Rubrics, Assignment Brainstorming, Hosting Courses
Do you recall us working on developing a design course over eight weeks that embraces Interior Design students, Graphic Design, Illustration, Game Arts students?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, we worked on an eight-week course in Design Fundamentals and another in Color Theory. Both were tailored for students in fields like interior design, graphic design, illustration, game arts, and fashion design. Is there a specific aspect you'd like to revisit or refine?
You said:
Well, I think we came up with some good ideas. I used another GPT, and then I lost the transcript, which was unfortunate, but we were having fun designing some projects. We would give them an image of a mural that the class would have to design, our billboard, and then the class would vote on, you know, which would get, like, the best second place, third place kind of thing.
ChatGPT said:
That sounds like such a dynamic way to engage the class! Incorporating projects like a mural or billboard design not only makes it practical but also gets them thinking collaboratively and competitively. Were you leaning toward a specific theme or context for these designs, like public service, branding, or environmental awareness? Or should the students have creative freedom?
You said:
Yeah, I kind of went on there. What, um...
ChatGPT
No worries, you were just brainstorming! Were you about to ask what kind of themes or tools we could integrate into the project ideas? Or maybe how to structure the voting and feedback process?
You said:
No, I mean, we have to consider the fact that we might not have Photoshop for all these courses. We might have to use some free online digital tools. But I'm just wondering, what are we not considering? If we think outside of the box, what kinds of assignments and activities do you think we might come up with different from the ones that we've already listed?
ChatGPT
Ah, great point about flexibility with tools! If we think outside the box, here are a few ideas:
Collaborative World-Building: Students create a small fictional world together. Each person contributes a piece—like a map, a character, a building, or a product ad—tying their designs into a shared narrative.
Interactive Mockups: Use free tools like Canva or Figma for students to design interactive prototypes for things like an app interface or an interactive storefront.
Augmented Reality (AR) Concepts: Have students design for spaces using AR mockups, like murals or installations people could “see” through their phones.
Upcycled Design Challenge: If it’s not digital, assign them to take discarded materials and reimagine them into something functional or artistic, documenting the process.
Audience Persona Profiles: Students design for a specific audience—given personas they’re assigned—like a retro game poster for a nostalgic gamer or branding for an eco-conscious startup.
How do those feel? Any of these resonate?
You said:
Yeah, but it depends. These courses will be either purchased or taught at different universities, and a collaborative approach would work at, say, UCSD, where you have very motivated students, but they might not work in a college setting. I find teaching online that the asynchronous nature makes it very difficult to get people together, and in almost all group activities, it seems like one person ends up doing all the work. So, although I love the collaborative world-building idea, I'm just wondering if we should keep it to
ChatGPT
Ah, I see what you’re saying—it’s tricky to balance collaboration and fairness, especially in asynchronous or mixed-motivation settings. In that case, individual projects with a clear structure might work better. What if we kept the essence of collaboration but made it more independent? For example:
Individual Contributions to a Shared Vision: Each student creates one piece of a “world” (like designing a mural panel or a storefront), but the final “world” is assembled by the instructor as a showcase. No group work required.
Public Feedback Assignment: Students design something individually, like a logo or poster, and then anonymously vote or critique each other’s work based on set criteria.
This way, the ideas feel cohesive without the logistical headaches. Does that align better with your experience?
You said:
Yeah, I like the world building one. I think one thing we could consider, too, is character development. I know a common assignment that's usually found in these courses is a portrait or a self-portrait, and then they look at surrealism and Frida Kahlo and Van Gogh. But I'm thinking, possibly,
ChatGPT
Possibly shifting that self-portrait idea into character development could be really exciting! Instead of focusing solely on themselves, students could design an original character with traits, backstory, and style inspired by their own identity or influences like surrealism or specific art movements.
For example:
Character & Context: They create a character and design their environment (like a surrealist dreamscape or a sci-fi habitat).
Emotion & Symbolism: Use color and composition to convey mood or tell the character’s story visually, pulling inspiration from artists like Kahlo or Van Gogh.
