Throughout our investigation into the formalisation of the Empathy Norm within design processes, we explored how its expression can oscillate between the explicit manifestation, related to an external expression that can be investigated through 'Empathic Design Research' and 'Empathic Design Action', and the implicit one, associated with an inward dimension that can be explored through 'Empathic Orientation' and 'Empathic Mental Processes' (Surma-aho & Hölttä-Otto, 2021). Although the external investigation may follow defined models employing specific empathic tools, the translation of the knowledge gathered through the user research still relies on the designer's inner reasoning and subjective ability to resonate with the user's environment, experiences, and feelings. It is precisely in this continuous flow of information between the interiority and the exteriority, the implicitness and the explicitness of the empathic processes, which synergistically involve the designer and the user, that one of the limits of the norm is highlighted. This first limitation that is recognized takes the form of the impossibility, as an intrinsic characteristic of every human being, of depriving oneself of one's innate interpretative filter in capturing the otherness. This flaw is well expressed by the concept of the 'Empathic Horizon' (McDonagh-Philp and Denton, 1999), a term that indicates the limits of the designer's ability to empathise beyond the experiences, background, culture, education, and other socio-cultural references intrinsic to each individual (Kouprie & Visser, 2009). Therefore, someone feels that these factors inhibit deep identification with the user, making appreciation and understanding of otherness a subjective interpretation. It is considered that the main risk is that designers may adopt a 'designer-centric' approach. In this sense, their experience and overestimation of their abilities lead them to exhibit self-referential behavior, shaping the insights and experiences provided by the user according to their own perspective (Koskinen et al., 2003). It is known that through the preconception, which could be positive or negative, we have a first explanation about things, in this case, identity. There are supporters of the idea that, after the first preconception, through overcoming it, it could let you improve the project, helping to visualize other points of view. Moreover, while some designers take a 'designer-centric' approach, others try to avoid bias and stereotypes through the inclusion of stakeholders and feedback. Although it is always clear that design for all individuals cannot be universalised, design tends to respond to the needs of as many people as possible. Indeed, the gap between the empathic approach and the need to generalise outcomes for product development shows us how tricky the process of designing itself is. This does not exclude that, in some cases, designers ignore negative feedback and hinder the improvement or resolution of issues detected in the user experience. Nevertheless, the involvement of all stakeholders (i.e., clients, developers, and investors) is necessary in order to design an effective and useful project. At other times, however, the interaction between the stakeholders and enhancements due to feedback let designers maximize the results of designing by finding diverse perspectives and removing the presence of bias. As already said, there are researchers that explain some of those patterns as the 'empathy trap' in which the designer's attempt to perform empathy results in predictable considerations rather than innovative and radical interpretations (Mattelmäki et al., 2014). In this scenario, we want to question the assumption of Universality. This relates to an illusory belief in fully understanding others and their needs, rooted in the confidence that the conventional methodologies and tools adopted for empathic research in design can empower the designer, leading them to neglect self-criticism of their subjective perspectives. From this standpoint, the designer may be led to believe that their design has met some universal criteria. Such objectives would, in any case, represent a utopia within any design project, since any outcome, even the most well-reasoned, is intrinsically incapable of including the full range of possible perspectives. Indeed, the limitation lies not only in the failure to achieve a universal outline but rather in the absence of a self-reflection process, which reinforces the designer's unconscious biases and leads to their integration into the project as a self-validated act. In this sense, we are wondering if the models and techniques that designers use to help enforce empathy are really valid. Indeed, those could not be inclusive or designed through bias themselves.

Despite the fact that empathy is a powerful tool for understanding others, as we already mentioned, it can happen that this comprehension is limited. Recognizing that our approach could be flawed, we can head towards a more nuanced perspective on a situation. Indeed, by highlighting blind spots, designers are more prepared to do a critical reflection about their own biases, assumptions, and perspectives. Therefore, through recognition of the "Empathic Horizon" and acknowledging the limits of subjectivity in perceiving others, it will indeed be aware of the difference between subjectivity and otherness and of the infinite opportunities within this difference. This could serve as a starting point for a more constructive approach, fostering a deeper understanding of situations from different perspectives. Therefore, by recognizing where empathy is lacking, designers can target it as a way to improve. Indeed, improving empathic abilities involves actions like seeking out diverse perspectives, practicing active listening, and exploring experiences different from their own. Being able to acknowledge empathy as a subjective "practice" can lead to greater awareness in the design process. Precisely from the fact that it cannot be standardized by rules and tools, even if supportive, and understanding filtered through our perspective as designers.

