I remember how we would learn about the hero's journey in middle school English classes, and how they follow a structure pretty much the exact same as this one. The introduction, the call-to-action, the journey, the climax, and the resolution. I can name a handful of movies that follow this exact story structure. I'm not exactly sure how this relates to design, however. Wouldn't we want designs that are more simple and robust so that they are more accessible and usable?

I think this is a great example of showing how one-size-fits-all solutions almost always leave out certain groups of people. I always forget how privileged I am to be able to have no issue with systems like these, and how I need to be able expand my horizons on certain peoples that are affected negatively as mentioned in this article.

I agree with this. I'm taking 380 as well, and we just did a lesson on User Stories and Personas. This is almost sounds like the One User Fallacy, where a product is designed with one "generic user" in mind, which doesn't exist. This leads to people having their needs missed or creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I agree with this. You want to know if a user would be able to use your design without any explicit instructions, so you should test it by not giving your participant any specific instructions. The design should be so easy to use that anyone could pick it up and start using it.

I agree with this choice. There is so many factors to consider when accounting for inclusion and accessibility, especially on a webpage. Does the user have a mouse, or do they tab through the page? Are they color-blind or have any other vision impairments? Do they have fine-tune mechanical skill issues that make it harder for them to use a computer? You have to consider all these factors, especially when designing a site.

I agree with this idea because prototyping is a super low-commitment design tool that can offer deep insight into your final design. It can show you if your final project actually will contribute to solving a problem without the time and cost of actually developing the solution. It kinda feels like a 'trial run' of your solution, something to just try out to see if its right for you.

Competitive analysis was something I wasn't aware of prior to this article, but after reading, I 100% agree with this statement. You can't just think about your customers when coming up with a solution design. Its also interesting that this is something that you will have to constantly think about. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the companies with good competitive analysis that are the one that stay afloat the longest.

I completely agree with this paragraph. I remember from the Survey module in our INFO 300 class the design of good survey questions. How do we design questions that accurately depict someones true opinion without having them type in entire paragraphs for each question? One thing I remember is that everyone has a different though on scale. For example, from 1-10, some people think 5 is average while others think 7 is average. It is important to design questions in a way that makes everyones scale of opinion as standardized as possible.

I agree with this portion of text. This is something that I see people do in non-design contexts, and something I do in my every day life. I use this tactic a lot at my workplace when training new hires. First, telling them something their doing a good job at, then telling them something they still need work on. I can see how this would work in a design environment too.

I agree with this statement, as I feel like I experience this in my own personal life. I was raised in a way that prioritized family, which included the ability to support them. This meant that I needed a high-paying job, which is typically unattainable with a career that's more creative based. I feel like I had to suppress my creativity to pursue a career that was more logical. I agree that this is probably the case for many other students as well.

In my opinion, creating a persona is extremely difficult to do. You have to be careful to avoid assumptions and stereotypes, which could poorly represent the target audience for a solution. It requires careful research and extensive analysis of interviews and contextual studies, but the following personas Amy provides does a great job at representing a typical working American, which shows that when a good persona is an effective one.

This puts a new perspective on my idea of Universal Design. Universal Design often fails not because it aims to solve a universal problem, but because it aims to solve a universal situation, which cannot exist. Every individual lives through their own unique experiences and have their own unique traits and preferences. I like the later example about the gambler and the casino, showcasing how a "problem" to one group is actually the "solution" to another. Another example might be icebreakers during a class; an extrovert might want to meet their classmates while an introvert wants to keep to themselves. I really like this perspective on design problems and 100% agree with it.

I agree with this. I am privileged to often forget about the exclusion of certain groups in "universal" designs. An example of this that I thought of was pens. I found out recently that a lot of left-handed people have a hard time with ink pens as there palms tend to smear the wet ink immediately after writing. Another example I could think of were the original Band-Aid colors, and how they did a poor job of representing people of all skin tones. Any design that leaves out a certain group of people should always have a substitute version for those people or should not be designed altogether.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The basis of design is functionality and aesthetic. To achieve functionality, you need to know what works for people and the best way to implement those. This involves dealing with complex ideas like human preference and accessibility, usability, and sustainability. Human preference and accessibility can mean designing tools that work for both right-handed and left-handed people. Usability can mean designing a tool so that it is easy to learn. Sustainability can mean designing a tool that can be used for a long time. All these aspects stem from understanding a variety of perspectives.