主模式和野蠻模式

Taking a dig at Jakob Nielsen’s po-faced disapproval of Flash, Joel Spolsky wrote a post that has been echoing around the internet for the last 20 years. It’s short and funny, so I’ll quote it all here:

Joel Spolsky深入研究了Jakob Nielsen對(duì)Flash的不贊成，他撰寫了一篇帖子 ，該帖子在過去20年間一直在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上回蕩。 它又短又有趣，所以我在這里引用它們：

Jakob Nielsen says that Flash is ‘99% bad.’ I have to agree. Flash always reduces usability.

雅各布·尼爾森(Jakob Nielsen)說，Flash的“不良率是99％”。 我必須同意。 Flash總是會(huì)降低可用性。

On the other hand, every time I read Jakob Nielsen, I get this feeling that he really doesn’t appreciate that usability is not the most important thing on earth. Sure, usability is important (I wrote a whole book about it). But it is simply not everyone’s number one priority, nor should it be. You get the feeling that if Mr Nielsen designed a singles bar, it would be well lit, clean, with giant menus printed in Arial 14 point, and you’d never have to wait to get a drink. But nobody would go there, they would all be at Coyote Ugly Saloon pouring beer on each other.

另一方面，每次閱讀Jakob Nielsen時(shí)，我都會(huì)感覺到他真的不欣賞可用性不是地球上最重要的事情。 當(dāng)然，可用性很重要(我為此寫了一本書)。 但這根本不是每個(gè)人的頭等大事，也不應(yīng)該。 您會(huì)感覺到，如果尼爾森先生設(shè)計(jì)了一個(gè)單人酒吧，那么酒吧將光線充足，干凈整潔，并在Arial 14點(diǎn)上印有豐富的菜單，您將永遠(yuǎn)不必等待喝一杯。 但是沒有人會(huì)去那里，他們都會(huì)在土狼丑陋的轎車上互相傾倒啤酒。

Spolsky’s post reads differently today than it did in 2000, a few years before web accessibility regulations were legislated into federal law. Usability now has to be everyone’s priority. WCAG standards are our rules of the road, preventing needless ambiguity, error, and exclusion. Yet the standardization of web patterns and general obsession with optimization have prompted calls for a return to the “weird web” (calls which notably reminisce about Flash development in the early aughts). We got too serious, too mainstream, as the web grew.

Spolsky的帖子今天的閱讀方式與2000年的閱讀方式有所不同，在2000年，網(wǎng)絡(luò)可訪問性法規(guī)被立法成為聯(lián)邦法律之前的幾年。 可用性現(xiàn)在必須成為每個(gè)人的首要任務(wù)。 WCAG標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是我們的工作之道，可避免不必要的歧義，錯(cuò)誤和排斥。 然而，Web模式的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化和對(duì)優(yōu)化的普遍癡迷促使人們呼吁回到“怪異的Web” (這種調(diào)用在早期引起了人們對(duì)Flash開發(fā)的特別回憶)。 隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)的發(fā)展，我們變得太認(rèn)真，太主流了。

The web is fundamental to modern life, but modern life is also weird and bizarre and our commitment to usability needn’t hinder the expression of that strangeness. Thankfully, you can spend Bill Gates’ money using just keyboard navigation. There’s more strange out there.

網(wǎng)絡(luò)是現(xiàn)代生活的基礎(chǔ)，但是現(xiàn)代生活也很奇怪和離奇，我們對(duì)可用性的承諾無須阻礙這種陌生的表達(dá)。 值得慶幸的是，您可以僅使用鍵盤導(dǎo)航來花費(fèi)比爾·蓋茨的錢 。 那里還有更多奇怪的地方。

We see a little of this weirdness in the sites cataloged on Brutalist Websites. Web Brutalism has become a catchall term for websites that flout the conventions of modern web design with a kind of droll, utilitarian nostalgia for the early web. Think JNCO jeans in a sea of khaki Wordpress chino sameness. Things animate that shouldn’t, things don’t animate that should, things animate in ways that they shouldn’t. Navigation elements are either in your face or purposefully obscured. 3D art, italics, plain, neo grotesk fonts, monstrous hover states, jewel tones, thick dividing lines, harsh contrasts are some of the hallmarks. The trend is decidedly hip, and popular enough to show up in The New York Times articles and Bloomberg design conference sites. You know it when you see it.

