Design Methods for Wellbeing: TU Delft & Tongji Approaches
Leading design institutions have developed complementary methodologies for wellbeing-centered design. TU Delft (Delft University of Technology, Netherlands) emphasizes value-driven, participatory, and ethics-focused design. Tongji University (Shanghai, China) contributes emotional design, experiential mapping, and cultural resonance. Together, they provide comprehensive, evidence-based design practice.
TU Delft: Design for Values & Ethics
Design for Values (DfV) Framework
Core Principle: Values (moral principles like autonomy, justice, care) should be explicitly embedded in design, not assumed or left to chance.
The DfV Process
Value Identification
- Stakeholder workshops to surface moral values relevant to design
- Distinguish values from interests (values are enduring principles; interests are situational preferences)
- Map value pluralism (multiple legitimate values in tension)
- Question: "What principles matter to you? What would be wrong with this design?"
Value Operationalization
- Translate abstract values into concrete design criteria
- Value → Functional Requirements → Design Specifications
- Example: "Autonomy" → "Users can opt-out" → "Toggle for all tracking features"
Value Realization
- Ensure design actually manifests values through implementation
- Audit code, interfaces, policies for value alignment
- Identify where values conflict and make intentional trade-offs
Value Validation
- Test with stakeholders whether design reflects stated values
- Gather feedback on unintended consequences
- Refine based on lived experience
Wellbeing-Relevant Values in Design
| Value |
Design Implications |
Questions to Ask |
| Autonomy |
User control, transparency, informed consent |
Does the design manipulate or respect choice? Can users understand why features exist? |
| Justice |
Fair access, equitable representation, non-discrimination |
Who benefits? Who is burdened? Are impacts distributed fairly? |
| Care |
Responsiveness to need, support for vulnerability |
Does design respond to people's actual situations? Does it enable mutual care? |
| Integrity |
Authenticity, alignment with values |
Is the experience genuine or manufactured? Does it honor user identity? |
| Flourishing |
Support for meaningful activity, skill development |
Does this enable growth? Or dependency? |
| Community |
Social connection, belonging, collective wellbeing |
Does it strengthen or isolate? Individual or common good? |
| Privacy |
Control over personal information, dignity |
What data is collected? Who accesses it? Why? |
Stakeholder Engagement & Participatory Design
TU Delft Model of Participation:
- Inform: Share information about design decisions
- Consult: Ask for input on options (bottom-up)
- Collaborate: Work together on problem-solving
- Empower: Transfer decision-making authority to stakeholders
Implementation:
Stakeholder Mapping
- Identify all affected groups (users, caregivers, communities, regulators)
- Distinguish power dynamics and interests
- Plan engagement appropriate to each group
Co-design Workshops
- Prepare design space with tools and materials
- Facilitate group ideation without hierarchy
- Document ideas visually and textually
- Iterate on concepts with group feedback
Democratic Experimentation
- Prototype multiple design directions
- Stakeholders experience possibilities
- Vote or consensus on preferred direction
- Discuss reasons and concerns
Ongoing Feedback Loops
- Don't end participation after workshops
- Regular check-ins during implementation
- Support for adaptive use and feedback
Circular Design & Systems Thinking
TU Delft Frame: Design doesn't exist in isolation; it's embedded in social, environmental, and economic systems. Sustainable wellbeing design considers lifecycle impacts and circular flows.
Questions:
- What materials and resources does this design consume?
- What happens at end-of-life?
- Does design reinforce or challenge unsustainable patterns?
- Who bears environmental/social costs?
- How does design contribute to collective wellbeing?
Tongji University: Emotional Design & Experience
Emotional Design Theory
Foundation: Donald Norman's emotional design (visceral, behavioral, reflective levels) + cultural context
Three Levels:
Visceral Design (Aesthetic, Immediate)
- Color, form, typography, sound
- Evokes instant emotional response
- Cultural specificity matters (colors, symbols)
- Example: Warm colors for comfort vs. cool for calm
Behavioral Design (Function, Experience)
- How well does it work?
- Is it intuitive and responsive?
- Does interaction flow feel natural?
- Example: Smooth animations feel more pleasurable than jarring transitions
Reflective Design (Meaning, Identity)
- Does it align with self-image and values?
- Does it tell a meaningful story?
- Does it enable identity expression?
