In her Adobe 99U talk Design thinking is bullsh*t, Natasha Jen is critical of how dominant design thinking frameworks exclude expert evaluation and criticism.

娜塔莎·詹(Natasha Jen)在她的Adobe 99U演讲中，“设计思想是bull花一现”的，她批评了主导的设计思想框架如何排除专家评估和批评。

I enjoyed the talk and agreed with many of Jen’s points. However, at a time when involving the user is a do-no-wrong tenet of successful product design, her views tread on incendiary ground.

我喜欢这次谈话，并同意詹的许多观点。 但是，在让用户参与成功产品设计的原则时，她的观点根深蒂固。

In many product design circles, there’s a perception that solutions derived from instinct and self/peer criticism are ‘less than’. They’re often perceived as too far removed from the user and therefore groundless. “You are not your user”, as the common axiom goes.

在许多产品设计界，人们普遍认为，本能和自我/同辈批评所产生的解决方案“少于”。 通常认为它们离用户太远，因此毫无根据。 正如通常的公理所说，“您不是您的用户”。

Despite this, expert evaluation and criticism continue to be central to success in the worlds of fashion, branding, art school and design education.

尽管如此，在时尚，品牌，艺术学校和设计教育领域，成功的关键仍然在于专家评估和批评。

So what’s going on? Why is expert evaluation often left out of many popular and respected design thinking frameworks like those criticised in Jen’s talk? What’s filling the gap, and what do we mean when we talk about ‘design expertise’ anyway?

发生什么了？ 为什么专家评估经常被许多流行的和受人尊敬的设计思维框架所忽略，比如在詹恩的演讲中批评的那些框架？ 是什么在填补空白？无论如何，当我们谈论“设计专业知识”时，这意味着什么？

设计难题的缺失部分 (The missing piece to the design puzzle)

There are a few aspects of contemporary product design processes that are typically always viewed in a positive light. The 3 listed below focus on the principles of collaboration and partnership:

现代产品设计过程的某些方面通常总是以积极的眼光来看待。 下面列出的3个重点关注协作和伙伴关系的原则：

1.让用户参与 (1. Involve the user)

Check in regularly with the people that will be using the thing you’re designing.

定期与将要使用您正在设计的东西的人员核对。

2.融入各种手Craft.io和生活经验 (2. Involve diverse crafts and life experiences)

Interpret research and develop solutions with people outside design and with life experiences different from your own, so that diverse expertise and perspective is brought to the problem you’re formulating and trying to solve.

与设计以外的人员和与您自己不同的生活经历来解释研究和开发解决方案，以便将各种专业知识和观点带入您正在制定和尝试解决的问题中。

3.让利益相关者参与 (3. Involve stakeholders)

Take the people that are investing in the thing you’re designing along for the journey. Show your process and avoid ‘ta-da’ moments.

带上那些正在为您的设计进行投资的人。 展示您的流程，避免“打-”。

But when we involve the user, a diverse team and our stakeholders, we’re still often left with some design decisions that are difficult to inform and justify.

但是，当我们让用户，多样化的团队和利益相关者参与进来时，我们仍然经常会遇到一些难以告知和论证的设计决策。

It results in strategies like ‘getting the user to decide’. Data may be demanded around a decision that is not clearly measurable, and hastily prepared surveys and other questionable research methods may be used as political tools. For example, we may go in circles regarding if our users ‘like’ the art direction of a design. We might use something like a preference test, or simply ask users these questions directly. We end up measuring a passing state of mind — data that’s pretty useless, considering we design digital products for whole user populations that access our products in infinite contexts, rather than individuals in a fixed state with focused attention.

它导致诸如“让用户决定”之类的策略。 可能需要围绕无法明确衡量的决策提供数据，并且可以将草率准备的调查和其他可疑的研究方法用作政治工具。 例如，我们可能会盘旋关于用户是否“喜欢”设计的艺术方向。 我们可能会使用偏好测试之类的方法，或者直接向用户询问这些问题。 考虑到我们为在无限上下文中访问我们产品的整个用户群体设计数字产品，而不是为处于固定状态的个人集中注意力，我们最终测量了一种过时的心态数据。

Must all decisions be explicitly data-driven, or taken through a rigorous design thinking process? Or is trust in our own judgment — our expertise — missing from the equation?

是否所有决策都必须由数据驱动或通过严格的设计思维过程来进行？ 还是我们对自己的判断(我们的专业知识)不信任？

设计专业知识和用户数据 (Design expertise and user data)

A reintroduction of expert evaluation into our process is not a replacement for the central tenets just discussed.

在我们的流程中重新引入专家评估并不能替代刚才讨论的核心原则。

Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer in their 2nd edition of Contextual Design put it best: user data will always drive innovation. It is a cultural myth that innovation is where some brilliant person goes up a mountain, or into a garage, and invents something new out of whole cloth.

