界面设计模式(英文影印版)(第二版)
基本信息
- 作者: Jenifer Tidwell [作译者介绍]
- 丛书名: 东南大学出版社O'Reilly系列
- 出版社:东南大学出版社
- ISBN:9787564126841
- 上架时间:2011-7-20
- 出版日期:2011 年5月
- 开本:16开
- 页码:547
- 版次:2-1
- 所属分类:
计算机 > 软件与程序设计 > 汇编语言/编译原理 > 汇编语言程序设计
内容简介回到顶部↑
尽管目前已经存在了各种各样的用户界面设计工具,设计良好的应用界面仍然不是一件容易的事情。这本畅销书是极少数可以信赖的资料,它能帮助你走出设计选项的迷宫。通过把捕捉到的最佳实践和重用思想体现为设计模式,《界面设计模式》提供了针对常见设计问题的解决方案,这些方案可以被裁减以适用于你的具体情况。
《界面设计模式(影印版第2版)》包括手机应用和社交媒体的模式,以及web应用和桌面软件。每个模式包含了用全彩方式展现的运用技巧,以及你可以立刻取用的务实建议。有经验的设计人员可以把这本指南作为思想的源泉,而新手则可以通过它发现一条通往界面和交互设计世界的大道。
《界面设计模式(影印版第2版)》包括手机应用和社交媒体的模式,以及web应用和桌面软件。每个模式包含了用全彩方式展现的运用技巧,以及你可以立刻取用的务实建议。有经验的设计人员可以把这本指南作为思想的源泉,而新手则可以通过它发现一条通往界面和交互设计世界的大道。
目录回到顶部↑
《界面设计模式(英文影印版)(第二版)》
introduction to the second edition
preface
1. what users do
a means to an end
the basics of user research
users' motivation to learn
the patterns
safe exploration
instant gratification
satisficing
changes in midstream
deferred choices
incremental construction
habituation
microbreaks
spatial memory
prospective memory
streamlined repetition
keyboard only
introduction to the second edition
preface
1. what users do
a means to an end
the basics of user research
users' motivation to learn
the patterns
safe exploration
instant gratification
satisficing
changes in midstream
deferred choices
incremental construction
habituation
microbreaks
spatial memory
prospective memory
streamlined repetition
keyboard only
前言回到顶部↑
Once upon a time, interface designers worked with a woefully small toolbox.
We had a handful of simple controls: text fields, buttons, menus, tiny icons, and modal dialogs. We carefully put them together according to the Windows Style Guide or the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines, and we hoped that users would understand the resulting interface--and too often, they didn't. We designed for small screens, few colors,slow CPUs, and slow networks (ifthe user was connected at all). We made them gray.
Things have changed. Ifyou design interfaces today, you work with a much bigger palette of components and ideas. You have a choice of many more user interface toolkits than before, such as the Java toolkits, HTML/CSS, JavaScript, Flash, and numerous open source options. Apple's and Microsoft's native UI toolkits are richer and nicer-looking than they used to be. Display technology is better. Web applications often look as professionally designed as the websites they're embedded in, and some of those web sensibilities have migrated back into desktop applications in the form of blue underlined links, Back/Next buttons, beautiful fonts and background images, and non-gray color schemes.
But it's still not easy to design good interfaces. Let's say you're not a trained or self-taught interface designer. Ifyou just use the UI toolkits the way they should be used, and ifyou follow the various style guides or imitate existing applications, you can probably create a mediocre but passable interface.
Alas, that may not be enough anymore. Users' expectations are higher than they used to be--ifyour interface isn't easy to use "out of the box" users will not think well of it. Even if the interface obeys all the standards, you may have misunderstood users' preferred workflow, used the wrong vocabulary, or made it too hard to figure out what the software even does. Impatient users often won't give you the benefit of the doubt. Worse, if you've built an unusable website or web application, frustrated users can give up and switch to your competitor with just the click of a button. So the cost of building a mediocre interface is higher than it used to be, too.
Devices like phones, TVs, and car dashboards once were the exclusive domain of industrial designers. But now those devices have become smart. Increasingly powerful computers drive them, and software-based features and applications are multiplying in response to market demands. They're here to stay, whether or not they are easy to use. At this rate,good interface and interaction design may be the only hope for our collective sanity in 10 years.
