XINA'S BLOG

• Part 1:

I. The Subway as an Infrastructure for Human Transport:

When it was designed, built, and released to the people of New York City in 1904, the Subway was viewed as an infrastructure for efficient and orderly transportation. In fact, it was viewed not only as a vehicle for mass transport, but as a symbol for moving forward; a vehicle that would unify the city, amplifying its economic potentials echoing with civic pride (Höhne 2015). Along with it, the behaviors of the yet to be determined subjects, that would ultimately become the target users of this innovation, needed to be designed. Similar to railway passengers that preceded them, subway riders needed to be disciplined, their practices homogenized through implicit design, and explicit codes of conduct plastered even before its grand opening (ibid).

II. The Subway as a Semi Public Space:

While the subway was constructed as a device, what the engineers and designers may have failed to realize was they were in fact creating a loose space (Franck and Stevens 2006),  one in which, similar to victorian railway passengers, transient communities are sometimes formed  (DeSapio 2013), and unpredictable behavior is bound to occur. Essentially, while it was designed with singular predictable and desirable users in mind, an approach Foucault would consider as subjectification (Höhne 2015), it is instead occupied by communal richness and spontaneity.  

A privately managed public infrastructure,  and arguably a right for all (Roy and Caywood 2018), the subway can thus be seen as a semi public space (Shuffield; Tonnelat and Kornblum 2017). However, can it also be seen as a modern day urban commons? Well, in order for that to be true, according to David Harvey, there must be social practices of “Commoning” ((Kornberger & Borch 2016)

• Part 2: 

Commoning is defined the  “unstable and malleable” social practice of exercising the common right to land (or space) use (ibid). In the context of the subway, this practice can be witnessed in the daily unintended uses of the infrastructure, the unspoken agreements and “minimalistic social orders” that NYC riders have among themselves (Tuckel et al. 2016). According to Jain and Kutler, commoning is a form of resistance and a defense of space, and includes the following:

A. The Negotiation of shared space and materialities, common practices of which are perceived in the subway in the: 

“On Boarding": A commonly shared agreement that riders exit before others enter. The on-boarding of a train during rush hour can somewhat be seen as a game : The winner tactically waiting near a door gets to go in first and, on a good day, gets a seat. In the case of a crowded train, players need to strategise in order to get to go in at all, calculating when and if it’s worth the squeeze. (is it ever worth the squeeze?)

“Shuffling”: A shared dance as one moves past to get in or out of a crowded car. The crammed commuters, taking micro steps, sway like the movement of an anemone. Remarkably, it is rare that one ever misses their stop because they couldn’t exit the train.  “Scooting”: During rush hours and long commutes, seating space on the subway is a valuable resource. Subway seats have gone through multiple design styles, in an attempt to implicitly communicate that: 

     1.  Your bottom, and only your bottom, should only occupy the space it truly needs. 

     2. Manspreading is never okay.

“Pole Handling”: A Merry Go Round. While previous designs accounted for individual strap hangers, the negotiation of space on the shared pole is obvious in the shift of hands up and down the rail to accommodate riders on a crowded car.

B. The Appropriation of the space , which in this case means the use of shared space for an individual / group’s own interest. This can be seen often on the subway, prime examples of which include: 

Vendors: Commonly seen by those selling hot churros or glittering gold jewelry on certain platforms. Such vendors, often familiar faces to a station regular, use the space as their workplace, appropriating the infrastructure and adding a layer of commercial functionality in order to make a living.  Many are, in fact, appropriating illegally, taking risks and disobeying a process that complicates 

How the MTA want you to react: Report them. If they’re not licensed, they shouldn’t be there.

How you could alternatively react:  If you wish to navigate the space as an urban commons, then treat it like ye old market place. Appreciate their efforts, maybe buy something, or simply engage in conversation - you’d be surprised to find how interesting their stories may be. As long as they’re not bothering anyone, they should make use this commons without external disdain. Do not be a snitch.

