关于我们为什么要接口-CSDN博客

Last week my friend Matt sent over a digital online micro book by Ehsan Noursalehi, whydoweinterface.com. It quickly sparked my interest, since I’ve been grappling with this idea of interface as a verb for a while now. Many people are familiar with the term “UI,” but ever-changing job titles make it hard to keep track of what designers think they do, and why they do it. I’ve found it helpful to strip away the noise and reflect on the simple term interface. This micro book does a great job of prompting that reflection.

上周我的朋友马特(Matt)寄给了Ehsan Noursalehi一个数字在线微型书， whydoweinterface.com 。很快，我就引起了兴趣，因为我已经将接口作为动词了，这已经有一段时间了。许多人都熟悉“ UI”一词，但是职位的不断变化使他们难以跟踪设计师的想法以及为什么这么做。我发现消除杂讯并反思简单的术语界面很有帮助。这本微型书在促进这种反思方面做得很好。

For me, the piece inspired a bunch of ideas around the role of an interface designer. It creatively and concisely expresses some things I’ve been attempting to write about for a while. I just want to say, huge props to Ehsan for getting this out — it’s a thought-provoking exploration in design thinking as well as an interesting experiment in digital publishing (this is an awesome use case for ReadyMag).

对我而言，这件作品启发了围绕界面设计师角色的许多想法。它创造性，简洁地表达了我一段时间以来一直在尝试写的东西。我只是想说一句，对Ehsan来说，这是一个巨大的支持-这是设计思维中发人深省的探索，也是数字出版中一个有趣的实验(这是ReadyMag的一个很棒的用例)。

Why Do We Interface? is framed around the central idea that interfaces are for information; this provides a clear lens through which to consider the implications of both old and new technologies. As we contend with the progression of technologies over time, around the world, it’s not immediately clear where we are, or where we’re going. I remember my high school librarian telling me that we’re living in the “age of information;” like many others, I was told to be wary of what I read on the internet and instead rely on traditional mediums (namely, books). In other words, I was told that one interface was more reliable than another. Today, it’s imperative that we consider the reliability of our interfaces, given increasing skepticism of motivations of tech industries globally. Along these lines, last year my friend Ioan and I considered what it might look like to encounter your Data Self: the structure of your self that data-driven internet platforms see — the structure that re-shapes you, as you shape it. This kind of more artistic work (work I honestly didn’t expect to get into) has made me question common views of interactions between people and so-called “information.”

我们为什么要接口？ 围绕接口是信息的中心思想构架; 这提供了一个清晰的视角，可以通过它来考虑新旧技术的含义。随着我们在世界范围内随着技术的发展而抗衡，目前尚不清楚我们在哪里，或者我们要去哪里。我记得我的高中图书馆管理员告诉我，我们生活在“信息时代”；与许多其他人一样，我被告知要警惕在互联网上阅读的内容，而要依靠传统的媒体(即书籍)。换句话说，有人告诉我一个接口比另一个接口更可靠。如今，考虑到全球科技行业的动机越来越令人怀疑，我们必须考虑接口的可靠性。沿着这些线路，去年我的朋友伊万，我认为它可能是什么样子遇到你的数据的自己 ：你的自我的结构数据-驱动的互联网平台看-的结构重新塑造你，因为你塑造它。这种更具艺术性的作品(老实说我没想到会进入)使我质疑人们与所谓的“信息”之间互动的共同观点。

I can’t help but wonder: what does it actually mean for people to interpret information? What is the difference between what you know and what you think you know? There’s a great deal of philosophical and scientific theory around these topics, of which I have much to learn. But as a designer, I have seen a pressing opportunity to dive head-first into this world. Designers have a great deal of influence, and as Ehsan points out, we may not be able to direct the future, but we certainly can shape parts of it.

我忍不住想：人们对信息的解释实际上意味着什么？您所知道的与您认为所知道的有什么区别？关于这些主题，有很多哲学和科学理论，我需要学习很多。但是作为一名设计师，我看到了一个紧迫的机会，要首先进入这个世界。设计师具有很大的影响力，正如埃桑(Ehsan)指出的那样，我们可能无法指导未来，但我们当然可以塑造其中的一部分。

Website screenshot from “Why Do We Interface? The Past, Present, & Future of Interfaces”

我们为什么要接口的摘要 (Summary of Why Do We Interface?)

