突然討厭做前端,討厭代碼

重點 (Top highlight)

The core of design thinking is to only design something that will bring value and fill the gap in consumer needs. Right? Why else would one design something that no one asked for? While that may be true to some extent, there’s also value in designing for the times; meaning redesigning or updating a brand’s art direction to adapt to trends or improving user experience, which fluctuates often.

設(shè)計思維的核心是僅設(shè)計能夠帶來價值并填補消費者需求缺口的產(chǎn)品。 對？ 為什么還要設(shè)計一個沒人要的東西？ 盡管在某種程度上可能是正確的，但在當(dāng)今時代進(jìn)行設(shè)計也很有價值。 意思是重新設(shè)計或更新品牌的藝術(shù)方向，以適應(yīng)經(jīng)常變化的趨勢或改善用戶體驗。

Let’s try an exercise. Take a few seconds and try and think of Instagram’s old logos. Do you recall them? If not, do you remember what the majority of the reactions were like when Instagram came out with its new logo in 2016? Here’s a refresher:

讓我們來練習(xí)一下。 花費幾秒鐘的時間，嘗試思考一下Instagram舊徽標(biāo)。 你還記得他們嗎？ 如果不是，您還記得2016年Instagram推出新徽標(biāo)時大多數(shù)人的React嗎？ 這是一個復(fù)習(xí)：

This reaction is pretty normal, even with design improvements. It’s been four years since the change from a more analog icon to the round, gradient design it is today. In hindsight, did we really need the redesign? While certain camps will still insist that the old logo was fine and that the change was unnecessary, it’s pretty obvious that it wouldn’t fare well today. Besides simply modernizing the logo, there’s a whole strategy behind the new logo which you can read about here.

即使進(jìn)行了設(shè)計改進(jìn)，這種React還是很正常的。 從更具模擬性的圖標(biāo)更改為如今的圓形漸變設(shè)計已經(jīng)四年了。 事后看來，我們真的需要重新設(shè)計嗎？ 盡管某些陣營仍然會堅持認(rèn)為舊徽標(biāo)很好，并且不需要進(jìn)行更改，但很明顯，今天的情況并不理想。 除了簡單地對徽標(biāo)進(jìn)行現(xiàn)代化改造之外，您還可以在此處閱讀有關(guān)新徽標(biāo)的整體策略。

https://1000logos.net/instagram-logo/https://1000logos.net/instagram-logo/

Why the backlash? Why are humans wired to resist change?

為什么會出現(xiàn)反彈？ 人類為什么要抗拒變化？

According to “Overcoming Resistance to Change” by A. J. Schuler, Psy. D.,

根據(jù)Psy的AJ Schuler的“ 克服變化的阻力 ”。 D.

Some people will, in part, be aligned against change because they will clearly, and in some cases correctly, view the change as being contrary to their interests.

有些人會部分地反對變更，因為他們會清楚地(在某些情況下正確地)認(rèn)為變更違反了他們的利益。

While organizational change is quite different than design changes, the same principles apply in human psychology. Change means disruption, and disruption means effort. In design, it’s imperative to provide users with an experience so seamless that it minimizes the cognitive load required to absorb information. The opposite of seamless design would cause cognitive overload ( processing that takes up mental resources but doesn’t actually help users understand the content (for example, different font styles that don’t convey any unique meaning). Because the change in Instagram’s logo was so drastic and sudden, user backlash was inevitable because it caused a mix up in what is called a mental model: “What users believe they know about a UI strongly impacts how they use it. Mismatched mental models are common, especially with designs that try something new.”

雖然組織變更與設(shè)計變更有很大不同，但相同的原理適用于人類心理學(xué)。 改變意味著破壞，而破壞意味著努力。 在設(shè)計中，必須為用戶提供無縫的體驗，以最小化吸收信息所需的認(rèn)知負(fù)擔(dān)。 無縫設(shè)計的反面將導(dǎo)致認(rèn)知超負(fù)荷(處理過程占用了智力資源，但實際上并沒有幫助用戶理解內(nèi)容(例如，不同的字體樣式?jīng)]有傳達(dá)任何獨特的含義) 。因為Instagram徽標(biāo)的更改是如此激烈和突然，用戶的反對是不可避免的，因為它引起了所謂的心理模型的混淆： “用戶認(rèn)為他們對UI的了解強烈影響他們的使用方式。不匹配的心理模型很常見，尤其是對于嘗試新鮮玩意。”

Because of such a drastic change in the UI, many users reacted viscerally, which is to automatically reject it.

由于UI發(fā)生了如此巨大的變化，許多用戶的內(nèi)在React是自動拒絕它。

In “Why redesigns don’t make users happy” by Vitaly Dulenko, he writes:

他在Vitaly Dulenko撰寫的“為什么重新設(shè)計不會使用戶滿意”中寫道：

Redesigns are changes and people don’t like changes. People don’t like them for two reasons — changes require efforts to make and people don’t know what to expect from changes.

