I believe this sentiment is an incredibly important one. I think the fundamental core of marketing should be to show people how the thing the marketer is trying to market is going to improve the person's life. The best way to do this, at least from what I have experienced and seen, is by embedding the product into the customer's life. I think this makes a person feel like they were 'destined' to end up using said product. The ability to tell a story with a product is what does this embedding. 

I would say that this statement will only continue to become more and more true with the integration of Generative AI. I think I prime example of this is the field of software engineering. AI greatly advances the timeline of traditional programming by being able to do simpler tasks without error. This allows the the engineers to dedicate their time to think about other important and abstract things like design of their product, which is a task AI has not been able to grasp yet. It lacks the creativity and randomness that makes human design so unique. I wonder if/how AI could help with characteristics of design justice like the ones mentions in this paper.

I believe this method is extremely effective at finding the optimal way for a given product to preform. However, I also recognize the flaws discussed like how if the chosen persona doesn't reflect the full range of user behaviors, the evaluation may miss critical usability issues. I found the GenderMag approach particularly useful because it systematically incorporates diversity in cognitive styles, motivations, and risk tolerance.

This heavily reminded me of a topic that I learned in 300. We had a whole topic about how bad humans are at introspection. They often tend to remember the first and last parts of things and asking people why they think a certain way almost always is not effective. I believe that the earlier mention methods of empirical review would be much more effective such as breakdowns. 

I have found this aspect of search engines fascinating. A given search has millions if not billions of results. How do they determine which should be placed at the top. I believe this section has helped me understand this concept better. However I know that this is likely not the only factor that goes into the ordering. I would think that ad placement/monetization could also play a large role in the order. What the ratio is between the implicit inputs and the monetization is unknown to me.

I think this type of prototyping is an extremely interesting concept. The first thought that came to my mind was that, with the emergence of AI, I wonder how many companies will be using this method at conferences, demonstrations, etc. and withholding the fact that the products are being operated by humans. I believe this was a large debate when Elon musk showcased his humanoid robots a few months ago and I believed then and I still believe now that this is something that producers should be more transparent about.

This reminds me of learning about Confirmation bias and social desirability bias in research methods. I always thought it was so interesting how humans behave so differently when being observed for for some form of social credit. I believe it is incredibly important to be as monotone as possible and try to leave the motivations at the door when it comes to taking surveys. 

This reminds me of an earlier chapter from Amy Ko's book when talking about methods on how to derive creativity. I believe immersing yourself in competitors work is one of the best ways to get yourself in a creative and innovative mindset. Starting with one of the questions mentioned later in the text like asking how the competitor is trying to solve the problem and then naturally flowing from there. 

This section of text really made me come to realization that this method of criticism is the most optimal. It caused me to think back about the times that I have received both constructive and non-constructive criticism and the times when I was first given the positives of my work before receiving criticism, I left with a much better mindset about what I was going to do differently. When I received feedback and it has been purely harsh, even if the judge was giving advice from good spirits, it feels like an attack. I know that that can be a rational, but I think it's just basic human nature. I believe the best forms of critique combine both of what I just covered and also the connection back to the principles talked about at the end of this chapter(simple, novel,…). These two things in combination allows a judge to show a designer where they are diverging from a good idea and how to connect back to it.

I resonate heavily with this section because this is how I tend to form ideas. I like to engage myself in valuable and relatable context pieces either copy direct parts or gain inspiration from them. I find Analogical Reasoning goes hand-in-hand with this and often works very well together to create really good ideas.

I found there persona method really intriguing and something that I would like to use in the future. This really helps me as the problem solver to immerse myself in what an individual could experience in a given situation. I think it is especially important to use real that when developing personas.

I feel as if this is the most essential thing to take away from this text. It has been demonstrated how each problem within our world has so many facets and so many lenses that it is impossible for each individual situation to have a one exact solution. This makes me think of difficult it is to address the issues present in our current education system. I do believe that our current education system has flaws but many of the recommended changes such as adjusting the common core seem to create 1 million new problems as well. This chapter specifically helped me rethink how I look at issues and how I should be critical of the process by which solutions are found across all domains.

I found this really interesting and a refreshing perspective on the issues that come with activity center design. I believe that the intrinsic idea of activity centered design seems counterintuitive. I understand that it is constraint effective and cost-effective, but I believe if you really care about solving a design issue you go down to the individual level and consider each case and what that case brings to the table. I also believe that human centered is a better form design over other paradigms like ability based design, participatory design, etc. because human-centered design I believe correctly pulls off a good balance of prioritizing humans while also being somewhat abstracted.

During the first day of class, I really didn't have an answer to what is design because to me it is such an ambiguous question. because of my background/major I immediately thought of tech products in systems, but upon deeper thought, I began to think of things like art and parts of the human body like ears. Everything that I thought of fell into either a form of intentional or unintentional design but never the less it showed that design is everywhere. Professor Ko's overview of design fundamentally being about problem-solving helped me connect the thoughts that go into the smallest details in the world around us.