As a designer it’s important to concern yourself with why you design, beyond merely how you design. Interfaces are for information: interface could be defined as a mechanism to retrieve, decode, modify and/or distribute information. Throughout human history, various tools and technologies have helped people communicate information to other people. From spoken language to the printing press to the Walkman to the iPhone, newly invented methods have continually changed the way we communicate with one another.

作为设计师，重要的是要关注自己的设计原因，而不仅仅是设计方式。接口用于信息：接口可以定义为一种检索，解码，修改和/或分发信息的机制。 在整个人类历史中，各种工具和技术已帮助人们与他人交流信息。从口语到印刷机，再到随身听，再到iPhone，新发明的方法不断改变着我们彼此交流的方式。

Design is never finished. Iteration over time leads to a wide range of outcomes. Every once in a while, something just feels right (in evolutionary terms, some things exhibit greater fitness than other things). Or in economic terms, something may have a greater value performance given its cost:benefit ratio.

设计从未完成。随着时间的流逝，迭代会导致各种各样的结果。每隔一段时间，有些事情就感觉正确 (从进化的角度来说，有些事物比其他事物显示出更大的适应性 )。或从经济角度而言，鉴于成本与收益之比，某些产品可能具有更高的价值表现 。

Interfaces have always been of particular interest to humans. Why? Because humans are distinctly human because of the interfaces (communication tools) we’ve developed (starting with spoken language). The purpose of any interface is to “communicate more quickly, more deeply, to foster relationships, to explore, to measure, to learn, to build knowledge, to entertain, and to create.” As new tools emerge, the way we think of ourselves and of the world changes — tools shape us as we shape them. The question is, to what end are today’s tools being developed?

接口一直是人类特别感兴趣的。为什么？因为人类是人类，因为我们已经开发了界面(通信工具)(从口头语言开始)。任何界面的目的都是“更快，更深入地沟通，以建立关系，探索，衡量，学习，建立知识，娱乐和创造。” 随着新工具的出现，我们对自己以及对世界的看法发生了变化-工具在塑造我们的同时也塑造着我们。问题是， 当今的工具要发展到什么目的？

我们为什么要接口？交流信息。 (Why do we interface? To communicate information.)

Better awareness of this may help us design better, more humane interfaces into the future. In the conclusion to Why Do We Interface?, Ehsan lists five questions that could roughly be used as heuristics for evaluating an interface’s ability to meet the (historically grounded) needs of communication:

更好地意识到这一点可以帮助我们设计更好，更人性化的未来界面。在我们为什么要接口的结论中？，Ehsan列出了五个问题，这些问题可以粗略地用作评估接口满足通信需求(基于历史)的能力的启发式方法：

How does the interface help us retrieve information?

该界面如何帮助我们检索信息？

Is it easy to decode the information that was retrieved?

解码获取的信息是否容易？

Does the interface allow for easy and clear modification of information?

该界面是否允许轻松，清晰地修改信息？

Does the interface assist in, and clearly declare when it is going to distribute information?

该接口是否有助于并明确声明何时分配信息？

How will this interface redefine what it means to be human?

该界面将如何重新定义人性化的含义？

These questions embody a helpful, normative foundation for a new way to think of the graphical interface. Beyond the more granular, utilitarian Nielsen Norman heuristics, these prompt designers to think deeper about the underlying goals of any GUI.

这些问题为思考图形界面的新方法体现了有用的规范基础。除了更精细，更实用的Nielsen Norman启发式技术之外，这些提示设计人员还可以更深入地思考任何GUI的基本目标。

信息作为语言 (Information as Language)

In Ehsan’s depiction of interfaces over time, there emerges a common thread: a relationship to language. Each new interface affords a slightly different kind of language transmission. For the sake of discussion, let’s call this “hard information.”

