This theory was created by Simon Sinek and shows us the importance of starting with the why (the purpose), before moving to the how (the process), and then the what (the result).

The way I see it, the Golden Circle is like a guide for creativity. When we understand the why behind an action, we can better manage the how, which leads us to the best what—the solution. This way of thinking is especially useful in design.

As a designer, my job isn’t just to find solutions—I also have to make sure I’m solving the right problems. Looking for the why is important here because, many times, the real issue isn’t obvious. What we first see as the problem may only be a small part of it. By searching for the why, I can find the real root of the problem, often uncovering issues that are hidden or misunderstood.

One thing that happens to me often when I start a new project is that I get many ideas during brainstorming. Without a clear why to guide me, I might follow ideas that seem good but are not deep or lasting. By focusing on the why, I make sure that every choice and idea has a reason behind it, leading to results that are more effective and personally satisfying.

The why helps us understand other people’s views, which I believe is very important for a designer. Humans never act "just because." Even when we don’t notice it, there is always a reason behind what we do. Finding the why is important because it helps us make decisions that fit with our main values.

This way the why acts as a compass, giving direction when there are many choices. It helps to stay focused and make decisions that match the project’s goals and my own values, avoiding the superfluous. Thinking this way can also make me more flexible because, no matter what project I’m working on, It allows me to add a part of myself to it, making my work feel more real and meaningful.

In the end, the why gives the clarity and drive needed to design solutions with empathy and confidence. It’s a tool that improves problem-solving and keeps the designer connected to the deeper purpose behind it’s work that’s why I think it is an important tool in my professional life that I surely will always integrate in everything I’ll do in the future.

We must design for a specific audience. If we attempt to include numerous features to satisfy the needs of a wide range of people, we will end up with a product that doesn't truly meet the needs of anyone. For instance, let’s imagine designing a sofa without defining who it’s for. Features that might please some users would likely interfere with the satisfaction of others, resulting in a product that is imperfect for everyone—no one would buy it.

That’s why I find the approach of creating personas so useful. When you create a persona, you choose specific individuals to design for, and then focus on their particular goals and needs, adjusting how the product should act and behave accordingly.

As humans, it’s normal to have our own views of the world, and sometimes it’s difficult to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. As designers, it’s easy to fall into the trap of designing for ourselves or an abstract 'average' user but designing for a persona—someone with a name, a face, motivations, and realistic problems—makes it feel more like we are designing for someone we know well, rather than shooting in the dark. They help bridge the gap between our own biases and the real needs of users.

Personas can also support decision-making when trade-offs are necessary. During development, compromises are inevitable—I’ve experienced this myself in university projects, where we had to discard some features simply because we didn’t have enough time. In such situations, personas offer a valuable reference point for evaluating which compromises will have the greatest impact on the user experience. Instead of making guesses, we can focus on what’s most relevant to the persona’s needs, ensuring that the product remains effective and user-centered.

As a multifaceted professional, I believe this approach is also helpful when publicizing a product. When you know exactly who you’re designing for, you can craft targeted marketing messages that speak directly to the concerns, and motivations of your personas. You can also choose the most effective platforms and formats (whether video, photography, etc.) that will best capture the attention of your target audience.

In conclusion, I think personas clarify the purpose of the product and the design process. Knowing that I’m creating something that will truly improve someone's life makes my decisions more impactful. It helps me focus on which functionalities to prioritize, ensuring that the design is made to meet the needs of that specific persona. This approach makes the design process not just practical, but purposeful.

User stories are like a way of moving on to practice without committing more time and (in the case of the industry) money, because this way we can fix problems early on, without moving on to the next phases, such as prototyping and even implementation. They are a tool that allows us to imagine how the product would work in reality - an imaginary playground that makes it possible to study the hypotheses of use - and are therefore essential for identifying problems before they even happen.

In my experience, these practices have helped me to anticipate problems and improve the flow of development. Often, when I’m working on a project, I think about various features and possibilities and forget the essentials. Skipping some important steps, some key functionalities that our product must have in order to work properly. With this method, we can ensure that the most essential functionalities - those without which the platform (app, web page) we have developed would not be functional or usable - are properly prioritized and not forgotten in heads full of ideas.

