I have found that during my design research process, I often find myself in a self-contradictory iteration. This is essentially dialectics, negating the negation of the past. However, the core of this contradictory situation lies in the lack of practice. Each stage of the negation process likely requires sufficient practice to support it. This can successfully deepen the previous negation and provide a clearer representation of the process for the audience, helping them understand how things have developed.

In such a context, the audience spends only a few minutes or at most a few hours experiencing a project, while the designer’s understanding of the project far exceeds that of the audience. Ultimately, this is a process of self-improvement, self-education, and self-reflection for the designer. This dialectical and spiraling thought process is shaped by time. For a design project that aims to provoke dialectical thinking in the audience, what level of experience is necessary to achieve the desired reflection and discussion? If this is a complex process of measurement and exploration, could the possibility of the audience becoming designers themselves be a better approach?

Previously, I was always thinking about how to attract the audience, guide them, educate them, and how to elicit their expression. I had criticized overly pure creative toolkits as only suitable for professionals. However, it seems that such creations are not solely for professionals; all participants should engage in design and creation. Yet, it is inevitable that those who design these toolkits lack consideration for a broader audience. So, how should we build a bridge to connect participants with creation? Undoubtedly, making the process enjoyable requires some interactive mechanisms and the integration of fun elements. However, co-creation and competition inherently have certain conflicts. Monopoly tries to get people to cooperate to avoid monopolies, but players clearly enjoy the competitive thrill of winning alone. Coopetition might be a possibility.

For a service-oriented experience, it seems easier to evoke feedback and participation from the experiencer/consumer. Perhaps this is due to the high level of commercialization, where the audience’s mindset is influenced by their substantial investment in it. Some museum exhibits might also stand out because the audience invests a lot of time and emotional factors. So, should participants be required to invest something? How do we create this sense of ritual?

Regarding different types of design, what has recently touched me deeply is the concept of design’s ABC. It doesn’t represent iteration, progress, evolution, etc., which was my previous misunderstanding. Instead, they coexist equally. However, this may not be centered on the designer; the audience/participants/users are still the key to thinking about these issues. A stands for Acceptance, B for Reflection, and C for Creation. Different regions inevitably have different needs, but in a rapidly developing environment dominated by A, there are inevitably people who have already started to show signs of B. In an ideal state, C might blur the lines between designers and participants more and more. At that point, would it still be necessary to distinguish between designers and users/audiences? From a global perspective, this will be very complex, as it is a very intricate issue intertwined with time and region.