First of all, I don’t expect users to understand design, but I hope that decision makers can have a certain in-depth understanding of design. So that you can better play and use its value. It is also a summary of personal further understanding of design.
First, design is not art, and design must face users. Different users have different demands, and the design is to satisfy the demands, not just to satisfy the eyes of users. It is not an artistic catharsis.
That is to say, the design is not just good-looking (good-looking is just an effective additional experience, which can make the experience more perfect and comfortable. Note, at this point, it is not that good-looking is worthless), but good use and use form (method and The form ranges from material, behavior to goal to psychology).
Speaking of this, because often, my boss and colleagues have repeatedly reminded me that the design must be impactful, be beautiful, and use it as a very important criterion for judging the pros and cons, spending huge costs on it. (Meetings, voting, discussions, etc.) As long as the beauty fails, other efforts will be useless. So, don’t leave your understanding of design positions in the art stage.
Maybe you think my definition of design is too high, but maybe this is the most accurate description I think. Some people say that design is solving problems. In fact, the original concept is very valuable. It still looks like today. It’s not wrong, what kind of problem to solve is still very complicated. The level of design was once divided into three by norman, but today, it does not indicate who is higher in these three levels. The problems solved cover these levels, and the multi-dimensional resonance of users is what solves the problem. High level.
As far as products are concerned, there is no beauty out of thin air, only beauty enhanced by a compound experience. Beauty is the commendation from users’ psychology after the product meets the demands of users. Therefore, users say that your product is very comfortable and beautiful, but they may actually praise your experience. Conversely, if the user complains or angrily says that your product is ugly, unfeeling, and not beautiful, it may also be the intersection of his negative effects on the user experience of the product, rather than the fact that your graphic aesthetics is really bad, because users cannot Describe exactly what is wrong, and don’t know what experience is. The most expressive and description is the senses.
In a departmental meeting, the marketing department invited several target users to conduct a small meeting similar to a talk show. When my boss tried to investigate what kind of colors and visual styles they liked, I already felt These questions are meaningless. The result is definitely not getting anything. What excites me is that the users first made it clear that they will not be attracted to users because of beauty. When they use a product, they must have a clear demand, even a small bright spot.
In order to prove my point of view to my boss, I asked the user a ridiculous question: “For you, a product that looks good but is not very convenient to use, and a product that is very delicate in details and user perspective but has a dull vision. Product, which of the two do you prefer?”
The answer was beyond my expectations: “I want a product that is both easy to use and good-looking. Good-looking is easy to use. Beauty and easy-to-use are not contradictory.”
I was stunned at first, and then ashamed, because I underestimated the user’s understanding, guessed the beauty he thought, and then asked questions that I thought were absurd. In fact, it is obvious that his understanding of beauty is accurate at the design level and from the perspective of users. It is beautiful because it is easy to use, and it is beautiful because it meets expectations. Who doesn’t expect such a product? Jobs did it.
Although my boss still insists on his understanding of beauty: visual impact, bright eyes, very personal. But I think that for community-type products, these standards are obviously directional errors.
Although I argue that redundant vision will add more cognitive burden to the originally complicated tasks, the temperament of the product cannot be solved by pure graphics. But everyone still believes in the first feeling. In fact, people do not like long-term use of high-impact things in real situations, but still assume that this can attract users. Do you know users?
Second, the design is based on and judged standards.
Designing different products has specific environment, user, and target constraints. These constitute the principles and standards that the design must follow. These principles vary from product to product and are an important basis for product design. Even these basis and standards are not very scientifically demonstrated and quantifiable.
For example, the design basis for google and sohu portal is definitely different.
Even the basis of visual design is different, what kind of product, what kind of “temperament” and characteristics it needs to show to users. Of course, unless there are some general principles.
For another example, the basis for designing an electric drill and designing a plasma TV is very different. The first consideration of ergonomics for electric drills is how to use better force, better grasp the direction, better touch and good safety. As for the visually good-looking, it is better to be plain. I don’t want people to see that I have an electric drill.
The judging standard is the process of evaluating and choosing design decisions. Design, like any science, has relatively reliable judgment standards. And it is controllable. Otherwise, the design is just nonsense and has no value at all.
