Each offers a different perspective: while Design Thinking focuses on solving practical problems, Speculative Design allows us to imagine and design alternative futures. The combination of these two tools helps us to expand the creative possibilities in the field of design.

Design Thinking is problem oriented and puts the user at the center of the process, which takes place in five stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test.

For me, this approach is useful because it improves the quality of my projects in that by using empathy I can focus on the real needs of users and thus create products that are more user-friendly and functional for them.

This methodology has been fundamental in my university work, particularly regarding prototyping and testing. Gathering feedback from users has led me to adjust and improve the prototypes, resulting in a more intuitive and functional interface.

I also know that this is a methodology that is valued in a professional context. My job involves detecting problems and developing solutions to them, and I know that by using design thinking, I can focus on finding the best solutions

On the other hand, Speculative Design leads us to go beyond immediate solutions and explore alternative futures. This approach is essential for challenging conventional assumptions and exploring the social and ethical implications of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

In my case, Speculative Design is a fundamental exercise because it leads me to question the long-term impact of my solutions, so that I can prevent and even adapt my solution to future scenarios that may not seem possible today.

For me, however, the real value lies in the combination of these two approaches. Design Thinking allows me to iterate and improve solutions in a practical and effective way, while Speculative Design expands my creative horizon, adapting my product to possible future realities.

This is crucial to creating a solution that meets users' needs, is user-friendly, and responds to possible future scenarios that are not yet imaginable.

By integrating these two methodologies, I feel I can develop a more complete and prepared approach to the challenges of the present and future in design, creating complete solutions.

At the heart of HCD is the idea that to create truly effective solutions, we must first deeply understand the needs, desires and contexts of the people we are designing for.

This methodology not only promises to create more effective products and services, but also has the potential to transform the way in which complex social problems are tackled in various areas, as in the case of Asili.

As described by IDEO.org in the book “Field Guide to Human-Centered Design”, the human-centered design process generally involves three main phases: Inspiration, Ideation and Implementation.

• In the Inspiration phase, the goal is to immerse yourself in the user's context to understand their behaviors, challenges and motivations. This phase is guided by empathy, through observation and interviews, which help to build a real understanding of people's experiences.

• The Ideation phase is where the team begins to explore all the ideas acquired. Here, creativity is essential, and the aim is to generate many possible solutions before moving on to the most viable ones.

• In the Implementation phase, the refined ideas are transformed into concrete solutions, and the focus turns to how these solutions will be implemented and taken to the market or target communities. This is where the vision becomes reality.

The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design also highlights the importance of working in collaboration with communities, actively involving them in the process to ensure that the solutions created not only solve problems but are also sustainable and accepted by those who will use them.

I believe this approach is useful, not just for me as professional, but for society in general. It allows us to increase the usability and effectiveness of solutions, which consequently makes them more successful. Understanding the user's needs also helps to avoid wasting resources, by preventing unnecessary errors, contributing to optimize time. Most importantly, when I focus on people, I create empathy and open the way for creativity, and this is a lever for creating different solutions that can improve the life quality for others.

Human-Centered Design offers a strong path to create solutions that truly reflect people's needs. In the short term, it provides valuable tools for problem-solving and innovation. In the medium term, HCD opens doors to leadership opportunities, social impact and greater adaptation in an ever-changing world. As more companies adopt approaches such as Design Thinking and HCD, they have observed that customers become more satisfied and loyal, as products and services are more aligned with their expectations and needs (Kolko, 2015).

I believe that mastering this methodology will be essential to my development, both as a professional and as a person, as it not only enhances my creative problem-solving skills, but also helps me to create more meaningful and humane solutions.

Design Thinking can also be a “tool” for generating insights. Empathy, experimentation and iteration are some steps that create a fundamental space for discovering insights.

• Observation

• Prototyping

• Thinking

• Iteration

All the above points are important: by observing with empathy, prototyping quickly, integrating different perspectives and iterating continuously, it is possible to discover how to solve the problem they are trying to solve, how to respond more effectively and creatively to users' needs and desires. This makes Design Thinking a very useful “tool” for generating new insights. (Brown, T. (2019)

But the insight process that I think might be most interesting, and which in a way is most suited to the needs of the public, is “behavioral insight”. To gain behavioral insight, you must spend time with the people who are going to use the product and observe them doing whatever it is they do. The aim is to understand them, gain knowledge and empathize with them. This can be achieved by absorbing and interpreting signals, but unlike “known” signals which are broad and shared, these signals are discrete and specific. Kolko (2014), in his book “Well-Designed: How to Use Empathy to Create Products People Love”, defines insights as “provocative statements of truth about human behavior”, and he argues that insights are the result of careful synthesis and analysis of data, observations and the designer's intuitions.

