如何让设计师不成为机器

by Chris Lee

克里斯·李(Chris Lee)

想要成为最好的设计师？ 针对您不知道的内容进行设计。 (Want to be the best designer? Design for what you don’t know.)

Picture Jon. Jon is a first adopter for a startup that’s trying to design a better way to roast salmon using a toaster oven. He’s smart, 35, and a working professional. He spends his evenings answering work emails and watching Dora the Explorer with his two young daughters.

图片乔恩。 乔恩(Jon)是一家初创公司的第一位采用者，该公司正在尝试设计一种使用烤面包机烤鲑鱼的更好方法。 他很聪明，现年35岁，是一名职业人士。 他度过了一个晚上，他们回信工作电子邮件，并与两个年幼的女儿一起观看《探险家朵拉》。

Now, as the designer working for that startup, your task is simple: make his salmon roasting experience out-of-this-world-amazing. What do you do?

现在，当设计师在该创业公司工作时，您的任务很简单：让他的鲑鱼焙烧体验脱颖而出。 你是做什么？

两种设计方法 (Two approaches to design)

The first answer for designers is usually to jump right in and do research. That’s not the wrong answer! Interview Jon. Ask him about his salmon preferences. Does he like it overcooked or undercooked? How big of a filet does he like to roast for dinner? How often does his family eat salmon? Do his daughters ever complain that the salmon is too thick, thin, salty or bland?

对于设计师来说，第一个答案通常是立即着手进行研究。 那不是错误的答案！ 采访乔恩。 向他询问他对鲑鱼的偏爱。 他喜欢煮得太熟还是煮得不够？ 他喜欢烤大菲力吗？ 他的家人多久吃一次三文鱼？ 他的女儿有没有抱怨过鲑鱼太厚，太稀，太咸或平淡？

All good questions, all good insight. But there comes a critical junction in the decision making process of the designer. Once he or she is armed with the knowledge and context of the Job to be Done, the question is:

所有好的问题，所有好的见解。 但是，在设计师的决策过程中存在一个关键的交汇处。 一旦他或她掌握了要完成的工作的知识和背景，问题便是：

Do I know enough about the user to prescribe what I believe will be an ideal experience?

我是否对用户了解足够多，可以开出我认为理想的体验？

1.规定性方法 (1. The prescriptive approach)

Many times the designer will answer yes. What results is a toaster oven that is so perfectly tailored to one specific use case that any deviance in the user’s needs or wants results in a catastrophic failure. Jon said he wanted slightly overcooked salmon because his daughters were afraid of raw meat!

设计师会多次回答“是”。 最终的结果是一款烤面包机如此完美地适合于一个特定的用例 ，以至于用户需求或需求的任何偏差都会导致灾难性的故障。 乔恩说，他想要稍微煮熟的三文鱼，因为他的女儿们怕生肉！

Then he had a date night alone with his wife. He found that chewing salmon-rubber for two hours didn’t make for a splendid evening. Even when paired with a nice Chardonnay.

然后他和妻子独自一个约会之夜。 他发现咀嚼鲑鱼橡胶两个小时并不能成就一个灿烂的夜晚。 甚至搭配精美的霞多丽。

Sure, any designer in their right mind would have realized that the user has different preferences for different situations. Designers would never design a toaster oven that tries to prescribe “the best” process.

当然，任何一个在他们的正确思维中的设计师都会意识到，用户对不同的情况有不同的偏好。 设计人员永远不会设计试图规定“最佳”过程的电烤箱。

And yet, that’s what they did — cue the $1500 toaster oven. There were many technical problems with the product as well. But I would argue that the largest issue was simple: designers assumed they knew exactly what users wanted.

然而，这就是他们所做的-提示1500美元的电烤箱。 该产品也存在许多技术问题。 但是我认为最大的问题很简单：设计师假设他们完全知道用户想要什么。

“Automated yet distracting. Boastful yet mediocre. Confident yet wrong.” — Mark Wilson, Fast Company

“自动化但分心。 自夸却平庸。 自信却错了。” -马克·威尔逊(Fast Company)

这是用户的错！ (It’s the user’s fault!)

You could say that it’s almost the user’s fault. Jon said he wanted it slightly overcooked, so that’s what he got. And yet, Jon found that he’d said something that he later realized he didn’t mean. Users aren’t omniscient. They can and will emphatically declare things that simply aren’t true, even about their own habits.

您可以说这几乎是用户的错。 乔恩说他想把它稍微煮熟，所以这就是他得到的。 然而，乔恩发现他说了些话，后来才意识到他不是故意的。 用户并非无所不知。 他们可以并且会着重声明根本不正确的事情，甚至关于他们自己的习惯。

Not only that, but as you talk to more and more people, there are many cases where their Jobs to be Done vary a little. Make the definitive claim that a prescriptive approach is best. But you had better be damn sure that you really do have enough insight into their needs and wants.