Performers: These include subway dancers, licensed and unlicensed musicians, the spontaneous occasional mariachi band and the sweet blind man with the speaker you may encounter ever so often. They devote the space to their music, their moves, and essentially their culture. Similar to vendors, in doing so, turn the subway into a workplace when they ask for tips, and also in some cases, marketing campaign when they ask for @follows. 

How the MTA want you to react: Unlicensed? Report them! Or at the very least ignore them, so as to discourage their appropriation.

How you could alternatively react:  Navigating these figures is, in its traditional form, quite simple. You could tip them if you enjoyed the show, or look away with an awkward smile so as to acknowledge their “service” while politely declining an expected payment.  However, if you wish to truly partake in commoning, you should feel free to truly enjoy their performance! It is not illegal to clap, sing or maybe even sway along. Once again, as long as they’re not a disturbance, there’s no need to discourage their behavior. Some people are trying to make a living, others are trying to make a commute a bit more bearable.

Panhandlers: Some walk into cars with nothing but their stories to offer, in return for money. One could argue that their stories, and often interesting personalities, play a role in the unique experience that makes the NYC subway. 

Sleepers: This form of appropriation, no matter how subtle, transforms the character of ones social psychological relationship with the space, essentially “privatizing” it (Lofland 1973). These include both the early morning didnt-sleep-well or exhausted had-a-long-day nappers, as well as the don’t-have-anywhere-else homeless sleepers.  Let’s be real, you’ve been the first subject during at least one of your commutes. Some homeless might not be asking for anything but a space for some shuteye.

How the MTA want you to react: Completely ignore to discourage begging, and report the sleepers.

How you could alternatively react: If you have some change, a snack, and are feeling empathetic, hand em a couple. Otherwise, practice some decent civil inattention, and glance up if only to have them feel seen.(Goffman, 1963 quoted in Van der Schraaf 2018). If you don’t feel threatened by their presence, and they’re not taking up precious space on a crowded vehicle, just let them be.

Protesters: Throughout its history, the subway has been a space for congregation post adversity or blessing. When twin towers fell on 9/11, it became a safe space for mourners. After an iconic win by the Mets, the 7 train becomes a space for communal celebration. Recently however, it has become a space for contention. Through organized turnstile jumping and urban interventions like zip tying emergency doors open, protesters essentially fight for their right to the city by appropriating the space as one for civic dialogue and participation.

How the MTA want you to react: Do not partake in such activities, and report turnstile jumpers.

How you could alternatively react: Participate in simple forms of peaceful protest, to show solidarity against unjust policing (Stophler and Jones 2017) . Turn a blind eye to turnstile jumpers, and perhaps, when you exit the station, feel free to use the emergency door, perhaps even holding it open for just that little bit longer.

• Part 3: Hierarchy

It is argued that appropriations of a space often occur in an implicitly hierarchal manner within an urban commons (Jain and Kuttler). It seems like, when it comes to the appropriation of the space, hierarchies within the context of the subway explicitly exist among the private entities that govern the space over the riders, ie. The MTA officials and policing force are  clearly up on the ladder of authority.

 Between those negotiating the space, however, these hierarchies can also simply be an embodiment of privilege and power amongst the riders (Ruivenkamp and Hilton 2017). In this case, is the hierarchy defined by age and ability, favoring the elderly or differently abled?  Or is it just as simple as first come first serve?  Are the hierarchies defined by the rider’s sense of belonging to the space, “owning” a line or a station they frequent (Tonnelat and Kornblum 2017), or just determined by the user’s sense of purpose, projecting confidence onto others?  

Are hierarchies implicitly in favor of those with bigger builds, intimidating figures?  To what extend are they determined by the hexis of those subconsciously influenced by gender? As stated by (Ingrid Getreuer-Karg 2012, 181-197) gender-informed demeanor is internalized behavior, acquired over a long period of time, that people hardly ever become conscious of. When it comes to hierarchies of those that navigate the subway space, there seems to be questions that still need examining.

