This is an interesting perspective. While the way we convey our message, product, etc. changes depending on the use case, having a standardized template on how to convey it seems useful. Especially when considering that one message often needs to be translated into a number of forms, having a template for your message that you can simplify or further elaborate could be very useful.

I feel like these two ideas can co-exist, though. We can still say that everyone can design, and does design solutions to problems in day-to-day life, while also acknowledging that that certain solutions to certain problems hold higher value depending on context. At the end of the day, there will always be some problems that have more benefit to designing a solution for than others, there's no escaping that. The key here, in my opinion, is not to downplay the importance of certain problems (and their solutions) for discriminatory or alienating reasons. Are we prioritizing a certain area of design because it truly is beneficial, or are we ignoring other areas because of our own biases or normative ways of thinking?

I guess one example I could give is my iphone charger and charging block. The two don't necessarily give any indication of whether they are charging into a phone or other device at all. For that, you'd have to look at the phone or other device itself to see if it is receiving charge. With that said, the charging device itself does not make its state outwardly visible. I think this specific example isn't really that big of an issue, especially considering that the devices themselves do make their state visible. I think this just pushes this idea further. What if your airpod case's light didn't light up when you plugged in your charger? What if you iphone didn't show that its battery was charging?

I think this is one of the main reasons why I like the prospect of usability tests. There's been a lot of times where I've used products or services and encountered such breakdowns and wondered whether anyone bothered to test before releasing a thing. It's something that doesn't sound all that complicated to figure out, but I feel like it would do wonders if more people did effectively. I feel like if you're not comfortable using your own product, you shouldnt release it. And if you are comfortable using it, maybe look a little harder for things that make you think otherwise!

This is a great concept, especially considering that its a concept that you can see in most products we use day to day. Wildly different products may still share signifiers, such as using a floppy disk as the save button or a switch-like circle on a track. It allows people to use all types of products, no matter how different, just from making assumptions based on signifiers.

I think this is a very unique idea that I've never thought about doing. I can definitely see the value though. I think knowing exactly how a product is supposed to work in the first place, even if it doesn't work yet, can help a lot when designing. It's also just using pen and paper, which is a lot less expensive than producing an actual product. This is especially important when you're designing a solution that's in an earlier stage of design, as it prevents time and resources from being spent on something that may or may not work.

This one's interesting particularly because of the context. Rather than analyzing competitors to get a better idea of what our project should accomplish, this one analyzed competitors and compared them to an already existing list of thought up solutions. I think this highlights the importance of competitive analysis as without this, the client was most likely satisfied with the logo options they were already considering. The client should have done this analysis prior, but its good to know that it was done before a final decision on a logo was made (in my personal opinion, I would agree that all of the options were not effective.)

I wonder what standards are used regarding panelists joining and leaving. Is there a strict number of panelists that must be maintained? Are new panelists taken from similar or different locations or backgrounds as those who left? How drastic of a change is seen as a cause of the addition or removal of panelists? Does it make it harder to perceive a change in opinion in a population if the panelist group changes drastically over time? How large is the number of panelists, and does a larger group counteract the effects of selection bias as new panelists are selected? These are all questions that I feel must be relevant if the initial group of panelists is subject to change. I'd assume that there are many studies where the people interviewed are different each time, so I'm wondering what the general consensus is about the possible selection bias that could be present. Even as I'm writing this, though, one could say that there's a higher possibility of selection bias in a set group of panelists for the entire research, as changing the panelists could scramble up the opinions a bit. I'd be interested to see what other research institutes besides Pew use, and if there's a standardized method regarding this or something that's most common

I actually love this part of the exchange. The you individual initially responded to the feedback given about the metadata by suggesting it just be removed or not be as prominent. However, the person critiquing clarifies their thinking and gives an idea that both compromises the designer's initial idea with the critiques. This is precisely what feedback and critique should be used for. It's not a way for a critic to just be critical of something for the sake of it, but a way to help improve the design as a whole. This part is also important because it reinforces the designer's thinking rather than disregarding it in a way that says "I acknowledge your idea, here's what I think would make it better".

Where would one draw the line then when we're talking about turning creative ideas into something more, say, feasible? We previously read about how certain creative ideas get shut down in favor of currently existing ideas or ideas that are perceived as more "in bounds". That's probably not what's being insinuated here exactly, but it got me thinking about the forces that play into turning a creative idea into a final project. I know that I've had experiences where I've come up with a creative idea, then had to constrain myself to design objectives that I initially didn't think I'd have to.

It's almost like thing you learn in writing classes. In the same way that you need to be clear and specific when writing scientific papers or argumentative pieces, one has to be very specific was to what exactly the problems are that you're intending to solve. Especially nowadays that tons of people wants to solve the same subset of issues, its important that you add some uniqueness to your particular interpretation of what your problem truly is.

I would agree with this assessment. We must also consider that some things are designed specifically to be hinderances or "problems" for a particular party, say, military equipment. All this to say that what a problem really is is up to the person designing it. So I guess a better way of looking at designing is changing a situation from one that isn't valued by a particular userbase, into one that is.

In fact, I'd argue that for a great deal of human history, people have designed ways to solve problems without extensive education or the promise of monetary wealth. Planning ways to execute problem-solving initiatives is a human instinct. We've always questioned how we can do things better than we're already doing them, and we've always dreamed up ideas that may not be immediately possible (or, at least not until we try it!). Not to mention that design is one of those things that, at its most basic level, doesn't require extensive education. Everyone is able to think of at least a basic design on how to do something.

My annotation on this is more of a discussion on design justice itself. Previously in the chapter, 'design justice' argues that "some designs, when they cannot be universal, should simply not be made." This, to me, seems kind of vague depending on the use case. If we are concerned with social justice when designing our information system or product, we'd assume that'd we focus more on things such as accessibility over profit. However, depending on the service, I'd ask how anything could be fully accessible to all people. Are there products that are inaccessible or otherwise unusable by certain people regardless of how accommodating we try to make them?

I would ask whether it's realistic to expect every product to adhere to the same standard of design justice - that it should be universal or not exist at all. Previously in the chapter we learn that in many cases, certain people are excluding from using a product due to explicit design decisions. What if a company designs a product to be as effective as possible for the majority of their userbase, at the cost of excluding others? Say one designs a bike to be used for competitive bike racing, is it a fault in the design that it is not amputee accessible? That same bike company could make a separate product for those users, rather than sacrifice the effectiveness of the product that was, through an explicit design decision, made assuming that the rider would be able-bodied.