开发一个简单错误记录功能_简单性与功能性：错误的二分法？-CSDN博客

开发一个简单错误记录功能

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is probably the best. That’s the basic understanding of what Ockham’s razor tells us, an adage named for 14th century English logician, William of Ockham. In other words: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

在所有其他条件相同的情况下，最简单的解决方案可能是最好的解决方案。这就是奥克汉剃刀告诉我们的基本理解，这句格言是以14世纪英国逻辑学家奥克汉姆的威廉命名。换句话说：保持简单，愚蠢。

Ockham’s razor as it informs design decisions in software and web application development can perhaps be best embodied by the 37signals Getting Real approach, which counsels developers to underdo the competition. “Do less than your competitors to beat them,” says the company in their book Getting Real. “Instead of oneupping, try one-downing. Instead of outdoing, try underdoing.”

Ockham的剃刀可以为软件和Web应用程序开发中的设计决策提供信息，这也许可以最好地体现在37signals Getting Real方法中，该方法建议开发人员进行竞争。该公司在《 Getting Real》一书中说：“要比竞争对手击败对手做得少。” “不要单单，而是单单。不要超越，而要表现不足。”

37signals explains that, among other things, less means “less features” and “less options/preferences.” The idea is that simplicity will yield technology that is easier to use and more elegant. But Northwestern Professor and former Apple Vice President Don Norman disagrees. Writing for the Association for Computer Machinery’s Interactions magazine, Norman argues that simplicity is not the answer and does not necessarily lead to better design.

37signals解释说，“少”意味着“更少的功能”和“更少的选项/偏好”。这个想法是，简单将产生易于使用和更优雅的技术。但是西北教授和前苹果副总裁唐·诺曼不同意。诺曼(Norman)为《计算机机械协会》( Interactions)杂志撰写文章时指出，简单性不是答案，不一定能带来更好的设计。

“Simplicity is not the goal. We do not wish to give up the power and flexibility of our technologies,” writes Norman. “The garage door opener may be simple, but it hardly does anything. If my cellphone only had one button it certainly would be simple, but, umm, all I could do would be to turn it on or off: I wouldn’t be able to make a phone call.”

“简单不是目标。我们不希望放弃技术的力量和灵活性。” 诺曼写道。 “车库门开启器可能很简单，但几乎无能为力。如果我的手机只有一个按钮，那肯定会很简单，但是，嗯，我所能做的只是打开或关闭它：我将无法打电话。”

People actually want more features and functionality. They also want ease of use, he says, but there is a popular false dichotomy that equates simplicity with ease of use, and features with capability. Norman lays out the following, which he says is an implicit assumption:

人们实际上想要更多的功能。他说，他们也希望易于使用，但是流行的错误二分法将简单性与易用性以及功能与功能等同起来。诺曼提出以下内容，他说这是一个隐含的假设：

Features ==> Capability
功能==>能力
Simplicity ==> Ease of use
简便==>易于使用

“These two statements translate into simple logic,” says Norman. “Everyone wants more capability, so therefore they want more features. Everyone wants ease of use, so therefore they want simplicity.” But Norman argues that this is false logic. “The arrow goes left to right: this says nothing about the right to left direction. So extra capability does not require more features. Similarly, ease of use does not require simplicity.”

“这两个陈述转化为简单的逻辑，”诺曼说。每个人都想要更多的功能，因此他们想要更多的功能。每个人都希望易于使用，因此，他们希望简单。” 但是诺曼认为这是错误的逻辑。箭头从左到右：这没有说明从右到左的方向。因此，额外的功能不需要更多的功能。同样，易于使用也不需要简单。”

People very likely do want more capability and easier to use products, but to deliver those things doesn’t require that designers succumb to feature creep or make simplicity a design rule. Norman lays out some design rules to create better products that are easier to use but don’t sacrifice capability in the name of simplicity.

人们很可能确实希望拥有更多功能和更易于使用的产品，但是交付这些东西并不需要设计师屈服于蠕变或将简单性作为设计规则。诺曼提出了一些设计规则，以创建更好的产品，这些产品更易于使用，但不会以简单性为代价牺牲性能。

Modularization – Break up big, complicated tasks into smaller, more manageable ones.
模块化 –将大型复杂任务分解为更小，更易于管理的任务。
Mapping – The relationship between actions and the results they bring about should be clear.
映射 –行动与行动带来的结果之间的关系应该清楚。
Cohesive conceptual models – People should understand what they’re supposed to do, what doing it makes happen, and what’s expected of them. “See any Apple product,” says Norman.
内聚的概念模型 –人们应该理解应该做的事情，要实现的事情以及对他们的期望。 “看到任何苹果产品，”诺曼说。

“The argument is not between adding features and simplicity, between adding capability and usability,” Norman writes. “The real issue is about design: designing things that have the power required for the job while maintaining understandability, the feeling of control, and the pleasure of accomplishment.”

诺曼写道：“争论不在于添加功能和简单性之间，也不在于添加功能和可用性之间。” “真正的问题与设计有关：设计具有工作所需能力的产品，同时保持易懂性，控制感和成就感。”