Generally, we think of exploiting weaknesses in a negative and non-constructive way. In the case of empathy, it is possible to think about how the weak points of this Norm can be exploited to earn more, further weakening some social groups. Or the already-present gaps, biases, and prejudices could be exploited to increase the differences. In this way, for example, it will be increasingly difficult to empathize with otherness, to know it and recognize it, and then enter into a relationship with it. On the other hand, however, as mentioned before, delving into the lack can be a means to increase critical thinking. By identifying the weak point, it is necessary to bring in considerations regarding fundamental principles, such as those of equity and justice. This is why the empathic process is long and concerns a profound understanding of others according to different points of view, while also taking advantage of an intersectional perspective. Reaching this level of awareness can help designers understand their "empathic" limitations and reflect more on their design practices. This can be achieved by exposing them to the diversity of perceptions of empathy, which can provide a heterogeneous picture of the domain in which we operate.

Following what we have explained so far, it is important to underline that our main aim is to reflect on the limits that empathy brings within. These limits are not only related to the field of design, but to all situations in which empathy is applied. For this reason, we believe it is more appropriate if the scale of intervention focus on the single designer. Through our design, we do not want to revise the empathic approaches and tools developed for the design discipline, which are based on specific methodologies drawing from the psychological and social sciences. Instead, our goal is to prompt designers, on an individual level, to question and reflect upon the "limits" of their subjectivity in perceiving others and their projects. The initial aim was to highlight how empathy is a subjective perception. The first reflections in this regard have pushed towards a collection of opinions on the topic to highlight the heterogeneity and subjectivity in the perception of individuality. For this reason, we decided to focus on a medium that could highlight this idea of heterogeneity and subjectivity in the perception of empathy. For example, by collecting and showcasing various opinions on the subject from both users and designers’ perspectives. During the brainstorming sessions, we reflected on considerations that might arise from broader questions that challenge the concept of understanding otherness in design and beyond, e.g. What does empathy mean to you? Why is empathy important (in design)? Having to deal with such a dense topic, whose value framework extends far beyond the realm of design, we initially considered methods to showcase the various facets of the theme's interpretation. Within this perspective, we imagined juxtaposing various points of view in order to reveal the complexity of the phenomenon, through a virtual or physical exhibition, to make designers reflect on the challenges they face and the multitude of perspectives to be included in the design process. The aim of this hypothetical installation was to uncover the deeper meaning of empathy, both from the designer's and the user's perspective. We had planned to gather insights through various methods inspired by empathy practices in design (e.g. crosswords, multiple-choice tests, remote voice recordings, live interviews with voice and video recordings, graphic representations, and role-plays). These methodologies aimed to highlight the diversity of perspectives and the impact of the researcher's approach on the responses obtained. Through this concept, the objective was to demonstrate the potential dialogue among the various responses gathered. Thus, in our understanding, the exhibition should have been followed by a roundtable discussion to gather opinions on empathy perception. This would involve how visitors perceived the different media used as 'empathic', exploring the concept of meta-empathy. With this approach, we aimed to test not only our own "Empathic Horizons" but also those of the participants and visitors. By highlighting the biases inherent in our research, which influence the choice of methods and formulation of questions, as well as the subjectivity involved in experiencing the exhibition itself. Building upon this initial hypothesis and framework, we sought to enhance the experience by offering a different perspective. Referring back to McDonagh-Philp and Denton's concept from 1999, we figured out that every individual has his or her own unique experiences, and these define his or her "Empathic Horizon." This term is used to indicate the limits on a designer’s individual ability to empathize beyond certain characteristics of his or her group, such as nationality, background, age, gender, culture, experience, and education. In relation to this concept, a few years later, Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) developed a measure of someone’s level of empathy called the "Empathy Quotient". The idea of the exhibition gradually evolved into a digital experience aimed at raising awareness of how the choice of "empathic" methodologies applied within design processes and the unique sensibility of each individual determine the grasp of otherness. At the centre of this virtual experience, we want to place the subjectivity of the empathic experience, as opposed to the so-called "Presumption of Universality" that many designers risk falling into while performing "empathy-centric" design. To challenge this notion, the prototype is structured as a series of interactions aimed at measuring the user's level of empathy in a fictitious manner. The proposed experiences are characterised by a high level of ambiguity, which prevents the user from responding based on a binary choice of correctness: true or false, yes or no, right or wrong. Through subtle irony and the proposition of activities where the validity of the response highlights each user's subjective perspective, the prototype seeks to emphasise the ambiguity of the theme and the multitude of interpretations related to empathy. The ironic mimicry of a "bad" interface showing different perceptions of empathy serves as an anti-toolkit for deep self-reflection. The point is not to criticise empathic practices in design, but to recognise our limitations as humans to explore otherness with greater awareness. For this reason, rather than offering a definitive solution, the aim of the prototype is to engage designers in a meta-reflection on empathy, encouraging them to contemplate its significance and how acknowledging its limitations can enhance their work.

