鲁道夫·阿恩海姆（Rudolf arnheim）和视觉思维

Surely many of you, even today, have come across UX or design deliverables full of text, instructions and descriptive phrases, which try to solve through the use of written language what could not be solved visually. These types of solutions generally hinder the understanding of the visual artefacts (interfaces, infographics…) since they do nothing other than patch design problems.

确实，即使在今天，您中的许多人还是遇到过包含文本，指令和描述性短语的UX或设计可交付成果，它们试图通过使用书面语言来解决视觉上无法解决的问题。 这些类型的解决方案通常会阻碍对视觉伪像(界面，信息图表等)的理解，因为它们除了补丁设计问题外无能为力。

This inertia, more and more disused every day, maybe due to the fact that for a long time in many countries, design or visuals had a lot of discredit among the professionals of Usability and Information Architecture. The design was completely separated from the attributes of usability, and it was very common to hear phrases such as “that is already a design problem” or “let the designer solve it”. This kind of ideas was largely conditioned by the multidisciplinary background of the pioneers of the profession, mostly coming from non-visual disciplines (engineering, psychology, library science, information science, etc.).

这种惯性每天都越来越被废掉，这可能是由于在许多国家，很长一段时间以来，设计或视觉效果在可用性和信息体系结构专业人士中都存在很大的声誉。 设计与可用性的属性完全分开，听到“已经是设计问题”或“让设计者解决问题”之类的短语非常普遍。 这种想法很大程度上取决于该行业的先驱者的多学科背景，其中大多数来自非视觉学科(工程学，心理学，图书馆学，信息科学等)。

但是，为什么这种拒绝和解释和评估视觉上的困难呢？ (But why this rejection and difficulty in interpreting and evaluating the visual?)

In western cultures, language (and therefore thought) is based on a semantic structure, we perceive the world through a series of descriptive knowledge which inevitably leads us to scientific and linear logic, we seek for an