In fact, one of the main benefits of the model is the convergence and divergence of thinking. In the discovery phase, the problem is identified and all kinds of ideas for solving it begin to be explored, which stimulates creativity and innovation, in other words, it's something that helps you to think outside the box at that very moment, and very different ideas can emerge. For example, when trying to solve a problem during the discovery phase, it is possible to find needs that aren't immediately obvious, through focus groups, brainstorming and mind maps. In the second phase, the plan to be developed is defined on the basis of the ideas from the discovery phase, in other words, this phase aims to focus on the main ideas obtained in order to solve the problem. Thus, the aim of this stage is to define exactly what the problem to be solved is in order to avoid ‘drifting’ from what is supposed to be solved. This phase will therefore be advantageous in the medium term, for example, to improve efficiency in solving the problem, as it allows us to arrive at a clear definition of what we need to solve and to make the solution more targeted more quickly.

It is in the development phase that we put the idealised solution into practice, which encourages a process of collaboration and iteration, which is very useful, especially when we are working in a group, as it allows the solution put into practice to be a mixture of the ideas of everyone in the group, thus promoting inclusion between them in the short term. In addition, this phase allows you to easily test what is being developed, for example through prototyping, which reduces the risk of opting for a single solution too soon.

Finally, the delivery phase aims to refine and test the solution obtained before it is implemented, which allows the design to be aligned with the user's needs and expectations. It's therefore beneficial in the medium term because it allows you to deliver more user-centred solutions.

In summary, Double Diamond allows us to divide the process of developing a digital solution into specific phases, which makes it easier to organise the work over time and ensures that the solution is well thought out and tested before it is applied.

Personas provide the ‘Who?’, they are fictional representations of users with specific characteristics and behaviours, developed to guide user-centred design decisions. According to Pruitt and Adlin in ‘The Persona Lifecycle,’ personas are a powerful tool for understanding users' needs, goals and behaviours over time. An example of this is Airbnb's use of personas, in which we can identify: solo travellers, families and business travellers. Based on this, it is clear that its functionalities are adjusted to meet the expectations of each group. For example, if a persona represents families, Airbnb prioritises features such as filtering by amenities for families and providing recommendations for activities for children nearby. However, if you look at personas, they end up being superficial when used on their own, as they are based on fixed characteristics such as age, occupation and location. Archetypes therefore address this gap, helping to gain a deeper understanding of users' behavioural patterns and motivations, exploring the “How” and “Why” behind their actions. A real example is Netflix, which uses behavioural Archetypes to personalise content recommendations based on what users see, which gives each of us an individualised experience when using the platform.

That said: Can using both at the same time be an asset?

The answer is yes, because when we put both pieces of information together, we're not just looking at a set of data, but at a complete ‘person’, with dreams, fears, frustrations, challenges and aspirations. What's more, we're also looking at their emotional side, where we can identify the behaviours and decisions in specific contexts that end up shaping them. All this makes the combination of these tools more powerful, where design can be adjusted both to meet pragmatic needs and to create emotionally engaging experiences.

It can therefore be said that the creation of personas plays a fundamental role in improving the user experience, since it allows for a deeper understanding of users needs, expectations and behaviors. However, Archetypes are an important complement because they explore the psychological part of users, which allows you to identify not only what users say they need, but also what really motivates them in specific scenarios.

• Pruitt, J., & Adlin, T. (2006). "The Persona Lifecycle"

• https://stacy-beach.medium.com/the-power-of-user-personas-to-drive-business-success-1f247b5bd7ae

• https://riggydigs.medium.com/personas-vs-archetypes-how-we-use-them-to-influence-our-design-decisions-bc47325b0cd9

• https://buildux.com/blog/personas-vs-archetypes-in-ux-differences-similarities-significance

In the long term, we know that society is changing, so shouldn't insights also be constantly evolving?

