The classic three-act structure provides a helpful framework for understanding tension: setup introduces conflict, confrontation escalates it, and resolution offers some form of release. However, I also believe that these diagrams can sometimes oversimplify the nuanced and often non-linear way that tension actually unfolds in a well-crafted narrative. For example, many stories interweave subplots, character arcs, and thematic elements that create multiple peaks and valleys in tension-not just a single climactic rise and fall.

I think this paragraph emphasizes an important reality: technologies often inherit and amplify society’s existing prejudices. Although such systems are marketed as “objective” or “efficient,” they’re trained on data that reflect historical and contemporary discrimination. To make the world better and the system less prejudiced, technology can be a supportive tool, but there should always be a human-based review process to correct or override unfair machine-based decisions.

The reason I think cognitive walkthrough is excellent and valuable is focusing on what users are thinking, rather than just what they see when they interact with an interface. Cognitive Walkthroughs remain valuable because they emphasize user goals and potential misconceptions every step of the way. As designers, we could incorporate realistic scenarios and personas that reflect diverse user backgrounds, skill levels, and motivations.

I really agree with how the paragraph underscores the importance of carefully selecting participants who genuinely represent your target users. It’s a reminder that the success of a usability test largely hinges on involving the right people—those who experience the problem researchers are trying to solve. I also think the practical challenges of recruiting is not always straightforward, and sometimes researchers have to get inventive about finding willing participants. That willingness to approach strangers or tap into mailing lists shows how usability testing isn’t just a theoretical exercise; it’s about real users and real feedback.

I am really curious about this idea and think of some pratical examples of this idea, like context-aware interface, which consider how incorporating contextual data, such as location, time, or user behavior, can help tailor the interface to individual users.

This is something confused me before. paper prototypes and sketches are pretty similar, they offer a low-cost, low-fidelity way to explore ideas, communicate concepts, and iterate quickly before committing significant resources to development. I like paper prototypes more since I can mimic interactions like navigation, button clicks, or transitions by manually moving pieces.

I also think words carry implicit meanings and connotations, and failing to consider potential bias or offensiveness can lead to misinterpretation, respondent discomfort, or skewed data. Additionally from users' aspect, emotional reactions to certain words may introduce response bias, where individuals react based on their feelings rather than the intended question.

I really agree with the opinion of there is no "right" way to do competitive analysis. While I was doing in-class activity yesterday, I found the competitive analysis is more rely on person user experiences, and there is no exact right or wrong answer. I am such kind of people who is more focus on the layout design, so when I do competitive analysis, I would definitely pay more attention on this.

I really agree with Critiques are two-way. The interactive nature of critique sessions by emphasizing that they are not solely about one person receiving feedback, but also about the designer explaining the reasoning behind their choices. During the process of the interactive critiques, I learn many new ideas from peers and some new ways to optimize my design. However, some critiques proposed by others might be caused by the misunderstanding, that's the main reason it's should be a interactive process.

I totally agree with this idea, especially align with my own educational experiences. Nowadays, schools emphasize more and more on standardized tests. Students get high scores only if they answer the specific correct answers. Students are less able to come up with different answers for the same questions in divergent ways, since they are less encouraged to do so by school and current education system. Their brain are gradually getting rigid and less creative.

Deriving goals and values from data is a highly practical and insightful approach for finding users' needs instead of just making assumptions. Just like the example of people's goal of renting is varied from convenience, to affordability, to accessibility. User data research and analysis could lay the foundation for creating solutions that genuinely address users' challenges.

This paragraph highlights an essential truth about problem-solving in design: it’s impossible to create a solution that works perfectly for everyone. I strongly agree with the idea that customization is necessary to address diverse needs because people’s experiences and challenges are highly personal. Innovating one special feature to accomodate one specific group of people is potentially overlooking other group of people's needs.

This section effectively outlines the essential skills that underpin all design roles, and I find the ideas presented to be both insightful and practical. The discussion of divergent and convergent thinking is particularly compelling for me because it highlights the balance between creativity and practicality in the design process. I’ve noticed that in my own experiences, allowing time for divergence often results in more innovative ideas, while convergence ensures those ideas are grounded and feasible. The point about using failure is particularly important because it reframes failure not as a setback but as a critical step toward improvement, which alarm me to bravely embrace failure.

This paragraph offers a fascinating perspective on appropriation as a fundamental human trait, and I truly agree with the argument presented. The idea that humans have a unique ability to see objects beyond their intended purpose resonates with my understanding of creativity and problem solving. Also I think the cultural and contextual would influence the appropriation.