I agree with Ko here regarding how "all design choices are made relative to a prioritized set of values", but my next question is when do you realize you're consciously deciding which aesthetics supersedes others? Like Ko said, making your values explicit is important when it comes to aesthetics since it can be very subjective, so I think that it's difficult to determine which layouts, colors, font choices, frameworks, etc., is "better" than another one. When does one usually come to terms that one design is better than another? I'd like to think this coincides with design justice; I don't think there is going to be a design choice that fulfills the needs of everyone.

I really like this statement that Ko implicates regarding creativity. I think that you really haven't reached your fullest potential in creativity if you haven't immersed yourself in a different environment, where you are challenged to think outside of the box you've grown up in. Most often, creative ideas are extreme and break the social norms that we've lived in constantly for so long. A few examples are virtual reality headsets and artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT or even automated robots. They're things that have broken the norm and were once questioned by many, but is now widely accepted.

I agree with this statement. Just like design justice, it's unfeasible to sufficiently represent the entire population of a community you are addressing with just one solution. However, with personas and scenarios, I wonder if there is a certain amount or threshold that you can achieve to sufficiently capture the diversity of the goals, or is it hand-in-hand with design justice? I found this useful for the individual project we will be doing during class, since it often takes way more than just a few interviews to create a persona that is representative of a good amount of people--of course it won't represent everyone, but what would be a good amount of interviews?

I agree with this statement; to further elaborate, I believe that problems occur because society is suspectable to change. Society is constantly changing, and we are constantly adapting to this change. Problems arise as a way for us to adapt to the new change. Solutions will never directly solve a problem, because the problem is constantly changing. Just like in design justice, there will never be a "correct" way to create accessible designs that serves every one., because it's unfeasible. You can't represent the needs of everyone, and society is constantly changing. What you can do is mitigating problems that arise and attempting to solve them.

As unfortunate as this is, I agree with this statement. I believe there are ways to make design more accessible, but it will never be accessible enough to the extent where everyone shares the same, equal and equitable, experiences. People have vastly different needs, abilities, and backgrounds, which makes it difficult to create a design that serves everyone. In the example of the soap and water dispenser, I would argue that this is something that can be redesigned to optimally represent design justice; since it is not a limitation of technology, I'm sure there is a possible solution to serve every race.

I strongly agree with this statement, and I think it's very common among society and not just designers, to unconsciously create solutions that only help them because of their own experiences and environment. Part of the reason why I think this occurs is because it's difficult to obtain the personal information of others and the type of environment they grew up in. Sure, it's fairly easy to get a gist of what people experience through qualitative methods like interviews and surveys, but it's not exactly the most representative. Which I believe brings up the question on how can we make design more accessible?