Raymond对《The Design of Everyday Things》的笔记(14)

Raymond
Raymond (无所惧其实和无所谓是一个意思)

读过 The Design of Everyday Things

The Design of Everyday Things
  • 书名: The Design of Everyday Things
  • 作者: Donald A. Norman
  • 页数: 272
  • 出版社: Basic Books
  • 出版年: 2002-9-17
  • 第31页 The Paradox of Technology
    The paradox of technology should never be used as an excuse for poor design. It is true that as the number of options and capabilities of any device increases, so too must the number and complexity of the controls. But the principles of good design can make complexity manageable.
    引自 The Paradox of Technology

    技术(进步的同时带来复杂性)的悖论在任何时候都不应该作为低劣设计的借口。(技术进步)的确使得各种设备的功能和选项数目倍增,也必然导致了各种开关的数目和复杂度增加了,但是好的设计的原则应该能够使得复杂度在一个可控的范围内。

    2014-04-26 15:16:31 回应
  • 第36页 Falesly Blaming Yourself
    If an error is possible, someone will make it. The designer must assume that all possible errors will occur and design so as to minimize the chance of the error in the first place, or its effects once it gets made. Errors should be easy to detect, they should have minimal consequences, and, if possible, their effects should be reversible.
    引自 Falesly Blaming Yourself

    如果一个错误是可能发生的,那必然会有人犯下这个错(有点像墨菲定律)。设计者必须假设所有可能的错误都会发生,并且据此进行设计以最小化错误发生的几率,或者出错带来的影响。错误需要易于被发现、后果最小化并且如果可能的话,其影响应该是可逆的。

    2014-04-26 15:15:52 回应
  • 第45页 The Nature of Human Thought and Explanation
    Find an explanation, and we are happy. But our explanations are based on analogy with past experience, experience that may not apply in the current situation......Once we have an explanation—correct or incorrect—for otherwise discrepant or puzzling events, there is no more puzzle, no more discrepancy. As a result, we are complacent, at least for a while.
    引自 The Nature of Human Thought and Explanation

    找到一个解释,然后我们就高兴了。但我们的解释旺旺基于以往或许并不能应用于当前情况的经验的类推。(解释前述举例)对那些原本让人纠结或者迷惑的事件,一旦我们拥有一个解释——无论正确与否——现在就不再迷惑了,也不再纠结了。所以,我们至少就能先自我满足一会了。(自我解释的源头在于对得瑟感的苦苦追求)

    2014-04-26 15:15:09 回应
  • 第48页 How People Do Things: The Seven Stages of Action
    Seven stages of action: one for goals, three for execution, and three for evaluation. • Forming the goal • Forming the intention • Specifying an action • Executing the action • Perceiving the state of the world • Interpreting the state of the world • Evaluating the outcome
    引自 How People Do Things: The Seven Stages of Action

    日常行为的七个阶段,一个是目标,三个是执行,三个是评估。 - 形成目标 - 形成意向 - 精细到动作 - 执行动作 - 感知世界的状态(观察) - 解释世界的状态(评估) - 评估结果(与目标相比较)

    2014-04-26 15:42:42 回应
  • 第55页 Knowledge in the Head and in the World
    Precise behavior can emerge from imprecise knowledge for four reasons. 1. Information is in the world. 2. Great precision is not required. 3. Natural constraints are present. 4. Cultural constraints are present.
    引自 Knowledge in the Head and in the World

    原文举例有删节。大意是人们的具体行为之所以能从不精确的知识中来有四个原因:1)现实世界本身的信息,2)过高的精确性也无必要(只需将正确的行为与错误区分开来即可)3)自然物理约束的存在,4)文化约束的存在。 由此得到的一个推论是,人们会根据自己的特点在这些要素和internal knowledge(自己脑中的知识)之中进行取舍,决定自己的行为。比如有的人可以提升自己的内在的知识,然后解决某些问题,有的人则可以利用人际关系,找到外部的资源(别的懂得同样知识的人)的帮助最后解决问题。这也解释了为什么读书重要的同时,行路同样重要。为什么有人读书读成书呆子,有人没看过几本书却在商场名利站游刃有余左右逢源。

    2014-04-27 11:03:03 回应
  • 第105页 To ERR is Human
    Errors come in several forms. Two fundamental categories are slips and mistakes. Slips result from automatic behavior, when subconscious actions that are intended to satisfy our goals get waylaid en route. Mistakes result from conscious deliberations. The same processes that make us creative and insightful by allowing us to see relationships between apparently unrelated things, that let us leap to correct conclu- sions on the basis of partial or even faulty evidence, also lead to error.
    引自 To ERR is Human
    2014-05-07 15:10:23 回应
  • 第107页 Types of slips
    We can place slips into one of six categories: capture errors, description errors, data-driven errors, associative activation errors, loss-of-activation errors, and mode errors.
    引自 Types of slips
    2014-05-20 12:00:30 回应
  • 第116页 THE CONNECTIONIST APPROACH
    Today, in the developing field of cognitive science, two different views are emerging. The traditional view considers thought to be ratio- nal, logical, and orderly; this approach uses mathematical logic as the scientific means to explain thought. Adherents of this approach have pioneered the development of schemas as the mechanism of human memory. A newer approach is rooted in the working of the brain itself. Those of us who follow this new approach call it "connectionism," but it also goes under the names of "neural nets," "neural models," and "parallel distributed processing." It is an attempt to model the way in which the brain itself is structured, with billions of brain cells con- nected into groups, many cells connected to tens of thousands of oth- ers, many all working at the same time. This approach follows the rules of thermodynamics more than it does the rules of logic. Connectionism is still tentative, still unproven. I believe that it has the potential to explain much of what puzzled us before, but part of the scientific community thinks that it is fundamentally flawed.
    引自 THE CONNECTIONIST APPROACH
    2014-05-20 12:01:27 1人喜欢 回应
  • 第119页 Wide and deep structures
    That decision tree for chess is even wider and deeper—wide in the sense that at each point in the tree there are many alternatives, so that the tree spreads out over a considerable area; deep in the sense that most branches of the tree go on for a considerable distance. Everyday activities don't require the kind of complex analyses re- quired for something like chess. In most everyday activities, we need only examine the alternatives and act. Everyday structures are either shallow or narrow.
    引自 Wide and deep structures
    2014-05-20 12:05:22 回应
  • 第125页 Conscious and subconscious behaviour
    The same powers that make us so good at dealing with the common and the unique lead to severe error with the rare.
    引自 Conscious and subconscious behaviour
    2014-05-20 12:06:28 回应
<前页 1 2 后页>

Raymond的其他笔记  · · · · · ·  ( 全部28条 )