Karen Holtzblatt和Hugh Beyer在他们的情境设计第二版中说得最好：用户数据将始终推动创新。 在文化上有一个神话，就是创新就是某个才华横溢的人登上山或进入车库，然后用整块布发明出一些新东西。

When we look closer, an examination of where brilliant ideas have actually come from suggests the opposite is true — not only does working with users not stifle innovation, it is the most basic prerequisite.

当我们仔细观察时，对出色创意的真正来源的考察表明，事实恰恰相反—与用户合作并不会抑制创新，这是最基本的前提。

To use one of Holtzblatt and Beyer’s examples:

要使用Holtzblatt和Beyer的示例之一：

“Dan Bricklin designed VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet, while he was taking accounting classes. He saw the tedious and mechanical work required to manage a paper spreadsheet and realised that with his knowledge of computer systems, he could automate the calculations while maintaining the spreadsheet metaphor in the user interface.”

丹·布里克林(Dan Bricklin)在上会计课时设计了第一个电子表格VisiCalc。 他看到了管理纸质电子表格所需的繁琐和机械工作，并意识到，凭借对计算机系统的了解，他可以自动进行计算，同时在用户界面中保持电子表格的隐喻。”

Dan Bricklin and others like him did not innovate by doing what their users asked for — no one was asking for an electronic spreadsheet.

丹·布里克林(Dan Bricklin)和其他类似他的人没有按照用户的要求进行创新-没有人要求电子表格。

Innovators observe problems first-hand and use their expertise (technology, interaction patterns, trends etc.) to recognise opportunities that users themselves may not see.

创新者直接观察问题，并利用其专业知识(技术，交互模式，趋势等)来识别用户自己可能看不到的机会。

This is related to the common misinterpretation of the (probably fake) Henry Ford quote about users asking for faster horses. Yes, we don’t design great products by responding to our users’ explicit requests, but we must certainly still immerse ourselves in their world.

这与对(亨利·福特)(可能是假的)亨利·福特(Henry Ford)的报价的误解有关，即用户要求更快的速度。 是的，我们不会通过响应用户的明确要求来设计出色的产品，但我们当然仍必须沉浸在他们的世界中。

Users aren’t going to explicitly show or tell you the opportunities within a target activity — they’re too down in the trenches, focused on the day-to-day challenges of getting stuff done.

用户不会明确地向您展示或告诉您目标活动中的机会-他们陷入困境，专注于完成工作的日常挑战。

Rather than responding to requests or ‘getting the users to decide’, we find successful innovators immersed in the culture and practice of their prospective users. They then use their expertise to generate innovative solutions.

我们发现成功的创新者沉迷于潜在用户的文化和实践中，而不是响应请求或“让用户决定”。 然后，他们利用自己的专业知识来产生创新的解决方案。

设计部分 (The designing part)

Designing well requires a thorough understanding of the materials you’re designing with: interaction patterns, code, knowledge of historical and cultural influences, tools and more. However, the value we place on this aspect of expertise varies widely.

良好的设计需要对您使用的设计材料有透彻的了解：交互模式，代码，历史和文化影响知识，工具等。 但是，我们在专业知识这方面的价值差异很大。

We commonly hear about organisations and teams (often dubbed having ‘lower design maturity’) interpreting this aspect of expertise as the sole value a designer brings to a project. Inversely, tools like layout frameworks, boilerplates and dictatorial design systems can threaten a designer’s influence in this area. In organisations with apparent higher design maturity, this is often a tactic to ‘free up’ a designer’s time for more deserving areas of focus.

我们通常听到有关组织和团队(通常被称为“设计成熟度较低”)的情况，这将专业知识的这一方面解释为设计师为项目带来的唯一价值。 相反，诸如布局框架，样板和独裁设计系统之类的工具会威胁设计师在该领域的影响力。 在具有较高设计成熟度的组织中，这通常是一种策略，可以“腾出”设计师的时间来获得更多值得关注的领域。

Considering the latter, when we defer to boilerplates, frameworks, ‘best practice’ and the like, what we’re saying is that this is not the place to innovate for this product at this time. This is probably often the right decision; after all, unless you meticulously fix all usability problems like no team before you, you’re probably not making a splash in any market. Not to mention how valuable it is that digital products feel familiar and are quick to learn.

考虑到后者，当我们遵循样板，框架，“最佳实践”之类时，我们要说的是此时此产品不是创新的地方。 这可能通常是正确的决定； 毕竟，除非您认真解决所有可用性问题，例如没有团队合作，否则您可能不会在任何市场上引起轰动。 更不用说数字产品感到熟悉和快速学习的价值。

That said, we should still be open to opportunity. Innovation only captures a market for a time, and impact can certainly also be achieved in seemingly lower level details — neglect craft at your peril.

话虽如此，我们仍应保持机会开放。 创新只能占领市场一段时间，而且在看似较低级别的细节上肯定也能取得影响，而忽视Craft.io是您的危险。

When an interaction pattern or other detail is identified as the place to innovate, heavily data-driven approaches will often lead you to mediocrity. This is because doing these details well relies heavily on expertise. Involving the user will inform and inspire, but it won’t make the right decisions for you.

