric scores given.
• Only specific numeric feature mentioned: 1.5x video speed.

Unique points mentioned (consolidated list)

• “Double scroll” before proceeding
• Gray quiz radio buttons may feel disabled
• Clickable “video” thumbnails that don’t play video (image enlargement only)
• Heavy readings in intro; barrier for readers who dislike text
• Some examples are interesting (e.g., Three Mile Island incident)
• Early lessons more approachable; uses non-UX examples
• Video transcripts available; 1.5x speed possible
• Some videos include background music (annoying to reviewer)
• Visual overlays are inconsistent low-fidelity styles
• Course becomes academic/tough and confusing later
• Extra readings include many outdated materials (2010/2008/2006; up to 2017)
• Portfolio is more important than certificates (but portfolio examples are unrealistic)
• Course emphasizes certificates; recruiter impact described as low (reviewer’s view)
• Quiz questions tied to certificates/points (reviewer finds irrelevant)
• Some quiz questions test personal opinions, not stable knowledge
• Design thinking content described as more text/blog-like than video-rich
• Customer journey map examples feel overcomplicated
• Low-fidelity wireframe example too low-resolution to assess
• “High-fidelity polished UI” example criticized as outdated and poorly designed (shadows, spacing, responsiveness, alignment)
• Too few/no practical exercises; mostly answer questions
• No skipping ahead; weekly pacing despite pre-recorded content
• Graded responses take weeks; delayed points
• Reviewer claims quizzes can be answered via logic/skimming; flawed alternatives
• Advice given: learn more via free YouTube playlists / Google course
• Visual design (photos) feels generic/placeholder/random

Different speaker views

• Primary speaker (single reviewer): all critiques and comparisons come from one senior designer’s perspective (platform UX, teaching quality, visuals, pacing, assessment, and hiring/portfolio realism). No other speakers are evaluated separately.