I'll let Amber take it from here:
I would say that the web site we used was very "child friendly". It helped to make it possible for children and teenagers to work on code. It had videos, so instead of reading it, you could see it happen in front of you. We also worked on projects where we were able to make shapes and add colors and work with a palette. It was a good introduction and it was easily doable in an hour.
I think some of the explanations needed to be listened to a couple of times. Some of the other kids I was working with got stuck, but we were able to talk together and straighten it out. It reminded me of the HTML and CSS modules I have been working with in Codecademy.
Speaking of Codecademy, I think my having spent the last month working through the projects there helped me a lot, maybe too much. I finished the set of videos and projects 25 minutes before everyone else.
If I had to say there was anything I didn't like, it's that right away it told me if I made a simple mistake (well, sure, but I'm not finished yet, hang on!). Maybe it's because I'm used to the Codecademy approach, where you fill in what you want to write, and then submit the whole thing, and if there's an error, the screen shows it and it makes a suggestion, and you have to figure out what you did wrong. In a way, that felt more like "testing". With this, it came right out and told you what you were doing wrong. I think I might have learned more without the frequent reminders, but it was an intro, so I understand.
I think that instead of calling it an Intro to Java, it should be called an Intro to Drawing (using Java) because we focused more on the drawing (making lines, making rectangles and circles, filling them in) than we did on the Java. Having said all that, I think it makes sense to do what they did, because they want to make it interesting for kids to want to learn more, and with that, I think they did a pretty good job.