Relying on different forms of research could make challenges arise but I think it is necessary because retrieving certain data may not be possible from just one source of method. But I think different forms may strengthen how reliable data is because it could allow for cross-validation.

I would have thought that in the digital era it would be easier to collect data. I wonder what specific challenges would arise. Is it an ethics issue? The amount of data? How do researchers ensure the data they collect is valid? The sentence above this one mentioned visiting Chile to connect with respondents in rural cities. I am confused on why this was necessary if the research is on using digital media to study social science.

I think using digital media to study social science is an effective way to research it. On social media, everyone shares their thoughts, opinions, and their interactions with others are in plain view. I think observing online behavior can provide insight into social dynamics and public sentiment.

The And-But-Therefore keeps people engaged in what story of one's design and how it came to be. I think that it is necessary to use it because someone who may not be familiar with your field or the intricacies of your design may need some context/ be introduced to the problem it aims to solve. Then, they can properly engage with whatever is being taught instead of having a lot of information thrown at them. Understanding the narrative is crucial.

I think this is very important. Sometimes, people may think they are doing good by creating a resource that aims to emulate design justice, but there is a disconnect between it and the actual needs and experiences of the community it is meant to serve. One has to understand and value existing solutions without imposing their own assumptions or overriding what already works. Design justice has to come from community collaboration.

This raises the question of what constitutes a real-world match. Different users may have different mental models, so what feels intuitive to one person might be confusing to another. Even small wording choices can impact usability and highlights the importance of aligning design with users' expectations.

This shifts the focus from user mistakes to flaws in the process itself. I agree with this idea because sometimes people can follow instructions but still get stuck because of poor design or unrealized problems. This makes me think about how important it is to design systems that are intuitive and anticipate potential failures instead of just assuming users will always figure things out.

This makes me think that when designing something technological, designers may have to choose to design for IOS, or in a way that most IOS users would understand. I think this raises the question of whether designers should prioritize platform-specific design choices or opt for a more universal design. A universal design that doesn't lean more toward one brand's convention can make technology more inclusive by ensuring that users across different devices, operating systems, and maybe varying levels of tech experience can interact with it more easily.

This doesn't seem effective at all in any meaningful sense. It is fast and tool-free but lacks repeatability and precision. I don't really see how anyone can make design improvements solely through bodystorming. It's not really concrete and has nothing to measure.

What if the survey and problem doesn't have much room for "easy questions" to break up the more difficult ones? I feel like a survey shouldn't need to be simplified, but unfortunately that's the only way to get responses. If the questions are modified to be simpler, are the insights derived from them even meaningful anymore? The complexity of the subject requires more nuanced answers but then one risks losing participants. I feel like it makes one have to choose between depth and breadth.

I was wondering what can be considered a competitor. I recognize this article is mainly discussing UX design, but what if a competitor isn't necessarily another company offering a technological solution? For my group's competitive analysis, we thought competitors could be any other type of service that indirectly meets the same user needs, even if they aren't technology based.

I think an example of this is when users are met with a pop-up message on websites that requires a user to select one of two options, the block that would be most preferred to be selected is usually filled in with a dark color and on the right, while the other one isn't and is on the left. I don't disagree with the statement, but I also wonder how it isn't useful. I think it can be in some contexts. Maybe it isn't really intuitive in the natural sense but I think making predictions on how someone would interact with a system based on the several other encounters with user interfaces isn't necessarily a bad thing or something one shouldn't prioritize.

I think this is why non-STEM degrees are dying out. Anything that requires abstract thinking or creativity is looked down upon, ex: Humanities majors seen as "easy" or "not useful." I think that the skills used in these fields create a more well-rounded person and help foster innovation. In the context of informatics, I think that learning to brainstorm and generate ideas for designs and systems by understanding the broader social and ethical implications is important and can lead to more impactful solutions. Fostering this creativity through interdisciplinary learning provides a more comprehensive understanding of many challenges and how to approach them.

I think that this raises the question of what constitutes a "rich context." People may stay in their own bubble and not branch out, leading to ideas that are limited to their own environment and experiences. I think it should involve exposure to different perspectives, cultures, and settings. Additionally, maybe rich contexts can include platforms such as books, films, or online spaces that can serve as gateways.

While I agree that an argument has to be well articulated, I can't help but wonder if a manager's personal bias would contribute to whether or not a project is green lit. What if they don't see the cause as worthy? The decision can still be influenced by the manager's subjective view or priorities.

I think good arguments should connect the facts to the broader values of the organization, demonstrating the potential impact, and showing why the cause matters. Even if bias is present, I think a good argument an mitigate it.

At first I thought that there couldn't be much harm at all in using secondary research, but I realized that because it doesn't engage with people directly, there could be potential for misinterpretation or misapplication of the data. Additionally, it may not always be contextually relevant or up to date as well as the risk of overlooking bias or limitations in the original research. Primary research provides the depth and specific insight required to address design problems.

I find myself slightly disagreeing with this. While no system is perfect, I think human-centered design allows one to consider the users and their needs which ultimately results in a product that appeals to many because it addresses problems that people have expressed. I think the critique that it doesn't sufficiently address systems of activities can be applied to every other paradigm as well. I find human-centered design and universal design to be the ones that I would lean more towards when designing something, as the others seem to sacrifice too much in the process.

I agree with this, but I also wonder how a designer would be able to put themselves in other people's shoes for various situations. I think it's inevitable to have biases and preferences, and one may subconsciously prioritize those scenarios. There can be problems a user faces that a designer just doesn't think of, which is why it's important that there are people of various backgrounds on these deisgn teams.