The study “User story quality in practice: A case study” delved into the quality of user stories in real projects, showing that, when used correctly, user stories are effective in ensuring that functionalities are aligned with user needs. By following standards such as INVEST (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small and Testable), user stories become a powerful means of communication between the team and stakeholders.

In addition, user stories are essential for user-centered design, as they are made based on the personas (created in the previous phase), their problems and their goals. Personas themselves are characters created based on the real users of our product. In this way, we are able to design the functionalities of our application while always taking the user's values, goals and frustrations into account, instead of thinking only from our perspective, which often doesn't take into account real and common problems that the user faces. This helps us to discard elements that will be confusing or that simply won't be useful and therefore don't need to be in the final product. I believe that in good design, “less is more”.

As highlighted in the study "User stories: A framework for software requirements. In Science of Computer Programming", it is also important that the user stories are clear, without including unnecessary technical details that could distract attention from the user’s main goals. The clear separation between problems and solutions was also identified as essential to avoid conflicts between requirements and ensure that functionalities are implemented efficiently.

In conclusion, user stories are not just tools for better development—they're essential for keeping the user at the center of every design decision. By simplifying complex ideas into clear, focused requirements, they allow teams to prioritize what truly matters, ensuring both the product’s usability and user satisfaction.

The first step "Obtain the adequate information about the sender" is crucial in any design process —it’s not just about knowing the brand, but about deeply understanding its essence, values, and audience. As Kapferer (1997) a brand must be recognized clearly and quickly, saving the consumer time. This can only happen when the designer fully understands the brand. When we don’t study and investigate enough about the brand, the design turns out superficial, failing to communicate the brand’s true identity. That's why this foundational step ensures that all design decisions are relevant.

Designers can never shoot in the dark, that never works well, they must investigate and search to know the right thing to do aligning the visual strategy and the brand message helps keeping the brands values present at all steps in the end this separates good design from truly effective design.

Another important aspect of visual identity is differentiation. A brand can never stand out if it isn’t doing something different. That’s why Bellucia’s fourth step—Analyse and evaluate the environment—is so crucial. No matter how creative a design is, it can’t be made in isolation. Designers must always consider what the competition is doing. Jensen and Beckmann (2009) mention that creativity in branding relies on adapting to market changes while staying true to the brand’s essence. By analyzing the competitive landscape, I can gain insight into what competitors are doing and, more importantly, discover opportunities to differentiate the brand. This analysis can help me avoid creating designs that mimic what already exists in the market and instead pushes for real innovation.

In addition to understanding the market, designers must also examine what is already working well within the brand. That’s why I find brand diagnosis phase is very important. In this phase, the designer identifies what’s already effective in the brand’s visual identity and what needs improvement. De Chernatony (1999) argues that a brand’s success depends on closing the gap between how the brand wants to be perceived and how the audience actually perceives it. The diagnosis helps identify this gap, facilitating the work needed to close it. I find this phase important because, in recognizing our strengths, we can focus on refining the areas that need improvement, while still doing what already works well.

This method isn’t just a set of steps to follow. It provides a structure that helps designers navigate the complexities of branding, balancing innovation with consistency. As a designer following this steps, understanding the client, the market, and the audience, makes me a better professional prepared to create a visual identity that not only grabs attention but also builds an authentic and lasting connection with the audience standing out in the market.

The intersection of storytelling and information retention is a great opportunity for web communication designers. Gottschall's (2012) groundbreaking research reveals that information delivered through stories is up to 22 times more memorable than facts alone, this suggests a hidden potential in how we present our solutions.

When presenting an idea, we want it to stick—and the best way to achieve that is by tapping into people’s emotions. Sharing relatable stories that resonate with them not only makes the content more memorable but also ensures they remember its essence with ease.

And this couldn’t be more true - recent neuroscience research by Zak (2014) in the Harvard Business Review demonstrates that storytelling triggers the release of oxytocin, often called the "trust hormone," making it a powerful tool for building client relationships. When audiences experience a well-crafted story, their brains react as if they're living the experience themselves, that can create deeper engagement and stronger memory formation.

