Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
178 lines (155 loc) · 7.98 KB

feedback.md

File metadata and controls

178 lines (155 loc) · 7.98 KB

Feedback 2019-06-10-york

Make feedback

The good

  • Helpful examples. Really good and clear. Online documentation.
  • Good pace. Helpful instructors.
  • Great - fab pace. Very intuitive at the beginning and seems quite sophisticated (and useful!) at the end.
  • Good pace and a lot of content covered. Very nice intro to Make.
  • Good organisation. Like being able to follow the workshop at the same time.
  • Interesting. Quick / To the point. Clear. Understandable. Good examples.
  • Documentation very easy to follow. Wandering helpers is very hepful. Featuring the output on the screen to see expected output is great.
  • Examples were useful. Helpers were great at sorting problems and providing individual attention.
  • Simple and clear. Well designed. Very helpful.
  • Useful applications. Good step-by-step.
  • Good bredth took and a lot.
  • The tutor was very willing to impact the knowledge but slightly manage to communicate.
  • Putting the code on the website to help people catch up.
  • Very useful.
  • Online material very good. Content good.
  • I learned new things. Good pace, albeit slow at times. Nice explanation of optimisation.
  • I feel much more confident now using Make understanding other people's makefiles. I like going from words to $< or whatever.

The bad

  • $(FILE_PATH) should be demonstrated earlier (when *.dat). config.mk too quick
  • rm -f should not be general practice. Explain that is only being used for this to stop the error message.
  • Nothing major. Just a little bit confusing when material was covered in a slightly different order. Probably just needs pointing out (was trying to catch up with documentation that I seemed to have missed!)
  • Use variables and files that are easier to spell! Otherwise you get behind debugging spelling errors.
  • Too quite a while to start because people had install problems. I think this should be sorted beforehand.
  • Point to more source material. More complicated examples for future reading.
  • More explanation on why we should use Make / uses would be helpful. More explanation on why we're performing each step would be great - this is well done in the documentation.
  • Flow a bit stop-start in places. Some use cases would have helped with content.
  • Didn't follow online exactly, made difficult to follow if lost.
  • Setup instructions a bit unclear for Make -> says it will have "already been installed" but the instructions didn't get us to install SWC installer so it was a bit confusing!
  • More time spent beginning with setup. More explanation of why it works would be helpful.
  • Could be faster.
  • I thought the pace was too slow to start then a bit rushed after the break.
  • Would prefer faster paced and then more exercises.
  • Could be better prepared.

Git feedback

The good

  • Very clear and easy to follow. Calm instructor.
  • Easy to follow. Informative.
  • Good exercises.
  • Enjoyed the session.
  • Very useful. Clearly explained.
  • I liked editing things in same document as someone else was a good demonstration.
  • Covered lots of things. Really interesting. Good pace.
  • Very useful. Well paced. Being able to accept individual bits of pull requests would be good.
  • Interesting and useful.
  • Clear. Well paced.
  • Very clear follow along. Good collaboration exercise.
  • Good pacing + interesting.
  • Excellent training session.
  • Easy to follow. Good to work along. Learned lots. Enjoyed the group work.
  • Clear. Well explained. Think it will be v useful.
  • Enjoyed the pair work.
  • Presentation flowed well/intuitively.
  • Good pacing. Userful exercises. Well presented.
  • Good content. Interesting subject. Good pair-based exercise.

The bad

  • Nothing.
  • Got a bit behind after confusion between command and commit file then missed tagging fun.
  • Harder to follow along than the morning session - not as well correlated with the online materials.
  • Maybe have a reference list of commands?
  • How to revert to previous commits.
  • I got a bit lost with the commands at times would it be possible to have a cheat sheet (other than google and git help which is a bit arcane).
  • Could do with more prep but unscripted nature made it more interesting.
  • Nothing unliked.
  • Disorganised.
  • A step-by-step worksheet might be useful.
  • Might include a command history in the shared clipboard.
  • Assume less knowledge -> What is GitHub. More obviously plug practice benefits.
  • Didn't follow the same route as the manual - if lost would be difficult.
  • Maybe it would have been good to cover forks + pull requests too but actually there was more than enough material to cover + I now have the tools to understand them too.
  • A little bit slow in parts.
  • From the coding/science stand point, would have liked a practical use for the Readme. Probably not important.
  • More time to discuss forking/pull requests etc.

Python feedback

The good

  • Course material is brilliant and very easy to follow.
  • Good material. Covered the basics.
  • Very clear. Liked Jupyter :)
  • It was good.
  • I really liked the bit on assert and testing in the online notes this was realy useful.
  • Everything was very clearly explained and it was useful to use Jupyter notebook for first time.
  • Liked the use of Jupyter notebook. Helpful when problem. Like the course material available.
  • Useful examples.
  • Good set up for Python learning.
  • Useful introductory comments.
  • Hand-by-hand.
  • Good pace, clear. I learned a lot.
  • Interesting. Useful. Well structured.
  • Easy to follow along online.
  • Clear and well planned presentation.
  • Good teaching with hand-on examples.
  • Enjoyed the session.
  • Good, accessible.
  • Enjoyed ability to manipulate data.

The bad

  • Bit slow. Some more complex examples would be helpful.
  • Wish there would have been enough time to do the last few sections.
  • Maybe just me but manipulation lists isn't very useful but a lot of time allocated. More on defs -> far more important.
  • How can we save as scripts and run?
  • May be good to reiterate the difference between Python 2 and Python 3 (since they're not necessary compatible).
  • It was too slow for someone with experience using Python (but that's ok).
  • Perhaps reorganizing would allow more ground?? to be covered.
  • After typing don't immediately leave that screen or stroll down let people catch up.
  • :)
  • print() isn't necessary in Jupyter - maybe emphasise that it would be necessary in terminal.
  • Timing not good. Tail missed.
  • A lot of information in short time.
  • Quite slow start then quite fast towards the end of the session.
  • I expected the course to be at higher level. This is a very basic intro.
  • Needs to be more proactive.
  • Personally would have been interested in more plot manipulation - labelling axes, commands, axis limits; this was fairly clear for the multiple plots, but not for the single matplotlib.pyplot.plot

SQL Feedback

The good

  • Learnt a lot on SQL Session. Think more content/time should be given to SQL.
  • Good pace and easy to follow.
  • Very clear to follow along.
  • Wonderful course. Instructor friendly and calm. Thank you :)
  • Enjoyed SQL.
  • Exercises built well on one another.
  • It was well fun :) The pace was good.
  • Very good, learnt a lot. Good pace.
  • Very nice introduction.
  • Great. I feel like I can get started with SQL now.
  • Really useful stuff, shame we couldn't finish it all.
  • Great course.
  • Informative. Interesting.
  • Good.
  • Really useful! Nice & intuitive.
  • Good pacing, examples, & interesting.

The bad

  • A little bit more time for answering questions, but otherwise fine.
  • Put SQL bfore Python, it's much harder.
  • I thought this was the easiest to follow.
  • I wish we had got to the making your own databases bit (but the notes are online).
  • An example of how difficult this would be in excel or another language.
  • None!
  • Might have been better in the morning when we had more brain available.
  • Disorganised.
  • Wish there was more :(
  • Just lack of time to cover everything on the syllabus.