Judging criteria are naturally generated when a design requirement arises. For example, in the design bidding for the construction of Olympic venues, the design expectations and basic principles are clearly marked on the bidding documents. The same applies to our design products. For us, design without objects, invisible to users, and unclear design requirements, the design is naturally a mess.
The judging standard is the necessary ability of a qualified product manager. In the face of differently positioned products, it is necessary to formulate a judgment category and conditions. This can be informed to the designer in advance, and the designer can also summarize some valuable points and use the design to illustrate. From the perspective of designers, they need to find design opportunities in these various constraints and standards. Appropriate design is shown as far as possible.
The establishment of evaluation criteria is conducive to the direction, efficiency and controllability of the design. Avoid wasting huge costs in the end is still at a loss. Good judgment standards are good for the product, otherwise it will be harmful.
Design is intertwined with sensibility and rationality.
Design in any field has been related to rationality since it was named design. It can be said that it is rational because of users, rational because of logic, and rational because of realization and rationality. Reasonable because of cost, because of the market…
The uniqueness of the design is that designers can switch between the two fields with ease. Under normal circumstances, the preliminary analysis work, information collection, data analysis, etc. are all rational. If there are specialized personnel to do it well, it will save a lot of effort. Just get the information to reference the design. The work of transforming information and visual communication design (designing specific low-fidelity models) in the middle is very perceptual, accumulating perceptual knowledge, stimulating inspiration and innovative ideas. The innovation mentioned here is very small, and it can even be a graphic process. The skills are counted, as long as it fits the subject. In the design stage of the high-fidelity prototype, rationality should be intervened again to avoid being too free and losing direction.
Visual design includes static graphics and dynamic graphic elements, as well as visually perceptible interactive behavior relationships. Therefore, visual design is a very important part of the Internet product experience.
I remember that Carl liu once described design as a process of repeated iterations between close and distant views. We often have to examine our design from two perspectives. Perceptual comes from ourselves, and rational comes from users and the environment.
Third, the success of design is not the pursuit of perfection, but the choice of the most suitable and rhythmic design for the product.
The key point of the design is to always remember the key points of this stage and solve the staged problems. The famous American frog design still adheres to this creed. In fact, based on the available resources, environment, and time, on the rapidly changing Internet, it is amazing to be able to do the most important thing. So this is particularly important. How to use reasonable resources to solve the most important problems is also a sign of an enterprise’s core competitiveness.
At the beginning of design management, when strategic planning is done, the specific implementation design should always remember today’s key points and solve phased problems. There is never a perfect product, and so is the myth of Apple. We need time and years of accumulation to repair and gradually perfect.
Entrepreneurship requires a rhythm, and the product also has its own rhythm. A one-step product must not be competitive. It does not exist at all.
Therefore, in a general sense, the more chaotic CEOs are more demanding of the perfect design details, and even lose their direction. It wasted resources and costs that were already very tight.
Fourth, design is not a magic wand in the hands of a magician. You can do whatever you want. Design is not a life-saving prescription. The more dishonest and speculative you are, the greater your disappointment in design.
Design can effectively enhance the core competitiveness of brands and products. This has long been widely sought after. However, if you don’t understand design, even if you have many excellent resources by your side, it will still not help your career much. The more you want to opportunistically, and the more you want to go secretly, the more you lose out. Building your products honestly, perfecting your products and services, and using the design correctly can get twice the result with half the effort. Otherwise, you will eventually think that the design is a lie and be extremely disappointed.
Fifth, big design and small design
Large design and small design are always the scales that need to be weighed repeatedly. Big design is big success, small design, small improvement, don’t think which is important, use whichever you need, big design is strategy, small design is implementation details, if the product still cannot satisfy users, we must think about the design problem.
Some people say that the design of the Beijing Olympics Wufuwa was a failure, but I think he was a great success. What he considers is no longer just a question of whether it is good or not, but covers all aspects of culture, business operations, psychology, consumption and China’s Olympic strategy. Although many people in China are dissatisfied with the color and even the shape of the pattern, the spread and influence of Wufuwa will be very far-reaching.