Character Evolution: Imagine how the character’s design changes over time or in different scenarios—growth, conflict, or transformation.
This ties design fundamentals, storytelling, and personal expression together. How does that sound?
You said:
That sounds good, but we can't stray from design fundamentals. I know in the course I teach currently, students leave without a good understanding of design fundamentals because the assignments tend to stray off into these self-portraits or surreal worlds or maybe a zine or something, and we would have to, like for example with the character development, keep it so that they're limited to a character where texture is important or a character where color is important. We have to limit things to the elements and principles of design so that a student can design a character and understand how important, say, line or shape or texture or or emphasis was in that and can walk away with an understanding of the design elements and principles through that assignment.
ChatGPT
Got it—keeping the focus tight on design fundamentals is key. For the character development idea, we can frame it so each element or principle of design is the foundation of the project. For example:
Texture Focus: Students design a character entirely based on exploring textures—soft vs. rough, shiny vs. matte—using tools or mediums to convey those contrasts.
Shape-Driven Design: They create a character by starting with basic geometric shapes (circles, squares, triangles), emphasizing how form and proportion convey personality.
Color & Emphasis: The character’s design could revolve around a limited palette, exploring how complementary colors or high contrast guide the viewer's eye to a focal point.
This way, every assignment is a deep dive into one fundamental, but the outcome still feels creative and fun. It’s structured, but students leave with a stronger grasp of the core concepts. What do you think?
You said:
I just wonder whether an interior design student, say, who's taking a foundation course and doing an assignment that deals with character development might feel unengaged or feel like this isn't in their area of emphasis. We have to be careful to allow people in their area of emphasis to somehow engage the assignment and feel excited about it. So there's a fine line between just letting interior designers develop interiors and letting game artists develop game art environments versus forcing them to look at things in a new light. But at the end of the day, we want to tap into the excitement that the student feels about pursuing their endeavor, which is sometimes lost in these foundation courses.
ChatGPT
You’re absolutely right—it’s a balancing act. Foundation courses should ground students in the fundamentals while still allowing them to connect to their specific interests. For example, we could frame the assignments so they align with each discipline:
For interior design students, the character could translate into designing a room or environment that reflects the character’s personality, using texture, color, or line as the focal point.
For game artists, they could design the character within an immersive setting, focusing on how lighting or composition directs attention.
For graphic designers, it might be about creating a poster or brand identity for the character, emphasizing typography and balance.
The core stays focused on the elements and principles of design, but the execution lets students apply it to their area of passion. That way, they see how these fundamentals are essential no matter their field. Does that approach feel like it hits the right balance?
You said:
Do you have any suggestions for simple yet accurate rubrics where these assignments could be graded?
ChatGPT
Sure! A simple yet effective rubric can break down the grading into clear, weighted categories tied directly to the design fundamentals. Here’s an example rubric that can work across disciplines:
Application of Design Fundamentals (40%):
Did the student effectively use the specified element or principle (e.g., texture, color, balance)?
Is the emphasis clear, and does the design demonstrate an understanding of the concept?
Creativity and Concept (20%):
Is the idea original and engaging within the scope of the assignment?
Does the work show thoughtfulness in how the design elements were applied?
Execution and Craftsmanship (20%):
Is the work clean, polished, and professionally presented?
Are tools and techniques used effectively, whether digital or physical?
Relevance to Field of Emphasis (10%):
Does the work connect to the student's area of focus (e.g., interior design, game art)?
Did they adapt the assignment to their discipline while meeting the requirements?
Reflection and Justification (10%):
Can the student articulate their choices during a critique or written reflection?
Do they show an understanding of why they made specific design decisions?
This keeps grading objective while rewarding both creativity and technical skill. Does this format resonate with the kinds of outcomes you’re envisioning?
You said:
Yeah, I think it's perfect. The only one that might be slightly problematic would be the second to the last one, where did the student apply it to their area of emphasis. I want to keep it open because I have interior designers, for example, that like to create wall art, or you might find a game artist that says, hey, but I would like to do a poster. So that one's tricky. We might need to
ChatGPT
Good point—forcing students into their discipline might limit creativity. Instead, we could reframe that category as "Personal Engagement and Relevance" (still worth ten percent). It could reward students for connecting the assignment to something meaningful to them, whether that’s their discipline or a creative exploration outside of it.