- Example: Customization features allow self-representation
Experience Mapping & Emotional Journey
Tongji Method: Create rich, multi-sensory maps of user experience including emotional dimension
Experience Mapping Process
Context Definition
- Specific user scenario or journey phase
- Environmental factors (physical space, time, social context)
- User state (stressed, curious, confident)
Touchpoint Identification
- Every interaction point with system or product
- Include pre-experience (anticipation) and post-experience (memory)
- Formal (interface) and informal (word-of-mouth) touchpoints
Emotional Resonance Mapping
- For each touchpoint: What emotion is likely?
- What sensory elements contribute?
- What meaning is conveyed?
- Is emotional impact intentional?
Cultural Translation
- Emotional resonance varies by culture
- Test with representative users from target culture
- Adapt visceral design (colors, symbols, music) appropriately
- Consider values across cultural contexts
Emotional Journey Visualization
Create multi-layer maps showing:
- Timeline: Sequence of activities/touchpoints
- Emotional Arc: Plotted highs/lows of emotional valence
- Sensory Experience: What user sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes
- Meaning: Narrative significance and identity connection
- Pain/Delight Points: Where experience breaks down or shines
Co-creation & Participatory Prototyping
Tongji Focus: Users aren't just informants; they're creative partners in defining meaningful experiences
Techniques
1. Generative Sessions
- Participants create collages, drawings, physical prototypes
- Non-designers can express tacit, embodied knowledge
- Conversation emerges from making, not interviews
2. Role-play & Bodystorming
- Act out desired future scenarios
- Use body and gesture to explore possibilities
- Reveals emotional and embodied dimensions
3. Prototype Co-refinement
- Bring rough prototypes; participants modify and iterate
- Build in public; refine with ongoing feedback
- Participants see their ideas realized
4. Cultural Workshops
- Explore cultural narratives and values
- Create emotionally resonant design within cultural context
- Avoid cultural appropriation; build authentic resonance
Experiential Prototyping
Goal: Create full sensory experience of proposed design for evaluation and refinement
Stages:
Spatial Prototyping
- Create physical mockups of user environment
- Test how design feels in situ
- Evaluate ergonomics, sensory qualities, social dynamics
Temporal Prototyping
- Experience design over time, not snapshot
- How does experience evolve? Does novelty wear off?
- Does design support sustained wellbeing?
Multimodal Prototyping
- Incorporate sound, haptics, scent, temperature
- Not just visual/interaction design
- Full sensory experience informs meaning-making
Social Prototyping
- Test how design affects relationships and communities
- Who feels included/excluded?
- Does design foster belonging or isolation?
Integration: TU Delft + Tongji Approach
Unified Wellbeing Design Process
Phase 1: Value & Experience Framing (TU Delft + Tongji)
- Identify stakeholders and their values (TU Delft)
- Explore emotional dimensions and cultural narratives (Tongji)
- Co-define design brief with stakeholders
- Create aspirational vision for wellbeing outcomes
Phase 2: Discovery & Empathy (TU Delft + Tongji)
- Participatory stakeholder workshops (TU Delft)
- Ethnographic immersion in user contexts (TU Delft)
- Emotional journey mapping (Tongji)
- Generative co-creation sessions (Tongji)
Phase 3: Ideation & Concept Development (TU Delft + Tongji)
- Multi-directional ideation respecting value pluralism (TU Delft)
- Emotional resonance brainstorming (Tongji)
- Scenario development with cultural specificity (Tongji)
- Ethical trade-off analysis (TU Delft)
Phase 4: Prototyping & Experience Design (Tongji + TU Delft)
- Experiential prototyping for emotional qualities (Tongji)
- Value operationalization in design (TU Delft)
- Multimodal and temporal prototyping (Tongji)
- Stakeholder feedback loops (TU Delft)
Phase 5: Evaluation & Refinement (TU Delft + Tongji)
- Measure value realization through lived experience (TU Delft)
- Assess emotional resonance and cultural fit (Tongji)
- Qualitative research-through-design (Chapter 3)
- Psychometric validation of wellbeing outcomes (Chapter 2)
Phase 6: Implementation & Adaptive Use (TU Delft + Tongji)
- Co-implement with stakeholders (TU Delft)
- Support for emergent meanings and cultural adaptation (Tongji)
- Monitor for unintended consequences (TU Delft)
- Sustained engagement and relationship (Tongji)
Practical Tools & Workshops
Values Card Sort
Tool: Cards with values (autonomy, justice, care, etc.)