我們看到這種古怪編目中的網(wǎng)站上有點(diǎn)野獸派網(wǎng)站 。 Web野蠻主義已成為對(duì)網(wǎng)站的通俗稱呼，這些網(wǎng)站對(duì)早期Web表現(xiàn)出一種愚蠢的，功利的懷舊之情，不符合現(xiàn)代Web設(shè)計(jì)的慣例。 想想卡其色的Wordpress千篇一律的海洋中的JNCO牛仔褲。 事物本不應(yīng)該進(jìn)行動(dòng)畫處理，事物不應(yīng)該本應(yīng)進(jìn)行動(dòng)畫處理，事物以本不應(yīng)該進(jìn)行的方式進(jìn)行動(dòng)畫處理。 導(dǎo)航元素要么在您的臉上，要么故意被遮蓋。 3D藝術(shù)，斜體，普通，新格羅特斯克字體，懸停狀態(tài)令人恐懼，珠寶色調(diào)，粗分界線，鮮明的對(duì)比是其中的標(biāo)志。 這種趨勢(shì)絕對(duì)是時(shí)髦的，并且足夠流行，可以在《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的文章和彭博設(shè)計(jì)會(huì)議網(wǎng)站上顯示。 您一看到就知道。

Some Web Brutalist fun. Left to right: book.land, Studio Push, x20xx, In the City. Below, Bloomberg’s 2016 Design Conference registration site. 一些網(wǎng)絡(luò)野獸派的樂趣。 從左到右： book.land ， Studio Push ， x20xx ， 在城市 。 下方是彭博社2016年設(shè)計(jì)大會(huì)注冊(cè)網(wǎng)站。

There’s some debate about what constitutes Web Brutalism. In “ The Split Personality of Web Brutalism,” Frederick O’Brien quotes Pascal Deville, curator of the Brutalist Websites archive, on the different types of practitioners:

關(guān)于什么構(gòu)成網(wǎng)絡(luò)野蠻主義存在一些爭(zhēng)論 。 弗雷德里克·奧布萊恩(Frederick O'Brien)在“ 網(wǎng)絡(luò)野蠻主義的分裂人格 ”一文中引用了野蠻主義網(wǎng)站檔案館館長(zhǎng)Pascal Deville的不同類型從業(yè)者：

The purists reference strongly to the architectural characteristics of Web Brutalism, such as the concept of ‘truth to materials’ and the use of the purest markup elements available. The UX minimalists, in contrast, see efficiency and performance as the main driver of Web Brutalism and even believe that the radical limitation of possibilities can boost conversions. The ‘a(chǎn)nti-ists’ or artists see web design as an (still) undervalued form of art and don’t show much respect [to] the status quo and mostly get bad press.

純粹主義者強(qiáng)烈引用了Web野蠻主義的體系結(jié)構(gòu)特征，例如“對(duì)材料的真實(shí)性”概念以及使用最純凈的標(biāo)記元素。 相比之下，UX極簡(jiǎn)主義者將效率和性能視為Web野蠻主義的主要驅(qū)動(dòng)力，甚至認(rèn)為，可能性的根本限制可以促進(jìn)轉(zhuǎn)換。 “反主義者”或藝術(shù)家將網(wǎng)頁設(shè)計(jì)視為一種(仍然)被低估的藝術(shù)形式，對(duì)現(xiàn)狀沒有太多的尊重，并且大多受到負(fù)面的報(bào)道。

Most of what’s labeled Web Brutalism is a normcore visual aesthetic — the web version of anti-art, a rejection of refinement and sophistication — rather than a meaningful digital analogue to architectural Brutalism. Coined by Swedish architect Hans Asplund, “Brutalism” described a style of architecture that intentionally revealed the underlying structural materials, derived from the French béton brut, “raw concrete”. Though it has since been associated with monolithic, domineering concrete government buildings aptly described as brutal, Brutalism is in fact an ethos of truth to materials, emerging from postwar ideals of transparency, economy, and stability.