For example:
Did the student approach the project in a way that reflects their interests or goals?
Does the work show enthusiasm and investment in the process?
This way, it stays open-ended and inclusive while still encouraging personal connections. Does that tweak feel more flexible?
You said:
Possibly. The only problem I see with some of these, well that one in particular, is there's a certain amount of subjectivity, and that's where administrators, I think incorrectly, want to take all the subjectivity out of the grading. They just want robots, or you might as well have an AI agent just grade the work completely objectively, whereas I'm from a school of thought where one human working with another human, there is going to be a certain amount of subjectivity and communication, but that's looked down upon now in academic settings. So, for me to evaluate somebody's engagement is tricky. I can evaluate how polished a piece of work is, or whether they've spent enough time on it, or whether they've engaged it.
ChatGPT
I totally get the challenge of balancing the need for objective grading with maintaining the human element of teaching. The engagement aspect can be subjective, but it doesn’t have to be vague. You could tweak it to focus on measurable behaviors, like effort and exploration within the assignment parameters. For example, this could translate to:
Effort and Thoroughness (10%):
Did the student demonstrate a clear effort in exploring the design elements?
Is the work complete, thoughtfully executed, and thorough in the exploration of the core design principle?
Was the student willing to take risks and push their design beyond the minimum expectations?
By focusing on observable aspects—like how thoroughly they engaged with the assignment, whether they explored multiple design solutions, or if they refined their work thoughtfully—it’s still an open-ended metric, but it’s based on concrete evidence rather than subjective interpretation of personal enthusiasm.
Would this more concrete approach work better, in terms of grading?
You said:
Possibly, but the word effort is is tricky because
ChatGPT
You're right, "effort" can be subjective, and administrators often want to avoid any ambiguity. Maybe we could frame it in terms of "Depth of Exploration" instead. This focuses on how well the student has delved into the design challenge and demonstrated their understanding of the principles, with clear, observable outcomes.
For example:
Depth of Exploration (10%):
Did the student explore different approaches or solutions to the design problem?
Did they thoroughly apply the core principle(s) of design to their work?
Is the final design thoughtful, with clear evidence of development and refinement?
This way, the focus is on how thoroughly the student engaged with the design process and the principles, without the subjectivity of effort or personal enthusiasm. Does this feel like a more objective way to measure the desired outcome?
You said:
Yeah, we should finalize the rubrics then, putting that in there, because, you know, there's always a student who feels they should get an A because they worked really hard on something. So, effort is very subjective. I might say, no, you really needed to work harder on it, and they might say, but this is the hardest I could work on it, and I should get an A. So, an A for effort isn't really valid. I mean, I see A's is excellent, B is good, C is average, D is poor, and F is fail. Actually, that would be the only rubric I would need, but I need to come up with these rubrics for academic settings.
ChatGPT
I completely agree—effort is subjective, and grading should be based on the quality and depth of the work, not just how hard a student worked. Focusing on measurable aspects like Depth of Exploration makes the rubric clearer and more objective. Here's the final version of the rubric with that in mind:
Application of Design Fundamentals (40%):
Clear and effective use of the specified design element(s) (e.g., texture, color, balance, etc.).
The design demonstrates a solid understanding of the core principle(s) of design.
Creativity and Concept (20%):
The work presents an original idea that engages the viewer.
Thoughtful application of design elements to support the concept.
Execution and Craftsmanship (20%):
The design is polished and professionally presented, whether digital or physical.
Tools and techniques are used effectively, showing a high level of skill and attention to detail.
Depth of Exploration (10%):
The student explores multiple approaches or solutions within the scope of the assignment.
The work is refined, demonstrating a thoughtful and thorough application of the design principles.
Relevance and Adaptation to the Assignment (10%):
The design connects to the assignment's goals and requirements.
The student adapts the design to their area of focus or personal interests without losing sight of the fundamentals.