Activity:
- Arrange cards by importance to you
- Discuss tensions when values conflict
- Prioritize for design
Output: Shared values framework
Emotional Touchpoint Audit
Activity:
- Create journey map of current experience
- Rate emotional valence at each touchpoint (-5 to +5)
- Identify where design could increase positive emotions
- Note where comfort conflicts with growth
Stakeholder Power Mapping
Activity:
- List all stakeholders
- Plot on axes: Power (to affect outcomes) vs. Interest (in outcomes)
- Engage high-power, high-interest groups intensively
- Ensure voice of vulnerable groups despite low power
Values-to-Design Translation
Process:
- Value (e.g., Autonomy) →
- Design Principle (e.g., "User control over defaults") →
- Functional Requirement (e.g., "Settings allow turning off recommendations") →
- Implementation (e.g., Toggle in preferences, default OFF)
Emotional Resonance Testing
Method:
- Present design to representative users
- Rate emotional response: visceral (visual), behavioral (usability), reflective (meaning)
- Explain ratings: "What made it feel that way?"
- Identify cultural/individual variations
Wellbeing Design Principles Derived
From TU Delft
- Design for Plural Values: Acknowledge competing values; make trade-offs transparent
- Participatory Ethics: Involve affected stakeholders in defining what's "good"
- Systemic Responsibility: Consider lifecycle, externalities, collective impact
- Transparency by Design: Help users understand decision-making and data use
- Democratic Governance: Enable stakeholder input on design evolution
From Tongji
- Emotional Authenticity: Design for genuine feeling, not manufactured sentiment
- Cultural Resonance: Honor local meanings and emotional associations
- Multisensory Experience: Engage beyond visual/interaction; include sound, haptics, spatial
- Temporal Richness: Design for sustained meaning-making, not just novelty
- Identity Expression: Enable users to represent authentic selves
Integrated Principles
- Wellbeing as Stakeholder Definition: Not designer imposition—emerge through dialogue
- Values-Aligned Experience: Make emotional design serve ethical principles
- Sustainable Flourishing: Balance individual and collective wellbeing
- Adaptive Meaning-Making: Support evolution of experience over time
- Equitable Participation: Ensure powerful stakeholders don't dominate wellbeing definition
Common Challenges in Integrated Design
| Challenge |
TU Delft Response |
Tongji Response |
| Values conflicts paralyze decisions |
Make trade-offs explicit and transparent; stakeholder negotiation |
Find emotional narratives that bridge values; cultural wisdom |
| Design feels sterile or overly rational |
Include emotional/experiential design from start |
Ground in emotional resonance; cultural meaning |
| Communities resist participation |
Clarify stakes; build trust; ensure power-sharing |
Create safe, culturally-appropriate spaces; value all knowledge |
| Emotional design feels manipulative |
Tie emotions to values and transparency; ethical grounding |
Use emotions to serve flourishing, not exploit vulnerabilities |
| Cultural adaptation flattens meaning |
Engage local communities; avoid surface-level diversity |
Deep co-creation; honor cultural expertise and wisdom |
Resources & Further Learning
TU Delft:
- Design for Values methodology papers (van de Poel & others)
- Participatory design literature
- Circular economy and systems thinking resources
Tongji University:
- Emotional design and experience economy
- Cultural design and cross-cultural HCI
- Experiential prototyping methods
Integration:
- Sensemaking and meaning-making in design
- Participatory action research
- Community-based co-design case studies
1---2name: design-methods-for-wellbeing-tu-delft-tongji3description: Apply systematic design methodologies from leading institutions for wellbeing-centered design. Use when structuring design processes, facilitating stakeholder engagement, creating emotional resonance, integrating values, or evaluating design decisions. Combines TU Delft's rigorous human-centered approaches with Tongji's emotional and experiential design.4---5
6# Design Methods for Wellbeing: TU Delft & Tongji Approaches
7
8Leading design institutions have developed complementary methodologies for wellbeing-centered design. TU Delft (Delft University of Technology, Netherlands) emphasizes value-driven, participatory, and ethics-focused design. Tongji University (Shanghai, China) contributes emotional design, experiential mapping, and cultural resonance. Together, they provide comprehensive, evidence-based design practice.
9
10## TU Delft: Design for Values & Ethics
11
12### Design for Values (DfV) Framework
13
14**Core Principle**: Values (moral principles like autonomy, justice, care) should be explicitly embedded in design, not assumed or left to chance.