重新設(shè)計就是變更，人們不喜歡變更。 人們不喜歡它們有兩個原因-改變需要做出努力，而人們也不知道改變會帶來什么。

We as users feel almost entitled to be consulted because, after all, didn’t the developers make this app for us? “Don’t fix what’s not broken”, “No one asked for this” are some of the common phrases used when redesign comes out of left field. Of course, the redesign never comes out of the left field. Designers are often presented with a brief to redesign based on many things, whether it be to refresh an outdated design in order to improve its messaging or simply to adapt to new changes in the organization.

作為用戶，我們幾乎有權(quán)獲得咨詢，因為畢竟開發(fā)人員不是為我們制作此應(yīng)用的嗎？ 重新設(shè)計出左字段時，使用了一些常用的短語：“不解決未解決的問題”，“沒人要這個”。 當(dāng)然，重新設(shè)計永遠(yuǎn)不會超出左側(cè)范圍。 經(jīng)常向設(shè)計師提供基于許多內(nèi)容進(jìn)行重新設(shè)計的摘要，無論是為了更新過時的設(shè)計以改進(jìn)其消息傳遞還是只是為了適應(yīng)組織中的新變化。

That’s not to say every redesign has been successful. Take for instance Tropicana’s short-lived package redesign attempt:

這并不是說每次重新設(shè)計都成功。 以Tropicana的短期包裝重新設(shè)計嘗試為例：

When they released the new design in 2009, people hated it so much that they reverted back to the original packaging within two months due to sales drops and consumer backlash. The design itself wasn’t all to blame. In fact, some of the design details are quite smart and intuitive, like turning the cap into an orange. The main takeaway from this case study is simply that they introduced too much too fast. The change in typography and removing the famous iconography of the orange with the straw was simply a blow to consumer’s emotional attachment to the brand, which should not be understated.

當(dāng)他們在2009年發(fā)布新設(shè)計時，人們非常討厭它，以至于由于銷量下降和消費者的強烈反對，他們在兩個月內(nèi)恢復(fù)了原來的包裝。 設(shè)計本身并不是所有人的責(zé)任。 實際上，某些設(shè)計細(xì)節(jié)非常聰明直觀，例如將蓋子變成橙色。 此案例研究的主要收獲是，它們引入的速度太快了。 字體的更改以及用吸管除去橙子的著名圖示，只是對消費者對品牌的情感依戀的打擊，這一點不可低估。

It’s hard to say if Tropicana’s sales would have improved had they just stuck it out and let the consumers adapt to the new branding. After all, humans, although adverse to change, have always been able to adapt quite successfully, dating back to the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens.

很難說，如果只是將Tropicana堅持下去，讓消費者適應(yīng)新的品牌，Tropicana的銷售是否會有所提高。 畢竟，人類雖然對變化不利，但總是能夠非常成功地適應(yīng)，可以追溯到智人的進(jìn)化歷史。

The fact remains, however, if we don't need to adapt for survivability, we would rather not change. Being pushed out of one's comfort zone isn’t usually a pleasant experience in the beginning, even when we know it’ll do us good.

但是，事實仍然存在，如果我們不需要適應(yīng)生存能力，我們寧愿不改變。 一開始，即使我們知道這樣做對我們有好處，但通常被排斥在舒適區(qū)之外并不是一件令人愉快的經(jīng)歷。

So when designers conduct user research for their next design, it’s not often that you’ll see surveys with open-ended questions. The fact is consumers can’t tell you exactly what they want because the bottom line is, they don’t really know what they want. “Build what users need, not what they want”, writes Michael Sueoka, Senior Product Manager at CAIS. Instead, researchers will look at behavior and design psychology for their next design, based on user feedback, but not quite literally.

因此，當(dāng)設(shè)計師進(jìn)行下一個設(shè)計的用戶研究時，您很少會看到帶有開放式問題的調(diào)查。 事實是消費者無法準(zhǔn)確告訴您他們想要什么，因為最重要的是，他們并不真正知道他們想要什么。 CAIS高級產(chǎn)品經(jīng)理Michael Sueoka寫道：“ 建立用戶所需的東西，而不是他們想要的東西” 。 取而代之的是，研究人員將根據(jù)用戶反饋來研究其下一個設(shè)計的行為和設(shè)計心理，但并非完全如此。

What is clear is that it’s natural to reject change at any level. Design isn’t a one-way street and users are subject to emotional attachment to a brand’s identity. Ideally, change is to be introduced in increments to allow smooth onboarding, but when that isn’t the case, it’s up to the brand to decide if it's worth sticking to the change and allow for adaptability or revert back to their old ways based on user backlash.

清楚的是，拒絕任何級別的變更都是很自然的。 設(shè)計不是一條單向的道路，用戶會受到品牌身份情感的依戀。 理想情況下，應(yīng)以增量方式引入更改，以實現(xiàn)平穩(wěn)的入職，但在這種情況下，由品牌決定是否值得堅持更改并允許適應(yīng)性或基于用戶的強烈反對。

翻譯自: https://blog.prototypr.io/why-users-hate-redesign-f23c5c2f9d8a

突然討厭做前端,討厭代碼

總結(jié)

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的突然讨厌做前端,讨厌代码_为什么用户讨厌重新设计的全部內(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，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。