As designers, instead of focusing exclusively on how to form precise and lasting insights, we can stop and think about how to use them to encourage a culture of experimentation and continuous adaptation. After all, the complexity of user needs is not solved in a single moment but through constant iteration, i.e. the needs that users have today may not be the needs of tomorrow and therefore that insight will no longer make sense in the context in which it was inserted. Therefore, we shouldn't see an insight as something that is 100 per cent complete, but rather as something that can be perfected as the user's desires evolve. What's more, an insight not only reveals a non-obvious truth about the present, it can also be used to imagine the future and prepare solutions to accompany these changes. For example, a designer can apply foresight techniques to expand the scope of an insight and design a scenario that anticipates changes in user needs and expectations. Therefore, when reflecting on insights in Design Thinking, it becomes clear that insights can not only be something found in the present, but also tools used to anticipate the future, since a designer can create more flexible and durable products or services by anticipating changes in users' desires and needs.

This idea can be related to the parable of the ‘elephant and the blind’, in which several blind people touch different parts of an elephant and each one describes the animal according to the part they touched. For one, touching the body, the elephant is like a wall; for another, touching the tail, it's like a rope; while for another, touching the tusk, it's like a spear. Similarly, symbols, although the same in form, are interpreted in different ways by each of us, depending on our experiences and perceptions. Like the blind men in the parable, our idea of a symbol is moulded by the experiences and interactions we have had.

Creating effective symbols requires designers to have a deep understanding of the cultural, psychological and emotional differences that influence how these symbols are interpreted. In design thinking, which is based on a user-centred approach, this understanding becomes even more essential. The challenge lies in the fact that the same symbol can evoke completely different emotions or meanings depending on the cultural context - a colour that conveys love and compassion in one society can symbolise pain or death in another. This factor highlights the importance of making brands flexible and able to adapt to the audience they want to reach, ensuring that their message is received appropriately and effectively. Design thinking, by placing the user's needs at the centre of the process, facilitates this adaptation and ensures that symbols resonate positively with different audiences. An interesting example of how cultural adaptation can influence branding is the case of Honda, which had to change the name of one of its car models due to a linguistic coincidence. The model initially called ‘Fitta’ was quickly renamed Honda Jazz in Europe, since ‘Fitta’ is a colloquial word for ‘vagina’ in Norwegian. This quick adjustment allowed Honda to avoid a negative association with the original name, demonstrating the importance of realising cultural nuances when introducing products to different markets. In short, symbols form a powerful and universal language in the world of branding. They transcend language barriers, communicating directly with consumers' emotions and perceptions. Branding professionals thus build symbolic narratives that remain etched in the public's memory, creating an experience that goes far beyond the simple act of consumption.

One of the moments when storytelling can fit like a glove is when you need your pitch to make your audience think on a deeper level. Presenting facts and figures is important, but a pitch overloaded only with statistics can lack the more emotional side that makes it memorable. Of course, if we could, I'm sure we'd want to control the audience's emotions and etch our message into their memories with ease. However, since that's not possible, we turn to developing a narrative to help create that lasting impression. There are countless ways to integrate narrative into a pitch. A good way might be to start, for example, by sharing a personal experience related to the project in question, narrating a moment that helps capture the essence of the idea or why it's important. When narrative is used, the audience usually becomes more involved in what is being said because they are sharing an experience that goes beyond the slides, in other words, it's as if they enter a parallel world where the idea has already been applied and succeeded.

Narrative is, in essence, an invitation to experience something real and meaningful. And if you're able to create that experience, it's almost impossible for the audience not to feel drawn in. In the end, we're all a bit tired of monotonous presentations without narratives, leaving us indifferent. With storytelling, you can turn what could be a routine presentation into something memorable and impactful, i.e. something that has the potential to stay in the audience's mind even after the pitch is over.

So an effective approach to dealing with this situation is prototyping. Prototyping is not just an initial design stage, it is an important phase that allows clients to visualise, test and adjust an idea before it is translated into a complex design, or even code. Of course, prototyping takes time and patience of trial and error, but when the benefits are explained, its value becomes clear.

