DESN2002 was an elective I picked because I wanted to learn how to build better apps—especially after INFT2260. And honestly, I knew I’d made the right call the moment I stepped into the Week 1 workshop. I’ve always preferred watching lectures online and attending workshops in person, and that setup worked perfectly here.
I was especially happy this course didn’t have an exam—writing a blog felt way more natural to me. But what got me properly excited was being handed a real wicked problem to solve—one that people in industry actually face.
I set up a Notion page for journaling (not sure why I picked it, but it worked out despite a few annoying glitches). One quote from the lecture really stuck: “User-centered and user-participatory approaches… rely upon the user to provide information that the designer may not have even considered” (Salvo, 2001, p. 275). That hit home because it echoed a big learning from INFT2260—real users shape better designs.
Walking into the workshop though—I’ll admit—I felt a little out of place. Most students were way younger, and even after two years at uni, that vibe felt different. But the “How to make toast?” activity changed everything. I’d read the Interaction Design Foundation’s article on Design Thinking (n.d.) and finally understood what a wicked problem really was. The “Three Lenses of Design Thinking” gave structure to something I’d sensed before but never had words for.
Design thinking. Used under fair use for educational purposes.
I walked into Week 2 feeling both confident and nervous—excited about the course but very aware of my greying hair and how much younger everyone else seemed. Content-wise, I was loving it. Libby’s breakdown of the design process—Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test—made everything feel real and applicable. But I was totally lost trying to understand wicked mapping from Ming, Petrich, and Alberico’s (2016) piece on recycling.
Thankfully, our group formed that day—and I ended up with a fantastic bunch. From there, the mood shifted. One thing that stuck with me was Brené Brown’s (2013) empathy video. It reframed how I understood sympathy and gave me something I could apply immediately, not just with my group, but at work too.
One thing I have to mention here is the Brené Brown video on empathy—it completely changed how I think about sympathy. It gave me a visual reference I didn’t have before, and I found myself applying it at work and with my group too.
By Week 3, things were flowing better—I was learning and applying ideas in real time, and the structure of the course made a lot of sense. What stood out most was how design thinking links closely to critical thinking. It’s not just about creating, but questioning your choices and recognising your biases. Designers (myself included) can sometimes get too attached to their ideas, which kills growth. A quote from Weiner and Auster (2007) really stayed with me: thinking we know someone’s experience based on a “brief sojourn” into their world is a flawed assumption. That pushed me to keep the whole group engaged, to avoid falling into groupthink.
Weeks 4 and 5 felt like a shift—we were finally digging into the wicked problem properly. We had already committed to presenting in Week 6 to get momentum early, and our group aimed high from the start (HD was the goal!). The workshops focused on empathy and journey maps, and building personas really felt like a breakthrough. It made me reflect—maybe many failed apps skip this step. I’ve personally bounced between calendar apps—Outlook, Notion, and others—because none of them fully worked for me. Maybe we don’t have the perfect one because everyone’s needs are different. Around this time, IDEO’s (2021) piece How Would You Reimagine Learning? introduced the idea of “classroom everywhere,” which got me thinking—what if we imagined “Art Everywhere?”
Now for the big reveal—our wicked problem was: “How do we get more individuals within a community to engage with local art?” It originally stemmed from a more formal version focused on the Maitland Regional Art Gallery and art’s connection to careers and well-being.
In prep for our Week 6 presentation, we all built user personas. My tech background had me naturally leaning toward a digital solution, and after reading about blockchain’s role in reshaping the music industry, I pitched an app—kind of like Spotify for art. Two more solid ideas came from the group, and we decided to run a quick survey. I personally talked to five people to validate our direction.
One teammate handled slide design, and I made sure my research and references were added early. The night before, I reviewed my part and the readings. When the day came, we were in sync. The nerves were still there, but this time I felt ready. The Q&A went great, and it was rewarding to see everything come together.
Week 7 wasn’t the easiest—I was unwell and had to take a step back. But I couldn’t stop thinking about our app. That’s when I came across van Doorninck and Schouten’s (2020) article on Amsterdam’s use of the Doughnut Model. It was a dense read but left me inspired to consider sustainability in our design. With tech evolving rapidly, especially AI, I felt sustainability needed to be part of the conversation. I parked the idea for now, knowing I’d return to it once we had a firmer grip on our solution.