& Social Relations

According to some, social relations must exist to some extent between the group sharing the resource that is the commons. Now, in the case of the subway, social relations between individual riders may appear nonexistent. Nevertheless, passive social acts can be seen in the regular negotiations of the space (Van Der Schraaf 2018). Active socialities, on the other hand, can often be triggered, albeit temporarily, by instances such as delays and similar unexpected events (DeSapio 2013). Shared experiences can be considered space activators, drawing attention to the reality of sharing common confined space, and thus creating transient communities in the process.

Simultaneously, however, while some worry that social relations may be threatened by increasing reclusiveness on the subway with technology making it easier for us to remain within our own bubble, others believe the subway will always be a space for opportune social encounters. (Vanderbilt 2009)

• Part 4: Access & Exclusion

With the current (loud) campaigns around fare evasion, noticeably stricter policing on vendors and De Blasio’s project to counter homelessness on the subway, issues of access may be nothing new. However, how can we understand these in the context of a commons?

Well,  one one hand, one could argue that plans to eradicate such forms of commoning on the subway - even through simpler methods like century old codes of conduct - as efforts to focus on the efficiency and safety of its utilitarian function threaten its richness as a modern day urban commons.

On another hand, Harvey (2012) believes that concerns of the enclosure and exclusionary methods of a commons are contradictory and always contested, since it is often the case that “conflicting social (and political) interests underlie who can access a given commons, and therefore who benefits.” (Zapata and Campos Zapata 2017)

Does this just mean that the state’s exclusion of certain publics is an inherent part of any urban commons? In the case of the subway, rising fares and a straining economy has essentially meant a gradual exclusion of previously included groups. How does one navigate such a shift, especially when there is an undeniable sense of a right this service? And, most importantly perhaps, to what extend does this pose as a threat to the value generated by these figures producing meaning and sharing a distinct atmosphere (Lofgren, 2017) in the space?

Conclusion?

The idea of the commons as a common-pool resource that is collectively governed doesn’t seem to be feasible in the scale of shared urban resources, like the subway for example.  In the context of the subway, one may argue that it offers two kinds of resources:  

Transportation (a subtractive resource, as space for mobility in a car depletes with the addition of bodies) 

Experience, atmosphere and cultural exposure (Lofgren 2017) (a non-subtractive resource, which in fact increases with the increased variety of those in the space)

This is a workshop structure that was applied in the project described in the previous post.

1. Introduce the objectives & structure of this workshop:

• The objectives of this workshop:

Speculate about the future of urban, suburban and social living in Saudi Arabia, considering the pace of change currently taking place.

Consider the present of pet ownership in KSA, and envision how it may change in a speculative future.

Conceive and design spaces, products, services that fit into these speculative futures.

• There will be three phases, with intermittent snack breaks in between.

• There is no winning or losing, there are no right or wrong answers, and no

stupid ideas in this space.

• You are encouraged to think of both utopian futures and dystopian futures.

2. Introduce and explain the future cones.

3. Introduce phase 1: Carrom Futures Wheel (25-30 minute exercise)

a. This is an idea generating “game”, there are no losers, the rules are

simple.

b. Consider the future “WHAT IF” scenario that is presented at the center

of this Carrom board & the four signals displayed (more signals will be

displayed gradually throughout the game)

c. Use your chips and the dry erase markers to write direct and indirect

consequences of this future scenario. (Use your imagination when coming up with

consequences, and get inspiration from the signals provided).

d. In turn: Write 1 consequence, and use your fingers / flick the puck to

try to slide it onto a desired circle on the board. These are your targets.

e. If it lies in one of the circles, you reveal a signal for the team, that

gets your creative juices flowing.

f. If it misses, simply place it wherever you find fit. No signal is

revealed, no points lost.

g. Once the wheel is complete, consider the outcomes as a team.

4. Coffee & Snack break as they discuss the 2- 4 most important outcomes and

write them on the 4 challenge cards.  (10 - 15 minute exercise )

5. Introduce phase 2: Scenario Building Cards (30-45 minutes):

a. Pair up according to one chosen challenge for which you want to build a

future scenario. (10 mins max)

b. In pairs, fill in your Future Building Deck, according to the prompts:

try to envision a comprehensive future world that relates to the “goal” or

challenge selected.

c. When building these future worlds, keep in mind the futures cones. Are

the changes you are proposing possible, plausible, probable or preferable?

d. Take 30 minutes to fill in and construct your scenario in pairs.

e. The last 15 minutes are used so that the two pairs show and tell their

cards and discuss their future scenarios to each other.