To obtain a more complete behavioral insight, it is necessary to become more involved in users' lives. Kolko (2014) also says that empathy and understanding must be gained to create a better, more personalized product.

• Understanding has to do with acquiring knowledge. If you've never read about the subject, never encountered it or never discussed it, there's no reason to think you can create a project to support it, so the role of behavioral research in this case is to learn.

• Empathy is about acquiring feelings. This consideration is still analytical: it's about understanding. You must try to get close to the experience and the same emotions that an 85-year-old woman experiences, so you must put yourself in the kind of situations she faces.

Although behavioral insights can be more detailed and suited to some needs that aren't met, it's a process that requires more time for research, more resources and a combination of objectivity and empathy. This can generate deeper changes in me and my emotional state, since I have to be more empathetic and immerse myself in people's personal needs.

The insights can be crucial for my future, both in terms of personal and professional development. They could enable me to identify and resolve challenges, as well as making it easier to make more assertive and efficient decisions.

The “Big Hairy Audacious Goal” (BHAG) concept is directly related to the first pillar. It represents an ambitious and seemingly unattainable goal that an institution sets for itself. In the context of the brand vision, the BHAG serves as a beacon that guides all the company's decisions and actions. A clear and ambitious vision for the future of the brand is crucial, as it provides direction and purpose, differentiating the brand in the market. This envisioned future has the power to inspire and motivate internal stakeholders (employees, managers) and external stakeholders (customers, partners), creating a sense of purpose among everyone and driving commitment and loyalty.

This is very important because it helps to provide a direction for the brand, ensuring that all its actions are aligned with a greater goal and with what the brand's values are.

Purpose is in everything we do, is a basis from which all actions are generated, it allows communication to be consistent and this helps the brand stand out in the market. Designing in line with a purpose helps you feel like you're working for the greater good, to make a positive impact on people.

In today's fast-paced digital context, brand vision is an essential strategic element that helps companies position themselves differently in the market, by highlighting what they produce and how they want to inspire their stakeholders.

These elements combined make up the brand vision, manifested through a visual identity and a user experience, which go beyond aesthetics and have a significant impact on the brand and its audience.

Actions such as the choice of colors, layout (design system) and even user experience ensure that the design is coherent and authentic, which in addition to making the brand more recognizable allows it to create a connection with users. These actions are not done haphazardly, they are always guided by the brand's strong values. By aligning the brand's actions with these values, the design ends up being much more coherent, attracting the attention of the target audience and generating user confidence.

As a professional, I want to be prepared to create products that stand the test of time and evolve with users' needs. Imagining what the future will be like allows me to stay ahead of events and even foresee problems that don't yet exist in the current paradigm. This is a huge competitive advantage, because looking to the future in a realistic way allows me to anticipate strategies, visual elements and functionalities that will be timeless.

From my point of view, adopting and effectively communicating a brand's vision through the way they communicate digitally offers numerous benefits in both the short and medium term that indirectly benefit me. Firstly, it improves the user experience, as a clear vision of the brand guides design decisions, resulting in interfaces that are more intuitive and aligned with the target audience. The digital content strategy also benefits, as content that is consistent with the brand's vision is more effective at engaging users and generating conversions, as it is aligned with the core values and objectives. For me, it also facilitates the way teams (which includes me) organize themselves, because when we all share a clear vision, the work becomes more coordinated and, consequently, better and faster results are obtained.

Finally, a well-defined vision provides greater adaptability, serving as a guide for navigating digital trends and technologies, ensuring that innovations remain in tune with the future essence, which does not allow us to deviate from the brand's vision.

The research of Heath & Heath's (2007) shows that presentations with powerful openings are 63% more likely to be remembered, making the hook an essential tool to me as a soon-to-be communication professional - When applied to web design presentations, the hook becomes particularly powerful - imagine starting a client presentation with an unexpected statistic about user behavior that challenges common assumptions. Developing a good hook not only captures attention but makes the presentation rememberable.

Looking ahead to my professional future, mastering hook techniques offers three significant advantages. First, in an increasingly competitive digital market, the ability to instantly engage stakeholders could be the difference between winning and losing projects. Second, Anderson's (2016) analysis of successful TED talks reveals that speakers who master the hook are 72% more likely to be perceived as experts in their field. Finally, these skills translate directly to web design itself - the principles of creating engaging openings apply equally to user experience design, where the first seconds of interaction often determine whether a user stays or leaves, as a designer learning and practicing this skills kill two birds with one stone.

