Malte Winkler

1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words)

1.1. interesting about the article?
Its an interesting differentiation he made between progress made behind the screen and that in front of it.  The argument being that most of the progress made in technology has taken place behind the glass of the computer screen. The next wave of progress can be made by designing technological tools that are more niche in nature and conform to the human needs.  

1.2. not interesting about the article?
I don't necessarily agree that things are all that bad in terms of wasted potential for social and human benefits. The benefits provided to social and human needs by technology has been incredibly profound. It is possible to make technology more assessable to the non-technically inclined but this doesn't translate into a guaranteed gain in human benefit. A lot of the potential now available to the technology beyond the computer screen has been made possible by the progress behind the screen. 

2. what do you consider the main message of the article?
Technology has made great strides over its short history but much of the progress has been self serving. The advances have not been as great for social and human benefits as they could be. To change this it is best to think and ask questions of technology in a more human centric manor.

3. Please comment on the following claim: “Despite the increasing reliance on technology in our society, in my view, the key to designing a different future is to focus less on technology and engineering, and far more on the humanities and the design arts.”
3.1. agree / disagree?
Sure its best to ask and think about what we want from technology instead of concentrating on making what we have faster. 

3.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement?
There is a lot of potential for the development of interesting technology. This will continue to be an interesting field to work in.

3.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim?
I would have to say mostly no, not directly. Most of the classes I have taken have focused on a specific discipline. 

4. Please comment on the following claim: “Given the much discussed constraints on human ability, how can we expect an individual to maintain the requisite specialist knowledge in their technological discipline, while at the same time have the needed competence in industrial design, sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc., which this essay implies are required to do one’s job?”
4.1. agree / disagree?
Specialization is necessary to make progress given the complexity of and breadth of today's occupations and disciplines.  I agree that much more can be done with a team of diversified specialists than with on renaissance superhuman. 

4.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this statement?
It is important to learn how to work with people of all specialization types. It is a good skill to have to be able to convey idea with people outside of your discipline because those are the people who will be able to help the continued development of technology.  

4.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this claim?
Up to this point I have had no real exposure to this from the course work. It is in a way very logical however. Going into the working world it seems that the adaptation of the renaissance team has been well accepted. 

5. Do you feel that the “Design, Learning, and Collaboration” course addresses these two claims?
This is definitely the most explicitly that I have thought about this topic.