Final Reflection

Before this class, I thought this…

I thought this class would be more focused on things such as feedback loops and algorithms and a bit more HCI focusing on why buttons are a certain way. This class ended up offering a few more ways in which we not only change behavior but find out more about the causes of behavior in the first place. I also learned a great deal about how to communicate behaviors (especially visual).

I did this work with these experiences…

• What did you love? What did you hate?

I loved the focus on AI with the blog on why they all suck. I was an AI undergrad and love pondering about social implications of mass AI usage without getting too deep in technical details. This was why I was glad that our product in the end ultimately was not based around AI interaction. A close runner up was the podcast episode “Why is there so much fraud in academia?” That one was especially tea and really dug into the backbone for fields of studies like behavior change.

Hate is a strong word but I did not like where we left off on our discussion on gamification. Maybe it’s a sore spot for me but I feel that gamification is taken for granted and overused and I would like a bit more insight on how to avoid this. There weren’t many case studies on common and reasonable gamification. Instead we went very extreme with the articles on Disney’s sweatshops and I feel that led to a less productive and tangible conversation. 

• What tools and methods do you think you’ll use again? What tools and methods didn’t feel like the right fit?

All the drawing we did during the guest lecture has definitely stuck with me. I am just feeling more confident in general, especially after all of the sketchnotes. I just don’t get to stretch that muscle a lot and with AI going crazy in the art department, it was nice to relax in my work a little bit and have fun. 

One thing that didn’t feel right was trying to capture all of our users’ stories into caricatures that aimed to squeeze them into one category. It is always at the sacrifice of pieces of the user that are essential to who they are and I think it is responsible for some of the mishaps in design today. When we put people in a box like that we are more likely to ship them to the nearest bidder. I hope that metaphor made sense. 

• Tell us about a specific problem you encountered during the project. How did you resolve it (or is it unresolved)? 

We faced an issue with how to handle notifications and nudges within our application. It was a fine line and our research proved inconclusive. Some people were okay with notifications for everything and some only cared about themselves. We landed on defaulting to notifs for everything but this was under the assumption that users could change the settings later if they wanted. However this adds friction in a “sludging” manner that is equally as manipulative. It’s not really a solution we were satisfied with but it’s what we landed on for time’s sake. 

• What do you wish went differently? 

I still wish we were able to do some sort of physical component for this project. I understand why our Jar idea was shot down but I still wish there was space in this class to think of other physical alternatives. It was framed at first like it was possible but the more the class went on the more it seemed they only wanted us to vibe code apps. If it were more clear in the beginning, maybe we could have made a hybrid physical/digital project work.

Ethical considerations.

• Privacy:  How does your project respect users’ privacy?  What definition of privacy are you relying on in saying that it does so?  In what possible future uses or developments of your project might it no longer protect user’s privacy, and how could that development be avoided?

All posts that users make for the group can be hidden so that others can not follow/track your actions throughout your daily life. This prevents things like stalking and micromanagement from authorities (like parents or instructors). Even still we are collecting a lot of information about what people are doing all the time. Not only that we are collecting the things that matter most to these people. This would be a goldmine to people trying to sell certain products and will reliably be able to see which users actually care for the product. We would need to take extra care not let all of this data get into the hands of the greedy. 

• Design for Well-Being:  How does your project promote well-being according to one of the three theories of well-being?  What about your project might pose a risk to well-being of the users?

This application helps users first reflect on what exactly they need to get done to maximize their satisfaction at the end of the day. A lot of people go into their day either blind or with too much on their mind. Our app narrows this down to help ensure that core things that are objectively beneficial for the day are being prioritized. Our notifications and social system serve as safety nets to ensure that even if things slip through the cracks, you will be reminded and have others to encourage you. 

Now I think this (ways your thinking has evolved.)

Now I understand more of the intricacies around deciding which manipulation is warranted/not invasive and which manipulation should be regulated. I can see how little design choices and the exclusion of certain information both can equate to mass manipulation for greed. I can also understand how users really don’t know what they want. They will say one thing in interviews and then in the studies act in a completely different way. 

Next time when faced with a similar situation I will…?

I will prioritize how people act in their studies and try to gather a wider range of participants. This will help in guiding which questions and permissions to ask of people in our prototypes to find the actual points of tension and identify them ahead of time to avoid unintended consequences.

Bryant Perkins

March 14th, 2026

CS 247B

Final Reflection

word count without headers: 896