This part really shows how storytelling isn’t just about what happens, but how you tell it. By shifting where the tension starts, the same basic story can be felt differently. Of course, it is a great way to keep people engaged, but it also raises questions about how much a story can be shaped before it stops being truthful, making readers feels like, in a marketing sense, the author is selling not telling his points.

That’s fascinating! I tend to think of participatory action research and other forms of communal and stakeholder-centered inquiry as recent inventions driven by progressive political and social advocacy： something new and in need of experimentation. But from a historical perspective, this was, in fact, the original way of thinking. Consider how we design at home, within our communal spaces, where knowledge is shared, refined through lived experience, and passed down through collective practice

This is 100% my feeling of applying heuristics to our project: some of the ideas are vague. For example, it's hard for me to evaluate "real world match" of a generic wix or squarespace-style website as one can argue against it in favor of Skeuomorph, but others cay say we are the generation of the Internet, so a website itself is the new readily that should be matched by other designs. Nevertheless, I found using them as design guide helpful.

My concern of A/B also has something to do with consent; due to the difficulty of establishing causal hierarchy, A/B test researchers tend to conduct this experiment on a large quantity of users and validate their success on sheer empirical observation. Prof. Spencer mentioned Facebook's controversy experiment on users' emotion when encountering negative content; I also find YouTube allows Thumbnail A/B test for creators----I feel like we are being tested on without our consent

I will tell that, combining chapters 6, 7, and beyond, there is a sense crystallizing to the very details: we started from how the app should function to front/typography designs. The clock example poses me one question: if prototyping is about figuring out what works, and interface design concerns both functionality and aesthetics, how do those two connect or diverge (in a sense, they are two sets of standards)?

Interesting. If prototyping is about making decisions, at what level should those decisions be made? For example, if I’m designing an app for pizza delivery on campus, should I test every page and feature of the app? Drawing from the reading on surveys, who should the testers, just developers or also potential users? Should we be mindful of biases, such as leading or loaded questions?

Additionally, how should we handle consecutive critiques? For instance, someone might suggest that the pizza app should also include grocery delivery. To what extent should we revise our plan in response to such feedback?

I find this particular idea interesting. If we already conduct qualitative competitive analysis on digital platforms, what’s the utility of taking screenshots, printing them out, and doing the same visual comparison? Does it help the comprehension process in a more collaborative and open-to-public way? I assume anyone walking by can see it and add their opinions.

It’s interesting to think about how feedback works in design. On one hand, domain experts have deep knowledge that can really help unlock complex problems. But on the other hand, stakeholders, even if they’re not “experts,” bring lived experiences that can reveal blind spots experts might miss. There’s a tension between insider and outsider perspectives: insiders are immersed in the project, while outsiders offer holistic views. When it comes to justice, maybe it’s not about choosing one over the other but finding a balance. Do we rely on expert voices, or do we center stakeholders who experience the impact firsthand? Maybe justice lives somewhere in between.

It ties back to assumption 1: "Half of being creative is believing you can, because the ability is already in you." There is a great contradiction in learning to be creative, as creativity itself is boundary-breaking, undisciplined thinking. Alongside the self-confidence talk of believing that you can do it, the mindset below is very help: How do we break things so we can make it better? How can we capture things/potential for improvement that were so obvious yet overlooked? Maybe thinking and behaving like a curious beginner is the answer.

In my understanding, this separation is about distinguishing scenarios, like those involving any "John" or "Amy," that people on the project understand in theory but don’t deeply empathize with because they exist in different contexts. "Models" and "boundary objects" help frame these scenarios in a way that is still directional and problem-solving-oriented, but they appeal to developers as part of a broader, more relatable mission, such as improving the American diet. It’s similar to how company mottos call for social change, giving the work in a purpose that resonates on a larger scale.

This is interesting. After conducting interviews, I found it can be challenging to distinguish between “loaded questions” or “leading questions” and “define a focus.” My guiding principle is to keep my tentative solutions to the problem I’m asking interviewees about concealed and to avoid making strong value judgments. When discussing making friends at the University of Washington or understanding the Seattle Freeze, some people tend to drift off topic and talk about safety concerns in downtown Seattle. I tried to guide them back to my original intent by asking leading questions like, “Can you tell me about your social connections on campus compared to the off-campus situation?” This helped steer the conversation back to the topic of campus life.

To grasp this single sentence, I reflect on the eight essential skills for externalizing design justice ideas. I’ve become aware that many designs can be sexist, racist, ableist, and more, but I’ve struggled to fully comprehend a systemic way of thinking. Can one simply say, "I will do better," as the solution to all these injustices? To truly design with the world, how can we innovate and engage with those who might otherwise be excluded from the design process yet remain constantly affected by its outcomes? There’s a lot to consider

I like this critique a lot as it has spoken to my concerns while reading those design paradigms: every paradigm assumes a particular set of "elements of strength"—they either claim to be more encompassing than others or more specific to targeted groups. I see the inherent tensions and contradictions.

I want to connect this with “You can think of all of these different design paradigms as simply having a different unit of analysis...Each different unit of analysis exposes different aspects of a problem, and therefore leads to different types of solutions." Based on that I want to argue that we should bring those "unit of analysis" into every steps of development or even introduce "Red Team VS Blue Team" type of thinking.