15
16#### The DfV Process
17
181. **Value Identification**
19 - Stakeholder workshops to surface moral values relevant to design
20 - Distinguish values from interests (values are enduring principles; interests are situational preferences)
21 - Map value pluralism (multiple legitimate values in tension)
22 - Question: "What principles matter to you? What would be wrong with this design?"
23
242. **Value Operationalization**
25 - Translate abstract values into concrete design criteria
26 - Value → Functional Requirements → Design Specifications
27 - Example: "Autonomy" → "Users can opt-out" → "Toggle for all tracking features"
28
293. **Value Realization**
30 - Ensure design actually manifests values through implementation
31 - Audit code, interfaces, policies for value alignment
32 - Identify where values conflict and make intentional trade-offs
33
344. **Value Validation**
35 - Test with stakeholders whether design reflects stated values
36 - Gather feedback on unintended consequences
37 - Refine based on lived experience
38
39#### Wellbeing-Relevant Values in Design
40
41| **Value** | **Design Implications** | **Questions to Ask** |
42|-----------|----------------------|---------------------|
43| **Autonomy** | User control, transparency, informed consent | Does the design manipulate or respect choice? Can users understand why features exist? |
44| **Justice** | Fair access, equitable representation, non-discrimination | Who benefits? Who is burdened? Are impacts distributed fairly? |
45| **Care** | Responsiveness to need, support for vulnerability | Does design respond to people's actual situations? Does it enable mutual care? |
46| **Integrity** | Authenticity, alignment with values | Is the experience genuine or manufactured? Does it honor user identity? |
47| **Flourishing** | Support for meaningful activity, skill development | Does this enable growth? Or dependency? |
48| **Community** | Social connection, belonging, collective wellbeing | Does it strengthen or isolate? Individual or common good? |
49| **Privacy** | Control over personal information, dignity | What data is collected? Who accesses it? Why? |
50
51### Stakeholder Engagement & Participatory Design
52
53**TU Delft Model of Participation**:
54
55- **Inform**: Share information about design decisions
56- **Consult**: Ask for input on options (bottom-up)
57- **Collaborate**: Work together on problem-solving
58- **Empower**: Transfer decision-making authority to stakeholders
59
60**Implementation**:
61
621. **Stakeholder Mapping**
63 - Identify all affected groups (users, caregivers, communities, regulators)
64 - Distinguish power dynamics and interests
65 - Plan engagement appropriate to each group
66
672. **Co-design Workshops**
68 - Prepare design space with tools and materials
69 - Facilitate group ideation without hierarchy
70 - Document ideas visually and textually
71 - Iterate on concepts with group feedback
72
733. **Democratic Experimentation**
74 - Prototype multiple design directions
75 - Stakeholders experience possibilities
76 - Vote or consensus on preferred direction
77 - Discuss reasons and concerns
78
794. **Ongoing Feedback Loops**
80 - Don't end participation after workshops
81 - Regular check-ins during implementation
82 - Support for adaptive use and feedback
83
84### Circular Design & Systems Thinking
85
86**TU Delft Frame**: Design doesn't exist in isolation; it's embedded in social, environmental, and economic systems. Sustainable wellbeing design considers lifecycle impacts and circular flows.
87
88**Questions**:
89- What materials and resources does this design consume?
90- What happens at end-of-life?
91- Does design reinforce or challenge unsustainable patterns?
92- Who bears environmental/social costs?
93- How does design contribute to collective wellbeing?
94
95## Tongji University: Emotional Design & Experience
96
97### Emotional Design Theory
98
99**Foundation**: Donald Norman's emotional design (visceral, behavioral, reflective levels) + cultural context
100
101**Three Levels**:
102
1031. **Visceral Design** (Aesthetic, Immediate)
104 - Color, form, typography, sound
105 - Evokes instant emotional response
106 - Cultural specificity matters (colors, symbols)
107 - Example: Warm colors for comfort vs. cool for calm
108
1092. **Behavioral Design** (Function, Experience)
110 - How well does it work?
111 - Is it intuitive and responsive?
112 - Does interaction flow feel natural?
113 - Example: Smooth animations feel more pleasurable than jarring transitions
114
1153. **Reflective Design** (Meaning, Identity)
116 - Does it align with self-image and values?
117 - Does it tell a meaningful story?
118 - Does it enable identity expression?
