Every time I read articles related to story-telling, it reminds me of when I was writing my college applications. The hardest part of the process was packaging and positioning myself (and my story) into a concise, meaningful, yet authentic story for the admissions team. I've always thought stories worked best because it lets the audience easily empathize—and therefore easily remember—the purpose behind the story, but I didn't consider that it also tapped into our pattern-seeking instinct. Its interesting to know that there is an even larger psychological phenomenon going on behind what my college counsellors had encouraged.

The author's concern here points our an important concept of design: to reflect on the shortcomings of current systems/solutions. It reminds me of my experience in design spaces (or even business classes, where we discuss business solutions to current problems) where I see people trying to improve on current solutions because they work, but forget to evaluate their shortcomings. One reason this happens is because the flaw doesn't apply to everyone, and (like the author mentions) the indifferent majority assumes this system works for everybody. Another is that because the existing system is so popular, people assume that the unintended consequences are unchangeable or worth sacrificing for the best version of the solution. Ultimately, that means designers (or business individuals) don't reflect, only build off of the current product. This mindset applies to what the author is saying about AI, where she worries existing norms or systems will be integrated into the structure of AI, because people aren't taking the time to reflect on the implications of the existing system.

In the last chapter, I commented asking whether there was a way to test the usability of a design without having to launch it (i.e. beta versions, where people tend to launch a draft version of their application for real users). After reading this chapter, I'm more convinced that thorough research can "prove" usefulness, given the problem defined is accurate and aligns with the research. By the depth of these design tests, my understanding is that there isn't much of a problem in usefulness of a design if the prior research is well done; instead, most of the problem (in that case) lies in the usability of the design, and actual details in how a user would try to achieve their goals.

I wonder if there are tests that can tell you if a design is useful.My initial thought was that beta versions/beta testing was a way for designers to test the actual usefulness of their design, but those require their designs to be "launched", which I'm sure involves more hoops to jump through, especially at the higher level (i.e. a more high profile product). I'm also assuming part of estimating the value of the design falls in the initial problem definition and on whether the design has fully addressed the problem; this, I guess, is what Ko means by "you define the task".

Many people think these aesthetics are small details, but their impact is huge. I've noticed the key of good typography is that it seems invisible, or that it blends naturally to the entire design because it's easy to process and seems fitting. This is similar to design features discussed in this—and the last few—chapters, where functions that are necessary or intuitive are often 'invisible' because the user finds it naturally fitting. Overall, I find that this aligns with a lot of what Ko discusses on anticipating user needs when making the experience seamless for them, and typography is just another way that streamlines the UX.

I was really surprised to read that sketches could count as prototypes: my original impression is that sketches are part of the ideation process, and I'm skeptical to imagine how users can interact enough with sketches to answer the questions designers have. Using an above example of a pizza-ordering smart watch application, how would a designer measure what feedback residents need through a sketch? The most interactive experience I can imagine is a well drawn, multi-step sketch, but overall, I would personally disagree with the reading in considering this full prototype. I do think its extremely helpful to sketch to help keep track when building a prototype, though.

The stark contrast between responses to closed-ended versus open-ended questions reveals the inherent biases that can emerge from different questioning approaches, and it shocked me to the extent of which the form of a question can affect its responses. To me, this seems like it suggests that presenting predetermined options can lead respondents to gravitate toward familiar or expected answers, potentially overshadowing other significant factors that influenced their voting decisions. It also leads me to think about what a professor once said: the extent to which you know your audience is how well they know themselves, unless you can bypass that.

Learning from existing solutions while creating innovative differentiation is a pragmatic approach to product development and problem-solving. By studying what has already been proven successful in the market, one can avoid common pitfalls and understand what resonates with users. This doesn't mean simply copying what exists, but rather using that knowledge as a foundation to build something meaningfully different. The idea of inventing used to intimidate me while I was younger, but now I understand that a lot of inventing is actually reinventing: it's taking what works and what doesn't work from the existing solution, and trying to find a good spot where the least amount of things Don't work.

I've noticed, based on experience, that this type of critique helps designers dig out better ideas. By clarifying the values of the designer, truths about the user, and goals of the product its easier and more accurate when you synthesize the three into a new draft. I also think this helps the designer understand gaps in the process, whether it be in their design or their own understanding. The saying "you don't know what you don't know" is often very true when it comes to the later drafts of a design; at the point, designers will have already tried to implement all the nuances they're aware of and have rough ideas of what works/what doesn't. Critiques that stem from Socratic questioning is likely to be very helpful at this stage, because it helps reveal areas of improvement the designer may have missed.

Going back to the paragraph on creative thinking being discouraged and actively suppressed, I think the 'logic-encouraged' society has also made creativity competitive. As a creative, I often find myself worrying whether my ideas are good enough, new enough, creative enough, and I think this competition is a double edged sword. On one hand, taste, like Ira Glass mentions, is an important skill to develop and distinguishes creativity from arbitrary randomness; on the other hand, it heightens the barriers to being creative, a skill that should be practiced freely. If people viewed taste as a developed skill and not a inherent quality, I think it would make creativity seem less daunting for those who think they're "uncreative"

A professor once said in lecture: your opinions are often VERY different from the truth. In the field of design, I think its incredibly important to constantly check whether bias or preconceptions are mixing into what our research is telling us. It's also important to differentiate ourselves and our experiences/beliefs from what our user experiences/believes. This close line is a reminder that a 'bad design' isn't one that just misses the problem, it's one that adds to the detriments of the original problem. Usually, user problems are also complex and intersectional with identities of the target demographic, and good designs need to consider the user's immediate friction in a scenario, as well as the complexities that exists due to social constructs in the problem space.

This is a really important insight I've been struggling with on my own project. I had the preconception that because a solution is targeted towards a group, it should be able to 'solve' all of the user problems in that group. I've learned to come to terms with the fact that no matter how versatile the solution is, it still won't be able to encompass everyone in the target demographic. I think a more realistic approach is to identify the most common pain points for the demographic and focus on solving those, since correctly fixing a situation for some is better than half-helping everyone.

This is the skill that most people believe differentiate designers from other people; similarly, I think good design has to start here. Like this article has mentioned, design & designers often have a lot of power and influence. Designs are also usually intentional, and the ability to think divergently allows for designers to satisfy their intention while maximizing their power. I think being able to harness this skill of innovation is how designers can hold onto their power in the market.

I see Universal Design as more of a double edged sword. On one hand, designing for diversity maximizes the application of the design; on the other, it might overlook niche needs certain groups have, or exclude people because of the majority. Not everything can be 'universally' designed, and its important to recognize that accessiblity also includes accommodations when taken in the context the existing society.