Reading this part just made me think about how authors can write a more dull or normal exposition if they want to have a bigger effect on their tension. Like if the world or introduction they have is very mundane, but not enough to have the reader lose interest, they can make their tension seem more intense than it really is. Shift their perspective if that makes sense.

This kind of comment has me thinking about any piece of writing that isn't fiction. What are some examples that non-fiction writers use to maintain readers attention while building tension when its not necessarily something thats made up or imaginary. Are there other ways than shocking facts or weird mysteries? They use specific words?

Though I acknolwedge this is important I think it is still difficult. As designers I think its natural to accomdate for our own needs and get excited by our own innovation/ideas. Furthermore, the excitement and individual perspective may out shine the needs and impact on wider groups and communities. For myself, I would probably have to remind myself often to think about designs in a bigger picture rather than what I soley want to design if that makes sense.

This kind of reminds me a topic that I struggle with in CS as well which are edge cases. Sometimes we focus a lot on the main purpose of a design that we don't consider all the weird possible other uses of it. Sometimes those uses can help us design a better upgrade or attachment other times it ruins the purpose of the original function. For myself, I think its really hard to think about those edge cases or unique possibilities but I think being in design and just thinking about all possibilities has helped me with the whole process overall.

I think this is something I think about for a lot of work that I do including CS Projects. You can't really discover bugs and faults in your design without really testing it and having someone else or yourself use it naturally or fully. I think especially as a designer or the creator its easy to think from a narrow perspective thinking there are no faults in your design but more often than not, the longer you look and test it or have someone else do it, you will probably find a fault.

I thought this example was interesting because the example talks about how Apple has created an interface control that users already know how to use but Apple's touch pad is actually different than other laptops. I recently had a professor say that they won't touch Macbooks because they don't know how to use the touchpad and it is an inconvenience since they have to relearn how to use a keyboard.

The sunk cost fallacy is actually a term I read about recently. The book is called The art of thinking clearly and it talks about common logical thinking errors. I feel like I am often a victim of it myself. I feel like during projects, especially ones that take a lot of time and effort I can see myself again leaning towards one solution even if it won't work because of this fallacy.

As a writer of questions and a respondent of questions, I think I struggle with this the most. I feel like its just hardwired into my brain to give an answer a surveyor wants the most in a sense. At the same time, when I write surveys, I somehow just have a natural inclination to guide respondents with my wording in my questions (which is bad). Its something I need to work on for sure!

I feel like its easy to think about a start up trying to do these competitive analyses on big companies that already exist. Then I thought about how maybe designers a these big companies do competitive analyses not only on other companies but their services them selves? Would this just be considered an audit? Competitive analysis against oneself would probably be just as impactful as an analysis on another. Just food for thought.

I think this is interesting because it is also another way of how people perceive criticism. I think criticism is often and most of the time negative and I forget that sometimes criticism can be positive. I think the sandwich method is a good representation of what we should do when we make judgements in general. Instead of thinking so negative about criticisms you recieve, think about how it is beneficial to you. Be deliberate in the positive when receiving/giving negative, if that makes sense.

I understand this point of view because this was my first thought when being introduced to the human centered design. I agree with this statement but maybe a little too much. What happens when we have to consider too many groups of people involved. A new design/solution may not be able to account for everybody without losing quality or function? How does one deal with that appropriately? I think as I start to design this question will be the most prominent.

During our class activity I assumed that this would be the best way to go. A simple solution was i thought it was until there were too many problems to be fixed to account for a diverse group of people. I found that there are tradeoffs with this kind of approach. To what extent do designers need to account for many diverse users without sacrificing the effectiveness or functionality? What is the sweet spot? What kind of data or things do designers figure out to solve this specific question?

I am sure there are definitely good scenarios but I am concerned about the potential inaccuracies of the inferences that have to be made for them. Is there a spectrum in which we should be in a certain range of having a combination of grounded and inferential scenarios? How can one tell that their inference is one that accurately represents their subject? It also defines what a good scenario is but what if one or two of the aspects of a good scenario is missing, would the scenario still be considered valid?

"The problem is, once you really understand a problem, you realize that most problems are not solvable at all. They’re tangled webs of causality, which one might call “wicked” problems"

I understand this is the case that must be considered for all designers, however this is something that I am uncomfortable with. For myself, I get stressed out when I try to fix one problem and then realize that 3 other problems must be fixed. it often leads me to think about just restarting or going back to square one if that makes sense. For example, my coding assignments often have me in this scenario. I think of a solution for one part of the code but then realize there are issues with the other pieces of code that I wrote. One problem, revealing/leading to other problems is something I dislike but have learned to get better at handling.

I found this to be quite interesting because I often linked design with art and creativity. Both of those things I've realized I do not have a knack for so I thought design would be something I would not be able to do. Reading this part specifically and having hands on experience in design and research I've realized I've gotten better at it as well. Long story short, this sentence resonates with me because I believe I am experiencing this first hand!