119 - Example: Customization features allow self-representation
120
121### Experience Mapping & Emotional Journey
122
123**Tongji Method**: Create rich, multi-sensory maps of user experience including emotional dimension
124
125#### Experience Mapping Process
126
1271. **Context Definition**
128 - Specific user scenario or journey phase
129 - Environmental factors (physical space, time, social context)
130 - User state (stressed, curious, confident)
131
1322. **Touchpoint Identification**
133 - Every interaction point with system or product
134 - Include pre-experience (anticipation) and post-experience (memory)
135 - Formal (interface) and informal (word-of-mouth) touchpoints
136
1373. **Emotional Resonance Mapping**
138 - For each touchpoint: What emotion is likely?
139 - What sensory elements contribute?
140 - What meaning is conveyed?
141 - Is emotional impact intentional?
142
1434. **Cultural Translation**
144 - Emotional resonance varies by culture
145 - Test with representative users from target culture
146 - Adapt visceral design (colors, symbols, music) appropriately
147 - Consider values across cultural contexts
148
149#### Emotional Journey Visualization
150
151Create multi-layer maps showing:
152- **Timeline**: Sequence of activities/touchpoints
153- **Emotional Arc**: Plotted highs/lows of emotional valence
154- **Sensory Experience**: What user sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes
155- **Meaning**: Narrative significance and identity connection
156- **Pain/Delight Points**: Where experience breaks down or shines
157
158### Co-creation & Participatory Prototyping
159
160**Tongji Focus**: Users aren't just informants; they're creative partners in defining meaningful experiences
161
162#### Techniques
163
164**1. Generative Sessions**
165- Participants create collages, drawings, physical prototypes
166- Non-designers can express tacit, embodied knowledge
167- Conversation emerges from making, not interviews
168
169**2. Role-play & Bodystorming**
170- Act out desired future scenarios
171- Use body and gesture to explore possibilities
172- Reveals emotional and embodied dimensions
173
174**3. Prototype Co-refinement**
175- Bring rough prototypes; participants modify and iterate
176- Build in public; refine with ongoing feedback
177- Participants see their ideas realized
178
179**4. Cultural Workshops**
180- Explore cultural narratives and values
181- Create emotionally resonant design within cultural context
182- Avoid cultural appropriation; build authentic resonance
183
184### Experiential Prototyping
185
186**Goal**: Create full sensory experience of proposed design for evaluation and refinement
187
188**Stages**:
189
1901. **Spatial Prototyping**
191 - Create physical mockups of user environment
192 - Test how design feels in situ
193 - Evaluate ergonomics, sensory qualities, social dynamics
194
1952. **Temporal Prototyping**
196 - Experience design over time, not snapshot
197 - How does experience evolve? Does novelty wear off?
198 - Does design support sustained wellbeing?
199
2003. **Multimodal Prototyping**
201 - Incorporate sound, haptics, scent, temperature
202 - Not just visual/interaction design
203 - Full sensory experience informs meaning-making
204
2054. **Social Prototyping**
206 - Test how design affects relationships and communities
207 - Who feels included/excluded?
208 - Does design foster belonging or isolation?
209
210## Integration: TU Delft + Tongji Approach
211
212### Unified Wellbeing Design Process
213
214**Phase 1: Value & Experience Framing** (TU Delft + Tongji)
215- Identify stakeholders and their values (TU Delft)
216- Explore emotional dimensions and cultural narratives (Tongji)
217- Co-define design brief with stakeholders
218- Create aspirational vision for wellbeing outcomes
219
220**Phase 2: Discovery & Empathy** (TU Delft + Tongji)
221- Participatory stakeholder workshops (TU Delft)
222- Ethnographic immersion in user contexts (TU Delft)
223- Emotional journey mapping (Tongji)
224- Generative co-creation sessions (Tongji)
225
226**Phase 3: Ideation & Concept Development** (TU Delft + Tongji)
227- Multi-directional ideation respecting value pluralism (TU Delft)
228- Emotional resonance brainstorming (Tongji)
229- Scenario development with cultural specificity (Tongji)
230- Ethical trade-off analysis (TU Delft)
231
232**Phase 4: Prototyping & Experience Design** (Tongji + TU Delft)
233- Experiential prototyping for emotional qualities (Tongji)
234- Value operationalization in design (TU Delft)
235- Multimodal and temporal prototyping (Tongji)
236- Stakeholder feedback loops (TU Delft)
237
238**Phase 5: Evaluation & Refinement** (TU Delft + Tongji)
239- Measure value realization through lived experience (TU Delft)
240- Assess emotional resonance and cultural fit (Tongji)
241- Qualitative research-through-design (Chapter 3)
242- Psychometric validation of wellbeing outcomes (Chapter 2)
243
244**Phase 6: Implementation & Adaptive Use** (TU Delft + Tongji)
245- Co-implement with stakeholders (TU Delft)
246- Support for emergent meanings and cultural adaptation (Tongji)
247- Monitor for unintended consequences (TU Delft)
248- Sustained engagement and relationship (Tongji)
249
250## Practical Tools & Workshops
251
252### Values Card Sort
253**Tool**: Cards with values (autonomy, justice, care, etc.)