This version should be more objective, giving administrators clear criteria while still respecting the creative aspects of the work. Does this feel like a good fit for what you're aiming for?
You said:
I think it's pretty good. Do you think this rubric could be universal? Could we apply it to all assignments done in the eight-week course? Is it general enough and yet comprehensive enough to because sometimes we have a different set of rubrics for each assignment and I think it's ridiculous. I mean it again I think A is excellent, B is good, C is average, D is poor, F is fail. So this rubric that you've given me it seems like you would be able to apply it to just about any activity that a student would be involved in and it would be able to grade using that rubric. Would you think that is correct?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Yes, I think this rubric could work well across the entire eight-week course. It's broad enough to apply to various types of assignments while still maintaining specificity about what constitutes good design work. Whether it's a mural, a character design, or a poster, the key design principles—application of fundamentals, creativity, craftsmanship, depth of exploration, and relevance to the assignment—are universal to any kind of design project.
This flexibility allows you to evaluate all types of work using the same consistent standards, which not only simplifies grading but also gives students a clear understanding of what’s expected from week to week. By applying this rubric to every project, you create a level of consistency in grading that makes the process more transparent for both you and the students.
I’d say it strikes a good balance between being general enough to apply to different assignments but detailed enough to assess critical aspects of design. Does that align with what you're thinking?
You said:
Yeah, that gives me something to think about tonight. I guess maybe in the next conversation we have, we'll take another look at the basic structure and build upon that. Right now, actually, what I'm trying to find is a template online that I can build my course on and deliver it on. I find I do not like the course template in Squarespace. I'm looking for something simpler I don't want to have a lot of embedded links that go to other locations that take you to other locations. I want it to be very neat, easily navigated, and with not straying too far from the original course page. I don't mind linking to YouTube.
ChatGPT
That sounds like a good next step. For a simpler, more streamlined course delivery platform, you might want to consider a few options that prioritize clean design and ease of navigation. Here are a few platforms that could fit your needs:
Teachable:
It’s straightforward to use, with customizable templates. It doesn’t overcomplicate things with too many links or embedded content. You can upload videos directly, host discussions, and create a very clean and organized course page.Thinkific:
Another user-friendly platform, Thinkific offers easy drag-and-drop course creation. It’s also simple to keep the navigation minimal, and it integrates well with video hosting, including YouTube links. You can also design your own course pages with a neat and professional look.Kajabi:
Kajabi is known for beautiful course design and simplicity. While it has more advanced features, you can keep it simple and easy to navigate by avoiding excessive links or complicated navigation. It’s also great for video-based content.Google Classroom:
If you're looking for something even simpler and with no frills, Google Classroom could work. It's basic, but it allows for easy sharing of materials, video links, and assignments without the clutter of external links.Podia:
Podia is a platform that prioritizes simplicity, and you can easily keep the layout and navigation clean while delivering your course content. You can upload videos and content directly, which keeps everything contained on the platform.
Do any of these sound like they might fit your style?
You said:
Yeah, are any of these free?
ChatGPT
Yes, some of these platforms offer free plans or trial versions, though they might have limitations on features or the number of students you can enroll:
Teachable:
Teachable offers a free plan, but it's quite limited. You can host one course with basic features, but it includes transaction fees, and you won’t have access to some advanced customization options.Thinkific:
Thinkific has a free plan that allows you to create and deliver courses with basic features. It lets you upload content and create courses, but you’ll have a limit on the number of courses and students, and it doesn't allow for advanced features like custom branding or integrations unless you upgrade.Kajabi:
Kajabi does not offer a free plan. However, they offer a 14-day free trial, so you can explore the platform and see if it fits your needs.Google Classroom:
Google Classroom is completely free. It’s a simple and easy-to-use platform with no frills, ideal for creating and managing assignments, posting content, and linking to videos. However, it's not as fully featured as dedicated course platforms.Podia:
Podia has a free version that lets you create a course, but it’s limited in features. You won’t have access to email marketing, advanced integrations, or other premium tools on the free plan, but it’s great for getting started without any upfront cost.
