今天看了两篇文章，分析google如何能够取得人们的好感和使用，第一篇的key words只有一个“CONTROL”。但我感觉，这样的分析有些过于简化了。的确，google中的控制权使我感觉很好。现在还清楚的记得，一周前，从压根儿不懂CSS的语句，到按照一个模板自己修改、设计整个页面，不断试验直到满意时候自己的欣喜。Gmail中的自定义智能屏蔽和标签管理也让我现在基本放弃了outlook。但是，原因似乎远非如此。
第二篇文章是Google官方博客中的技术人员写的。更加接近使用时的真实感受，只是感觉文字还是有点虚幻。我就从一个使用者的角度，加入一些总结吧~
1. Focus on people—their lives, their work, their dreams.
纯粹的广告语言，跳过~
2. Every millisecond counts.
虽然没有开发人员在自己博客里面声称的加速56倍那么夸张，但Chrome对于Javascript的内核支持的确使得很多网站的访问速度大大加快。网站对于Java脚本的密集应用，让“load and run”模式明显劣于Chrome的应用浏览器内部网络，尽管Google标称的“cloud computing”还相当的虚幻。同样的两个页面，来自blogger和spaces.msn，装载速度天差地别，当然我会选择那个让我效率更高的地方。 在这里，与其说是技术原因，不如说是设计思路的问题。
3. Simplicity is powerful.
当把新浪网中打开一个网页看着各种低俗广告的蹦来蹦去，和Google reader简明扼要的rss浏览比较，对于后者的选择也就顺理成章了。同样是邮件广告，在新浪中，是强行加入每个邮件的末尾，大多是什么智联招聘或者某某婚介网之类。而gmail是读取邮件关键字并以标志性的文字形式在屏幕最边上一列给出相关广告。尽管一般而言两种广告我都不会去点击，但相信后者的广告针对性会更好一些。这样简简单单的关键字搜索技术，如果新浪的技术人员不会的话，我这个刚刚入门的学生可以教你们。
4. Engage beginners and attract experts.
我是基本被engage了……
5. Dare to innovate.
在gmail的lab里面，有很多小的gadget，大部分派不上任何的用场。但感觉很可爱。就好像看到自己某一天，一时性起鼓捣出一串蹩脚的代码，试试看，还能运行，那就算作是一个成果好了:)当然，也不能忘记google reader和google maps，都是lab里面毕业生~
6. Design for the world.
google程序员的口号，忽略~
7. Plan for today's and tomorrow's business.
同上。
8. Delight the eye without distracting the mind.
算是一个感受。不会强行插播广告，没有放入无法屏蔽的垃圾邮件。而且，界面已经远非当年那样简陋了:)
9. Be worthy of people's trust.
这个应该让李彦宏以及牛根生看看。有一次开什么员工会议，领导在台上说，“我和牛根生、李彦宏是好朋友，所以他们有难的时候我一定会帮，我们都是中国民营企业的典范”。说的倒也没错，除了谈不上典范，几个人都是一路货。李彦宏的竞价排名和三鹿公关，已经让我彻底的厌恶了这个人。把责任往奶农身上推，然后在进入资本市场寻求发展之后还要“抵御外辱”，我相信很多事情，媒体的报道和当事者本人的初衷出入甚大。往小里说，要先学会做人，才能去做事。往大里说，"Don't be evil"应当是每个企业遵循的准则。
10. Add a human touch.
这个属于“CONTROL”的范畴，第一篇文章讲得肯定比我透彻:)
-------------------------------------
<Why products fail>
by Mike Elgan
Why do some people prefer Windows XP and Mac OS X over Windows Vista? After all, Vista is pretty and sleek and much more advanced than XP, and, in many areas, Mac OS X. Why is there so much love for Xbox, but none for Windows Mobile?
Why do BlackBerry users love their BlackBerrys, but the public is lukewarm about Palm devices?
Why is the Amazon Kindle, which is an unsophisticated, clunky, poorly designed gadget so popular with owners?
Why do people love plain, ugly Gmail?
The answer to these questions is a mystery to most of the companies that make PCs, gadgets, consumer electronics devices and to software makers. The industry spends billions on usability testing and user interface design. Unfortunately, that money is mostly wasted.
The problem is that there are too many technologists in technology. The technology is only half the equation. The other half is the human, that irrational, impulsive, impatient, power-hungry gratification machine.
When you ask someone what they really want, they won't tell you the truth because they're not aware of the truth.
Both users and product designers alike talk about user interface (UI) consistency, usability and simplicity, and system attributes like performance and stability. What's missing is that these attributes are means to an end. The real issue is always the user's physiological feeling of being in control. And control comes in many ways:
Consistency: Designers focus on UI "consistency," but why? Consistency gives predictability, which gives users a feeling that they know what will happen when they do something -- even for the first time. It's a feeling of mastery, of control.