In short, mastering the art of capturing attention right at the start of a presentation is an essential skill in today's world, where competition for attention is intense and the stimulus are overwelming. The practice of creating a powerful hook facilitates more effective interactions with clients, partners and preffesors. As a student and future professions, I find that this technique not only helps me to engage audiences in presentations, but also to make the design of experiences more attractive and memorable. I believe that by perfecting this skill, I will be better prepared to achieve good results both in projects and in communicating my work.

In my experience of developing web projects, I have observed how many projects that have rushed through the prototyping phase, driven by the anxiety to launch the final product quickly, often end up stuck in an endless cycle of corrections and adjustments. A recent example is the “Topics” app, created by a Portuguese youtuber. Due to the rush to launch and the enthusiasm for the launch event, the app was made available incompletely, with a clearly poorly thought-out design and only half of the features promised to the public, and worse still, with serious security flaws.

When a platform isn't well thought out in terms of design and functionality, it becomes difficult, for example, to structure a solid database. We are constantly adding and removing elements, making backups and creating example data that then needs to be deleted because we realize that a link between two tables is missing.

All this proves that what initially seems like a time-saver ends up turning into a development nightmare, where each correction can ruin other features of the system.

Late feedback in development is particularly problematic: when we develop without prototyping properly, crucial feedback from users comes too late in the process, when changes are significantly more costly and complex to implement. According to an IBM report, the cost of correcting a mistake after the product has been launched can be up to 100 times higher than during the design phase.

This reflection helps us to understand that prototyping is not just a phase in the development process, but a crucial investment in preventing problems and future costs. I always intend to rigorously incorporate prototyping phases into my projects, even if this may mean an apparent initial “delay” in the schedule. In the long term the benefits will be huge, this practice will help to develop more robust products that are aligned with user needs from the outset.

It is essential not to blame the error on the user. If the user has made a mistake, it's because there was room for that mistake to be made. As Laubheimer says, “the designer is at fault for making it too easy for the user to commit the error.” (Laubhaimer, 2015). Therefore, the error is not only the responsibility of the user, but also of the designer, who failed to foresee and minimize the possibilities of error.

The solution to the error is not to ask the user to try again 5000 times until they get it right or to offer a more detailed tutorial. The solution is to redesign the system to make it fail-safe, reducing the chances of error and thus reducing the user's frustration. As Wong says, “When the user is hindered from achieving their goal, it's understandable that they can feel angry or frustrated. It's no secret that confusion generally causes frustration, and frustration leads to poor user experience.” (Wong E., 2021). Making mistakes causes confusion, and confusion leads to frustration. Therefore, we should always try to eliminate the possibilities of error, so that the user feels more secure and confident.

What's more, during the development process, if we don't tell the system what to do when an error occurs (for example, when the value selected by the user isn't saved), the platform becomes confused and displays error messages that are difficult to understand for those unfamiliar with the system. In this case, it is essential to prevent all possible situations. For example, when filling in a form, we can ensure that the field only accepts numbers, that it is not filled in with “0” or blank spaces. Just as in programming, we must ensure that these conditions are dealt with. If we don't, it's our fault for not having foreseen and avoided the error. In interface design, the responsibility for the error lies with whoever didn't take the necessary steps to prevent the error from happening.

I believe that this heuristic has great value for my professional career, as it makes me question whether I have done everything possible to guarantee the best possible user experience, without errors. Reflecting on this makes my interfaces progressively better and more [error] proof.

One approach that stands out in building design systems is the Atomic Design methodology introduced by Brad Frost. This method organizes interface elements into fundamental building blocks, such as atoms, molecules, and organisms, forming a logical hierarchy. As Frost states, "this helps prevent chaos, both from a design and development standpoint" (Frost, 2016). This practice, besides being efficient, reflects my natural interest in organized and systematic structures, making it something I plan to apply in future projects.

What excites me most is how design systems bridge the gap between designers and developers by establishing a shared language and naming conventions. As Bergman (2024) points out, "a shared design language can resolve misunderstandings and eliminate wasted time clarifying design elements." This communication standard is essential to avoid collaboration issues and speed up the design-to-development process.

Learning about design systems goes beyond creating isolated interfaces. It allows me to think about scalable and sustainable solutions that can be immediately applied to my current projects. For example, the focus on component-driven development - as seen in modern frameworks like React and Vue - shows how design systems align with current web development practices. This integration makes it easier to create modular and reusable systems, enhancing collaboration between design and technology while ensuring the result is both technically and visually sound.

