D651 Foundations of Design, catalog number DES 2100, is the three CU entry course of the WGU School of Business design sequence, covering foundational design theory and design thinking as a problem solving approach oriented to user needs. The framing is deliberate. This is not a course about making things attractive. It is a course about a method for finding out what a person actually needs and then building towards it.
Method, not taste
The most common weak submission in DES 2100 is one where the student produces something they think looks good and then explains why they like it. Preference is not evidence, and a rubric aspect asking for justification cannot be satisfied by it. What can satisfy it is a chain from an observed user need, through a stated design principle, to a specific choice.
That chain is the whole course in miniature. Users struggle to find one control, contrast and grouping principles say that proximity and visual weight direct attention, therefore this element moves and gains emphasis and this other element loses it. Every part of that sentence is checkable. None of it depends on the reader sharing your taste.
The second scored theme is the discipline of not solving too early. Design thinking as a method insists on understanding before ideating, and the aspects usually reflect that sequence. A submission that arrives at its solution in the second paragraph has skipped the part of the process being assessed, however good the solution happens to be.
Turning scored aspects into a section plan
The scoring detail sits in your Course of Study rather than the catalog. Count the aspects, then give each one a heading using the rubric's own nouns. Each is judged independently against a three point scale and each needs a 2, so an attractive artefact paired with a thin theory section is a returned task.
Design courses produce visual work, and visual work creates a mapping problem: an aspect satisfied in an image and never stated in prose. Every artefact needs a paragraph naming what it demonstrates. Evaluators score sentences.
The word budget, worked. Assume six scored aspects and about 1,600 words of written work alongside the visuals. Reserve 120 words to name the user and the problem and 100 to close. That leaves near 1,380, about 230 per aspect. Then take 40 words from each of two descriptive aspects and add 80 to the aspect covering user needs and the same to the aspect covering principle based justification. Those two are where a design submission either has a method or has an opinion.
A structure that fits a foundations deliverable
Where your directions specify a structure, follow it. Where they do not, this ordering matches how foundational design aspects tend to be scored.
| Section | What belongs in it | How it gets read |
|---|---|---|
| User and context | Who this is for, what they are trying to do, under what conditions | Context such as noise, urgency or one handed use changes everything |
| Problem framing | The need stated as a need rather than as a missing feature | A framing containing a solution has skipped the method |
| Principles applied | The specific design principles relevant here, named and cited | Named principles convert preference into reasoning |
| Concept development | More than one direction explored, with what each traded off | A single concept suggests the first idea was accepted uncritically |
| Chosen design | The artefact, with each significant choice tied to a principle and a need | The core scored material |
| Accessibility | Contrast, size, alternative paths, and who was considered | Expected even in a foundations course |
| Evaluation | How you would test whether this works for the user described | Turns an artefact into a design proposal |
Show the concepts you rejected. Two or three quick alternatives with a sentence each on why they lost demonstrate the exploration step more convincingly than any amount of polish on the final piece.
Evidence craft in a design course
Design evidence is a mixture of observation, theory and your own work, and each needs different handling.
- Cite design principles to published sources. Gestalt grouping, visual hierarchy, affordance and colour theory are all documented and citing them lifts a submission immediately.
- Ground user claims in something observed, even informally, and say how many people and when.
- Label every visual and refer to it by label in the text, so an evaluator can follow the argument.
- State the constraints you worked within: format, brand, platform, accessibility requirements.
- Check contrast ratios and state the standard used rather than judging by eye.
- Use APA in the written portion and credit any assets, fonts or images you did not create.
The habit that separates strong foundational work is writing the principle before making the choice. Deciding first and finding a principle afterwards produces justifications that read as decorative, and evaluators see a lot of them.
What separates Competent from a submission sent back
Aspects are scored independently, so returns are usually a single section deep.
- The user is described by need and context rather than by demographic label.
- Every significant design choice names a principle and a user need.
- More than one concept was explored and the rejected ones are shown.
- Accessibility is addressed with specifics rather than mentioned.
- An evaluation method is proposed, even a simple one.
Performance assessment work at WGU can be revised and resubmitted with no grade penalty, so a return costs calendar rather than standing. Terms are six months at a flat rate, and the design sequence rewards momentum because each course assumes the vocabulary of the last.
Six mistakes that cost time in D651
- Justifying by preference. Liking a choice is not a reason, and it is the most common thing evaluators mark down.
- Solving in the first paragraph. The method is what is being assessed, and skipping to the answer skips the aspects.
- One concept only. Exploration is a scored step, not an optional preliminary.
- Users described as demographics. Age and income rarely predict what someone needs from an interface.
- Accessibility as an afterthought. Retrofitting contrast and structure is harder than designing with them.
- Visuals with no accompanying prose. An image cannot answer an aspect on its own.
- Designing for yourself without noticing. The fastest way to catch this is to name one specific way the intended user differs from you, then check whether any choice in the work reflects that difference.
- Treating constraints as obstacles. A fixed format, a brand palette or a small screen narrows the field of possible answers, which is help rather than hindrance, and a submission that names its constraints early tends to arrive at a stronger concept faster than one that treats every option as open.
Turning a principle into a defensible choice
The skill that carries every course after this one is writing a justification that a sceptical reader would accept, and it has a repeatable shape.
Start with the observation. Something specific about the user or the context: they are using this while standing, they arrive already frustrated, they only need one of the six options on any given visit, they cannot reliably distinguish red from green. Observation is what keeps the argument out of the realm of taste.
Name the principle that applies, and cite it. Hierarchy determines what is seen first. Proximity implies relationship. Consistency reduces the cost of learning. Redundant coding means colour should never be the only carrier of meaning. Each of these has literature behind it and each converts an instinct into an argument.
Then state the choice as a consequence. Because the user needs one of six options on a given visit, and hierarchy determines attention order, the most frequent action takes the largest visual weight and the remaining five collapse behind a single control. Because colour alone cannot carry meaning, the status indicator uses shape as well as hue.
Finally, name the trade off. Every choice costs something: the collapsed menu adds a step for the other five actions, the larger control takes space from content. Naming the cost shows you chose rather than defaulted, and it is the sentence that most often lifts a justification from adequate to clearly competent.
How support works on this course
Send the rubric from your Course of Study and the task directions. What comes back is aspect mapped: a user description built on need and context, framing that avoids embedding a solution, principle based justifications with sources, exploration of alternatives, and accessibility handled with specifics. Plus a walkthrough so you can defend the work rather than describe it.
D651 establishes the vocabulary for the entire design sequence. Terms run six months at a flat rate, so taking the sequence without long gaps keeps the method fresh and lowers the cost per course.
Questions students ask about D651
Is D651 the same course as DES 2100?
Do I need to be able to draw?
Can you produce the design work for me?
Where D651 sits in WGU's programs
The July 2026 catalog places this code in 1 current WGU program. Open a program page for the complete standard path and term positions. The live Degree Plan remains authoritative after transfer credit, substitutions, and mentor planning.
The assessments, one by one
The public catalog does not publish this course's PA/OA identity or task count. WGU Tutors publishes at most one PA manual per course and only from a WGU-controlled public rubric. Until that source exists, PA help begins from the student's real Course of Study and OA support remains preparation only.