我知道，当我制作出一个糟糕的UI时，几乎总是因为我过于专注于它的特定部分。

在开发和测试一个特定功能的过程中，我几乎总是会多次使用它。

在我检查了十几次之后，我就处于这样一种心态:我确切地知道我要做什么，也确切地知道我需要做什么才能让程序按我想要的做。我也和观看这个特定的作品功能本身，一遍又一遍，直到它“完成”。当我在测试时，我会快速浏览应用程序/菜单/工作流/其他内容。

用户的情况完全不同。他们没有把软件的这一部分看作一个独立的“块”。他们并不总是经常这样做，当他们经常这样做的时候，他们肯定不会经常独自做。他们不会像开发人员那样“跳过”过程的其余部分，只专注于这一部分。

重要的是试着看UI，然后思考“我应该用它做什么?”如果不清楚，说明你做错了。我们所处的情况是，我们知道软件需要什么输入，我们只是想办法获得这些输入。用户所处的情况是他们想要某种结果，他们想知道他们必须做什么才能得到这个结果。

我尽量与设计相关的网站和文本保持联系。我发现Robin Williams的著作《the Non-Designer’s Design book》在这些研究中也很有趣。

我相信设计和可用性是软件工程中非常重要的一部分，我们应该更多地学习这方面的知识，不要再为我们不应该做设计找借口了。

每个人都可以偶尔成为设计师，每个人也都可以成为程序员。

Neal Stephenson所著的《In the Beginning was the Commandline》是一本关于用户界面及其重要性的好书。不是每个人都需要GUI，只是很多人不编程。这就像迪士尼世界的动物王国和实际的亚马逊之间的区别。

这一切都是关于练习，一些训练和回顾。但是大多数后端开发人员工作的环境中，优秀的ui设计并不真正受到管理层的重视。

在阅读了一些关于UI设计的文献之后，组织一些关于UI设计的代码dojo。

用户界面不像一层薄薄的油漆，是事后才可以涂上去的。它需要从一开始就存在，并基于真正的研究。当然，有大量可用性研究可用。它不仅需要在一开始就存在，它还需要构成你制作软件的核心原因:世界上存在一些差距，一些问题，它需要变得更可用和更有效。

软件不是为了它自己而存在的。软件存在的原因是为了人们。这绝对是荒谬的，甚至试图提出一个新的软件的想法，而不理解为什么人们会需要它。然而，这种情况一直在发生。

在编写每一行代码之前，您应该先检查界面的纸质版本，并在真人身上进行测试。这有点奇怪和愚蠢，它最适合孩子们，有人扮演“电脑”。

界面需要利用我们自然的认知能力。穴居人会怎么使用你的程序?例如，我们已经进化到非常擅长追踪移动的物体。这就是为什么使用物理模拟的界面，比如iphone，比即时发生变化的界面效果更好。

We are good at certain kinds of abstraction, but not others. As programmers, we're trained to do mental gymnastics and backflips to understand some of the weirdest abstractions. For instance, we understand that a sequence of arcane text can represent and be translated into a pattern of electromagnetic state on a metal platter, which when encountered by a carefully designed device, leads to a sequence of invisible events that occur at lightspeed on an electronic circuit, and these events can be directed to produce a useful outcome. This is an incredibly unnatural thing to have to understand. Understand that while it's got a perfectly rational explanation to us, to the outside world, it looks like we're writing incomprehensible incantations to summon invisible sentient spirits to do our bidding.

普通人能理解的抽象概念包括地图、图表和符号。小心符号，因为符号是一种非常脆弱的人类概念，需要有意识的精神努力来解码，直到学会符号。

The trick with symbols is that there has to be a clear relationship between the symbol, and the thing it represents. The thing it represents either has to be a noun, in which case the symbol should look VERY MUCH like the thing it represents. If a symbol is representing a more abstract concept, that has to be explained IN ADVANCE. See the inscrutable unlabled icons in msword's, or photoshop's toolbar, and the abstract concepts they represent. It has to be LEARNED that the crop tool icon in photoshop means CROP TOOL. it has to be understood what CROP even means. These are prerequisites to correctly using that software. Which brings up an important point, beware of ASSUMED knowledge.

我们大约在4岁左右才能获得理解地图的能力。我记得我曾经在什么地方读到过，黑猩猩在六七岁左右获得了理解地图的能力。

The reason that guis have been so successful to begin with, is that they changed a landscape of mostly textual interfaces to computers, to something that mapped the computer concepts to something that resembled a physical place. Where guis fail in terms of usability, is where they stop resembling something you'd see in real life. There are invisible, unpredictable, incomprehensible things that happen in a computer that bare no resemblance to anything you'd ever see in the physical world. Some of this is necessary, since there'd be no point in just making a reality simulator- The idea is to save work, so there has to be a bit of magic. But that magic has to make sense, and be grounded in an abstraction that human beings are well adapted to understanding. It's when our abstractions start getting deep, and layered, and mismatched with the task at hand that things break down. In other words, the interface doesn't function as a good map for the underlying software.

有很多书。我读过的两本，因此可以推荐给你，一本是唐纳德·诺曼的《日常事物的设计》，另一本是杰夫·拉斯金的《人机界面》。

I also reccomend a course in psychology. "The Design of Every day Things" talks about this a bit. A lot of interfaces break down because of a developer's "folk understanding" of psychology. This is similar to "folk physics". An object in motion stays in motion doesn't make any sense to most people. "You have to keep pushing it to keep it in motion!" thinks the physics novice. User testing doesn't make sense to most developers. "You can just ask the users what they want, and that should be good enough!" thinks the psychology novice.

我推荐菲利普·津巴多主持的PBS系列纪录片《发现心理学》。如果做不到，那就找一本好的物理教科书。贵的那种。不是你在Borders书店里找到的低级小说自助废话，而是你只能在大学图书馆里找到的厚精装书。这是一个必要的基础。没有它，你也可以做出好的设计，但你只能凭直觉理解正在发生的事情。读一些好书会给你一个好的视角。

因为他们通常不是UI设计师。这是一种不同的技能。这是它。