所謂的網(wǎng)絡(luò)殘酷主義大多數(shù)是規(guī)范性的視覺美學(xué) -反藝術(shù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)版本，對(duì)精致和復(fù)雜性的拒絕-而不是建筑殘酷主義的有意義的數(shù)字類似物。 由瑞典建筑師漢斯·阿斯普倫德(Hans Asplund)創(chuàng)造的“野蠻主義”描述了一種建筑風(fēng)格，有意揭示了源自法國bétonbrut (原始混凝土)的基礎(chǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)材料。 盡管野蠻主義自那時(shí)以來就與恰當(dāng)?shù)孛枋鰹橐靶U的獨(dú)具一格的，統(tǒng)治性的混凝土政府建筑物有關(guān)，但野蠻主義實(shí)際上是從戰(zhàn)后的透明性，經(jīng)濟(jì)性和穩(wěn)定性理想中衍生出來的一種對(duì)物質(zhì)的真理精神。

Geisel Library in La Jolla, CA (1968), designed by William Pereira. Photo by Michael Nielsen 加利福尼亞拉荷亞的蓋塞爾圖書館(1968)，威廉·佩雷拉(William Pereira)設(shè)計(jì)。 邁克爾·尼爾森攝 The Bank of London and South America (1966) in Buenos Aires, designed by Clorindo Testa and SEPRA布宜諾斯艾利斯的倫敦和南美銀行(1966)，由克洛琳多·德斯塔(Crinindo Testa)和SEPRA設(shè)計(jì) Kulturzentrum Mattersburg (1976) in Austria, designed by Herwig Udo Graf赫爾維格·烏多·格拉夫(Herwig Udo Graf)設(shè)計(jì)的奧地利文化馬特斯堡(1976)

People have recently come to the defense of these maligned buildings as they fall into disrepair and become targets for demolition. Brutalist buildings weren’t primarily avant-garde artistic statements — although some are remarkably forward-thinking and provocative — nor were they designed to intimidate inhabitants with monolithic walls and cantilevers. Rather, the style was an attempt to create architecture that honestly reflected purpose and form. Architecture critic Reyner Banham wrote in 1955 that Brutalist buildings exhibit three qualities:

由于這些殘破不堪的建筑物成為拆除的目標(biāo)，人們最近為這些建筑物辯護(hù) 。 野獸派的建筑并不是主要的前衛(wèi)藝術(shù)作品，盡管其中一些具有明顯的前瞻性和挑釁性，但它們的設(shè)計(jì)目的也不在于用整體墻和懸臂來恐嚇居民。 相反，這種風(fēng)格是試圖創(chuàng)建能夠真實(shí)反映目的和形式的建筑。 建筑評(píng)論家雷納·班納姆(Reyner Banham )在1955年寫道 ，野獸派建筑表現(xiàn)出三種品質(zhì)：

formal legibility of plan,

計(jì)劃的正式可讀性

clear exhibition of structure, and

清晰的結(jié)構(gòu)展示，以及

valuation of materials for their inherent qualities ‘a(chǎn)s found.’

對(duì)材料的固有質(zhì)量進(jìn)行“評(píng)估”。

Banham formed his definition in part by reflecting on the work of British architects Alison and Peter Smithson whose mid-century buildings anticipated the early phases of Brutalism. Writing about a Soho project in 1953, the Smithsons described what would come to be called “the warehouse aesthetic:” “It is our intention in this building to have the structure exposed entirely, without interior finishes wherever practicable. The contractor should aim at a high standard of basic construction, as in a small warehouse. “