不仅如此，而且当您与越来越多的人交谈时，在许多情况下，他们的工作要做的情况略有不同。 明确声明最好采用规定性方法。 但是，您最好确保您确实对他们的需求和需求有足够的了解。

The problem is, if a user can’t use it they won’t. If you ask your users to read a 500 page manual to use a toaster, they might choose not to purchase it because it’s too difficult to understand. So who’s loss is it?

问题是，如果用户无法使用它，他们将不会使用它。 如果您要求用户阅读500页的手册来使用烤面包机，那么他们可能会选择不购买它，因为它太难理解了。 那是谁的损失呢？

Sometimes we all need a bit of a reality check. Designers need to acknowledge what they don’t know (which is a lot) and flag that as a risk to be mitigated.

有时我们所有人都需要进行现实检查。 设计师需要承认自己不知道的内容(很多)，并将其标记为可以减轻的风险。

Once you peg an assumption as risky, you can design around it. The danger lies in being “pretty sure” and filling in the gaps. But sometimes there’s nothing to suggest you should actually fill them.

一旦将某个假设固定为有风险的，就可以围绕它进行设计。 危险在于“非常确定”并填补空白。 但是有时没有什么建议建议您实际填写。

That’s why Eric Ries (The Lean Startup) favors testing & measuring user behaviors to see if they want something, rather than asking.

这就是为什么Eric Ries(精益创业公司)更喜欢测试和衡量用户行为，以查看他们是否想要某事，而不是询问。

When use cases are clear, we can tailor a specific flow that’s optimized for those folks. We are confident that we know what those cases are and what percent of the population they represent. Otherwise, there’s another approach.

当用例明确时，我们可以为这些人员量身定制最佳流程。 我们有信心知道这些案件是什么以及它们代表的人口百分比。 否则，还有另一种方法。

2.平台方法 (2. The platform approach)

In economics 101 there’s a concept known as price discrimination. It sounds complicated, but it’s not. All it really means is that companies can make the most money if they charge customers exactly the maximum they’d be willing to pay. There are various ways of going about doing this, of course. Car salesman use first degree price discrimination. They haggle with you until both of you agree on a price and are red in the face. In this case, the salesman figured out exactly the most you were willing to pay. Then he gave you a great offer to match.

在经济学101中，有一个称为价格歧视的概念。 听起来很复杂，但事实并非如此。 它真正的意思是，如果公司向客户收取他们愿意支付的最高费用，他们便可以赚到最多的钱。 当然，有多种方法可以做到这一点。 汽车销售员使用一级学位进行价格歧视。 他们与您讨价还价，直到你们俩都同意价格并且脸红为止。 在这种情况下，推销员算出了您愿意支付的最高价。 然后他给了你一个很好的报价。

There’s a problem with first degree price discrimination. It relies on the company’s knowledge of exactly what their customers are willing to pay. What happens if they don’t know? Here’s where 2nd and 3rd degree discrimination comes in.

一级价格歧视存在问题。 它依赖于公司对客户愿意支付的确切价格的了解。 如果他们不知道会怎样？ 这是2级和3级歧视的体现。

Companies can set the price too high and lose you as a customer (and receive a total of $0). Or, they can put out different kinds of offers to let the user determine what they want. For example, airlines had a hunch that there were a group of users who had more money and were willing to spend more for nicer seats. Hence, they offered business class.

公司可能将价格定得过高，使您失去客户的利益(并获得总计$ 0)。 或者，他们可以发布不同种类的商品，让用户确定他们想要什么。 例如，航空公司有一种预感，就是有一群用户有更多的钱，愿意花更多的钱买更好的座位。 因此，他们提供了商务舱。

All of a sudden, customers can self-select into what’s ideal for them. Take the sale of toilet paper as an example. Does Charmin know exactly how much toilet paper different people need? Nope. But they have a 6-pack, 12-pack, and sometimes even a 48-pack (my favorite). Whichever category their customer fits into, they’ve got something for them.

突然之间，客户可以自行选择最适合他们的产品。 以出售厕纸为例。 Charmin 确切知道不同人需要多少厕纸吗？ 不。 但是他们有6包，12包，有时甚至是48包(我最喜欢)。 无论客户适合哪种类别，他们都可以找到适合自己的东西。

不知道用户想要什么？ 没问题。 (Don’t know what users want? No problem.)

Sound familiar? The key is for the designers to admit what they don’t know. Because once you do that, you can then design around it.

听起来有点熟？ 关键在于设计师要承认他们不知道的东西 。 因为一旦这样做，就可以围绕它进行设计。

Case in point: search results. This design pattern is really prevalent if you think about it. The inherent nature of search is that we have a general idea of what the user wants, but nothing specific. So the smart designer should use the platform approach. Provide a bed of utility that the users can self-select into. Go to any e-commerce site and test out their search.

例如：搜索结果。 如果您考虑一下，这种设计模式真的很普遍。 搜索的内在本质是，我们对用户的需求有一个大致的了解，但没有具体的含义。 因此，聪明的设计师应该使用平台方法。 提供用户可以自行选择的实用程序。 转到任何电子商务网站并测试其搜索。

Remember the story about the pitfalls of interviewing users? Actions speak louder than words. What better way to know if Jon really wants his salmon overcooked than by giving him multiple options? Push him to self-select into the option he wants as early as possible in his salmon-roasting journey. Then, once he has categorized himself, prescribe the solution.