In my vision, storytelling in design isn’t just a practical skill—it’s a way to bring more purpose and satisfaction into my work. I know that being able to connect with people on an emotional level is crucial, not only to make ideas memorable but to make them meaningful. This skill could be especially beneficial when I'm trying to get buy-in from people who don’t immediately see the value in a design concept. By framing an idea as a story, I can create that "aha" moment where everything clicks for them, which feels incredibly rewarding.

Also, as someone who often works with different perspectives and expectations, I see storytelling as a way to ease communication. It’s easier to explain complex concepts when I can turn them into relatable narratives, reducing the frustration of technical misunderstandings. This would also help me develop stronger client relationships early on, showing them that I’m genuinely interested in what matters to them and that I can bridge our ideas effectively.

In the long run, I think storytelling will give me a creative edge. It’s a skill that doesn’t just help me stand out, but it also makes my work feel more personal and purposeful. Instead of just “delivering” on a project, storytelling lets me create experiences that resonate, which is exactly the kind of designer I want to be.

There is a particular beauty in the paper prototype, which, according to a study published in the Journal of Usability Studies, can be up to 45% more effective in identifying usability issues in the early stages of a project compared to high-fidelity digital prototypes.

The concept of paper prototyping, at its core, removes technological barriers and allows a pure focus on the user experience. Snyder’s research shows that users tend to provide more honest and detailed feedback when interacting with paper prototypes, possibly because the “unfinished” format encourages them to be more critical and suggestive. And this makes perfect sense, as humans tend to fill in the blanks, imagining how things would be – similar to when we read a book and imagine the rooms, the characters, the smells. What Snyder suggests is that we do the same when we see an unfinished design, imagining how things could be. When presented with something unfinished, people can envision how it might look, unlike when presented with a prototype already in its final stages.

The most fascinating aspect of paper prototypes is how they level the playing field: both users and developers feel more comfortable suggesting changes when faced with something clearly “under construction.” The unfinished nature of paper invites collaboration and honest feedback, something that more polished digital prototypes sometimes inhibit.

I see clear benefits (in the short and long term) in using this technique, which at first glance may seem simple. In the short term, I can save time and resources. In the long term, this approach will help to develop a deeper understanding of users’ needs before committing to specific technical solutions.

For example, if the buttons on our platform are always green, a button of a different color may go unnoticed by the user, who won't even recognize it as a button. We should also follow industry conventions, as these correspond to user expectations. If something is considered a convention, it's important to respect it so as not to cause strangeness or confusion.

During my experience with different websites and apps, I have witnessed several cases in which standards and conventions were not followed, resulting in errors on the part of users. A very common example is when a confirmation pop-up places the ‘confirm’ button to the left (where the ‘cancel’ button usually is). This can result in the user, who is used to automatically clicking the button on the right to confirm, inadvertently cancelling their choice. Situations like these can cause problems, such as failing to cancel a subscription and continuing to pay without realizing it.

Failure to use these heuristics, whether due to ignorance or an attempt to innovate and be different, can result in discomfort and frustration for the user. According to Nielsen, “Failing to maintain consistency may increase the users cognitive load by forcing them to learn something new” (Nielsen, J., 2024). In relation to innovation, Karuse R. states that unless change significantly improves the efficiency of a task, “maintaining consistency and meeting user expectations will outweigh breaking a convention” (Karuse R., 2021).

I believe that following these rules will make me a better designer, because it will make me consider not only whether the user understands the whole interface, but also whether the interface meets their expectations, this questioning has a whole other depth that will certainly power up my work as a designer.

Microinteractions are small, task-based interactions in digital products designed to provide feedback or visual responses to user actions. These interactions guide users by offering subtle cues about how to use the product, enhancing both usability and delight. They play a crucial role in delivering feedback and elevating the user experience by making it more engaging.

A common example of a microinteraction is the typing indicator in chat platforms that informs users when someone is composing a message. Another instance I’ve personally experienced is the delightful animation on Microsoft Teams when submitting an assignment. This simple yet enjoyable interaction makes submitting work on Teams more satisfying compared to other platforms.

These seemingly minor details are elements we might not consciously notice but that our brains appreciate. They emphasize the importance of small, subtle interactions in creating positive user experiences. This realization has added a new dimension to my design thinking, underscoring how significantly these details can impact user engagement.