Banham通過反思英國建筑師Alison和Peter Smithson的作品來形成他的定義，他們的世紀(jì)中葉建筑預(yù)見了野蠻主義的早期階段。 史密森夫婦(Smithsons)在1953年撰寫有關(guān)Soho項(xiàng)目的文章時(shí)，描述了后來被稱為“倉庫美學(xué)”的概念：“我們打算在此建筑物中將結(jié)構(gòu)完全暴露，在可行的情況下不進(jìn)行內(nèi)部裝飾。 承包商應(yīng)針對(duì)高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)，例如在小型倉庫中。 “

Brutalist buildings are notable for their use of unadorned materials — “raw” concrete and wood. Yet at the core of the Brutalist ethos is a tension between two philosophies that have been the topic of a long-standing debate in information design: the merits of “seamless” and “seamful” design, “seams” in this context taken to mean revelations of an object’s inner workings.

野獸派建筑以使用未經(jīng)修飾的材料(“原始”混凝土和木材)而著稱。 但是，野獸派精神的核心是兩種哲學(xué)之間的張力，這一直是信息設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域長(zhǎng)期爭(zhēng)論的主題：“無縫”和“無縫”設(shè)計(jì)的優(yōu)點(diǎn)，在這種情況下的“接縫”是指物體內(nèi)部運(yùn)作的啟示。

It is our intention in this building to have the structure exposed entirely, without interior finishes wherever practicable. The contractor should aim at a high standard of basic construction, as in a small warehouse.

我們打算在此建筑物中將結(jié)構(gòu)完全暴露，在可行的情況下不進(jìn)行室內(nèi)裝飾。 承包商應(yīng)像在小型倉庫中一樣，以高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的基礎(chǔ)建設(shè)為目標(biāo)。

The debate asks the question, To what extent should an object reveal its structure and operation to the user? Seamless proponents argue that tools should be invisible, disappearing into the task at hand. Mark Weiser, writing about Ubiquitous Computing in 1991, summarizes seamlessness well: “By invisible, I mean that the tool does not intrude on your consciousness; you focus on the task, not the tool.” Designers typically take seamlessness as the de facto standard for our work, emphasizing clarity, consistency, simplicity, efficiency, reducing cognitive load. We seek to minimize distractions.

辯論提出了一個(gè)問題：物體應(yīng)在多大程度上向用戶展示其結(jié)構(gòu)和操作？ 無縫的支持者認(rèn)為工具應(yīng)該是不可見的，消失在眼前的任務(wù)中。 馬克·韋瑟(Mark Weiser)于1991年撰寫了有關(guān)“泛在計(jì)算”的文章，很好地總結(jié)了無縫性：“不可見，我的意思是該工具不會(huì)侵入您的意識(shí)； 您專注于任務(wù)，而不是工具?！?設(shè)計(jì)師通常將無縫性作為我們工作的事實(shí)上的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，強(qiáng)調(diào)清晰度，一致性，簡(jiǎn)單性，效率和減輕認(rèn)知負(fù)擔(dān)。 我們力求減少干擾。

Yet what if we can achieve a clearer understanding by intentionally revealing how a system works? Proponents of seamfulness argue that revealing an object’s complexity and operation can aid usability. Chalmers and Galani point out that seamful design allows users to “to selectively focus on or reveal [seams] when the task is to understand or even change the infrastructure.” Interactive explorable explanations are some of the best examples of information design that facilitate understanding. They don’t banish complexity, but rather progressively-disclose it to the user as they reveal the system. The concept of meta-moments is another example of seamful design, in which moments of reflection are prompted by thoughtful use of friction in UI design.

但是，如果我們可以通過有意揭示系統(tǒng)的工作原理來獲得更清晰的了解，該怎么辦？ 支持者認(rèn)為，揭示對(duì)象的復(fù)雜性和操作性可以幫助提高可用性。 Chalmers和Galani 指出 ，無縫設(shè)計(jì)允許用戶“在任務(wù)是了解甚至改變基礎(chǔ)架構(gòu)時(shí)有選擇地關(guān)注或揭示[接縫]。” 交互式可探究性解釋是有助于理解的信息設(shè)計(jì)的一些最佳示例。 它們不會(huì)消除復(fù)雜性，而是在揭示系統(tǒng)時(shí)逐步將其公開給用戶。 元時(shí)刻的概念是無縫設(shè)計(jì)的另一個(gè)示例，其中思考的時(shí)刻是通過在UI設(shè)計(jì)中謹(jǐn)慎使用摩擦而引起的。

