The article briefly goes through the interaction design principles and design process. The design principles are very helpful for designers. The main concept of giving feedback is very interesting. Good responding design makes users feel the waiting time is shorter and feel respected. It reminds us humans are not only using the machine but "interact" with it. I would like to know more about the design process. Is that necessary to go through each step of the process (Scenario, Sketch, Storyboard...etc)? Or in what situation that we can skip some steps? How would the design process influence the final design? In other words, if we do not follow the process and create the product by our imagination, what would happen?

The example of door design reminds me a frustrated experience at Duderstadt Center. There are 2 doors with different designs. The design of horizontal pole was confused. I did not know it was deigned for pushing or pulling. Another disadvantage of the design is it is difficult to figure out which side is farer from axial. If we choose the wrong side, it is almost impossible to open the door. There are no clear instructions or good designs on its affordance, so we usually can see someone tries several times to open the door.

The concept of affordance has also been introduced in 588. The instructor used the example of security access to explain concept. Good affordance design provides users useful clues to operate it and creates positive user experience. When users figure out how to use the product by themselves, they would think they've conquered a small challenge and "feel" it seems like a good product.

The idea of translating ideas and values into a real product is always so inspiring. It is also the core idea of design and any kind of arts. I really like one of paragraphs in this article, the writer said, “Designer using existing codes and conventions to make new products more familiar often unconsciously reproduce aspects of the ideology encoded in their borrowed motifs.” He also mentioned that “The user experience sometime familiar rather than new, so they are conditioned to accept things as they are.” It reminds me one of the commercial from SoftBank in Japan (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY12m7tjghI&feature=youtu.be). The designers used some familiar technologies for elders and embed new technologies on it. For example, the old phone can be combined with television and become video call. VHS can be combined with QR code and load the latest on-line videos. The designs help elders who are not familiar with new technology can enjoy new techs by their familiar ways. It also brings the core value of linking families together to the design.

The concept of “reflection” is very similar to one of the key concepts of Sociology. In the very beginning of Sociology class, the first thing that we have to learn is to break through “common sense”. We have been used to the comfort zone, so we are not able to think from a higher level and analyze people’s experiences. People may feel uncomfortable when something challenges our existed concepts. It is a very important process to understand others’ experiences and analyze these experience to find out the similar paths. The next step is also “reflection”. The reason of learning Sociology is to understand what influences us is and why we are influenced, we therefore can have the ability to choose different way to live and to be freedom. Before reading the article, I never thought design can also provide the similar value to users. How could this process become a comfortable and “unaware” experience to users? Despite there are two examples in this article, it is still ambiguous for me to practice reflective design in my design. The author provided some principles of reflective design, but I would like to know more about the examples in next class.