Successful Micro interactions are also a good indicator that the research was correctly made, according to Saffer (2013), "the best of them perform with efficiency, humor, style, and an understanding of user needs and goals." This proves that to know how to successfully integrate microinteractions that delight the designers must know the users so a good research is indeed needed.

One aspect of microinteractions that captured my attention is their ability to improve user experience through immediate feedback. This concept aligns with ideas I’ve considered for my projects. Moving forward, I plan to incorporate microinteractions not only in current designs but also in future projects.

From a career perspective, mastering the design of meaningful microinteractions will allow me to create more polished and professional interfaces that the users can not only use but also enjoy using without feeling frustrated Userpilot (2024) and that’s a thing that really matters to me.

In the context of design, understanding the schemata of the target audience means creating interfaces in line with users' expectations and prior knowledge, reducing cognitive barriers. For example, in the design of an online form, the placement of the “Submit” button in the bottom right corner follows a widely recognized schema, which reduces the user's decision time and mental effort. However, it is not enough to reproduce familiar patterns. The balance between familiarity and innovation is essential. When designers challenge existing schemes with more efficient solutions, they can provide memorable experiences, as long as the introduction of these innovations is intuitive.

Malamed (2012) explains that information in long-term memory is stored in interconnected structures called schemata. According to her, these structures organize concepts in an efficient and meaningful way, allowing the brain to recognize familiar patterns and act automatically, without requiring intense cognitive effort. A practical example is the difference between remembering and recognizing. As Dynamic Layer (2024) states, users prefer interfaces based on recognition rather than recall, because recognition lightens the cognitive load, promoting a more fluid experience.

In fact, schemas reduce the mental effort required to complete tasks, which results in better user experiences. As Dynamic Layer (2024) explains, “short-term memory overload creates cognitive load, a measure of the mental effort required for a task. High cognitive load can lead to frustration, reduced efficiency and task abandonment.” So, by designing interfaces that use familiar schemas, designers can minimize cognitive load and create more accessible and effective solutions.

In my opinion, the application of this concept is a determining factor for success in design. By respecting cognitive schemas and using them strategically, it is possible to create products that not only meet users' needs, but also offer intuitive and satisfying experiences.

After summarizing this article, a critical reflection will be made with particular reference to the opening narrative of the second paragraph.’ User stories are like a way of moving on to practice without committing more time and (in the case of the industry) money, because this way we can fix problems early on, without moving on to the next phases’.

The User Story is a tool for facilitating communication and collaboration by using simple language to start a conversation between the user and the customer, so that both technical and non-technical stakeholders can quickly understand the requirements and desires. However, since requirements are expressed in user stories, it is possible to generate requirements that do not conform to the model, or users or solutions that are deliberately fabricated to conform to the model, making the correctness of the requirements a process that needs to be verified. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that User Story is a tool to facilitate communication and consensus building, not a problem solving stage.

Moreover, in this paragraph, it oversimplifies the design process. Each feature decision is not solely based on the results of one tool, but also on other factors, such as technical limitations, business strategy, etc. Not only that, user needs change over time. Furthermore, user story is not applying for every product and development environment, and it is important to consider the size of the project, whether team members have experience in user stories, etc. Therefore, this process is not a ‘must’ in the design process. User story is working well when the requirements are clear. It is suitable for small projects or the initial requirements exploration phase. In contrast to complicate  requirements, Problem-Based Requirements is a tool for exploring problems in larger projects, focusing on the problem itself rather than assuming a solution in advance. It is a way to focus on the problem itself rather than assuming a solution in advance. When the project is large and involves many complex requirements, Problem-Oriented Requirements is a better approach than User Story.

In summary, user stories have different value as a requirements analysis tool in different contexts. However, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The use of methods and tools needs to take into account the nature of the project and the product.

Prompt with ai assistance

Is there any oversimplification or omission of other possible viewpoints or explanations?

Are there instances where the article's reasoning is incorrect or misleading to the reader?

After summarising this article, a critical reflection will be made with particular reference to the examples given in the third paragraph. ”A very common example is when a confirmation pop-up places the ‘confirm’ button to the left (where the ‘cancel’ button usually is). This can result in the user, who is used to automatically clicking the button on the right to confirm, inadvertently cancelling their choice. Situations like these can cause problems, such as failing to cancel a subscription and continuing to pay without realizing it.