Even during the mid-semester break, I couldn’t stop thinking about the project. Ben had said something in a lecture that stuck with me—“knowing who you’re designing for is just as important as what you’re designing.” That hit hard. One of our group members had emailed the gallery, but we hadn’t heard back. So, I dragged my 11-year-old and went myself.
The gallery visit was a great move. I soaked in the space, the vibe, and even saw art made using toothbrushes and coffee—my son loved it. Just as we were admiring it, the gallery contact walked in, and we had a proper chat. When I shared our app idea, they seemed genuinely interested. Suddenly, things got real—we had a potential stakeholder on board.
While planning the group visit and continuing the app’s development, I decided to expand my perspective. I watched Natasha Jen’s “Design Thinking is Bullsh*t” talk. She made some fair critiques—mainly that asking questions alone isn’t enough. But then I thought back to Ben’s counterpoints. Her argument felt too one-sided. To me, design thinking is also about checking if your solution is actually solving the right problem. I’ll come back to this during the rose, bud, and thorn reflection.
Our group finally made the gallery visit, and it was a turning point. The app idea resonated with them, and we now had their interest. Luckily, I read 5 Common Low-Fidelity Prototypes and Their Best Practices from the Interaction Design Foundation (n.d.), and it really helped me validate my approach. I built a wireframe from our low-fidelity sketch before the visit, and that really helped push the discussion forward. With very little time left, I knew I had to dive straight into the Figma prototype.
AI set up a Typeform survey to collect feedback, but hit a snag—it only allows 10 responses on the free plan. Still, I read every response carefully and used them to plan updates for the second iteration. Around this time, I revisited the article Stage 4 in the Design Thinking Process: Prototype from the Interaction Design Foundation (n.d.), and one line stuck with me—”build with the user in mind.” That really kept me focused.
Building a product isn’t a straight path—it’s messy, like the article on iterative design pointed out. So, instead of aiming for a final version, I focused on realistic fixes. For the next survey, I moved to Microsoft Forms—no limits, and honestly, I should’ve used it from the start. Lesson learnt.
Then came the rose, bud, and thorn activity in the workshop, and I won’t lie—it threw a bit of a spanner in the works. It brought up issues we hadn’t fully considered. But affinity mapping helped us see that some of those thorns had already been addressed in the second prototype. One big thorn was about communication—how people would even understand what the app was or how to use it. That’s where the short promo video would help bridge the gap.
Suddenly, it was the night before the final presentation. We had planned our schedule weeks in advance, so everything was prepped—slides were up to date, feedback was visualised, and we’d done the rounds.
But of course, something had to go “bup.” One of our group members was missing, and it messed with our plan to present first. We waited—because it wouldn’t have been right to leave them out. When they did arrive, they weren’t feeling the best, but we pulled together and got it done. Honestly, the presentation went so smoothly, and we nailed the Q&A. All the hard work and late nights were worth it. I really hope I can work on this project further and see it through.
References
Salvo, M. J. (2001). Ethics of engagement: User‐centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1003_6
Interaction Design Foundation. (n.d.). Design thinking. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-thinking
Brown, B. (2013, December 10). Brené Brown on empathy [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw
Ming, J., Petrich, J., & Alberico, R. (2016). Understanding where recycling goes wrong: A wicked problem. Medium. https://medium.com/transition-design/understanding-where-recycling-goes-wrong-a-wicked-problem-d8d4ad1dd6f5
Weiner, J., & Auster, E. R. (2007). From empathy to caring: Defining the ideal approach to a healing relationship. The Permanente Journal, 11(2), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/07-033
IDEO. (2021). How would you reimagine learning? 5 visions for our post-COVID future. https://www.ideo.com/post/how-would-you-reimagine-learning-5-visions-for-our-post-covid-future
van Doorninck, M., & Schouten, C. (2020). The doughnut model for a fairer, greener Amsterdam. Green European Journal. https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/the-doughnut-model-for-a-fairer-greener-amsterdam/
Jen, N. (2017, July 12). Design thinking is bullsht* [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8gjDsW3lsY
Interaction Design Foundation. (n.d.). 5 common low-fidelity prototypes and their best practices. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-common-low-fidelity-prototypes-and-their-best-practices
Interaction Design Foundation. (n.d.). Stage 4 in the design thinking process: Prototype. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/stage-4-in-the-design-thinking-process-prototype
Interaction Design Foundation. (n.d.). Prototyping: Learn eight common methods and best practices. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/prototyping-learn-eight-common-methods-and-best-practices
Leave a Reply