254**Activity**:
2551. Arrange cards by importance to you
2562. Discuss tensions when values conflict
2573. Prioritize for design
258**Output**: Shared values framework
259
260### Emotional Touchpoint Audit
261**Activity**:
2621. Create journey map of current experience
2632. Rate emotional valence at each touchpoint (-5 to +5)
2643. Identify where design could increase positive emotions
2654. Note where comfort conflicts with growth
266
267### Stakeholder Power Mapping
268**Activity**:
2691. List all stakeholders
2702. Plot on axes: Power (to affect outcomes) vs. Interest (in outcomes)
2713. Engage high-power, high-interest groups intensively
2724. Ensure voice of vulnerable groups despite low power
273
274### Values-to-Design Translation
275**Process**:
276- Value (e.g., Autonomy) →
277- Design Principle (e.g., "User control over defaults") →
278- Functional Requirement (e.g., "Settings allow turning off recommendations") →
279- Implementation (e.g., Toggle in preferences, default OFF)
280
281### Emotional Resonance Testing
282**Method**:
2831. Present design to representative users
2842. Rate emotional response: visceral (visual), behavioral (usability), reflective (meaning)
2853. Explain ratings: "What made it feel that way?"
2864. Identify cultural/individual variations
287
288## Wellbeing Design Principles Derived
289
290### From TU Delft
291
2921. **Design for Plural Values**: Acknowledge competing values; make trade-offs transparent
2932. **Participatory Ethics**: Involve affected stakeholders in defining what's "good"
2943. **Systemic Responsibility**: Consider lifecycle, externalities, collective impact
2954. **Transparency by Design**: Help users understand decision-making and data use
2965. **Democratic Governance**: Enable stakeholder input on design evolution
297
298### From Tongji
299
3001. **Emotional Authenticity**: Design for genuine feeling, not manufactured sentiment
3012. **Cultural Resonance**: Honor local meanings and emotional associations
3023. **Multisensory Experience**: Engage beyond visual/interaction; include sound, haptics, spatial
3034. **Temporal Richness**: Design for sustained meaning-making, not just novelty
3045. **Identity Expression**: Enable users to represent authentic selves
305
306### Integrated Principles
307
3081. **Wellbeing as Stakeholder Definition**: Not designer imposition—emerge through dialogue
3092. **Values-Aligned Experience**: Make emotional design serve ethical principles
3103. **Sustainable Flourishing**: Balance individual and collective wellbeing
3114. **Adaptive Meaning-Making**: Support evolution of experience over time
3125. **Equitable Participation**: Ensure powerful stakeholders don't dominate wellbeing definition
313
314## Common Challenges in Integrated Design
315
316| **Challenge** | **TU Delft Response** | **Tongji Response** |
317|---------------|-------------------|-------------------|
318| Values conflicts paralyze decisions | Make trade-offs explicit and transparent; stakeholder negotiation | Find emotional narratives that bridge values; cultural wisdom |
319| Design feels sterile or overly rational | Include emotional/experiential design from start | Ground in emotional resonance; cultural meaning |
320| Communities resist participation | Clarify stakes; build trust; ensure power-sharing | Create safe, culturally-appropriate spaces; value all knowledge |
321| Emotional design feels manipulative | Tie emotions to values and transparency; ethical grounding | Use emotions to serve flourishing, not exploit vulnerabilities |
322| Cultural adaptation flattens meaning | Engage local communities; avoid surface-level diversity | Deep co-creation; honor cultural expertise and wisdom |
323
324## Resources & Further Learning
325
326**TU Delft**:
327- Design for Values methodology papers (van de Poel & others)
328- Participatory design literature
329- Circular economy and systems thinking resources
330
331**Tongji University**:
332- Emotional design and experience economy
333- Cultural design and cross-cultural HCI
334- Experiential prototyping methods
335
336**Integration**:
337- Sensemaking and meaning-making in design
338- Participatory action research
339- Community-based co-design case studies