Interface design is often accompanied by user habits, which affect consumer psychology, and involve business consideration. One of the 12 heuristics of interface design is consistency, not only in terms of keeping the design of the components of the product, but also in terms of designing the user flow based on the long-term memory of the user's experience. However, when it comes to commercial factors, users may unconsciously act in a way that benefits the company. This is called ‘Dark Pattern’.

Dark Patter is a combination of psychology and behavioral science that exploits users' behavior to make choices that are not entirely beneficial to them. These are often designed to manipulate consumer behavior in a subtle, misleading or deceptive manner, or to deliberately hide the true intention. For example, When you would like to search a room on booking.com, you may sometimes see the words ‘Only 1 room left on Booking.com’. The purpose of these words is to stimulate user to purchase immediately and to drive consumers' scarcity, pushing them to make a decision. This may cause user to make irrational decisions, ignoring the possibility of deeper thinking or comparing other options.

Noted in the article, putting a button in a unintuitive position may keep users purchasing for a subscription, is also a common Dark Pattern technique. There are two manipulating actions including, one is to increase the cognitive load of the decision, making the process more challenging for the user, and causing them to choose a less demanding option and achieve their goal easily. For example, the option to unsubscribe is placed in an inconspicuous place so that the user has to take many steps to complete the goal. Moreover, people usually may quickly agree to a series of things that contains default options. In other words, it is easier than manually selecting other options. As a result, they may agree to an auto-subscription service that they accept the default option unknowingly.

The user interface design has been designed to increase ease of use for the user and to get things done more quickly. Inevitably, ‘Dark Patterns’ can occur when commercial behavior occurs. Even though some deliberate design choices are made to achieve business goals, it is possible for users to avoid these choices as they become more sensitive to design techniques. Therefore, the use of Dark Patterns is generally acceptable within reasonable ethical boundaries based on mutual respect between companies and consumers.

Prompt with ai assistance

I would like to understand how psychological principles can be applied to analyze and identify dark patterns, particularly in consumer behavior

Paper-based prototyping and digital prototyping have their own strengths and weaknesses. As mentioned by “Paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping”, the amount of user feedback on functionality, operational design, behavior and screen layout, no matter on critical comments or suggestions, there was no significant difference between the two types of prototyping. Moreover, these participants preferred to use digital prototypes for testing.

The reflection article mentions that when using paper prototypes to interact with participants, more detailed feedback is obtained because the prototype is more ‘developable’. This is because the brain creates a sense of incoherence when faced with an unfinished design. In order to resolve this state, the brain will create rapid associations by changing behaviors, thoughts or feelings to achieve consistency. However, this advantage does not consider the participants’ background knowledge and experience. As the main characteristic of this method is to ‘fill the blank’, participants who are not familiar with this field may not be able to imagine the extension of things and then fail to understand their thoughts. In addition, the reflection article also mentions that paper prototypes can offer the advantage of removing technological barriers, but it does not clearly state the direction in use. The ‘de-technicalisation’ concept mentioned in the study was mainly focused on enhancing the participation of design team members who lacked software skills, rather than de-technicalising the participants.

According to the research findings, the participants preferred to use digital prototypes for testing because they felt they got more observation when testing with paper prototypes, which affected their freedom and willingness to be critical. For example, the need to operate through the facilitator's assistance when turning pages or having interactions with the paper prototype would make them feel noticed. Therefore, obtaining true feedback through the unfinished paper prototype is based on the advantage of the tester. However, there is also another advantage that paper prototypes would be time-saving and quicker than digital prototypes. For example, when digital prototype do not support the functionality or idea, paper prototyping can reduce the cost of time and quickly solve the obstacles with some sketches for discussion with the team. Therefore, the use of digital prototyping and paper prototyping is still based on different usage factors and balancing the feelings and benefits of both sides.

In summary, both paper prototyping and digital prototyping have their advantages and limitations, and testers should choose the appropriate prototyping method based on project requirements, team composition, and user characteristics, among other factors.

Prompt with ai assistance

How does the brain work when faced with an unfinished design? Describe this phenomenon from a psychological, biological or behavioral perspective.