I found this statement to be interesting as this is not something I thought of. I always took critiques more as an one way definition so this is a new insight of perspective I am gaining from this reading. However, this got me questioning: If a certain design gets out to the world and gets criticized, would designer always be able to articulate the rationale? If not, is it not consdiered as a feedback coming from a user?

Just my opinion that I want to add on this is a lot of times people do also "steal" by accident. Human brain, we see things in life and some of those things are put in the back of our minds without ourselves even knowing. Then, when put in a situation where I am asked to generate something of similar, those things might come into your mind whether you know it or not.

I totally agree with this stake that the author put out in this paragraph. I think everyone has a chance to be creative but a lot of the times they are suppressed. We as humans set a strong idea of what is "right" and what is "normal" and tends to be anxious, worry, or discipline if it something goes apart from that definition we created in our minds. That applies to kids too. I noticed that some parents are overly worried about their kids' creativity because they only find it weird, which leads to their own connection to possible ADHD, autism, or just any other mental/behavior issues. Then, they try to say "no" to the idea, kids learn that, doesn't learn how to imagine or generate ideas, and parents are disappointed that their kids are not creative as others.

My thoughts behind this part of the reading is powerful. I think this is the center of everything. Even the goals and values, scenarios or whether if it's valid or not doesn't matter if you don't know who you are designing for. Customers/people have different goals, values and scenarios that are valid or not. To find a common ground amongst all the differences and helping to improve on the problem that people agree on is the essential basis of designing.

I think this sentence is very true. As much as there will always be someone that doesn't like an option A, there will always be someone who will love option A. Problems exists because someone doesn't like them and think of it as an obstacle. Just looking at my own life, even if I think of something like needing to go buy groceries during my busy schedule is a problem and stressful to me, stopping by a market on the way home is not a problem at all to my mom. So regarding this logic, I agree with the author when they mentioned how new designs will only improve something but never be able to solve the problem.

This sentence got me instantly thinking how design has so much to do with not only designing and problem solving itself, but the nature of life, morality and philosophy. I think this is really between a lot of art related things. Even in traditional art, I think most art projects are created out of a deep feeling that is intrigued within the artist (this could be a family drama, personal struggles, racism, sexism, anything really they went through). In my opinion, now that design is linking the these deep feelings that are caused in the humans with problem solving, we need to not only consider but really take in morality, nature of life and perspectives into the work.

I agree with some parts regarding this sentence. I totally agree with the part where it indicates how design is problem solving and a way of communicating ideas but, in my opinion the way the author described partially as method of generating ideas and evaluating ideas didn't really make sense to me. I think design = ideas. I think that something branches out of an idea and making to real and accessible is the designing part. Design can easily communicate an idea and deliver more easily accessibility to users for everyone's convenience and problem solving, but I can't really think of a way how design would evaluate ideas. I think we can evaluate a "design" but design itself can't be evaluating an idea.