I completely agree and think that this is an important point. The fact that this is true reflects the failure of user research and co-design in such technologies. The design of the technology is done without ensuring that user research includes ALL users of the tech, not just those in demographic majorities. This leads to bias and discrimination, and lack of usability.

I completely agree that participants should be told that the design, and not their abilities, is being tested. This approach is important because it makes sure that the participants aren't anxious while participating, encouraging them to interact more openly with the design. Ultimately, making participants feel comfortable and clearly stating the study's purpose to dive deep into the design will lead to better user feedback that we can use to improve the user experience.

I agree with the author in the crucial, but sometimes overlooked principle that a user interface is a representation and control mechanism for an underlying system of information. Trying to design the visual layout and controls without first defining what data needs to be managed (state), what actions the user can perform (inputs), and what the system needs to communicate back (outputs) is like designing the facade of a building without knowing the internal structure of it. This "model-first" approach helps keep the interface grounded in the actual functionality required, leading to a more coherent and usable design, rather than interfaces that fail to adequately support the core tasks involved in a program.

I agree with the author here because while the ideal design process might involve a lot of prototyping to keep uncertainty to as minimum as possible, real-world projects are inevitably bound by constraints. Time limitations, budget restrictions, and organizational culture shape how design decisions, including those about prototyping, are made. Ignoring these contextual factors and going for a purely theoretical approach is impractical and can lead to project delays or misalignment with organizational capabilities and goals. Acknowledging that these judgments are highly contextual reflects the reality of applying design methods effectively within specific environments.

I strongly agree with this statement because limiting research just to direct rivals can restrict the design perspective to only what currently exists within this specific market niche/area. Studying how unrelated products solve similar user experience/design problems can help in innovating better solutions and bringing in good design patterns that we might otherwise not get. This broader approach helps uncover more creative and user-friendly solutions than just iterating on what direct competitors are already doing.

While this may be controversial, I strongly agree with this statement. I think that the important point here is avoiding harm. Designs that aren't universal and exclude certain people don't just exclude people, they do harm by perpetuating inequalities and denying certain groups of people access to what are sometimes essential tools. Good design methods can almost always be used to innovate new designs that are inclusive, universal, and accessible. So we shouldn't settle for designs that aren't.

While it is true that we should aim for universal design, I believe that we shouldn't prevent non-universal designs from being made at all. This could stifle innovation and it is also hard to know for sure before implementing a design exactly which people it will leave behind. Further, many times even after designing a solution, we can brainstorm with relevant stakeholders and users and come up with creative ways to remove the bias and critique the design to alter it to be more inclusive.

This suggests that the root of creativity and innovation is inherent in people. I think that this is partially true--not everyone necessarily has the ability to come up with innovations that transform society. However, I believe that a lot of innovation comes from working with others, bouncing ideas off of other people, and trying and testing your ideas in private or public-funded labs. This all involved external actors other than yourself. So creativity isn't just an inherent individual thing, it is a collective societal thing.

While this rightly stresses the need for data-driven personas to avoid fantasy, it might oversimplify the inherent limitations of representing diverse realities through a single profile. Even "valid" personas risk essentializing user groups and overlooking individual nuances. Furthermore, the static nature of personas may fail to capture the dynamic and context-dependent nature of human experiences. Therefore, while valuable, personas should be seen as starting points for empathy, complemented by ongoing user engagement and a critical awareness of potential biases.

I agree that the many layers of causality can make solving problems challenging. However I do think that digging deep and understand the fundamentals of problems, as well as commonalities between different problems, is useful. For example, noticing and studying problems that consistently show up in the design of multiple products can help in designing new products that you can build with a completely different mindset. You can do this by digging deep and understanding the fundamentals of problems, which will help you avoid similar ones in the future.

I strongly agree with this idea because the only way to know if an implementation is good or not is to test it. And once you test it, if it fails, you can study the failures and the reasons behind them, which will help you understand what qualities a successful solution needs. This iterative process of testing and learning from failures is not just about fixing mistakes, but about building a deeper, more robust understanding of the problem space itself.