Small Interface Pieces, Loosely Joined
As an interface designer trying to make sense of all the technology changes in the last few years, I see two big effects on the craft of interface design. One is the proliferation of interface idioms: recognizable types or styles of interfaces, each with its own vocabulary of objects, actions, and visuals. You probably recognize all the ones shown in Figure P-1, and more are being invented all the time.
The second effect is a loosening of the rules for putting together interfaces from these idioms. It no longer surprises anyone to see several of these idioms mixed up in one interface, for instance, or to see parts of some controls mixed up with parts of other controls. Online help pages, which long have been formatted in hypertext anyway, might now include interactive applets, animations, or links to a web-based bulletin board. Interfaces themselves might have help texts on them, interleaved with forms or editors; this situation used to be rare. Combo boxes' drop-down menus might have funky layouts, like color
grids or sliders, instead of the standard column of text items. You might see web applications that look like document-centered paint programs, but have no menu bars, and save bthe finished work only to a database somewhere.
The freeform-ness of web pages seems to have taught users to relax their expectations with respect to graphics and interactivity. It's OK now to break the old Windows styleguide strictures, as long as users can figure out what you're doing.
And that's the hard part. Some applications, devices, and web applications are easy to use.Many aren't. Following style guides never guaranteed usability anyhow, but now designers have even more choices than before (which, paradoxically, can make design a bt harder).What characterizes interfaces that are easy to use?
One could say, "The applications that are easy to use are designed to be intuitive." Well,yes. That's almost a tautology.
Except that the word "intuitive" is a little bit deceptive. Jef Raskin once pointed out that when we say "intuitive" in the context of software, we really mean "familiar." Computer .mice aren't intuitive to someone who's never seen one (though a growling grizzly bear would be). There's nothing innate or instinctive in the human brain to account for it. But once you've taken ten seconds to learn to use a mouse, it's familiar, and you'll never forget it. Same for blue underlined text, play/pause buttons, and so on.
Rephrased: "The applications that are easy to use are designed to be familiar"Now we're getting somewhere. "Familiar" doesn't necessarily mean that everything about a given application is identical to some genre-defining product (e.g., Word, Photoshop,Mac OS, or a Walkman). People are smarter than that. As long as the parts are recognizable enough and the relationships among the parts are clear, then people can apply their previous knowledge to a novel interface and figure it out.
That's where patterns come in. This book catalogs many of those familiar parts, in ways you can reuse in many different contexts. Patterns capture a common structure--often a very local one, such as a list layout--without being too concrete on the details, which gives you the flexibility to be creative.
If you know what users expect of your application, and if you choose carefully from your toolbox of idioms and frameworks (large-scale), individual elements (small-scale), and patterns (covering the range), then you can put together something that "feels familiar"while remaining original.
And that gets you the best of both worlds.
About Patterns in General
In essence, patterns are structural and behavioral features that improve the "habitabilitT" of something--a user interface, a website, an object-oriented program, or a building.They make things easier to understand or more beautiful; they make tools more useful and usable.
We had a handful of simple controls: text fields, buttons, menus, tiny icons, and modal dialogs. We carefully put them together according to the Windows Style Guide or the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines, and we hoped that users would understand the resulting interface--and too often, they didn't. We designed for small screens, few colors,slow CPUs, and slow networks (ifthe user was connected at all). We made them gray.
Things have changed. Ifyou design interfaces today, you work with a much bigger palette of components and ideas. You have a choice of many more user interface toolkits than before, such as the Java toolkits, HTML/CSS, JavaScript, Flash, and numerous open source options. Apple's and Microsoft's native UI toolkits are richer and nicer-looking than they used to be. Display technology is better. Web applications often look as professionally designed as the websites they're embedded in, and some of those web sensibilities have migrated back into desktop applications in the form of blue underlined links, Back/Next buttons, beautiful fonts and background images, and non-gray color schemes.
But it's still not easy to design good interfaces. Let's say you're not a trained or self-taught interface designer. Ifyou just use the UI toolkits the way they should be used, and ifyou follow the various style guides or imitate existing applications, you can probably create a mediocre but passable interface.