Edward Tufte's principles of data visualization challenges the temptation to "beautify" graphics with superfluous elements, which might seem appealing but detract from their purpose. Tufte coined the term “chart junk” to describe decorative features that do not enhance comprehension but instead create noise that distracts from the core message. His minimalist approach prioritizes clarity and precision, making it particularly relevant in today’s information-saturated world. While an interface devoid of unnecessary details might seem overly simplistic, it offers users a gratifying experience free from cognitive overload.

This minimalist approach helps in:

    •    Achieving balance

    •    Establishing hierarchy

    •    Conquering negative space

Simplicity has proven timeless, appealing to both brands and consumers. Minimalist design solutions are not only enduring but also easily adaptable, offering a foundation for consistent long-term brand identity and market recognition (Studio A, 2019).

Adopting this philosophy in data visualization requires meticulous attention to detail, such as choosing appropriate scales and defining clear, consistent labels. For instance, a chart illustrating the impacts of climate change should emphasize key trends while removing distractions like shadows or complex gradients. This is not merely about aesthetics; it’s about delivering an impactful and enduring message.

The principle of "less is more" reflects a level of design maturity that is often difficult to achieve. In my own work, I’ve realized that removing redundant elements requires both courage and conviction—it means discarding features we may personally find appealing but that ultimately detract from the user experience.

First, the claim that behavioral insights provide unmatched depth overlooks the inherent biases that can arise during observation and interpretation. Kolko (2014) highlights the importance of avoiding cognitive bias, yet the subjective nature of empathy-driven research makes it particularly vulnerable to researcher bias. Misinterpreting observed behaviors or projecting personal assumptions onto users can lead to flawed conclusions, compromising the validity of the insights.

Second, the emphasis on spending extensive time in users' environments may render the process impractical for many organizations. Empathy-driven research demands considerable resources, time, and access to diverse user groups, which may not be feasible for smaller teams or tight project timelines. This is compounded by the iterative nature of design thinking, which can prolong project durations further without guaranteeing actionable results.

Lastly, while insights are touted as enabling more personalized solutions, they risk focusing too narrowly on specific user groups. This approach might neglect broader market or demographic segments, limiting scalability and applicability. Furthermore, the heavily qualitative nature of behavioral insights may lack the robust empirical support that quantitative methods provide.

In conclusion, while behavioral insights have their merits, they are not a panacea. Their utility must be carefully balanced with practical constraints, objective validation methods, and a broader market perspective to ensure sustainable and effective design outcomes.

Furthermore, Anderson’s (2016) observation that hooks contribute to being perceived as an expert in TED talks could reflect selection bias. TED speakers are preselected for their expertise and charisma, making it unclear whether the hook alone is causative. This weakens its applicability to less curated environments, such as client pitches, where credibility may hinge more on technical accuracy and evidence.

Moreover, my colleague claims that mastering hooks aids both presentations and user experience design is overly simplistic. While initial user interaction is crucial, UX success often depends on broader systemic factors, including functionality, responsiveness, and user-centered design. The hook's principles, therefore, may only marginally apply.

Finally, the argument assumes that hooks are universally effective. In highly technical or formal fields, such attention-grabbing tactics might be perceived as frivolous, undermining credibility rather than enhancing it. Instead of over-relying on hooks, communicators should focus on context-appropriate strategies tailored to their specific audiences.

In summary, while hooks can be useful, their benefits are context-dependent and often overstated. Broader, more flexible communication strategies might yield better outcomes.

The principle of removing redundancy to achieve clarity also risks oversimplification. For instance, complex datasets might require multiple layers of annotation and contextual detail for accurate interpretation. Removing these elements to align with "less is more" could sacrifice usability and lead to misinterpretations.

Moreover, the critique of "chart junk" disregards the emotional and aesthetic engagement that well-crafted visuals can evoke. As highlighted in Kirk (2016), visuals serve not only to inform but also to captivate. A sterile, purely functional approach risks alienating audiences, especially in contexts like marketing or public communication, where emotional resonance is crucial.

Additionally, the emphasis on minimalist design assumes a high level of data literacy among users. For audiences unfamiliar with statistical norms or visual conventions, simplified visuals may fail to provide adequate guidance, ultimately hindering understanding.

In sum, while Tufte’s principles provide a valuable framework, their rigid application may not suit all contexts. Balancing simplicity with audience needs and cognitive engagement often yields more effective results. Over-reliance on minimalism risks losing nuance and connection.