I was listening to Johns Hopkins HTML/CSS/JS lectures on Coursera and I fell for it. Even though Johns Hopkins is a prestigious university, the lectures were poor. However, this lecture was different. 1. First, when evaluating a lecture, I look at the total time of the content. I don't look at lectures that are short because I don't dig deep. However, this lecture was 12 hours long, and it was quite long because it only covered HTML/CSS, so I believed it. The lecturer also proceeded quickly, so it was practically 30 hours compressed. 2. Second, the lecturer's ability to convey the content. I felt that this lecture conveyed the content in a very efficient and clean way. I also liked the flow of the lecture. And it covered not only the core parts, but also the parts that were good to know. It seemed like a lot of effort was put into making it easy to understand. 3. Third, I liked the coding environment setting method that can only be heard here, various tips, and how to study further on your own. After taking only famous but poorly written lectures on Coursera and Udemy, it was nice to finally see a lecture with substance. It made me realize that there is no clear correlation between fame and teaching ability.