If you’re looking for a completely free option, Google Classroom would be the most straightforward, though Thinkific's free plan might give you more design flexibility for a simple course setup. Do any of these sound like a good fit based on your needs?
You said:
Possibly, but which one is the best for, oh...
ChatGPT
It sounds like you’re weighing the best option for delivering a well-structured, neat, and easily navigated course. Based on your preferences for simplicity and minimal external links, I’d recommend Thinkific or Teachable as the top choices from the list, especially considering the following:
Thinkific:
It's flexible and easy to use, especially for a simple, neat course structure. The free plan lets you upload and organize your content cleanly, and you can customize the look without having too many distractions. Thinkific’s free plan will likely allow you to get started without feeling overwhelmed by unnecessary features.Teachable:
Teachable’s free plan is also good for a streamlined course setup. It’s easy to navigate and organize content within the platform, and while the free plan has some limitations, it’s straightforward to use and delivers a good user experience. You also have the option to link to external content like YouTube videos without cluttering the page.
Both platforms allow you to keep the design minimal and allow for clean navigation, without pushing too many features you don’t need, like complicated integrations or heavy branding options.
Does one of these sound more suited to your needs now?
You said:
Which one is best for students being able to upload work and then for me to provide feedback and then for the student to so I can have a conversation with the student in the classroom that's either
ChatGPT
For a setup where students can upload work, receive feedback, and have ongoing conversations with you directly in the course, Thinkific and Teachable both have strong capabilities, but Thinkific may be the better option for this kind of interactive feedback loop.
Here's why:
Thinkific:
Thinkific allows students to submit assignments directly through the platform, and you can easily provide feedback through comments or uploaded video responses. It also has discussion forums or the ability to include quizzes where students can reflect and interact. You can create a private, ongoing channel of communication in each lesson where you and students can have conversations.Additionally, Thinkific has a built-in email system that lets you send personalized feedback to students, making it easier to keep track of your communication and feedback. The platform also offers integrations for live sessions or one-on-one conversations using external tools like Zoom.
Teachable:
Teachable allows students to submit work for assignments as well, and you can give feedback via text comments, but it doesn't have as strong of a built-in feature for interactive discussions within the course itself. However, you can provide feedback on student work and communicate with them through the platform's comment section.
Both platforms offer features like grading and feedback, but Thinkific stands out a bit more for its robust student interaction options, particularly if you want to create a classroom-like experience with ongoing conversations, and if you want to use built-in forums and assignment feedback tools.
Does Thinkific sound like the right fit for that?
You said:
Yeah, I'd be interested to know what their pricing is. And also, you didn't mention Google Classroom. Is Google Classroom really a good delivery system, but not as good for interactive communication? I mean, it sounds like Thinkifit is more sophisticated.
ChatGPT
Google Classroom is definitely a solid option, especially if you're aiming for simplicity and no-cost delivery. It’s ideal for creating assignments, sharing content, and providing basic feedback. However, it's not as feature-rich for deeper interactive communication or feedback loops compared to platforms like Thinkific and Teachable.
In Google Classroom:
Students can upload work (e.g., assignments, projects).
You can provide feedback (comments or grades).
You can communicate with students via announcements and private comments.
However, the main limitations for your needs would be:
Limited interactivity: It doesn't have built-in discussion forums or advanced ways to interact beyond basic feedback on assignments.
Course structure: While it’s easy to upload and share content, it doesn't have the same level of customization and clean design options that Thinkific offers. It’s more like a digital classroom rather than a full-fledged course platform.
If you're looking for more advanced features like live sessions, student engagement tools, and a more customizable structure with better user experience, Thinkific is definitely more sophisticated.
Pricing:
Here’s a breakdown of pricing for Thinkific and Teachable:
Thinkific:
Free Plan: Allows you to create and sell one course. Basic features like assignment uploads, feedback, and discussions.
Basic Plan: Starts at $39/month, includes more customization, 3 courses, and integrates live sessions and quizzes.
Pro Plan: Starts at $79/month, gives access to advanced features like more integrations, priority support, and advanced customization.
Teachable:
Free Plan: Allows you to create and deliver courses with some basic features, but includes transaction fees (and no advanced branding options).