6. Coffee & Snack break as they discuss what these 4 future worlds would be

called (name them) and where they would be placed on the future cones.

(10-20 minutes)

7. Final Phase: CREATE (30 Minute)

In pairs, discuss and decide whether they want design something for their own future, or on the other’s. Using the board, discuss and sketch out an idea for a space /product / service that would exist in the worlds that have been created. (10 mins)

For the second prototype, I focused on creating more structure in the workshop by presenting the Agenda and objectives on the board. In addition to that, I made sure to time the activities, explain the Future Cones early on, and direct conversation when it drifts to other topics (there was a big urge to talk about that last Game of Thrones episode).

I also redesigned the board out of real wood and layers of polyurethane for maximum slide. The chips were also designed to be bigger so that there is more surface area to write, and made from acrylic.

The first workshop included an anthropologist, a digital marketer, a designer and a chemical engineer, 3 of which are pet owners. Throughout the session, it became clear how the participants’ backgrounds helped shape their ideas and understandings of each of their futures.

The workshop took place on the floor (well, carpet) of my studio apartment. After I greeted the participants and had informal introductions, with Arabic coffee, dates and snacks, I began by describing the objectives and structure of the session. 

The prompt for the future wheel in this prototype was “ Its 20__ and 80% of KSA owns some sort of pet”. This prompt I intentionally kept open ended, generating initial discussion about when this future could be, and what kind of pets do these include.

Although the props for the Carrom Consequence Board were not really slippery, and thus not efficient, I noticed an energy and excitement when the participants managed to land their chips on the designated circle.

Upon observation of this phase, I noticed a slight struggle in coming up with consequences and challenges of the prompt. I thus had to give away some initial signals and pose questions in relation. Although I had initially designed the signals to be placed on the board, the type was too small as the participants asked to instead take them and place then more visibly on the board (this then directed me to redesign the signals)

Based on design 0.1, I created a structured methodology and held my first workshop with four Saudi expats in NYC.

I decided to focus on the future of pet ownership in KSA, as it is a personal motivation (being the proud owner of two German shepherds back home), and what I believe to be an unfairly neglected aspect of life quality improvement, a priority that Vision 2030 is supposedly targeting.

I first decided that my first workshop prototype is going to take place in a “Majlis” like feel: late in the evening, I will hold it in my house, on the carpet, with an abundance of arabic coffee, dates and snacks.  This will hopefully create a casual enough atmosphere which promotes open discussion without fear of “stupid ideas” or “taboo topics”.

Taking from the workshopping strategies that were researched, I decided to adapt the Futures Wheel and Table phases to social forms that are familiar to the Saudi culture. The Futures Wheel is redesigned to resemble Carrom, while the futures table is now a card “game” in which the four players will use "scenario building” cards to fill in with possible drivers, antagonists...etc, to build entire scenarios off of each other’s cards.

In order to get a better understanding of what is involved in running a Future’s thinking co-design workshop, I needed to do some reading as well as primary research in the form of interviews and discussions with experienced individuals.

WORKSHOPPING: (By DesignKit)

Many of these steps would be very useful to adopt and consider for my workshop like clarifying values, keeping it casual, and asking open ended questions.

ACTVOD : (futures workshop – a generic structure for a one-day futures workshop)

Futures workshops are normally carried out on the course of multiple days, however for the purpose of my prototype, I decided to focus on one-day workshops that normally take 6-8 hours (which is too much for the mental energy and emotional investment of an average Saudi to be quite frank)

With that in mind, these workshops needed to be a social gathering (inspired by a traditional Saudi Majlis) that facilitates casual conversation that is both productive and insight generating, yet does not feel boring and laborious. The workshop will thus use the structure of that described in this reading:

1. Futures Wheel~ 2. Futures Table~ 3. Path to Desired Outcome~

However, these steps, as well as the atmosphere of the workshop, will be adapted to fit into a familiar Saudi context.