Seamlessness emphasizes concealment; seamfulness emphasizes transparency. In architecture, Brutalism’s ethos of transparency was partly a response to the buttoned-up modernist International Style. And on the web, Brutalist websites can be seen as a response to the polished visual style of Material Design and Apple’s Human Interface guidelines.

無縫性強(qiáng)調(diào)隱蔽性； 無縫性強(qiáng)調(diào)透明度。 在建筑方面，野獸派的透明性在一定程度上是對(duì)固定的現(xiàn)代主義國際風(fēng)格的回應(yīng)。 在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上，野獸派網(wǎng)站可以看作是對(duì)Material Design設(shè)計(jì)的優(yōu)美視覺風(fēng)格和Apple人機(jī)界面指南的回應(yīng)。

The International Style of architecture, popularized by architects Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, was known for its abundant use of steel, glass, and concrete, yet architects in the 1960s turned away from its “rigid formal monotony” as they looked for more diverse architectural possibilities (The Art Story). Although aesthetically similar to Brutalism, the International Style came to feel homogenous, predictable, and generic. Photo by Eric Allix Rogers 由建筑師米斯·范德羅(Mies van der Rohe)和沃爾特·格羅皮烏斯(Walter Gropius)推廣的國際建筑風(fēng)格，因其大量使用鋼，玻璃和混凝土而聞名，但在1960年代，建筑師們尋求其“剛性正式單調(diào)”時(shí)卻放棄了多樣的建筑可能性(藝術(shù)故事)。 盡管在美學(xué)上與野獸派相似，但國際風(fēng)格卻變得同質(zhì)，可預(yù)測(cè)且通用。 埃里克·艾利克斯·羅杰斯(Eric Allix Rogers)攝

The anti-art aesthetic has become the face of Web Brutalism because it’s fun and edgy and all the cool kids are doing it. Yet Deville’s purists, minimalists, and anti-ists are all asking, in their own way, what it means to make something on the web that is true to the web. Where is authenticity to be found? In adherence to traditional web markup, or in elegant minimalism, or maybe in the goofy spontaneity of the early web? Are David Copeland’s principles a truer representation of “fidelity to materials” of the web than Google’s Material philosophy? What is the true material of the web? Is it markup, or is it microchips and physical telecommunication networks? Or is it motion, like Frank Chimero argues in “ What Screens Want?” When the Smithsons placed the water heater for the Hunstanton Secondary School prominently above the school’s roofline, they weren’t just revealing the building’s infrastructure, they were reveling in it. What does it look like to do this on the web?

反藝術(shù)美學(xué)已成為Web野蠻主義的代名詞，因?yàn)樗扔腥び智靶l(wèi)，并且所有酷酷的孩子都在這樣做。 然而，Deville的純粹主義者，極簡(jiǎn)主義者和反主義者都以自己的方式問，在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上制作對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)真實(shí)的東西意味著什么。 在哪里可以找到真實(shí)性？ 是遵循傳統(tǒng)的Web標(biāo)記，還是優(yōu)雅的極簡(jiǎn)主義，或者是早期Web愚蠢的自發(fā)性？ 大衛(wèi)·科普蘭(David Copeland)的原則是否比Google的“ 材料”哲學(xué)更真實(shí)地表示“材料的逼真度”？ 網(wǎng)絡(luò)的真正內(nèi)容是什么？ 是標(biāo)記，還是微芯片和物理電信網(wǎng)絡(luò)？ 還是動(dòng)議 ，就像弗蘭克·希梅羅(Frank Chimero)在“ 什么屏幕想要什么？”中所說的那樣。 當(dāng)史密森一家將漢斯坦頓中學(xué)的熱水器放在學(xué)校屋頂上方的顯眼位置時(shí)，他們不僅在揭示建筑物的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，還陶醉其中。 在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上執(zhí)行此操作看起來像什么？