还记得有关采访用户的陷阱的故事吗？ 行动胜于雄辩。 有什么比给乔恩多选择的更好的方法来知道乔恩是否真的想要把三文鱼煮得过头？ 促使他在鲑鱼烘烤之旅中尽早选择自己想要的选项。 然后，一旦他对自己进行了分类，就可以制定解决方案。

注意事项 (A note of caution)

The toaster oven example is a very obvious one. A regular toaster oven gives us all the cooking options we could ever want. Designers realize they have no idea which one we would need and when.

电烤箱的例子很明显。 普通的烤箱为我们提供了所有我们想要的烹饪选择。 设计师意识到他们不知道我们需要哪一个以及何时。

We laugh and dismiss it as an amateur mistake, but I can’t stress enough how often this point of judgement surfaces.

我们大笑并视其为一个业余错误，但我无法强调这个判断点多久出现一次。

A few years ago I designed an app that helped grocery shoppers figure out what to buy. All the user had to do was select preferences like how many meals they wanted and what cuisines they liked. Then the app would spit out a set of recipes that all shared similar ingredients, telling you how much of each to buy. It sounded great on paper. You could even swipe to replace recipes on that list, and the new recipe would still share the same ingredients for efficient shopping.

几年前，我设计了一个应用程序，可帮助杂货店购物者弄清楚要买什么。 用户所要做的就是选择喜好，例如他们想要多少餐和他们喜欢什么菜。 然后，该应用会吐出一组所有食谱，这些食谱都共享相似的成分，告诉您每种成分要购买多少。 在纸上听起来很棒。 您甚至可以滑动以替换该列表上的食谱，并且新食谱仍将共享相同的成分以进行高效购物。

But again, the app was too prescriptive. I kept tunneling in on designing the ideal experience for the ideal user. But I lost sight of the degree of variance that came with all the user interviews I was conducting.

但同样，该应用程序过于规范。 我一直在为理想的用户设计理想的体验。 但是我没有注意到我进行的所有用户访谈带来的差异程度。

As a result, I designed an inflexible system. Users would have a great time until some small deviation in their plan happened. This would render the app too difficult to use.

结果，我设计了一个不灵活的系统。 用户会度过一段美好的时光，直到他们的计划出现一些小偏差。 这会使应用程序难以使用。

For example, after a user had found the 5 recipes they wanted to cook this week, a friend might call and ask them out to dinner on Wednesday. The user would then have to start the process from scratch. That just wasn’t something I discovered during the preliminary user interview.

例如，在用户找到本周要烹饪的5种食谱后，朋友可能会打电话给他们，要求他们在周三晚餐。 然后，用户将不得不从头开始该过程。 那不是我在初步用户采访中发现的东西。

设计师谨防自动化时代 (Designers, beware the age of automation)

If you read the headlines of technology today, you’re likely to come across buzz terms like “machine learning”, “AI”, and “bots.” Technology is incredibly powerful. Everyone is giddy with excitement considering all the value that can be added to people’s lives.

如果您阅读当今的技术新闻，您可能会遇到诸如“机器学习”，“ AI”和“机器人”之类的流行术语。 技术功能强大。 每个人都兴奋不已，他们正在考虑可以带给人们生活的所有价值。

While engineers and business people fawn over the amazing ways to automate life, designers need to be the voice of caution. Do we really know exactly what users want to the point where we can automate it? Or is a platform approach better, letting the user self-select the value they want, and we take it from there? It’s easy to fall into the trap of throwing around a powerful weapon like machine learning without knowing where to point it. In a likely scenario, we’ll end up wasting time, money, and human effort on something that should be left to the user.

当工程师和商人为实现生活自动化的惊人方法讨好时，设计师需要发出谨慎的声音。 我们真的确切地知道用户想要什么使其可以自动化吗？ 还是平台方法更好，让用户自行选择他们想要的值，然后从中获取价值？ 容易陷入围绕机器学习之类的强大武器而又不知道指向何方的陷阱。 在一种可能的情况下，我们最终将浪费时间，金钱和人力，浪费在应留给用户的东西上。

I always preferred my salmon pan fried anyway.

无论如何，我总是更喜欢煎三文鱼。

If you enjoyed the post, I’d really appreciate it if you clicked clap button below. Follow me for more thoughts on design, life, and startups. And remember, the 48-pack toilet paper rolls are always the best deal.

如果您喜欢这篇文章，如果您单击下面的拍手按钮，我将非常感激。 跟随我，了解有关设计，生活和创业的更多想法。 请记住，48包厕纸始终是最好的选择。

If I haven’t exhausted your design-reading quota for today, check out “3 principles that all fields of design have in common”.

如果我今天还没有用完您的设计阅读配额，请查看“设计的所有领域共有的3条原则 ”。

翻译自: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/want-to-be-the-best-designer-design-for-what-you-dont-know-fa0a8ba753c/

如何让设计师不成为机器