I thought Carroll's assertions that design actually "restructure human activities" and technology "undermines the stability of the world" were very interesting. He was talking about computers, but can we apply this to learning spaces--whether or not they use technology? Should they be more easily updateable to keep up with a changing world, or provide some of the stability humans are looking for? We talked about this a little with the museum visits, where some of us liked that some exhibits never changed--and therefore were nostalgic for us--but we also liked seeing something new each time we went. How might this apply to scenarios? I can see it applying to personas--the one person who likes things to stay the same, and another who loves the cutting edge. If scenarios are all about goals and tasks, what goals does the first person have in a particular space, and how do they differ from the second person's goals?
I really liked the emphasis on the flexibility of scenarios, and how their low-cost, low-committment nature really allows you to explore possiblities. I like Ackoff's idea that problem solving should equal "designing a desireable future and inventing ways of bringing it about." I love this "big picture" approach. I think this might be especially applicable to my group's project, where the objective is literally to save lives all over the world.
I also like Carroll's insistence that "If technical knowledge lags design, then designers themselves must formulate what they learn--perhaps becoming creators of technical knowledge more than consumers of it." I think this relates to the idea of not letting technology limit your initial design ideas--or your scenarios. Even if the technology is not yet there, think first about your user's tasks and goals, then adapt the existing technology to them, not vice-versa.