ie 怪异_保持怪异

ie 怪异

There was a great article over on The Conversation the other day about how poor scientific research is at considering people with different viewpoints and backgrounds.

前几天，在《对话》上有一篇很棒的文章，内容是关于科学研究不佳如何考虑具有不同观点和背景的人们的文章。

Specifically, the vast majority of what we know about human psychology and behavior comes from studies conducted with a narrow slice of humanity – college students, middle-class respondents living near universities and highly educated residents of wealthy, industrialized and democratic nations.

具体来说，我们对人类心理和行为的了解绝大部分来自于狭义的人类研究-大学生，住在大学附近的中产阶级受访者以及富裕，工业化和民主国家的受过高等教育的居民。

To illustrate the extent of this bias, consider that more than 90 percent of studies recently published in psychological science’s flagship journal come from countries representing less than 15 percent of the world’s population….Given that these typical participants are often outliers, many scholars now describe them and the findings associated with them using the acronym WEIRD, for Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic.

为了说明这种偏见的严重程度，请考虑一下，最近在心理学杂志的旗舰期刊上发表的研究中，有90％以上来自代表世界人口不到15％的国家…。鉴于这些典型的参与者通常是离群值，因此许多学者现在描述以及西方人(受过教育，工业化，富裕和民主)的首字母缩写WEIRD和与之相关的发现。

First, I love the WEIRD acronym, and I’m a little surprised I haven’t heard it before, or, if I have, that it didn’t stick.

首先，我喜欢WEIRD的首字母缩写，我有点没听说过它，或者，如果有的话，它并没有粘住，我感到有些惊讶。

More seriously though, focusing only on the WEIRD can have a damaging impact as we use research to guide how we parent, how we teach and how we interact with others. The article gives an excellent example of how even a pretty widely accepted, and simple, pattern test can lead us astray.

不过，更严重的是，仅专注于WEIRD可能会产生破坏性影响，因为我们使用研究来指导我们如何做父母，如何教学以及如何与他人互动。 这篇文章提供了一个很好的例子，说明即使是一个相当广泛接受的简单模式测试也可能使我们误入歧途。

Consider an apparently simple pattern recognition test commonly used to assess the cognitive abilities of children. A standard item consists of a sequence of two-dimensional shapes – squares, circles and triangles – with a missing space. A child is asked to complete the sequence by choosing the appropriate shape for the missing space.

考虑一种通常用于评估儿童认知能力的看似简单的模式识别测试。 标准项目由一系列二维形状(正方形，圆形和三角形)组成，但缺少空格。 要求孩子通过为缺失的空间选择合适的形状来完成序列。

When 2,711 Zambian schoolchildren completed this task in one recent study, only 12.5 percent correctly filled in more than half of shape sequences they were shown. But when the same task was given with familiar three-dimensional objects – things like toothpicks, stones, beans and beads – nearly three times as many children achieved this goal (34.9 percent). The task was aimed at recognizing patterns, not the ability to manipulate unfamiliar two-dimensional shapes. The use of a culturally foreign tool dramatically underestimated the abilities of these children.

在最近的一项研究中，当2,711名赞比亚学童完成了这项任务时，只有12.5％的人正确填写了显示的一半以上形状序列。 但是，当用熟悉的三维物体(如牙签，石头，豆子和珠子)完成相同的任务时，达到此目标的孩子几乎是原来的三倍(34.9％)。 该任务旨在识别模式，而不是操纵陌生的二维形状的能力。 使用具有文化背景的工具极大地低估了这些孩子的能力。

Naturally, this made me think about the research that we have done thus far to push the web forward. Most of it is significantly less formal than those being conducted by, for example, the psychology community the author was focusing on. So there’s already likely a few more gaps and oversights built in. Now throw in the inherent bias in the results, and it’s a little frightening, isn’t it?

自然，这使我想到了迄今为​​止我们为推动网络发展所做的研究。 大部分内容都没有像作者所关注的心理学团体那样正式。 因此，可能已经内置了更多的差距和监督。现在在结果中加入固有的偏见，这有点令人恐惧，不是吗？

Moving beyond the WEIRD is critical not just in scientific research, but in our own more web-centric research. We’ve known for a while that the worldwide web was becoming increasingly that: worldwide. As we try to reach people in different parts of the globe with very different daily realities, we have to be willing to rethink our assumptions. We have to be willing to revisit our research and findings with fresh eyes so that we can see what holds true, what doesn’t, and where.

超越WEIRD不仅对科学研究至关重要，而且对于我们自己以网络为中心的研究也至关重要。 一段时间以来，我们已经知道全球范围内的网络正变得越来越多：全球范围内。 当我们试图以非常不同的日常现实去接触全球不同地区的人们时，我们必须愿意重新考虑我们的假设。 我们必须愿意以崭新的眼光重新审视我们的研究和发现，以便我们可以了解什么是正确的，什么不是正确的以及在哪里。

Just how much are we overlooking?

我们到底要忽略多少？

We have anecdotal evidence that the way we view forms and shipping is overly simplistic. What other assumptions do we make in the usability of form controls that may be leaving folks out? What does a truly globally accessible form look like?

我们有轶事证据表明，我们查看表格和运输的方式过于简单 。 我们在表单控件的可用性方面做出了哪些其他假设，这些假设可能会导致人们不知所措？ 真正可全球访问的表单是什么样的？

We know that data costs can be prohibitive in many parts of the globe, leading folks to have to get creative with things like local caching servers to afford to get online. We’ve started to focus less on page weight in WEIRD environments, but is that true of folks in other areas? Do the performance metrics we’re zeroing in on still represent the user experience in different situations?

我们知道，在全球许多地方，数据成本可能会高得让人望而却步，这导致人们不得不利用本地缓存服务器之类的东西来发挥创造力，使他们能够上网 。 我们已经开始较少关注WEIRD环境中的页面重量，但这是否适用于其他领域的人们呢？ 我们要关注的性能指标是否仍代表着不同情况下的用户体验？

There’s been some work done on better understanding what people expect from the web; I certainly don’t want to imply that there hasn’t. But the body of research is significantly smaller than the analysis based on the WEIRD. Much of what we do have is survey-based (versus more accurate forms of research) and speculation based on anecdotal evidence. I don’t think anyone could argue that we don’t still have a long way to go.

为了更好地理解人们对网络的期望，已经做了一些工作。 我当然不想暗示没有。 但是研究的范围明显小于基于WEIRD的分析。 我们所做的大部分工作都是基于调查(相对于更准确的研究形式)和基于轶事证据的推测。 我认为没有人可以说我们还有很长的路要走。

There always seems to be something new for the web to figure out, something that keeps us on our toes. Robyn Larsen has been talking a lot lately about how internationalization is our next big challenge, and I couldn’t agree more. One thing is certain: we have a lot to relearn.

网络似乎总会发现一些新事物，这使我们保持警惕。 罗宾·拉森(Robyn Larsen)最近一直在谈论国际化是我们的下一个重大挑战的方式，我对此表示同意。 有一件事可以肯定：我们还有很多要学习的东西。

翻译自: https://timkadlec.com/remembers/2018-11-21-keeping-it-weird/

ie 怪异