Hunstanton Secondary School (1954) in Norfolk, England, designed by Alison and Peter Smithson. Photo by Anna Armstrong (2011) 由艾莉森(Alison)和彼得·史密森(Peter Smithson)設(shè)計(jì)的英格蘭諾福克郡的漢斯坦頓中學(xué)(1954)。 安娜·阿姆斯特朗(2011)

Of course there’s no single answer, because the web is simultaneously a physical and digital medium. It is material and it isn’t. It depends on how literally you interpret the question. But taking it somewhere in-between, seeing the web as primarily an information medium, we can ask the question a little differently: what does it look like to design something that is true to the material of digital information?

當(dāng)然，沒有唯一的答案，因?yàn)榫W(wǎng)絡(luò)同時(shí)是物理和數(shù)字媒體。 它是物質(zhì)，不是物質(zhì)。 這取決于您對(duì)問題的理解。 但是，將其作為中間的一種方式，將網(wǎng)絡(luò)視為主要的信息媒介，我們可以提出一些不同的問題：設(shè)計(jì)出符合數(shù)字信息內(nèi)容的東西看起來像什么？

I’ve been thinking about this as I spend more time using Notion, an application designed for organizing and sharing information. At first glance, it doesn’t seem all that different from the Evernotes and Google Keeps of the world. It allows you to create pages which include calendars, to do lists, image galleries, tables, and the like. What makes it different than other note-taking tools is its flexibility: a page can contain just a calendar, or it can contain text, images, video embeds, all of which are treated as defined, linkable content blocks.

我一直在考慮這個(gè)問題，因?yàn)槲一烁鄷r(shí)間使用Notion (一種用于組織和共享信息的應(yīng)用程序)。 乍一看，它與世界上的Evernotes和Google Keeps似乎并沒有什么不同。 它允許您創(chuàng)建包含日歷，任務(wù)列表，圖像畫廊，表格等的頁面。 它與其他筆記記錄工具的不同之處在于它的靈活性：頁面可以僅包含日歷，也可以包含文本，圖像，視頻嵌入，所有這些都被視為已定義的可鏈接內(nèi)容塊。

Notion’s flexibility is too unrestricted and ambiguous for some. The app doesn’t prescribe an organizing structure to information, allowing you to nest and combine pages and content in whatever way makes sense for you and your work. Yet it has very clear structures for the types of content blocks that can be created: something is either a video, or a heading, or quote, and is styled and formatted accordingly.

對(duì)于某些人來說，概念的靈活性過于寬松和模棱兩可。 該應(yīng)用程序沒有規(guī)定信息的組織結(jié)構(gòu)，允許您以對(duì)您和您的工作有意義的任何方式嵌套和組合頁面和內(nèi)容。 但是，對(duì)于可以創(chuàng)建的內(nèi)容塊的類型，它具有非常清晰的結(jié)構(gòu)：某些東西可以是視頻，也可以是標(biāo)題或引號(hào)，并相應(yīng)地設(shè)置樣式和格式。

This, I think, is the brilliance of Notion, and what makes it one of the best examples of “fidelity to digital information” that I’ve come across. The structure of the app reflects the structure of the web itself: digital content is purposefully formatted, like semantic HTML elements, and exists in a hierarchical structure (directories on the web, nested pages in Notion), yet can be linked and referenced to create a complex network of information. And pages in Notion reveal the structure of the information: when nesting a page within a page, the child page always displays on the parent page. There’s no way to create a child page that doesn’t display on a parent page, no way to obscure the structure of the information. The semantic structure of Notion reflects the semantic structure of the web itself.