Additionally, the workshop methodology presented in this paper does not discuss a step in which participants are given tools to ideate and conceive products/services/policies... etc for the decided futures, something that I find very interesting and engaging in the methods of the Extrapolation Factory & Adventuring Ventures.

S A U D I   S O C I A L   T R A D I T I O N S

THE MAJLIS:

“Majlis are ‘sitting places’ where community members gather to discuss local events and issues, exchange news, receive guests, socialize and be entertained. The Majlis is where the community gathers to resolve problems, pay condolences and hold wedding receptions. It is typically a large space with carpets on the floor and cushions against the wall. There is usually a stove or fire to prepare coffee and other hot beverages. The Majlis space is open to all people and may be frequented by family members, tribes and inhabitants of the same neighbourhood, and other remote neighbourhoods. Community elders are considered true bearers[…] Judges and religious sheikhs have special importance in the Majlis as they adjudicate on disputes and clarify political, social and religious rights and responsibilities.” - UNESCO

T W I T T E R   S T A L K I N G

Spent this day following hashtags, accounts and looking for the main usages of Twitter in Saudi Arabia. I would like to use this insight to inform how I could potentially engage the people in my workshop / methodology, by taking inspiration from a familiar platform.

General Observations:

Twitter activity in KSA ranges from religious tweets, to obscure and disturbingly explicit hashtags used to scout others interested in sexual discourse. From soccer fanatics to cynics and romantics hash tagging things like #Things_I_Wish_I_Said. (translated)

There is also no shortage of politically relevant tweets, as well as tweets related to world / regional news. 

Global Media Insights

https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/saudi-arabia-social-media-statistics/

“The whole of Saudi society is moving towards a more progressive mindset. This modernism is being reflected in how they engage with each other and the rest of the world over social media and the internet. Reflecting on last year’s social media statistics reveals that the number of internet users in Saudi Arabia rose swiftly to touch 30 million people by the beginning of 2018. The internet penetration in the country has now reached 91%.”

“From just being networking platform, social media has morphed into a potent force for social change in Saudi society. The Saudi government has also been effective in utilising social media to engage with citizens and to gauge public consciousness.  Key members of the Saudi royalty have been taking to their Twitter and Facebook accounts to drive for reforms across the Kingdom.”

“there is a big chunk that is still not connected to any social media platform. This gap is expected to close in the coming years, especially with the swift internet penetration in rural Saudi Arabia. “

“Unlike other places in the world, social platforms have served to enhance family and religious values of Saudi society while opening up Saudi minds to new ideas and concepts”

[ Book: Arab Women and the Media in Changing Landscapes. Chapter: Social & Cultural Trends in Communication and the Saudi Youth]

A significant % of businesses in KSA use Social Media (namely twitter) for promotion and marketing purposes, most likely due to the fact that 2.4 Million of Twitter’s active users are, in fact, Saudi. That is perhaps why the platform is actually heavily monitored by the gov.

Influencers and Political persons play a prominent role in directing public discourse on the platform, often igniting conversation and creating trending topics, sometimes also being used for advertisements.

M A P P I N G

This exercise helped me map out my gathered insights, make connections, and formulate new questions. It can be quite stressful gathering a large amount of information, so parsing through it I find helps direct what direction I can take my project.

I N T E R V I E W S    |     P A R T   O N E

For day 2, I decided to reach out to people I know back home, who would be informed about the changes in demographic and mentalities back home.

I thus gathered insights from a) a young journalist working for a Saudi Gov run news agency, and b) an older journalist with established work for international news agencies.

Below are the answers to the questions asked, as well as additional insights acquired through conversation.

One of the interviewees later referred me to a municipal counselor for the region of  Jeddah, who I am waiting to interview later this week.