Basic Plan: Starts at $39/month, which removes transaction fees and includes unlimited courses and students.
Pro Plan: Starts at $119/month, offering features like advanced reporting, additional admin users, and more customization.
So, if you're looking for an affordable option with good interaction tools and feedback systems, Thinkific's free or $39/month plans might be the best balance.
Would you prefer a more straightforward Google Classroom setup, or would you lean towards something more interactive like Thinkific?
You said:
Oh, I think I'll have to explore these on my own. Okay, and again, I think perhaps tomorrow we'll go back into trying to nail down, you know, the eight-week structure, starting with lecture, exercise, and then end-of-week assignment, you know, for the eight weeks, along with the rubrics. Oh, I did have a question, though. Do any of these platforms have a feature where a student can click on a link and have a pop-up window appear with additional information?
ChatGPT
Yes, some platforms do offer ways to include pop-up windows or additional content when students click on a link. Here's a breakdown:
Thinkific:
Thinkific allows you to embed content, such as videos, links, or pop-up windows, but it doesn't have a built-in "pop-up window" feature. However, you can embed external tools or use HTML code within your course content to create interactive elements, such as lightboxes or pop-ups.
This means that if you're comfortable with a bit of custom coding, you can likely use a JavaScript-based pop-up or integrate a third-party tool that offers that functionality.
Teachable:
Teachable doesn’t have a built-in feature for pop-up windows either. However, like Thinkific, you can embed external content or use HTML to create pop-ups with some technical effort.
Teachable's course builder allows for embedding videos, links, and other media types that could open in new windows, but for true pop-ups, custom coding might be necessary.
Google Classroom:
Google Classroom is more straightforward and doesn’t have any built-in pop-up functionality. You can link to external resources (like Google Docs, Slides, etc.), but it doesn’t support pop-up windows directly. You’d need to rely on embedding links or directing students to other tools or platforms if you need pop-ups.
If you're not into coding or want a simpler setup, you might want to consider Thinkific or Teachable, where you can embed other types of media or external links to content. If pop-ups are crucial to your course structure, some more customized platforms, like Kajabi or Wix, could also be worth considering.
Let me know if you'd like more info or want to dive deeper into one of these options!
You said:
I think that's enough. Thank you, CG. Have a good evening.
ChatGPT
You're very welcome, Jeff! I'm glad I could help. Have a great evening, and we'll pick this up when you're ready!
You said:
I'm having a problem selecting.
ChatGPT
What seems to be the issue, Jeff? Are you stuck choosing between platforms, features, or something else? Let’s figure it out!
You said:
Well, Squarespace doesn't really allow for student interaction.
ChatGPT
Yeah, that’s one of the big limitations of Squarespace—it’s great for showcasing content but not so much for fostering interaction or collaboration. If student interaction is a priority, platforms like Thinkific, Teachable, or Google Classroom might work better. They’re designed with features like discussion boards, assignment submissions, and direct feedback in mind. What are you leaning toward?
You said:
Thinkific is too expensive, I think. It's like $40 a month, was it?
ChatGPT
You're right; Thinkific's Basic Plan is $49 per month, or $39 if billed annually. If that's too steep, Teachable's Basic Plan is $39 per month, and Google Classroom is free.
You said:
Well, is Google Classroom an option? I mean, it seems a little bit clunky, but really all I want is to be able to organize my course with links in the sidebar that allow you to navigate from week to week and then have nested content under each week. I really want it easily accessed from a side menu, all of the content.
ChatGPT
Google Classroom could work, but it does have some limitations compared to more polished course platforms. It’s straightforward for organizing weekly content and assignments, and you can include links, documents, and videos under each section. However, the interface doesn’t have a sleek sidebar menu like what you’re envisioning—it’s more linear and list-based, which can feel a bit clunky.
If you’re looking for a clean sidebar menu for navigation, Moodle or Notion might be better fits. Moodle has a bit of a learning curve but offers nested menus and detailed organization. Notion can be customized to create a side menu layout, though it would require a bit of setup. Both options are free or have free tiers. Would either of those be worth exploring?
