I think this paragraph does a great job at connecting the and-but-therefore template to the tripartite act structure. I agree with the general conclusions that come of out it. For example, there is tension that occurs here, because the use of the word "but" really does make the reader wonder what is standing in the way of the goal or the scenario as it exists in the form "and". The therefore ties it all together by making us understand why we should care about something or what we can do. These templates are helpful when we create and present a project. We want to explain the real-world context, the problems standing in our way, and the solution as we look forward.

This was really interesting to me. It's interesting to think about how we don't always anticipate the consequences of technologies, but this term has developed throughout history as we see consequences arise. It's important to consider future impacts in developing industries, because there is al ot that we don't know.

I agree with this statement. It seems evident that in society, those who are marginalized will have their voices silenced and their experiences disregarded. It is also possible that they will have barriers to rising to power in positions where they can dictate design decisions (like the so-called glass ceiling).

I think being representative of stakeholders is a very important part of the design process. That means having a deep understanding of the problems they run into while accomplishing their tasks. Finding representative samples is the difficult part, but its important to have an idea of scope, and what you're looking to find, while still being flexible as priorities change.

I think this is a important to note, and I agree that no design choice is neutral. Everything that is designed will have a tradeoff, and determining who to serve by the choices made is always hard. For example, is serving the majority the best course of action? Or is designing for a specific group more empowering? With limited time and resources, it isn't possible to serve everyone, but having good intentions and desinging with accessibility in mind helps reduce the most common flaws.

I agree with this statement, and have to keep it in mind as I work through this project. The purpose of prototyping is to discover knowledge and it is a process done to iterate and find the best solution. I have a tendency to want to make the first draft the best, but simply working on it gives time to pivot and adjust solution through testing and getting feedback.

I agree with this statement, and I think it is one I really have to keep in mind while I do this project. I shouldn't be focused on making my prototype the best iteration, but getting it done. This will allow me time to keep iterating and receiving feedback. it also creates the opportunity to pivot if the solution doesn't work or needs to be adjusted. We often don't realize some of the sneakiest problems until we prototype.

I totally agree with this statement. When I was working as a product management intern, I struggled with the scope of my project (since it was very vague), and my interview questions while gathering requirements were also vague ("What would you like to see in this system I'm building?" Because of this, I would get answers that were unclear or also outside of the scope of my project. By crafting good questions, this ambiguity is erased, and I agree with the part about balancing this with not asking biased questions. We want to guide the person we're interviewing, not to a specific answer, but rather to a "useful" answer, or at least one that is in scope.

I like this statement. It's important to remember that if you are coming up with a solution to something, this problem has already been thought of, and you are likely not the first person to acknowledge its existence, even if a solution doesn't exist yet. Keeping this in mind, I believe every project should start off with a competitive analysis, and when there is no equivalent, we can still gain insights into our competitors through other creative means of analyzing competition (how do they mitigate a problem if not solving it completely?) Sometimes knowing what not to do is equally as helpful as knowing what to do.

I find Buchanan's argument about design evolving into a new liberal art very interesting. The way we think about design as a separate field that shows up in many different formats is a newer idea overall. His point that traditional liberal arts have fragmented into specialized fields resonates with how modern education often isolates disciplines. Design thinking, by contrast, bridges these gaps, integrating knowledge from both the arts and sciences to address real-world problems. This holistic approach feels increasingly necessary in a world where complex issues demand interdisciplinary solutions.

The more time I spend in online spaces, the more I agree with this statement. I think this really depends on what is being critiqued, though. The democratization of review platforms (Yelp, Goodreads, Letterboxd) was a good thing for society overall, and they have their own values and sometimes I do want to know what people in my neighborhood think of the casual burger joint hat just opened up. However, maybe I wouldn't trust them to critique a really unique tasting menu worth $300 and read the NY Times reviewer's critique on it instead (not that I'm ever spending that much on a meal). It isn't about elitism or what constitutes as an expert, but rather about objectivity and critiquing based on function, rather than personal opinion, which casual reviewers and casual critics tend to fall back on.

I agree with this statement. I think part of the design process is having faith in yourself and that the things you "notice" or come up with are relatable and valuable in some way. Once that is achieved, everything else becomes a process of iteration and improving the result.

This is interesting, and I agree to some extent. I'm curious about the process of thinking up a persona; If I understand a problem in theory because I hear about it through the grapevine, do I need to do specific interviews to identify a person with this experience? It's possible that I would gain an understanding of the problem, but not underlying factors, so in theory I know the symptoms but not the diagnosis.I think that's where the "grounded in reality" part comes in.

I agree with this statement. I think it's important to acknowledge the limitations of our choices regarding design, and that even the most well-meaning people will fall short. But it is important to mean well regardless, and be intentional about serving those who need the most help instead of assuming we are choosing the best option and patting ourselves on the back for meeting a very narrow need.

I disagree with this statement, as much as I can understand where it is coming from. Automatic soap dispensers are a good thing, and they serve a purpose (reducing the bacteria transmitted by handle dispensers). As it mentioned in the chapter, iterating on design to make it more inclusive or "better" is inherently part of the design process or should be. It is difficult to anticipate every need, but without testing and going-to-market, it will be impossible to build anything worth building,

I agree with this statement, and I think it poses an interesting question about the process of justifying a design choice. If no design is acceptable to everyone, does the ultimate outcome depend on power and hierarchy (CEO's choice vs. designer) or whoever can communicate their choice better regardless of what the majority believes or the amount of people a design choice accommodates. It seems like these are the main decision factors that go into justifying a choice, and in my opinion, cost/benefit (whether monetary or not) would be the best justification, but ultimately the better communicator will win out except in issues of hierarchy.