我認(rèn)為，這就是概念的光輝，這使其成為我遇到的“忠實(shí)于數(shù)字信息”的最好例子之一。 該應(yīng)用程序的結(jié)構(gòu)反映了Web本身的結(jié)構(gòu)：數(shù)字內(nèi)容經(jīng)過專門格式化，就像語義HTML元素一樣，并以分層結(jié)構(gòu)(Web上的目錄，Notion中的嵌套頁面)存在，但可以鏈接和引用以創(chuàng)建復(fù)雜的信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)。 而Notion中的頁面則揭示了信息的結(jié)構(gòu)：在頁面中嵌套頁面時(shí)，子頁面始終顯示在父頁面上。 無法創(chuàng)建不會(huì)顯示在父頁面上的子頁面，也無法掩蓋信息的結(jié)構(gòu)。 概念的語義結(jié)構(gòu)反映了Web本身的語義結(jié)構(gòu)。

Habitat 67 in Montreal (1967), designed by Moshe Sadie. Its plan of modular blocks form a kind of architectural proto-Notion. 莫西·薩迪(Moshe Sadie)設(shè)計(jì)的蒙特利爾人居67號(hào)(1967年)。 它的模塊化塊計(jì)劃構(gòu)成了一種建筑原型。

Which brings us back to seams, and Web Brutalism. By the looks of it, Notion isn’t an exemplar of the style. It’s a highly-polished consumer app, technically complex, and goes far beyond the strictures of vanilla HTML markup. Yet it thoughtfully balances the tension between seamfulness and seamlessness, revelation and disclosure at the heart of the Brutalist ethos. The app reflects ideas of information design that inspired the web itself, which makes sense given their admiration of early web pioneers like Doug Englebart.

這使我們回到了接縫和網(wǎng)絡(luò)野蠻主義。 從外觀上看，Notion并不是這種風(fēng)格的典范。 這是一個(gè)經(jīng)過高度拋光的消費(fèi)者應(yīng)用程序，技術(shù)復(fù)雜，并且遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出了原始HTML標(biāo)記的限制。 然而，它在野蠻主義精神的核心思想上平衡了無縫性與無縫性，啟示和公開之間的張力。 該應(yīng)用程序反映了信息設(shè)計(jì)的思想，這些思想啟發(fā)了網(wǎng)絡(luò)本身，這對(duì)早期Doug Englebart等早期網(wǎng)絡(luò)先驅(qū)者的欽佩是有道理的。

The concept of seamfulness prompts designers to ask how an object can aid understanding and usage by showing its users what’s going on inside. How can we create what Mark Weiser, later revising his ideas of seamless design, calls “beautiful seams” — thoughtfully-crafted moments of revelation? Notion doesn’t show us how it’s literally working — the background processes constantly running to enable editing, collaboration, and the like. We don’t need to see our car’s engine to know it’s running. But it shows users how their understanding is working, how our ideas are structured, connected, and evolving. The app is reminiscent of Kedit, a program essayist John McPhee asked a friend to develop for him:

無縫性的概念促使設(shè)計(jì)者提出一個(gè)問題，即向?qū)ο笳故居脩魞?nèi)部的情況如何幫助理解和使用。 我們?cè)鯓硬拍軇?chuàng)造出馬克·韋瑟(Mark Weiser)，后來修改他的無縫設(shè)計(jì)理念，將其稱為“美麗的接縫”-精心設(shè)計(jì)的啟示時(shí)刻？ 概念并沒有向我們展示它實(shí)際上是如何工作的-后臺(tái)進(jìn)程不斷運(yùn)行以啟用編輯，協(xié)作等功能。 我們不需要看汽車的引擎就可以知道它在運(yùn)行。 但是它向用戶顯示了他們的理解是如何工作的，我們的思想是如何構(gòu)成，聯(lián)系和發(fā)展的。 該應(yīng)用讓人想起Kedit，程序散文作者John McPhee 要求一個(gè)朋友為他開發(fā)：

Kedit did not paginate, italicize, approve of spelling, or screw around with headers, wysiwygs, thesauruses, dictionaries, footnotes, or Sanskrit fonts. Instead, [Howard J. Strauss, then-head of Princeton’s Office of Information Technology] wrote programs to run with Kedit in imitation of the way I had gone about things for two and a half decades…Howard thought the computer should be adapted to the individual and not the other way around. One size fits one. The programs he wrote for me were molded like clay to my requirements-an appealing approach to anything called an editor.