You said:
I've started setting up my course in Notion, but I'm not able to get a sidebar when I export to the web. I can put my content in sections underneath the heading, but when it goes to the site, the links appear down below and not to the side.
ChatGPT
Ah, I see what you mean! Notion is fantastic for organizing content, but its web export doesn’t include a true sidebar menu. The navigation defaults to inline links or dropdowns, which can feel limiting for a course layout.
To get a sidebar-like structure, you might consider these approaches:
Create a Table of Contents: At the top of each page, include a "Table of Contents" block with links to all sections. While it won't appear as a sidebar, it provides quick navigation.
Link Pages Strategically: Instead of relying on the web export layout, you can build a home page with links to separate Notion pages for each week or section. It can simulate the experience of sidebar navigation.
Use a Notion Integration: Tools like Super.so or Potion.so can convert your Notion pages into a more polished, website-like format, complete with custom navigation menus. These are paid options but might be worth exploring if Notion is your preferred tool.
If none of these work, an alternative like Moodle or Google Sites might give you a more traditional sidebar experience. Does this align with what you're looking for?
You sai d:
Well, how much are some of these customizations for Notion to convert the existing Notion site into something more polished? Is it a one-time fee of $50 or what?
ChatGPT
I understand your concern about the costs associated with customizing your Notion site. To clarify, Notion's own Sites feature requires a paid plan, and connecting a custom domain adds an extra $10 per month.
Third-party services like Simple.ink offer free plans with basic features, but advanced options may come with fees.
If you're looking for a more polished and interactive course platform, you might consider exploring Teachable or Thinkific, which offer robust features tailored for course delivery.
You said:
I thought you said there were third-party apps I could pay to customize my Notion site.
ChatGPT
Yes, there are third-party tools and services that allow you to customize your Notion site. These tools help transform your Notion pages into more polished websites with additional features like sidebars, better navigation, and custom domain support. Some of the most popular options include:
Super.so: Allows you to add advanced customizations, sidebars, and custom domains to your Notion site. Pricing starts at around $12/month.
Potion: Offers customization for Notion with features like sidebars and themes. Plans start at about $5/month.
Simple.ink: Provides tools to turn your Notion pages into websites. It has a free plan with basic features, and premium plans start at $8/month.
Notaku: Focused on turning Notion pages into documentation or websites with better navigation and design. Pricing starts at $9/month.
If you're looking for a one-time fee rather than a subscription, you might need to hire a developer or designer to set up a custom integration for you, which could range from $50 to several hundred dollars depending on the complexity.
Would you like me to help you explore any of these options in more detail?
You said:
On the ones where you're paying monthly, do you start developing your course then on their platform and not on Notions, or do you do all your work in Notion and then export? How does that work?
ChatGPT
With these third-party services, you continue to build your course in Notion. The service essentially "wraps" your Notion workspace into a more polished, website-like experience. Here's how it typically works:
Build in Notion: You create and organize all your content in Notion as usual. This includes pages for weeks, assignments, links, and other materials.
Connect to the Service: Once your Notion content is ready, you connect your Notion page or workspace to the third-party tool (like Super.so, Potion, or Simple.ink). This usually involves pasting the public link to your Notion page into their platform.
Customize Appearance: The third-party platform gives you tools to customize the look and feel of your site—like adding a sidebar, customizing colors, or setting up navigation menus.
Publish: The service hosts the polished version of your Notion pages on a custom domain or a subdomain they provide. Any updates you make in Notion are reflected in real time on the site.
This setup means you don’t need to move away from Notion or learn a new platform. The third-party service acts as a layer on top of your Notion content to improve its presentation.
Would you like me to look up specific features or reviews for any of these tools?
You said:
Well, which one is the highest reviewed and still within that $12 a month price range?
ChatGPT
Based on reviews, Simple.ink is a highly-rated Notion website builder that offers a free plan with basic features. For more advanced options, their premium plans start at $8 per month.
You said:
Okay, I'll check that out.
ChatGPT
Sounds good! Let me know how it goes or if you have more questions while exploring it.
