I feel this “hamburger” rule seems a little formulaic at first, but I realize it does work. I agree with Ko that it forces critics to find good aspects, even when a design appears weak overall. I know from my own experience that if I only receive negative comments, I will not have the motivation to solve that. However, if that is mentioned well, I'm much more open to hearing the criticism. This approach makes people slow down and actually notice the good parts of a design, instead of just tearing it apart.

I agree with this idea because I believe everyone can be creative in their own way. Creativity doesn’t have to mean inventing something completely new, but it can come from noticing problems or ways things could be improved. I realize that I’ve sometimes doubted my ideas because they felt small or “obvious,” but this reading helped me see that even those ideas have value.

I agree with Ko’s point here that personas are only valuable if they are grounded in real data. I’ve seen how easy it is to make up a persona that sounds “real,” but doesn’t actually match people’s lives. When that happens, the design feels off because it’s built on assumptions instead of facts. I believe that "good design" isn’t just about collecting data, but also about respecting and reflecting people’s actual lives.