Alas, that may not be enough anymore. Users' expectations are higher than they used to be--ifyour interface isn't easy to use "out of the box" users will not think well of it. Even if the interface obeys all the standards, you may have misunderstood users' preferred workflow, used the wrong vocabulary, or made it too hard to figure out what the software even does. Impatient users often won't give you the benefit of the doubt. Worse, if you've built an unusable website or web application, frustrated users can give up and switch to your competitor with just the click of a button. So the cost of building a mediocre interface is higher than it used to be, too.
Devices like phones, TVs, and car dashboards once were the exclusive domain of industrial designers. But now those devices have become smart. Increasingly powerful computers drive them, and software-based features and applications are multiplying in response to market demands. They're here to stay, whether or not they are easy to use. At this rate,good interface and interaction design may be the only hope for our collective sanity in 10 years.
Small Interface Pieces, Loosely Joined
As an interface designer trying to make sense of all the technology changes in the last few years, I see two big effects on the craft of interface design. One is the proliferation of interface idioms: recognizable types or styles of interfaces, each with its own vocabulary of objects, actions, and visuals. You probably recognize all the ones shown in Figure P-1, and more are being invented all the time.
The second effect is a loosening of the rules for putting together interfaces from these idioms. It no longer surprises anyone to see several of these idioms mixed up in one interface, for instance, or to see parts of some controls mixed up with parts of other controls. Online help pages, which long have been formatted in hypertext anyway, might now include interactive applets, animations, or links to a web-based bulletin board. Interfaces themselves might have help texts on them, interleaved with forms or editors; this situation used to be rare. Combo boxes' drop-down menus might have funky layouts, like color
grids or sliders, instead of the standard column of text items. You might see web applications that look like document-centered paint programs, but have no menu bars, and save bthe finished work only to a database somewhere.
The freeform-ness of web pages seems to have taught users to relax their expectations with respect to graphics and interactivity. It's OK now to break the old Windows styleguide strictures, as long as users can figure out what you're doing.
And that's the hard part. Some applications, devices, and web applications are easy to use.Many aren't. Following style guides never guaranteed usability anyhow, but now designers have even more choices than before (which, paradoxically, can make design a bt harder).What characterizes interfaces that are easy to use?
One could say, "The applications that are easy to use are designed to be intuitive." Well,yes. That's almost a tautology.
Except that the word "intuitive" is a little bit deceptive. Jef Raskin once pointed out that when we say "intuitive" in the context of software, we really mean "familiar." Computer .mice aren't intuitive to someone who's never seen one (though a growling grizzly bear would be). There's nothing innate or instinctive in the human brain to account for it. But once you've taken ten seconds to learn to use a mouse, it's familiar, and you'll never forget it. Same for blue underlined text, play/pause buttons, and so on.
Rephrased: "The applications that are easy to use are designed to be familiar"Now we're getting somewhere. "Familiar" doesn't necessarily mean that everything about a given application is identical to some genre-defining product (e.g., Word, Photoshop,Mac OS, or a Walkman). People are smarter than that. As long as the parts are recognizable enough and the relationships among the parts are clear, then people can apply their previous knowledge to a novel interface and figure it out.
That's where patterns come in. This book catalogs many of those familiar parts, in ways you can reuse in many different contexts. Patterns capture a common structure--often a very local one, such as a list layout--without being too concrete on the details, which gives you the flexibility to be creative.
If you know what users expect of your application, and if you choose carefully from your toolbox of idioms and frameworks (large-scale), individual elements (small-scale), and patterns (covering the range), then you can put together something that "feels familiar"while remaining original.
And that gets you the best of both worlds.
About Patterns in General
In essence, patterns are structural and behavioral features that improve the "habitabilitT" of something--a user interface, a website, an object-oriented program, or a building.They make things easier to understand or more beautiful; they make tools more useful and usable.
媒体评论回到顶部↑
“任何一个对界面设计感兴趣的人都应该把这本书放到书架上作为参考。这是目前最全面的常见界面设计模式的跨平台评测。”
———Dan Saffer《Designing Gestural Interfaces》(O'Reilly出版)和《Designing for Interaction》(New Riders出版)的作者
———Dan Saffer《Designing Gestural Interfaces》(O'Reilly出版)和《Designing for Interaction》(New Riders出版)的作者







点击看大图




加载中...

