An idea mentioned in “Design Justice Network Principles” caught my attention: that the people most adversely affected by design decisions often tend to have the least influence over those decisions and how they are made. As designers, we are often put in a place of privilege and status because of our skills. But as skillful as we may be, most of us work within a bubble, an ideological echo chamber — a bubble that concurrently defines and reinforces what “good design” is supposed to be, that sees its members chasing (consciously or not) after the approval of other members, and that where inaccessible language like this is used to describe our work and to self-congratulate. We don’t seek outside advice or conduct outside research unless we are specifically asked to, even though we all know that by gaining a deeper understanding of the user we are designing for, we will end up with a much better-informed product.

“Design with, not for.” I think the articles hit on a concept that is simple to understand yet difficult to put into practice: to recognize that we are each experts in our own experiences. It’s easy for us as designers to see a situation purely as a problem for us to solve. It’s hard for us to see it as something to be solved together with the people whose lives our designs will impact — but it’s absolutely necessary.