在埃桑对接口的长期描述中，出现了一个共同的线索：与语言的关系。每个新界面都提供了稍微不同的一种语言传输方式。为了便于讨论，我们称其为“硬信息”。

Hard Information: information that, when received, is decoded in a way that the specific, intended message is (or can be) interpreted. This could encompass both denotation—the literal—and connotation—the emotional. Hard information is made up of non-ambiguous, useful bits of data, encoded into words (nodes), and synthesized into sentences (systems). The relationships between nodes in a system are usually more important than the nodes themselves. When you speak a sentence — be it simple or complex — you embed the meaning of words in the way that you knit them together. That tapestry can then be unwoven, decoded by the listener, so the important pieces can be considered and re-encoded in the listener’s memory.
硬信息 ：接收到的信息，将以某种特定的预期消息被(或可以被)解释的方式进行解码。这可能包含字面意义和情感内涵。硬信息由无歧义，有用的数据位组成，编码为单词(节点)，然后合成为句子(系统)。系统中节点之间的关系通常比节点本身更重要。当您说一个句子时(无论是简单的还是复杂的)，您都将单词的含义以将它们编织在一起的方式嵌入其中。然后可以解开挂毯，由听众解码，因此重要的片段可以考虑并重新编码在听众的内存中。
Soft Information: information that provides implicit meaning, yet is difficult to express in words. Broadly speaking, one might bucket soft information into “art,” but I believe it’s more substantial. Art is valuable, not because it necessarily communicates a specific message, but because it can evoke a compelling aesthetic experience. Aesthetic experiences can be found throughout everyday moments in life. Consider play, intuition, skills, routines, feelings, or emotion.
软信息 ：提供隐含含义但难以用语言表达的信息。从广义上讲，人们可以将软信息存储到“艺术”中，但我认为它更重要。艺术之所以有价值，不是因为它必然传达一种特定的信息，而是因为它可以唤起一种引人注目的审美体验 。在生活的每一刻中都可以找到审美体验。考虑游戏，直觉，技能，套路，感觉或情感。

Interfaces have the potential to feel playful, responsive, magical, fluid. The aspects of an interface that evoke these characteristics can seem hard to describe. I’m convinced that we think in space and motion, far more than in language. Action shapes thought. The most fluid-feeling interfaces are probably the ones whose form and movement help you understand them. In interpersonal interactions, it’s clear that communication doesn’t rely only on words, and in some cases has almost nothing do with specific language whatsoever. This may have major implications for interface design.

界面可能会让人感觉好玩，React灵敏，神奇，流畅。似乎很难描述引起这些特性的界面方面。我坚信我们在空间和运动上的思考要比语言多得多。动作塑造思想。最流畅的界面可能是其形式和动作有助于您理解它们的界面。在人际交往中，很明显，交流不仅依赖于单词，而且在某些情况下与特定语言几乎没有任何关系。这可能会对接口设计产生重大影响。

效用与经验 (Utility vs. Experience)

For hard information, as described above, it’s relatively easy to determine “does an interface properly communicated the message it’s meant to communicate?” For soft information, it’s a bit of a different story. The question is more like, “does this thing have life in it?”

对于硬信息，如上所述，相对容易确定“接口是否正确传达了要传达的消息？” 对于软性信息，则是另外一个故事。问题更像是，“这东西里面有生命吗？”

I guess a lot of this has been on my mind lately, as I’ve been listening to Ryan Singer’s recent discussions of Christopher Alexander, whose influential works address the nature of design. Alexander describes one quality of good design as life. Life, to Alexander, is the degree to which a certain form enables diverse and interesting activities to take place. It is the characteristic of a system which enables novel kinds of interactions. In his earlier works, Alexander referred to this as a “quality without a name;” I think this speaks to the difficulty in describing a fundamental aspect of design, that which transcends linguistic communication.

我想最近我已经想到了很多，因为我一直在听瑞安·辛格 ( Ryan Singer )最近对克里斯托弗·亚历山大(Christopher Alexander )的讨论，他的影响力作品论及了设计的本质。亚历山大将良好设计的一种品质描述为生活。 对亚历山大而言，生命是某种形式使各种有趣的活动得以发生的程度。 这是启用新颖交互类型的系统的特征。亚历山大在他的早期作品中将其称为“没有名字的品质”。我认为这说明了描述设计的一个基本方面的困难，该方面超越了语言交流。

Why Do We Interface? does a great job of addressing the epistemological aspects of an interface, and poses compelling questions to help guide designers’ thinking. I wonder, though, what a similar list of questions might look like for the aesthetic aspects of an interface. Designers have the opportunity to shape playful, organic interfaces; interfaces that communicate not just hard information, but soft information; that speak to us not just through language, but through feeling. The attention to detail that this requires may seem folly to some, upon initial consideration. It may be hard to draw a line back to utilitarian aims, but I believe it would help us shape a more desirable future.

我们为什么要接口？ 在解决界面的认识论方面做得很好，并提出了令人信服的问题以帮助指导设计师的思维。但是，我想知道，对于界面的美学方面而言，类似的问题清单可能看起来是什么样的。设计师有机会塑造好玩的有机界面。接口不仅传递硬信息，还传递软信息；与我们交流的不仅仅是语言，而是通过感觉。在最初考虑时，某些人对细节的关注似乎有些愚蠢。可能很难划清功利主义的目标，但我相信这将有助于我们塑造更理想的未来。