D I S C O V E R

Used this day to delve deeper into the contexts and precedents that already exist, in order to get a better understanding of what the changed back home really entail. I mainly used the world wide web as my source, reading about the ministry of municipal affairs, its election process in 2015, and the Vision’s programs.

Key Findings:

Quality of Life Program (2020):

Aims to improve lifestyle & infrastructure development: upgrading transport, housing, urban & social environment… 

Objectives include promoting sport activities, entertainment ops, and contribution in arts and culture. 

UNHABITAT: The Future Saudi Arabia Cities Program:

Key strategy to promote  sustainable urban dev : Engaging and integrating the needs of all residents and in particular youth and women’s needs as part of urban plans. 

Enhancing public awareness in the Kingdom on the notion of prosperous cities and sustainable urbanization. 

Municipality problem: “Municipalities deal with everyday urban management, but lack adequate resources or capacity to undertake urban management functions [autonomously].  

There basically seems to be a need for public engagement and awareness, as well as  equipping the municipality with tools to effectively enable informed urban management decision making.

Key Precedents:

Youth engagement in the Kingdom:

Misk organization.

Ithra.

Youth @ Work Alliance.

Futuring, Co-design & Human-Centered design methodologies:

IDEO’s toolkits.

Adventuring Ventures.

Extrapolation Factory.

Dunne & Raby

The ontological nature of design, although it may have only recently been put to paper (Escobar, 2018), has undeniably been manifesting since before the establishment of design as a legitimate practice & field of study. It is thus not a novel realisation that we are currently living in an era defined by much of the design successes and failures created throughout human history. Meaning that, in the present, today, we are churning out designs that are aimed to provide solutions for the future, while being guided by antecedents rooted in the past. These solutions, often, in turn, create even more challenging issues, which then call for design solutions that necessitate radical creative approaches.

Because of this, we are very clearly in an age where all practices of design are under tight scrutiny. Everything seems to be closely inspected when critiquing designs nowadays; beyond their aesthetics from ethical implications, to possible social, economical and environmental impacts, no matter how minuscule. This has resulted in an unspoken yet somewhat unanimous pressure for design to be the ultimate problem solving tool of the 21st century. For example, if a design’s concept revolves around a certain sociological issue, an immediate criticism would be “but what effect did it really have to solve this issue?” and “If it didn’t solve the problem, is it really an effective piece of design?”. This emphasis on functionality, which started with the rise of modernity (Escobar, 2018), has created a wider divide between art and design, and an often weighty and serious regard to the practice. Despite some of its advantages, the modernist movement has thus set some drawbacks to the practice of design, by creating a sterile and narrow space that is unapproachable to those looking for “artistic” playfulness in design.

Moreover, it is an undeniable fact that we are immersed in an era driven by digital technology. Technological advancements are happening rapidly, right before our eyes, and their potentials when applied to the many fields of design seem endless. There is no doubt that these potentials are appealing to any creative individual, who can easily lose sight of his/her true values and identity, or the goals and objectives of their projects, in the pursuit of relevance and praise (Milton). This techno-centric time facilitates the dissemination of ephemeral design trends, what with the easy accessibility of ever increasing new design material through the internet.

I worry that these circumstances create pressures that may threaten the design integrity of my personal practice. Therefore, a firm stance must be taken when approaching my work, one that reflects my values and goals as a designer, which I hope never to lose sight of.

I believe that…

While it is important to use the power of design responsibly, it is equally as important to be playful and experimental in the process. My use of the term ‘radical’ above is not necessarily determined by the refusal of all rationale, but perhaps more so by the acceptance of experimentation and the exploration of perspectives that are new to you. Also, with an increasing demand for novelty, I would like to formally reject the pressures of creating “original” work, sometimes it is just as brilliant to connect the right dots. Additionally, when referring to design as a practice, I believe it is against its best interest to regard it as a serious and all holy field of work. Instead, it is detrimental to its own future, that design should be regarded as approachable, flexible and open to interpretation and collaboration. After all, everyone is a designer in their own way.