• Allows problems to be identified early and saves money and resources in the long term

One of the main reasons for the effectiveness of prototyping is cost efficiency. By creating low-fidelity prototypes, designers and developers can identify and resolve possible design flaws before moving on to development, where corrections are more costly. Just as architects draw up plans to foresee problems before construction, prototyping allows them to visualise the flow and avoid redoing ‘x’ product functionality later.

• Validate the product through tests with real users

Prototyping allows tests to be carried out early on, which makes it possible to understand how users interact with the product and whether the prototyped functionalities really correspond to their needs. This makes it quicker and less costly and time-consuming to adjust what is needed before the development phase.

• Getting the idea across to the end user

Communicating an idea isn't always easy. It's very common to imagine one thing and communicate something completely different. This can be very dangerous if not tackled from the outset, so prototyping is an opportunity to tackle this gap quickly and efficiently. This way, the needs of the application's real future users are realised and the designers/developers get in tune with what needs to be done.

In short, although prototyping may seem like a trivial step, it is an approach that, in the long run, helps save time and money.

• Visibility

According to the principle of visibility, the most visible elements are those in which the user is likely to know what to do next. On the other hand, when an element is less visible, the user will know less about it and consequently may find it difficult to know how to use it. Achieving this balance can be a challenge, as designers must avoid overloading the user with information, but they must not hide the main functions either. According to Norman, the secret lies in realising which elements are really important and highlighting them, leaving the secondary ones in the background.

• Feedback

Feedback arises from the need to inform the user of their interactions with the system. This principle is essential, especially when the user is not yet familiar with all the elements of the application. For example, in an online shop, when the user adds a product to the basket, an immediate visual confirmation helps to ensure that the action was successful, otherwise the user could become confused and even repeat the action.

• Consistency

Like the feedback principle, the consistency principle aims to reduce the user's uncertainty and concerns during their experience. A design based on consistency makes the environment and context of use of an application more familiar, even in situations that are new to the user. Design systems are a great help in ensuring that this principle is properly applied. For example, in a bank application, the uniform arrangement of action buttons (such as ‘Confirm’ and ‘Cancel’) on all pages helps the user to know where to click without hesitation, regardless of the operation they are carrying out.

• Mapping

When a user action has an impact on the space of a particular product, that action must be mapped correctly to indicate the expected route. For example, in a mobile driving game, when turning the virtual steering wheel, the user expects the map to turn in the same direction, i.e. it wouldn't make sense for the user to turn the steering wheel to the right and the map to turn to the left.

• Constraints

In products with many functionalities, users can feel overwhelmed by the multiple options available. The principle of restrictions aims to limit the actions the user can take when they are not applicable at the time. This helps reduce confusion and improves the experience. For example, in a text editor, when there is no text selected, the ‘Copy’ or ‘Cut’ options are disabled, avoiding fruitless attempts and clarifying what can be done.

• Affordances

Finally, there is the principle of affordances. This principle emphasises the importance of providing users with clues as to how to perform a particular action. By offering these indications, the way in which the action is carried out becomes more obvious. For example, in an online form, a ‘Submit’ button with an arrow icon suggests that this is where the user should click to submit the information, making the action more intuitive.

Information designers rely on fundamental design principles that we have already covered, for example, according to Donald Norman, which ensure effective communication: Visual Consistency (consistent and easily recognisable designs, e.g. Uber's visual identity manual, which ensures uniformity in colours, typography and graphic elements, reinforcing a cohesive and professional visual identity), Clarity and Simplicity (e.g. infographics featured in the Expresso newspaper, demonstrate how the complexity of data can be simplified without compromising accuracy), Information Hierarchy ( a clear hierarchy is crucial to guiding the viewer's eyes in an intended logical way).

Using these principles forms a basis on which information designers can build and ensure that visual communication is efficient. By applying consistency, clarity and hierarchy, it is possible to create experiences that overcome linguistic, ethical and cognitive barriers, which promotes an easier and more intuitive understanding of the information presented.