Usability: One of the errors software and hardware designers make is to base their UI decisions on the assumption that the user is an idiot who needs to be protected from himself. Give this moron too much rope and he'll hang himself, the reasoning goes. But instead of taking the Microsoft route -- burying and hiding controls and features, which protects newbies from their own mistakes but frustrates the hell out of experienced users -- it's better to offer a bullet-proof "undo." Give the user control, let them make their own mistakes, then undo the damage if they mess something up.
Simplicity: Simplicity is complex. And there are many ways to achieve it. One way is to insist on top-to-bottom, inside-and-outside simplicity. Extreme examples include the original Palm Pilot organizer, Gmail and RSS feeds. And then there's the illusion of simplicity, which is the Microsoft route. In trying to be the operating system vendor for all people and all tasks, Microsoft Windows and Windows Mobile are extraordinarily complex pieces of software engineering. To "simplify," the company hides features, buries controls and groups features into categories to create the appearance of fewer options, without actually reducing options. (From all accounts, it appears that Windows 7 will offer more of the same.) Both extremes result in something you could call "simplicity." But one version thrills users by putting them in control. The other frustrates them by taking away control.
Performance: Everyone hates slow PCs. It's not the waiting. It's the fact that the PC has wrenched control from the user during the time that the hourglass is displayed. That three seconds of staring at the hourglass is three seconds when you feel utterly powerless. Fast computers are good because they keep the user in control.
Stability: Designers focus on system "stability," but it's not because they worry about time wasted, though that's how users tend to talk a lack of stability. Like the performance issue, instability is about the theft of system control from the user. People waste all kinds of time on all kinds of things, and usually don't mind doing it. What enrages people is when somebody else forces wasted time on you. Blue Screens of Death are more akin to running into unexpected traffic jams or having somebody take away the TV remote control. You're forced into putting your objectives on hold, and left feeling powerless.
One reason for the industry-wide pandemic of frustrating products is that the whole culture of usability testing doesn't emphasize user feelings of control. Microsoft does usability tests, for example, but its tests are flawed. Typically, it sits random people in front of a PC in a usability lab. Victims are directed to do various tasks, and asked what they're doing and thinking as they try to complete those tasks. All of this is monitored, and everything is recorded.
Microsoft usability testing tends to focus on enabling users to "accomplish goals." Microsoft categorizes these goals according to their educated preconceptions about what people are trying to do based on their jobs or user categorization are you a student, middle manager, designer, for instance. So Microsoft focuses on results. My view is that how the user feels during the process is more important than anything else.
Here's the problem. In these scenarios, users are using somebody else's PC. They expect and assume that the software is in control. There is no psychological feeling of "ownership" over the equipment or the software or the work or anything. So the most important element -- the sense of control people feel when doing their own work on their own PCs in their own homes -- is missing entirely from the tests.
During usability tests, users are asked constantly about the software. And that's the wrong question. When real people are doing real work, they're focused on their own desires and objectives and are frustrated or not frustrated based on the degree to which they're given what they want.
My advice to Microsoft is to add an additional test: a "Who's In Control?" test. After performing a task, ask the user to rank their experience on a scale with "me in control" on one side, and "software in control" on the other. Try all test methods for completing various tasks, and choose the one ranked with the maximum "me in control" score. And they need the home version for ongoing testing in the "real world."
We've all experienced the full range of emotions while using gadgets, PCs, phones and software. At one end of the spectrum is a kind of thrilling joy, where something "just works." At the other end, there is a consuming rage. The amount of time your emotional state spends at one end of the spectrum rather than the other is the one and only thing that determines how much you "love" the product.
All the factors involved in using a PC -- consistency, usability, simplicity, stability, performance and even the successful completion of tasks -- all come down to control.
Give me control, and I will love your product. It's as simple as that.
---------------------------------------
<What makes a design "Googley"?>
by Sue Factor
Late in 2007, our User Experience (UX) group—which does user interface design, visual design, user research, web development, and user interface writing—set out to articulate the principles that ought to guide Google designs worldwide. What are the fundamentals that all Google designers and researchers accept? Which approaches to design are particularly "Googley"? How can we encourage teams throughout Google to dream big and make smart design decisions?
A small team gathered to discuss these questions and define the Googley Design Principles:
1. Focus on people—their lives, their work, their dreams.
2. Every millisecond counts.
3. Simplicity is powerful.
4. Engage beginners and attract experts.
5. Dare to innovate.
6. Design for the world.
7. Plan for today's and tomorrow's business.
8. Delight the eye without distracting the mind.
9. Be worthy of people's trust.
10. Add a human touch.
These UX principles flow naturally from the Ten things Google has found to be true and the UX group's stated mission: to design products that satisfy and delight our users. We described the principles as "Our Aspirations" for two reasons:
We have a lot of work to do when it comes to implementation.
Every real-world product will have to strike a balance between all ten principles.
Still, we don't want to waffle too much. These principles represent the User Experience group's declaration of beliefs. With "Satisfy and Delight" stitched on our leotards, we're determined to get up on the tightrope and start juggling principles. Please applaud or boo, as appropriate, so that we can make the next act even better.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete