顺序一致性 最终一致性_一致性杀手

顺序一致性 最终一致性

重点 (Top highlight)

I used to be all about consistency. I was obsessed with Bauhaus design. I read about the great 60s corporate identity designers like Rand and Vignelli, I studied their meticulous design manuals, and I wanted my work to be just like theirs. Logical. Minimal. Clean. And, yes, consistent. So very, very consistent.

我 曾经一贯致力于一致性。 我迷上了包豪斯的设计。 我读到了诸如Rand和Vignelli这样的60年代杰出的企业形象设计师，我研究了他们细致的设计手册，并且希望自己的作品与他们一样。 逻辑上。 最小 清洁。 而且，是的。 非常非常一致。

Consistency was the killer attribute of design, I thought. But now when I think about consistency it appears to me more like the killer of creativity. The killer of experimentation, of exploration. The master of killing conversations, ideas and possibilities.

我认为，一致性是设计的杀手attribute。 但是现在，当我想到一致性时，对我来说，它更像是创造力的杀手。 实验，探索的杀手。 掌握对话，思想和可能性的大师。

质疑一致性 (Questioning Consistency)

Most people don’t question consistency. Consistency is good, obviously. From a consistent paste to consistent logic, it illustrates care, attention to detail quality. When it comes to designing a UI, for example, it’s a highly valued attribute. We don’t want to lose or confuse the user in randomness. So what are we doing here? Why are we questioning consistency?

大多数人不质疑一致性。 一致性很好，显然。 从一致的粘贴到一致的逻辑，它说明了对细节质量的关注和关注。 例如，在设计UI时，它是一个非常有价值的属性。 我们不想让用户迷失或迷惑。 那我们在这里做什么？ 我们为什么要质疑一致性？

If there’s an idea, belief or principle that is pushed, or appears, as obvious and is never questioned, then it’s usually time to not only question it, but to argue against it.

如果有一个观念，信念或原则被推动或出现，很明显并且从未受到质疑，那么通常是时候不仅要质疑它，而且要反对它了。

Even if you’re a firm believer, certain your faith won’t waver, the exercise is always worthwhile. You may well come to the conclusion that, yes, this is still right. But the process keeps your mind alert and aware to the false assumptions we sometimes hold.

即使您是坚定的信徒，也可以肯定自己的信念不会动摇，但这样做总是值得的。 您可能会得出结论，是的，这仍然是正确的。 但是，此过程可以使您警觉并意识到我们有时持有的错误假设。

If you’re a designer, or someone who works closely with design professionals, and you’ve taken it for granted that consistency is always a good thing, then join me on a quick jaunt to question whether this assumption is as valid as you originally thought.

如果您是设计师或与设计专业人员紧密合作的人，并且认为一致性始终是一件好事，那么请与我一起快速质疑这个假设是否与您最初的假设一样有效思想。

一致性王 (Consistency the King)

As I’ve progressed through my career one of the most common critiques I hear is that something is not consistent. When someone points to an inconsistency and everyone sees that to be true, it’s like the checkmate of any debate.

在我的职业生涯中，我听到的最常见的批评之一是有些事情并不一致。 当有人指出不一致之处，并且每个人都认为这是事实时，这就像是任何辩论的死因。

Well, if it’s not consistent it must be wrong.

好吧，如果不一致，那肯定是错误的。

I disagree.

我不同意。

Many people work with design while not being designers. This can be tricky territory. Sometimes knowing a little can be worse than knowing nothing. The first (and often only) design rule someone outside of the profession will learn is usually the consistency rule. It’s simple to grasp. Quick to flag. You’re in a meeting and feeling uncomfortable with your lack of input, then suddenly you’ve spotted an inconsistency — bingo! The room nods in appreciation for your keen eyes, and you see a clear path through which you can demonstrate your added value. Henceforth, you’re on the lookout: inconsistencies = BAD!

许多人不是设计师而是从事设计工作。 这可能是棘手的领域。 有时候，了解一点可能比什么都不知道更糟。 职业以外的人会学到的第一个(也是唯一的)设计规则通常是一致性规则。 很容易掌握。 快速标记。 您正在开会时因缺乏输入而感到不舒服，然后突然发现不一致之处-宾果游戏！ 房间点着眼睛敏锐地点头表示赞赏，并且您会看到一条清晰的道路，可以用来展示您的附加值。 从此以后，您就可以进行监视了：不一致=不好！

As a minor nuisance, the consistency call out is like the professional equivalent of the person who’s ignoring what’s being said while obsessively hunting for any typos. At it’s worse, constantly citing this principle encourages a mentality that can’t see the bigger picture. A mentality that produces work that is conservative, same-y and borish.

作为一个小小的麻烦，一致性的呼唤就像是专业人士，就像在痴迷寻找错别字的同时却忽略了所说的话的人。 更糟糕的是，不断引用这一原则会激发一种看不到大局的心态。 一种心态，产生的工作是保守的，不变的和乐观的。

Over the course of my career I have seen the consistency card shut down countless creative and valid avenues for exploration. Like a king holding court, a hierarchical dynamic is established. First, everything must be consistent. Then we can talk.

在我的职业生涯中，我已经看到一致性卡关闭了无数的创新和有效探索途径。 就像国王掌控法院一样，建立了分层的动态机制。 首先，一切必须保持一致。 那我们可以谈谈。

Off with his head! I say. It’s time for a revolution.

抬起头来！ 我说。 是时候进行革命了。

呼吸品牌 (The Breathing Brand)

The world of identity design was once the ultimate purveyor of King Consistency. Now, it’s the space where you will find the strongest backlash against this stale way of thinking.

身份设计领域曾经是King Consistency的最终提供者。 现在，您将在这里找到对这种陈旧思维方式的强烈反对。

Designers in this field are understanding that the most effective brands are not static tools used to inform in a one-way interaction. But something that is living, breathing, communicating, evolving. Just like the people they’re ‘talking’ to. As Mattt Steel says in the article, Why a Coherent Brand Identity is Stronger Than a Consistent Logo:

该领域的设计师意识到，最有效的品牌并不是用于单向交互的静态工具。 但是，某些东西正在生存，呼吸，交流，不断发展。 就像他们在“与之交谈”的人一样。 正如Mattt Steel在文章中所说， 为什么连贯的品牌标识比一致的徽标要强 ：

Your followers don’t give a rusty nickel if your color palette is treated consistently, or if your symbol appears above or to the left of your name. What matters to them is how well you inform, inspire, and empower them.

如果始终如一地对待您的调色板，或者您的符号出现在名称的上方或左侧，那么您的追随者就不会生锈。 对他们来说重要的是，您如何向他们传达，启发和授权他们。

Brands have followers now. And no one is interested in following someone, or something, that never changes, that never surprises.

品牌现在有关注者。 而且没有人愿意关注一个永远不会改变，永远不会感到惊讶的人或事物。

OK, OK, I hear you say, but what about the logo? Surely that’s the one branding element that must be applied consistently?

好吧，好吧，我听到你说，但是徽标呢？ 当然这是必须一致应用的一个品牌要素吗？

Some bold companies are embracing a new approach where their identity does not have one set logo. One of my favourite examples of this was the early branding for the Byron chain of restaurants. There was a ‘no logo’ approach with signage stylised to work with the unique interiors of each restaurant. Between restaurants, wildly varying typography and illustration was used on menus and throughout the various touch points. Despite the complete lack of consistency, each restaurant felt unmistakably Byron.

一些大胆的公司正在采用一种新方法，即其身份没有一个固定的徽标。 我最喜欢的例子之一就是早期的拜伦连锁餐厅品牌。 曾经采用“无徽标”的方式，将标牌风格化，以与每家餐厅的独特内饰搭配使用。 在餐厅之间，菜单和各个接触点使用的字体和插图变化很大。 尽管完全缺乏一致性，但每家餐厅都毫无疑问地感受到了拜伦。

Another great example is the work done by design agency SomeOne for FastJet, an African Airline. The brand uses what could be described as a mascot, an African grey parrot, that is illustrated in any number of ways depending on the context it’s set within. There is no one version, no one lock-up with clearly defined (and ironic) breathing space, which is used to rubber stamp every piece of brand collateral.

另一个很好的例子是设计公司SomeOne为非洲航空公司FastJet所做的工作 。 该品牌使用一种可以被称为吉祥物的非洲灰鹦鹉，根据其所处的环境以多种方式对其进行说明。 没有一个版本，没有一个具有明确定义的(和讽刺的)呼吸空间的锁止装置，该锁止装置用于对每一块品牌抵押物进行橡皮戳。

找背景，选择连贯性 (Look to Context, Choose Coherence)

I will admit, consistency is one ingredient in design that is often sought and usually results from good work. But be wary of being ruled by unquestioned laws reasoned in the abstract. Your context is always where you should refer to first and foremost.

我会承认，一致性是设计中经常要寻求的要素之一，并且通常源于出色的工作。 但是要警惕被抽象推理的毫无疑问的法律所统治。 您的上下文始终是您应该首先提到的地方。

Abandoning a blind faith in consistency will open you up to focus on every part of your design process; to focus on what is the most relevant solution. Just because this element appears in a certain position on all the previous pages, doesn’t mean it should appear in the same position on the next. Maybe that no longer makes sense on this page.

放弃对一致性的盲目信念将使您能够专注于设计过程的每个部分。 专注于最相关的解决方案。 仅仅因为该元素出现在所有先前页面的某个位置，并不意味着它应该出现在下一页的相同位置。 也许在此页面上不再有意义。

In his short article, Coherent, Not Consistent, Bruno Bergher highlights how designers lose themselves under the banner of consistency, buried in the details of a project, failing to see larger product design issues, and losing valuable time that could have been spent validating core features.

布鲁诺·伯格(Bruno Bergher)在他的简短文章《 连贯但不一致》中强调了设计师如何在一致性的旗帜下迷失自我，埋在项目的细节中，看不到更大的产品设计问题以及浪费宝贵的时间来验证核心特征。

Too often I see teams spending days arguing about how they’re spacing elements differently between Android and iOS… Stressing whether the tip of a tooltip is should be at 30- or 35- degree angle. All these while letting core interaction problems in their products go unchecked.

我经常看到团队花很多时间争论他们如何在Android和iOS之间以不同的方式分隔元素…强调工具提示的尖端应该是30度还是35度角。 所有这些使他们产品中的核心交互问题不受控制。

I agree.

我同意。

Another related issue is that designers (and people working with designers) will think about consistency in terms of what has always been. They ask themselves, What are the consistent UX patterns established on the web? What are users used to? The problem is this leads you away from thinking about the people you’re designing for, the product you’re working on — your specific context. Thinking about consistency in this way results in lazy, generic design solutions.

另一个相关的问题是，设计师(以及与设计师合作的人)会一直考虑一致性。 他们问自己，网络上建立了哪些一致的UX模式？ 用户习惯了什么？ 问题在于，这使您无需考虑要为其设计的人员，正在使用的产品-您的特定上下文。 以这种方式考虑一致性会产生懒惰的通用设计解决方案。

Jared Spool defines this contextual way of thinking as ‘current knowledge’. In his words:

Jared Spool将这种上下文关联的思维方式定义为“当前知识”。 用他的话说 ：

Current knowledge, on the other hand, requires in-depth knowledge of the users. And that takes research time and investigative effort. It doesn’t come cheap, like consistency does. But it produces much, much better results.

另一方面，当前的知识需要用户的深入知识。 这需要花费研究时间和调查工作。 它并不便宜，就像一致性一样。 但是它产生了很多更好的结果。

Design, like many disciplines, seems like it is constantly in the throes of pursuing productivity at all costs. Everything needs to happen fast. Even failing. Coherence is a lot more subjective than consistency. It takes a little more thinking about. You may need to take a time out, and embrace the grey area of a project to figure out your context and what is coherent.

像许多学科一样，设计似乎总是不惜一切代价追求生产力。 一切都需要快速发生。 甚至失败。 一致性比一致性要主观得多。 这需要更多的思考。 您可能需要花点时间，并拥抱项目的灰色区域以弄清楚您的上下文和相关内容。

I see coherence as a more progressive way to frame design decisions. Coherence is about how well something is understood. Everything should make sense, everything should hang together nicely in a coherent design. A consistent design may not achieve any of those things. The border radius on every button will be the same, but the website may still be a confusing mess.

我认为连贯性是制定设计决策的一种更先进的方法。 一致性是关于某种事物被理解的程度。 一切都应该有意义，所有事情都应该以一致的设计很好地结合在一起。 一致的设计可能无法实现这些目标。 每个按钮的边框半径都将相同，但网站可能仍然是令人困惑的混乱。

Start with coherence, get that right. It’s much harder to tune the macro. We may be more comfortable with our noses pressed up into the details of a design, but leave that stuff until you’re sure your design is coherent to the people who will use it.

从连贯性开始，做到正确。 调整宏要困难得多。 我们可能会更习惯于将鼻子压入设计的细节中，但是请保留这些内容，直到您确定设计将与使用它的人保持一致为止。

超越设计 (Beyond Design)

Recently I’ve been thinking of consistency beyond design. I think about the supermarkets’ obsession with consistent looking fruit and vegetables. The idea that we should arrive and leave work at consistent times. The pressure to show a consistent face to the world. And I wonder, where’s the benefit to all this consistency?

最近，我一直在考虑超越设计的一致性。 我想到了超市对始终如一的水果和蔬菜的痴迷。 我们应该在一致的时间到达和离开工作的想法。 向世界展示一致面Kong的压力。 我想知道，所有这些一致性的好处在哪里？

There’s something rooted within our culture that pushes us to demonstrate consistency in our thinking and in our work. That signifier of quality, that something that has been well thought out. But consistency in many things in life, especially in creative work, engenders waste, gives the false illusion of progress, and strips the humanity from the end result.

我们文化中深深扎根着某种东西，促使我们在思维和工作中表现出一致性。 质量的象征，经过深思熟虑的东西。 但是生活中许多事物的一致性，尤其是创造性工作中的一致性，会造成浪费，给人错误的进步幻想，并使人性与最终结果脱节。

When we think of hand-made objects versus machine made, we see consistency versus coherence in a compelling light. Machine-made objects are identical, they’re this way as a product of a manufacturing technique that seeks the most cost-effective means. And as such their emotional value (which has a truer meaning than a price tag) is diminished. Hand-made objects are always unique, in small ways, while still being identified as a coherent collection. Their value comes from the slower, unpredictable nature of how they’re manufactured. They feel special. So we hold on to them for as long as possible, handing them down through generations.

当我们想到手工制造的物体与机器制造的物体时，我们会在令人信服的灯光下看到一致性与一致性。 机器制造的物体是相同的，因此，它们是寻求最佳成本效益的制造技术产品的一种方式。 因此，他们的情感价值(比价格更有意义的情感)被削弱了。 手工制作的物体在很小的程度上总是独一无二的，同时仍被视为一个连贯的收藏。 它们的价值来自其制造方式的缓慢，不可预测的特性。 他们觉得很特别。 因此，我们会尽可能长时间地坚持下去，并将它们传承下去。

If we want to give our designs longevity, then we need to adopt a ‘hand-made’ mindset. If we’re to design something special, then let’s craft each page, part, section; considering its context, while making it coherent with the whole. And inevitably small details, kinks and quirks, will emerge that make sense in the bigger picture, but render those parts interesting, beautiful and singular.

如果要延长设计寿命，则需要采用“手工制作”的思维方式。 如果我们要设计一些特别的东西，那么让我们精心设计每一页，每一部分，每一节； 考虑其上下文，同时使其与整体保持一致。 不可避免地会出现一些微小的细节，纽结和怪异现象，这些细节在更大的范围内是有意义的，但是却使这些部分变得有趣，美丽和奇异。

翻译自: https://uxdesign.cc/consistency-the-killer-e7a305789c2f

顺序一致性 最终一致性