当将交互模式或其他细节确定为创新的地方时，大量数据驱动的方法通常会带您趋于平庸。 这是因为做好这些细节在很大程度上取决于专业知识。 吸引用户参与将为您带来启发和启发，但不会为您做出正确的决定。

The importance of these details is exhibited in many publications and benchmarking frameworks. User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) attempts to measure its impact through its hedonic dimensions of ‘stimulation’ and ‘novelty’. Contextual Design’s Cool Concept of ‘sensation’ emphasises its centrality to making a cool experience. Perhaps the most prolifically referenced is Dan Saffer’s concept of the Signature Moment (2014, Microinteractions, p19):

这些细节的重要性在许多出版物和基准框架中都有体现。 用户体验调查表(UEQ)试图通过享乐性维度“刺激”和“新颖性”来衡量其影响。 Contextual Design的“感觉”酷概念强调了其在创造酷体验中的核心地位。 引用最多的也许是丹·萨弗(Dan Saffer)的“签名时刻”概念(2014年，微交互，第19页) ：

“Signature Moments are those microinteractions that are product differentiators. A custom trigger control (such as the original iPod’s scroll wheel) or an elegant “loading” animation or a catchy sound (“You’ve Got Mail!”) can be marketed as though they are features and used cross-platform or in other products by the same organisation. A Signature Moment will help create customer loyalty and recognition. The Like button on Facebook is now so well known that it’s part of the brand.”

“特征时刻是那些微差异，它们是产品的差异化因素。 可以销售自定义触发控件(例如原始iPod的滚轮)或精美的“正在加载”动画或动听的声音(“ You've Got Mail！”)，就像它们是功能部件并且可以跨平台使用一样。同一组织的产品。 签名时刻将有助于建立客户忠诚度和认可度。 Facebook上的“赞”按钮现在众所周知，已经成为该品牌的一部分。”

Considering all of this, when it comes to designing, we can describe expertise more specifically as the ability to identify where to innovate at a given time and context. And in order to do this reliably, we require a thorough and current understanding of the materials of design.

考虑到所有这些因素，在设计时，我们可以将专业知识更具体地描述为在给定的时间和背景下确定在哪里进行创新的能力。 为了可靠地做到这一点，我们需要对设计材料有透彻的最新了解。

描述设计专业知识的3种方法 (3 ways to describe design expertise)

Circling back now, expertise plays an important role in design. The stages common to design thinking frameworks and their exclusion of expert evaluation doesn’t mean it’s not needed.

现在回头来看，专业知识在设计中起着重要作用。 设计思维框架所共有的阶段及其排除专家评估并不意味着不需要。

That said, expertise can be hard to pin down. In this article, we’ve exposed three ways we can describe it:

话虽如此，专业知识可能很难确定。 在本文中，我们介绍了三种描述方式：

1.能够理解您的听众的需求 (1. The ability to interpret the needs of your audience)

You can’t just ask people for these needs if you’re looking to innovate. It’s hidden in everyday details that takes expertise to uncover and see the implications it may have on whatever is being designed. Think unmet desires, not what people tell you explicitly.

如果您要创新，就不能只问人们这些需求。 它隐藏在日常细节中，需要专业知识来发现并查看其对正在设计的内容的影响。 想想未满足的欲望，而不是别人明确告诉你的。

2.识别正确的创新机会的能力 (2. The ability to identify the right opportunities for innovation)

Design is always constrained by time and budget, so choosing a focus is essential. This target is also always moving — innovation only captures a market for a time. Plus, innovation in the hands of users transforms their lives again, creating new opportunities to discover.

设计始终受时间和预算的限制，因此选择重点至关重要。 这个目标也一直在移动-创新只在一段时间内占领了市场。 此外，用户手中的创新再次改变了他们的生活，创造了新的发现机会。

3.对设计材料的深刻理解 (3. A deep understanding of the materials of design)

Finally, an expert designer and their team must deeply understand interaction patterns, technologies, trends and other aspects of their craft to imagine and execute these new possibilities.

最后，专家设计师及其团队必须深刻理解其交互方式，技术，趋势和Craft.io的其他方面，才能想象并执行这些新的可能性。

Although many frameworks will try and convince you otherwise, the design process remains abstract and alien. As designers, we must prove and demonstrate our expertise in navigating it.

尽管许多框架都会尝试说服您，但是设计过程仍然是抽象且陌生的。 作为设计师，我们必须证明和展示我们在导航方面的专业知识。

Design thinking frameworks package a way of working for a non-designer audience and claim that it can be applied by anyone to any problem. This has been instrumental in bringing authority to design by demonstrating robust methodology. But to take things to ‘great’, expertise and criticism remains essential.

设计思维框架为非设计者提供了一种工作方式，并声称任何人都可以将其应用到任何问题上。 通过演示可靠的方法，这有助于使设计获得授权。 但是要使事情变得“伟大”，专业知识和批评仍然必不可少。