I really agree with this idea that critique should be two-way. In many classroom or work settings, feedback feels one-sided — someone tells you what’s wrong, and you just listen. But when designers explain their rationale, it opens up a more meaningful conversation. I found Ko’s framing useful because it reminds me that critique is about growth and understanding, not just judgment. It changes my perspective on feedback — instead of feeling defensive, I can see it as a collaborative dialogue to refine ideas together.

I think this critique of human-centered design is very valid. While HCD has helped make products and services more usable, it sometimes treats people as isolated users rather than participants in a much larger ecosystem. However, no design can fully involve 100% of the people, so it’s understandable that designers focus on specific groups or needs. I think the challenge is finding a balance between addressing individual users and considering the broader systems that shape their experiences. This perspective makes me think more critically about how design decisions can unintentionally impact other parts of the system, even when the intention is to help people.

I think the idea of using personas is really interesting because it helps designers focus on real human needs rather than just abstract ideas. At the same time, I agree with the critique that personas can sometimes feel too fictional or stereotypical, and if they aren’t grounded in actual research, they might misrepresent the people you’re designing for. This reading makes me realize that while personas are useful tools for organizing knowledge about users, they should always be supported by real conversations and evidence from the community.

I really agree with the point that if you haven’t talked to the people you’re designing for, you can’t truly understand their problems. Too often designers make assumptions about what users need, and this can lead to solutions that don’t actually help or even create new problems. This reading reminded me that design isn’t just about creativity or technical skill—it’s also about empathy, listening, and real engagement with the people you want to serve. It changes my perspective by showing me that good design requires not just observation, but active communication with users.

I agree with the idea of human-centered design because nowadays everything is designed to make people's lives easier. It makes sense to focus on people’s needs first, since technology and design only matter if they improve the way we live and interact. This perspective also changes how I think about design—it’s not just about making something look good, but about creating solutions that actually fit into people’s daily lives.

I totally agree with the idea that design is a form of problem solving that everyone participates in. I really relate to the example of rearranging a room because I just moved into a new place and had to rearrange everything—the bed, the desk—and it felt like I was doing interior design. This made me realize that even small decisions in daily life involve creativity and problem-solving.