As a designer myself, I would thus like to approach my own ‘practice’ in a way that reflects my truest self, beliefs, and values. Applying such ideals to my work can therefore be achieved through the following principles:

1.1. All that incites gaze has power, no matter how small. As the curator of an observed creation, I hold responsibilities (Sturken & Cartwright, 2015). It is consequential to consider this power, and the impact it creates, and harness it to achieve positive outcomes.

1.2. Perception and interpretation are tied to identity. Thus, Identity plays a part in both the conception of my work, and the reception of those who view my work (Sturken & Cartwright, 2015). I must design with that in mind.

1.3. All design is ontological, meaning we are constantly creating a world that in turn designs our behaviours and lives (Escobar, 2018). This creates an added layer of responsibility . Thus, I must be aware of how my surroundings have 'designed’ my mentality, and how what I design could help shape future generations.

1.4. Apply a futuring approach to my work. Instead of thoughtlessly conforming, I must attempt to question all notions structured by modernity, and design objects/experiences that in turn provoke questions, while designing for the sustainment of a future (Escobar, 2018). Rationality is not necessarily my enemy, but it is not always my best friend. Functionality is not always the core outcome of a design approach, sometimes experimentation and radical implementation can result in surprisingly fitting solutions.

1.5. With all these responsibilities tied to design, it is important to remember that I must not take myself too seriously. Design can take form in creative expression, insofar that it may be lighthearted, playful and experimental. So, I must have a little fun, design with intent, and take from art what I please. The real divide between those practices is only as wide as I perceive it to be.

2.1. No cause is too trivial of a cause to design for, I must only be passionate about it enough to belief its worth.

2.2. Before preaching to other parties, I must use my own agency to help my own community as much as I can. (Devineni, 2018)

2.3. I must never be discouraged by the thought that I, as one individual, cannot incite change, for I am never really designing alone.

2.4. When attempting to create meaningful and impactful design, approach it in the manner of Critical Design, which is meant “Mainly to make us think. But also raising awareness, exposing assumptions, provoking action, sparking debate, even entertaining in an intellectual sort of way” (Raby & Dunne). I must thus remember to question ideologies and binaries when considering the context of my work.

Design with a community, for a community:

3.1. A futuring approach can only be achieved through co-design. The best works are created through collaboration, with other designers, multidisciplinary practitioners, and the consumers as well. It is the only way to truly work on a project that is larger than myself, and representative of a larger group. Therefore, I must   relinquish my tight grip on individualist authorship, and encourage collaboration through my work (Brice, 2018). Everyone deserves to be represented, and everyone deserves to be credited when included (Escobar, 2018).

3.2. Relinquishing authorship is also important for the creation of a decentralised narrative, one that would transcend generational gaps and communication barriers (Winger-Bearskin, 2018). Thus, sometimes, I must think of myself as the designer of a seed that, when planted, can create a thriving forest with other people’s contributions.

3.3. When possible, I must utilise design to reinforce a network or community (Escobar, 2018). Especially when designing for a cause, encourage the formation of its affected community and give them a voice.

3.4. I must “assume equity, never argue for inclusion”. When I design with equity in mind, it is ultimately to the benefit of everyone, both abled bodies & those with disabilities. (Sheppard, 2018)

3.5. When designing for inclusion, I must not sacrifice aesthetics for functionality. It should accessibility should therefore never be an afterthought (Sheppard, 2018).

3.6.When designing for people with disability, think more in the perspective that they are differently abled, with abilities that you may not have thought of (Sheppard, 2018).

4.1. I must not let the pressures of conformity get to my design integrity. Despite the appeal of technological trends, it is important to make sure the medium matches the concept, intent and context. I must never make something a certain way just because it is “cool”.

4.2. I must attempt to adopt Sicart & Mackin’s notions of queerness in games, to my design approach. Meaning, I must design in a (mental) space that allows for failure, as well as one that encourages play, and challenging rules and structure.

4.3. I must not abandon the pen and paper. My hands are my best friends, and the computer is just an extension.

4.4. There is nothing more satisfying than getting my hands dirty. I must not forget the beautiful natural qualities of craft, in pursuit of digital finesse.