6 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Intuitive. Human beings are not born with much innate knowledge. What people mean when they use this word is that someone can infer from the information in a design what the purpose or intent of something is, based on all of the prior knowledge they’ve acquired in their life, including encounters with a long history of user interface conventions and domain concepts. That is not “intuitive,” but rather, closely mapped to someone’s knowledge.

      I agree with this explanation of what intuitive is supposed to mean. There have been so many times where I've heard people say that "this product has such an intuitive design", and I've always wondered what that meant. I always thought intuitive meant easy to use and explicit, but I guess it doesn't. Information is only made sense of easily if the person understanding it has some level of previous knowledge that shapes their perception of the design. This part of the reading changes my perspective. I no longer think "intuitive" is a useful way of describing design because it's too vague and doesn't actually reflect what people are trying to say. Instead of saying a design is intuitive, I may use a different principle or explain what makes the information so easily understandable.

  2. Oct 2025
    1. However, most societies do not value creative thinking and so our skills in generating ideas rapidly atrophies, as we do not practice it, and instead actively learn to suppress it11 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. Springer Netherlands. . That time you said something creative and your mother called you weird? You learned to stop being creative. That time you painted something in elementary school and your classmate called it ugly? You learned to stop taking creative risks. That time you offered an idea in a class project and everyone ignored it? You must not be creative. Add up all of these little moments and where most people end up in life is possessing a strong disbelief in their ability to generate ideas

      I agree with the idea that our society actively works to suppress creativity. This affirms my perspective that we often prioritize getting the right answers rather than thinking creatively in order to get a range of answers for a question. I think this because we, inherently, as humans think of things in black and white. If something isn't the "right" or "correct" idea, it is simply wrong. In reality, these answers may not be wrong and may just be different. Through my own experiences at school, I've seen how people are quick to shut down the idea generation process to just skip ahead to the solution. Especially with generative AI now, we're outsourcing our thinking. This is harmful because we need to be able to think. If we can't think, we can't create.

  3. Sep 2025
    1. One simple form of knowledge is to derive goals and values from your data. What are people trying to achieve? For example, let’s say you did a bunch of interviews about trying to find a place to rent in Seattle. One person talked about trying to afford rent, another person talked about trying to save time by finding the right location, another person had a physical disability that made the layout of the house important. You need to extract these goals and represent them explicitly and try to understand what they are. Different designs may serve different goals, and so understanding the space of goals that you might design for is critical.

      I agree that people should take into account goals and values while designing something. This confirms my perspective that we need to understand how important a factor is for a user in order to create a product that meets their needs and aligns with their values. I think this is true because we are often too solution oriented, and actually need to focus on the problem. When users are facing a problem, what about the issue causes a misalignment in values, or what about the situation is undesirable for them? Additionally, I wonder if considering goals and values are part of value centered design.

    1. If you’re clever, perhaps you can find a design that’s useful to a large, diverse group. But design will always require you to make a value judgement about who does and who does not deserve your design help. Let that choice be a just one, that centers people’s actual needs. And let that choice be an equitable one, that focuses on people who actually need help (for example, rural Americans trying to access broadband internet, or children in low income families without computers trying to learn at home during a pandemic—not urban technophiles who want a faster ride to work).

      I think I agree with this idea of trying to find a design that's useful to a large, diverse group. When designing something, it's usually safe to try to maximise the reach of design in order to make it usable by "most" people. However, I've realised that this "most" doesn't actually exist. Any design, regardless of how it's created, will always work for some people, and not others. I find this idea useful because it informs my belief that there is always an opportunity cost and hidden trade-off while trying to create the "best" design. People may try to generalise the design of their product so that it can be used by virtually anyone (universal design). However, this risks the possibility of losing the specificity or individuality of the design, or creating a design that is based on specific needs of a group. On the other hand, making a design so specific risks the lack of broad usability.

    1. One critique of all of these approaches, however, is that no design, no matter how universal, will equally serve everyone. This is the premise of design justice44 Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press. , which observes that design is fundamentally about power, in that designs may not only serve some people less well, but systematically exclude them in surprising, often unintentional ways. Consider, for example, Black Americans, whose darker skin is often not recognized by hand soap and water dispensers in public spaces. This is not a natural limitation of technology—it is a consequence of designers choosing a sensor technology that must necessarily be calibrated for particular skin tones, and then calibrating it for white skin. Design justice argues, then, that some designs, when they cannot be universal, should simply not be made.

      I partly agree with this premise. I agree with the fact that no design can truly, equally serve every single end user. Even if a designer thinks about all the possible ways a design can work for a user, there will always be groups of people who are left out. This is because it is simply not possible for every factor to be accounted for, and partly because a designer's ideas is limited to what they have known, seen or experienced, which may not encompass the needs of all users around the world. However, I think that just because some designs are not universal, that does not mean they shouldn't be made. Instead, they should be modified.

    1. Quickly I learned that design was much, much more than what was visible. Design was where ideas came from. Design was methods for generating ideas. It was methods for evaluating ideas. It was ways of communicating ideas. I learned that design was problem solving44 Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. , and that it is design problem solving that shapes the world. After all, look around you: nearly everything in the space you’re reading this in is designed by someone, somewhere, to solve some problem.

      I agree with this. This reaffirms my belief that design is a reiterative process rather than the surface level details of a product. Before, I used to think that design was just limited to visual design, meaning it mattered just how something looked or how aesthetically pleasing it was. However, I've looked into design concepts and processes such as the Design Thinking Process and now I view design multidimensionally. Design is not just about creating features, it's about empathizing with stakeholders, defining the problem, brainstorming for solutions, creating prototypes, and finally testing.