I think this is a good line about how stories are more than just different statements about something that happened. You need a lot more emotion, adjectives, and a lot of other things in a story to make it memorable or engaging. I think this is very similar to the way we talk as well. When we talk, especially when we are trying to teach something, stating facts is enough. Adding emotion, character, and a lot of other elements make it actually interesting.

I think its good that we have this pointed out to us. A lot of the times we do not really understand what is going on as we do not really pay attention to the world around us. Having people share their stories is a good way to become more aware. In this scenario, for example, I would not really realize that these sorts of things happens at airports, but now that they have mentioned it, I am more aware of the different norms and assumptions that are in place at a place I go to from time to time.

I think this is also applicable to a lot of business problems. A lot of the times, they think about their product or service in the lense of a customer. Here they think about it more about a user, which I think is very similar. The fact that many different groups of people do similar tasks, means that this is a very good method to make sure that what you are creating will actually be useful.

I think this is even better than surveys and interviews. Being able to see live how users perform tasks can give you insights that the users themselves cannot give to you. Their knowledge of the prototype is not as vast as yours, and thus this is a lot better of a way to get feedback on your prototype.

I think while it is necessary to have default values, it should be easily customizable for users. For example in language preference, the use should not have to go through 4-5 different buttons to try to change it. When starting for the first time, having these defaults be visible and easily accessible would go a long way in ensuring that more people can use it well.

I agree and think this applies to more contexts then just prototyping. Any creative endeavor or brainstorming session could be categorized as an acquiring knowledge session. Instead of trying to immediately solve the problem, taking small steps towards the destination will let you have a much better end results, as opposed to skipping directly to the end.

I really agree with this statement. As someone who has conducted research with both qualitative (Interviews) and quantitative (surveys), I can say that qualitative measures are a lot more complex. Sometimes complexity is not needed, and this is a big waste of time. Other times, especially when it comes to more subjective matters, qualitative is a lot more important and worth the effort. It all depends on the circumstance.

I think while this is important, you can still get the same outcomes if you word it similarly. With open or close ended questions, if you are trying to get a specific response, you will likely get that response whether or not it is provided as an answer option. The best way to truly allow someone to answer questions in the way which they want to is through the language. Making sure the question is asked in a way that uses neutral wording, while still being open ended, is the best way to do it in my opinion.

I think this is the best way to go about criticism in any situation. To be able to have one person give criticism, then the second person respond with their rationale, and then to discuss the rationale as compared to the outcome is very healthy. This way, both people have a good base of the reasoning certain actions/thing were done, and discuss how to improve those actions with little misunderstanding or miscommunication.

I would argue that this is not exactly creativity, as the ideas usually have to be original for it to be considered creative. While it depends on the context, within similar disciplines, I would argue that it is hard to take something in one context, use it in another, and call it creativity. For example in sports, when a player does a certain move that they saw from another sport, it might not be seen to be as creative as coming up with a move entirely on their own.

I think this is a really good way to go about it! In product management, we had to create user stories which were very similar to this as well. In both cases, they are talking about a specific person and the way in which they work/live. In this case, you are trying to solve a problem, and in the product management case, you are trying to understand how they might use a product to also solve a problem.

While I would agree that there is no right method for understanding problems, it is usually good to have a general framework in which you solve it. For example, understanding consumer behavior is best through contextual inquiry, while trying to compare to marketing efforts is best through A/B testing. Most problems have a general right framework, and only a few have very nuanced or harder to understand frameworks.

I think it is really important when to distinguish when things should be crowdsourced and when it should be only reserved for specialists and people who are certified. For example, crowdsourcing for Covid information would not work because a lot of people base Thierry judgement off of their feelings. I’m this case, experts are better. When it comes to things like opinions on games, for example, crowdsourcing would be the better option,

I think it is really important to understand when to do what kind of communication. A lot of people struggle now with understanding if they should be communicating with text or call or in person. Especially with the pandemic limiting in person communication, I feel as though we are losing that in person aspect.

I feel as though companies can manipulate the data collection strategies and get specific data out of certain people and not out of others. This could potentially become very dangerous as then they could get data that pretends to show a certain trend, while in actuality it is not the case at all, leading to misinformation.

I was quite surpised that such a simple social media post can be changed into variables that hold different values in it. When I immediately look at posts, I do not automatically think about the code and the statistics behind it, but now that I can see it clearly, it makes much more sense that the data being collected by the social media website is apparent.

I wonder to what extent can we find out if something is a bot vs something is not. I think this can be very interesting as there are many reasons as to why someone may want to pretend to be a bot, for example, they do not need to face the same consequences as a bot is treated usually not to the same ethical framework as humans are.

I find it very interesting as to how someone can categorize something as a friendly vs an unfriendly bot. This is because I feel as though being good vs bad is very unclear and different people have different definitions as to what is good and ad. For example, in the friendly bots, it says they post a picture of a red panda every hour, to some, this is cute, to others, they see this as spam and very annoying. I wonder who gets to decide what is considered a good bot.

I think this is interesting because usually you would feel like you are the one who should be making decisions, but at the same time are conditioned to listen to our parents. I feel as though I would not know what to do, I would probably do what I think is best for them, even though I am going against their wishes.

Confucianism is very family based, specifically in a age way. People that are older will almost always have a say over people that are younger, especially when it comes to family matters. Even when it is not regarding family matters, age is almost always the way to solve things.