However, contemporary society is constantly exposed to a large amount of data, and for example, metre maps of large cities such as London try to balance the amount of essential information without overwhelming users. However, the wrong approach can result in confusion and difficulty in extracting relevant data or, in this case, make people unable to orientate themselves geographically.

Even so, this type of design is constantly evolving, driving innovations that explore new ways of presenting and interacting with data. This is the case with Augmented Reality, which has taken the presentation of data to a new dimension. Today it is possible to explore a virtual museum of information, where graphics and statistics are superimposed on the real environment via mobile devices. For example, in tourist offices where augmented reality is used to provide data on the sights of a particular location in a more immersive way.

In short, these innovations not only make information more accessible, but also transform the way we interact with it, providing more engaging and understandable experiences.

Also, although brainstorming and focus groups are ways to "find needs that aren't immediately obvious" they may not capture user needs effectively in its entirety, whether it be because of biases or because the participant sample isn't diverse enough.

It's mentioned that the delivery phase is user-centered, but in the event that participant feedback doesn't actually align with the goals that have been defined, coordinating user expectations and solutions becomes an undesired challenge, which undermines this phase's complexity that is somewhat simplified within the reflection.

Even though the double diamond model is an effective work model, it's not applicable to all cases. It values clarity above everything else and that detail in and of itself is its biggest weakness as it's a reminder of the fact that more complex or messy projects in which the differences between multiple phases may sometimes defy what the model defies as "clear".

Firstly, the "elephant and the blind" metaphor is a sub-optimal metaphor for explaining how symbols are intrepreted differently according to who is looking at them, oversimplifying the rather complex nature of symbolic meaning. Symbols aren't meant to simply fetch different perspectives: they have a potential for triggering opposed reactions depending on the cultural, historical or individual values and perspectives of those observing it. For example, anyone who looks at the hammer and sickle symbol will most likely recognize it as a communist symbol and attribute an emotion to it: it can be a symbol of pride and good for some, but others may see it as a symbol of oppression or evil. Roland Barthes' book "Mythologies" addresses this issue pretty effectively, explaining why and how symbols may acquire twisted or contradictory meanings over time.

While it's mentioned that design thinking needs to be flexible in order to compensate for cultural nuances and differences, it's not referenced how to address the challenge of balancing adaptation with global consistency and longevity.

Also, even though the Honda Fitta example is mentioned, explained and cited, there are no references claiming or supporting what's said about symbol universality, about cultural adaptation and the role it plays in symbolic power and about the psychological effects and powers held by symbols. Mentions to authors such as Edward Tufte could strengthen the claims made regarding these topics within the reflection, ensuring its authority and credibility.

It's assumed that clients always instantly understand how valuable prototyping is once the procedure's explained to them, but this isn't often the case. In most instances, clients are reluctant and may even oppose the idea of prototyping as some may believe it's merely waste of time that halts progress or adds extra costs. Surely, there are strategies used in the prototyping stage that address this very issue, but they are overlooked and not explained in this reflection.

There's also a heavy focus on the cost efficiency and user testing side of prototyping is strongly mentioned, but it's oversimplified. Take low-fidelity prototypes, for example: due to their often simplistic and bare-bones nature, they might not always illustrate the final product accurately, which usually leads to misaligned expectations that don't meet results. User feedback is crucial to ensure iteration and accuracy are in sync, which minimizes this problem.

And while prototyping does indeed strengthen communication, there's always the risk of existing some sort of miscommunication between different teams (for example, designers and engineers) or even between individuals. Certain tools can be employed in order to minimize this issue, but they require a lot of time and expertise to be implemented and applied effectively.

Lastly, the lack of references besides a simple website link undermines the reflection's credibility and depth. Referencing Donald Norman's book "The Design of Everyday Things" would boost the claims' credibility. The reflection correctly highlights the benefits of prototyping, but doesn't highlight its challenges and potential undesired effects or outcomes.