The context in which we design is a melting pot of multiple cultures, points of view, and perspectives, but also the place where the singularity of each individual could be expressed. The designer, as part of this environment, is subjected to these mechanisms. As already explained, following the concept of "Empathic Horizon," we aren't able to go beyond our background and overcome our biases in order to truly understand the presence of others perspectives. Because of the Norm that we investigated and the type of medium that we defined as more suitable, the boundaries of the prototype become blurred and cannot be framed within a rigid disciplinary framework. Indeed, in our opinion, since the influences are various (i.e., design, social, cultural, and psychological), it's really reductive to encase them in a predicted scheme.

The proposed experience, which moves within this hybrid space, connecting various disciplinary fields that have accompanied the formation of the concept of empathy since its emergence. However, our prototype intends to use design languages to canalize our reflection into an artefact related to the Design Interface discipline. In this context, the design seeks to challenge the assimilated rules of affordance in digital experiences and established modes of interaction, inviting users to question their certainties in the navigation patterns and with the digital medium. In this way, we also want to challenge the value framework based on the paradoxical concept in which otherness ends up representing the very end, which is the limit of the Empathy Norm. The reflection that can arise from the experience, however, will be calibrated to individual sensitivity, which can reshape the inner concept of empathy in an original way.

Our anti-toolkit is a website. In order to make the definitions and descriptions as varied as possible, we ask some questions about empathy to AI-powered large language model. In this way, we have combined definitions and citations from researchers and answers from Artificial Intelligence. Opening the homepage, you can immediately realize that the interface is not friendly and empathetic towards the user. And, below it, a menu that drives the idea of confusion and unclarity. The words that are written on the different labels are meaningless and unuseful. After some tentative thinking, you can choose between going into the portfolio that will explain the project or trying the empathy game and discovering which is your empathy level. The user will find a prickly object that will challenge you to immerse yourself in a nonsense game and test your empathy. All the activities proposed focus on the theme of empathy and look at it from different angles. And, below it, a menu that drives the idea of confusion and unclarity. with a series of labels with meaningless and useless words. Thus emphasizing the disorienting feeling and poor usability of the interface. The user who is confronted with this confusing site can choose whether to test the game and challenge their empathy or to go directly to the portfolio with an explanation of the project. In case they want to test the experience they are confronted with a thorny object, conceptually resembling hostility, from which they will begin their nonsense gameplay experience, which is intended to challenge their mental construct of empathy. This is done through a series of interactive activities that explore the concept of empathy from different perspectives without proposing real solutions. DON'T START HERE: IF YOU FEEL EMPATHY, CLICK THE GRAY BUTTON From the very first interaction, we realize how this game challenges our opinions and judgments. The phrase "Are you sure this is gray?" leads one to doubt their own judgment, putting it on a plane of different perspectives. Why do you ask if the color is gray? Are there people who do not perceive it that way? How do other people perceive the color gray? NEITHER HERE: POSITION YOUR EMPATHY This is an intentional provocation because although we can continually push the limits of our empathy by “widening” our “Empathic Horizon,” there will always be a new limit to be challenged, placed a bit further when confronted with alterity. By not allowing the user to go beyond this limit, the measurement cursor intends to push them to question the role of their subjectivity in the perception of others. START HERE: ARE YOU EMPATHETIC? The question gives you the feeling of struggle because it’s unclear what the user needs to do with it. The solution to the “enigma” is not an answer, but the realization that the concept of empathy can also be applied to inanimate beings, as the origins of the therm. PHASE 1: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS THE DEFINITION OF EMPATHY? Through this proposed activity, we want to stress the idea that empathy does not have a unique definition. For this reason, among the proposed solutions there isn’t a correct answer, but a tone of different definitions and points of view about the topic. Also combined with nonsensical responses that invite reflection on the very meaning of attributing empathy an univocal definition. PHASE 2: DISCOVER THE LIMIT OF EMPATHY During the fourth activity, the users are pushed to make a reflection about the concept of universality and how it could modify their point of view (and how its perception is constrained by the subjectivity of one's viewpoints.) Indeed, through the card written in Braille, the users are uncertain about the message that the site conveys and try to find a way to get it. Then they will discover that this is an explanation of what the presumption of universality is. BOSS: FOLLOW THE STEPS TO EMPATHIZE The last activity gives the idea that to empathize with someone, it is necessary to follow some steps. The way users must proceed through the predefined empathizing steps results in unpredictable outcomes, clearly far from what one would expect from an "empathy process". This dynamic is designed to challenge the rigidity sustained by some traditional empathic methodologies, prompting us to contemplate how the interaction between humans is not something that can be controlled and managed solely by tools. GAME OVER: CONGRATULATIONS! After those activities, the result will never be processed definitively, as there is no real rigid assessment of empathy. In this context, it will be explained through a description that empathy is unique and personal. Indeed, every identity perceives what is around them differently, through the lens of their background, history, and bias. You can constantly practice empathy to make your context more and more welcoming to others. Success, therefore, comes from questioning yourself.