Kedit不會(huì)對(duì)頁眉，斜體，批準(zhǔn)拼寫進(jìn)行分頁，也不使用標(biāo)頭，所見即所得，敘詞表，字典，腳注或梵語字體擰緊。 相反，[普林斯頓大學(xué)信息技術(shù)辦公室主任霍華德·斯特勞斯(Howard J. Strauss)編寫了與Kedit一起運(yùn)行的程序，以模仿我過去二十五年來的處事方式……霍華德認(rèn)為計(jì)算機(jī)應(yīng)該適合于個(gè)人，而不是相反。 一種尺寸適合一種。 他為我編寫的程序完全符合我的要求，對(duì)任何稱為“編輯器”的人來說都是有吸引力的方法。

Prior to using Kedit, McPhee would document notes on individual notecards, then arrange and rearrange them on his kitchen table or living room floor as he organized the structure of his essays. What he lost visually in using Kedit, no longer seeing groups of notecards on the floor, he gained in a searchable, flexible database of information that gave him an effective way to shape knowledge in idiosyncratic ways.

在使用Kedit之前，McPhee會(huì)將筆記記錄在單個(gè)筆記卡上，然后在他整理論文結(jié)構(gòu)時(shí)在廚房的桌子或客廳地板上進(jìn)行整理和重新排列。 他在使用Kedit時(shí)在視覺上失去了什么，不再在地板上看到成組的記錄卡，而是在一個(gè)可搜索的靈活信息數(shù)據(jù)庫中獲得了知識(shí)，這為他提供了一種以特有的方式塑造知識(shí)的有效方法。

This is the essence and opportunity of Web Brutalism: more than a utilitarian aesthetic, it’s a way of creating spaces for thought and expression on the web that reflect the nature of thought and the web. The best tools — digital or otherwise — give enough structure and flexibility for the task at hand. When that task is thinking, the best tools reflect the way that thinking happens, a meandering, back-and-forth process of exploring and refining our hunches and questions and notions.

這是網(wǎng)絡(luò)野蠻主義的本質(zhì)和機(jī)遇：它不僅僅是一種實(shí)用主義的美學(xué)，它還是一種在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上創(chuàng)造思想和表達(dá)空間的方式，以反映思想和網(wǎng)絡(luò)的本質(zhì)。 最好的工具(無論是數(shù)字工具還是其他工具)都可以為當(dāng)前任務(wù)提供足夠的結(jié)構(gòu)和靈活性。 當(dāng)任務(wù)正在思考時(shí)，最好的工具會(huì)反映思考的方式，這是探索和完善我們的直覺，問題和觀念的曲折，反復(fù)的過程。

Originally posted on viget.com

最初發(fā)布于 viget.com

Bay Area Black Designers: a professional development community for Black people who are digital designers and researchers in the San Francisco Bay Area. By joining together in community, members share inspiration, connection, peer mentorship, professional development, resources, feedback, support, and resilience. Silence against systemic racism is not an option. Build the design community you believe in.海灣地區(qū)黑人設(shè)計(jì)師 ：一個(gè)專業(yè)的黑人開發(fā)社區(qū)，他們是舊金山灣區(qū)的數(shù)字設(shè)計(jì)師和研究人員。 通過在社區(qū)中團(tuán)結(jié)起來，成員可以共享靈感，聯(lián)系，同伴指導(dǎo)，專業(yè)發(fā)展，資源，反饋，支持和韌性。 對(duì)系統(tǒng)性種族主義保持沉默是不可行的。 建立您相信的設(shè)計(jì)社區(qū)。

翻譯自: https://uxdesign.cc/web-brutalism-seamfulness-and-notion-8004b89751a2

主模式和野蠻模式

總結(jié)

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的主模式和野蛮模式_网络野蛮行为的含混性和观念的全部?jī)?nèi)容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網(wǎng)站內(nèi)容還不錯(cuò)，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。