This specific section helps with giving a sense of how the application would work on different topics such as marketing, or a product walkthrough. The tension is created around the details we want to emphasize, and I think that this is the main reason this method works. It’s not necessarily about creating a story about the turtle, but more where exactly it is that you want to focus your attention, and emphasis on. This helps reiterate that what you say, and focus on is important. This also connects back to how important wording was in the interview, since it could bring about skewed results, so I believe similar to when showing a product we have to careful with what we choose to empahsize on.

**Comment To Design Justice ** The end portion of the definition resonated the most with me since I had never considered how drastic the effect of bad designs is. Given the context of how we previously analyzed the issue with the TSA scanners, I believe that the problem that design justice highlights is heavily important. Specifically, because the distribution of benefits and burdens can be seen in many systems not just the scanner. Considering that this is something that happens in all designs the biggest realization that I've come to is how some designs unfairly distribute these burdens and benefits sometimes more unfairly to some groups than others.

Second Response To the First Article ** Section Commenting on: Page 323 Angel Trick portion The angel trick was something that I personally never had thought about challenging since many times I tend to not blame designers or workers. The original reason I thought this was because of how individuals need to take care of their families, and own responsibilities. Regardless I felt that the point of acknowledging how this trick limits responsibility and tends to let many individuals off the hook when many of these consequences weren't entirely unforeseen. This change in standpoint made me begin to also start questioning whether or not to let individuals off the hook due to just being a part of the design. The reason this is changing is that it is pretty obvious most of the time when something is not right or there is a clear design. Also, the amount of critique and feedback a design should receive, should not allow for these designs to exist unless there is an intention for the design to be that way. Given that understanding, I also believe the angel trick is not sufficient as an excuse.

This specific section near the end I think is a good contradiction and reminder to everything that we have been thinking about in the course. Very frequently we have been forcing ourselves to step away from our preferences and adopt an approach that detaches ourselves from the results and prioritizes the users. Even though this is the case I appreciate the focus on still understanding that we have a choice, and are not completely detached from the project we still are allowed to maintain judgment and maintain a level of assumption over the process which helps establish a bit of ownership over it.

I wanted to comment specifically on the last portion of this section since this idea has been brought up a lot through the reading and the course. Many times there is difficulty when we are conducting a process to find something out, but we have to in these moments remember how many projects fail. The reason that I think that this is important to remember is because of the focus on meaningful insights and figuring out what makes a design useful to the user, not the designer. Overlooking this idea and not overcoming the difficulty in my mind is what leads to designs not reaching the potential they need to.

I wanted to just agree, and expand a bit on the concept of gulf of evaluation, and how important this is. When I use to think of information, I always though of each of us as mediums which interpreted the information a certain way. Due to this variance in mediums I always believe that we innately would always have disagreements with each other unless we had similarities. When I think of gulfs, I often reference back to this medium theory, because of how important the design has to work for a set group of users. I feel this often is the hardest part of designing since we almost have to interpret outside of our own interpretation, and I appreciate this analogy of a gulf, and a bridge since oftentimes it does feel that way.

I agree with this set of questions because, throughout this course, we have really been tackling the idea of how to design effectively without wasting time needlessly. I appreciate this idea being supported even in our prototyping process because there are many things that shouldn't need to be high-fidelity. Although it may not seem like a big deal, I believe it is since we should prioritize the actual important features, such as the main functions, and main controls instead of the random things like them, or log-ins, etc.

I think that the importance of understanding how much is needed to succeed is more important than wanting to succeed. The reason I believe this is that many times I think we as individuals believe we need a grand solution or something very impressive to solve an issue when in reality it may be a small adjustment. What I mean by that is that it's important to understand the scope, because it can save you time, and also help you get to the solution. That's why reinventing the wheel is not such a big deal.

This specific concept is something that affects a lot of interviews because many times it's not only limited to the questions. This also extends to the interviewer, and how the interaction is managed before the actual questions begin. Every word that comes out of our mouths from the moment an interaction starts can change the answers and the depth of those answers. I agree with the statement, but it also extends to not only the questions but everything we say in the interview.

I wanted to touch on this specific section because I agreed with the approach, but more importantly, I believe this is the essence of what we have been learning to do in this class. Understanding what exactly is needed in a specific circumstance, and context I think is what drives a good solution. This is why sometimes simple solutions such as the Macca Scoop literally dominate in there specified problems (For those who don't know the Macca Scoop is used to place a specific amount of chips, or fries in the container which improves efficiency and produces cost exponentially which is hilarious since it's just a simple plastic thing). This is why I believe designing and research go hand and hand because you need to understand what the problem needs for the context. Especially once budgets and production get involved.

Wicked Reading: I wanted to focus on Design and Technology on page 19. Specifically the section where he expresses systematic thinking. I think this insight is beyond useful since we as a society have begun to incorrectly define things we interact with daily such as technology. The issue with these definitions is that they affect how we approach and interact with technology. Although it seems small I can see how these definitions tend to cause impacts on design, and overall expansion of ideas since they focus on the wrong things such as product, instead of valuing how technology-based design all holds very important principles that should be maintained, and I agree with this since it reminds me of one of my favorite insights on how the methodology is usually more important than the content. It is about how you do it.

I wanted to comment specifically on externalization and just my thoughts on this statement. I believe that externalization, in terms of just getting your ideas out, is extremely important and valuable. I enjoy working on music production, and many times, there are great ideas that you come across that maybe you forget to get in the daw and never make it out of your head. Many times, these ideas are extremely valuable to see where you can improve or what you've done better. I also wanted to express that externalization can also be important in separating yourself from the problem or design. Sometimes, not only thinking of how you would solve it can open another solution that could be crucial to you finding the best solution since perception oftentimes does not beat perception.

I wanted to comment specifically on this closing statement since I feel it was a place where paths tend to diverge. To clarify, throughout the reading, I understood that we essentially create scenarios with our personas to understand use cases and collect data to eventually get an idea of how the product/design will work and who it will help. With this being said, I feel the consistent divergence of whether it is justifiable to me to not go through with a product because it may not be equitable. I understand that it may not be the greatest decision, but it seems as if all this work goes into developing a product/design, but we get reminded not to go through with it or analyze the impact heavily, and this still is a difficult thing for me to agree with since I hope to see a world where yes design processes are better, but also creative design processes are still upheld. Where there is still a bit of leniency or ability to sometimes go through with products because you know it will serve a specific group, but that's what it was intended for, not for something else. It brings me back to the example of the casino, and I tend to struggle with ideologies that push intense impact analysis sometimes since I feel it starts to affect design as a whole since being able to design for various groups is what I believe is what makes design impactful.

After sitting with this example for a bit, I strongly agreed with the idea that no problem can be solved, only situations. In the previous reading from last week, I commented on my disinterest in universal design because it tries to solve problems in one specific way for everyone, which is utterly wrong because having multiple solutions is necessary due to varying needs. That's why this example to me is something I agree with since it helps differentiate how a situation is what we are trying to solve more than just an actual problem. For some, it may be helpful for others it's not.

I think that out of all the essential skills, these seem to be the most detrimental, in my personal opinion. The reason is because of how important they are in regulating your bias and ignorance. In many fields, I feel it is easy to get overconfident and begin to get over-involved in projects to the point that projects easily become your life's work, or you begin to believe that others may not understand your vision. Although I can see how this mindset could be beneficial, I believe they are damaging as a designer because it limits your perspective and allows you to not be thorough in your work. It's important not only for a designer but also for a person to maintain a basis and rationale in your work. I believe there are rarely ever times when there is only one correct way.