Independent course guide
Zelanovir is an independent editorial site about web design education in Canada. We are not a school, an agency, or a course reseller. We publish structured, readable breakdowns of programs offered by Canadian colleges and universities so that people deciding where to study can compare them on substance rather than on brochure language.
Beginners deserve the comparable details in one place. That is the whole reason we publish.
Course information is scattered. A program's real structure is split across a calendar entry, a departmental page, and a registration system, and the three rarely agree. Beginners end up comparing a university microprogram with a college certificate without noticing that one carries credit and the other does not.
Our job is to put the comparable details next to each other in plain language. When we write about a microprogram we say what the term structure looks like, whether prior coding experience is assumed, and what the assignments produce. When we write about a certificate we say what the classroom hours add up to and whether the coursework leaves a student with anything showable. Reading both side by side is what makes the choice honest.
A program page run by an institution has to sell the program. We do not. We compare it. That difference is why the guide is useful to a learner deciding where to spend a term.
We write about programs from institutions including Concordia University, George Brown College, NAIT, BCIT, Seneca Polytechnic, and the University of Victoria, along with the standards and tools that show up across their curricula, such as HTML5, CSS3, WordPress, and Figma.
Coverage is limited to Canadian continuing education, college certificates, and credit microprograms in this field. We do not cover bootcamps, private academies, or non-Canadian providers. That boundary keeps the guide useful: a learner comparing two Canadian programs is reading entries that belong to the same category of decision.
Programs we cover are all Canadian, all in this field, and all published by a publicly listed institution.
We work from published institutional material: program pages, course listings, calendar entries, and course descriptions. Nothing in a review page comes from a phone call or a private briefing; if an institution's own pages do not state it, we do not treat it as fact.
Read the calendar entry first
The calendar entry is the institution's own record of what runs when and under what own prerequisite. It is dull, and it is where the divergence between the marketing page and the delivered course usually surfaces.
Cross-check the course listing
Course listings name the term, the delivery mode and the unit count. When a departmental program page says one number and the listing says another, we publish the listing, note the discrepancy, and flag the page for a re-check at the next calendar update.
Say what we do not know
When a detail is ambiguous, such as whether a program assumes prior coding experience, we say so rather than filling the gap with a guess. That note is more useful to a learner than an invented certainty, and it gives us a specific question to keep asking the institution on the next review.
We do not accept payment for coverage and we do not rank programs by who advertises with us. Coverage is decided by whether a program is relevant to a Canadian learner in this field, and by whether we can find enough published detail to write something useful about it.
How pages are kept current
Institutional calendars change terms, course names, and requirements without much notice, so a review page is never treated as finished. When a reader flags a change, we re-read the institution's own pages and correct the entry.
We review program pages when a reader flags a change, and we re-check listings periodically. Every review page carries a way to report an error. If you find a detail that no longer matches the institution's own page, tell us and we will correct it. That single habit covers more ground than any scheduled audit, because readers notice first when a term code changes.
We do not sell courses, collect enrolment fees, or act as an agent for any institution. That stance is the reason the guide can compare a college certificate against a university microprogram without a hidden incentive.
We do not publish tuition figures, because they change by term and by residency status, and a stale number is worse than none. We do not publish student testimonials or ratings, because we cannot verify them and we would rather publish nothing than publish something we cannot stand behind. When you want current fees, the institution's own fee schedule is the source that holds.
Three rules govern what appears here. We keep them short and we apply them on every page.
A detail gets written down only when an institution's own pages support it. Course names, term codes, prerequisite chains, and the assignment description all trace back to a program page, listing or calendar entry we can point to.
No course can promise a job, and we do not pretend otherwise. We describe what a program teaches and what its assignments produce, and we let the reader map that to their own situation.
Where we give an opinion, such as which program suits a career changer better, we mark it as an opinion and explain the reasoning behind it. A reader can disagree with the reasoning and still use the comparison underneath.
The guide is written and maintained by an editorial team that follows Canadian web design education as a subject rather than as a market. We read course listings because that is where the useful detail lives: which term a course runs in, what the prerequisite chain looks like, whether the assignment work produces anything showable.
The people writing these pages have spent years comparing program calendars across Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, first for their own study decisions and then as a habit. That is the level of detail we try to pass on. We are not instructors and we do not present ourselves as admissions advisors; we are readers of calendar pages who write down what we find so the next reader does not have to start from scratch.
If a page reads as though a person wrote it, that is because one did. If a page reads as brochure language, it means we have not done our job yet and the entry needs another pass.
Four entry points cover almost every reader. Pick the one that matches where you are in the decision.
Starting from nothing
Read the skills path first. It lays out the sequence a course-taker can build in order.
Two programs in mind
The comparison page lays out the trade-offs between them, so you can match a program to your schedule, budget and goal.
One specific program in question
Its review page covers structure, audience, and the likely gaps in what the program assumes you already know.
Something looks wrong
The contact page reaches the people who write and check these pages.
Two questions come up often enough that we answer them on the page rather than in email.
No. Programs are covered because they are relevant to Canadian learners, not because of any commercial arrangement. There is no paid placement, no sponsored page, and no rate card behind the guide.
No, and we are suspicious of anyone who does. The comparison page lays out the trade-offs so you can match a program to your schedule, budget, and goal. A program that suits a career changer working full time will not suit a school leaver looking for a single intensive term, and no single ranking can hold both cases at once.
Start with the comparison if you are weighing two programs, or the skills path if you are starting from nothing. If a detail no longer matches the institution's own pages, send a correction and we will re-check the entry. Working hours are Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM, at 128 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, and the team reads every correction that arrives.
