工业产品设计外文翻译参考文献

工业产品设计外文翻译参考文献工业产品设计外文翻译参考文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)DesignWithoutDesignersIwillalwaysremembermyfirstintroductiontothepowerofgoodproductdesign.IwasnewlyarrivedatApple,stilllearningthewaysofbusiness,whenIwasvisitedbyamemberofApple'sIndustrialDesignteam.Heshowedmeafoammockupofaproposedproduct."Wow,"Isaid,"Iwantone!Whatisit?"Thatexperiencebroughthomethepowerofdesign:IwasexcitedandenthusiasticevenbeforeIknewwhatitwas.Thistypeofvisceral"wow"responserequirescreativedesigners.Itissubjective,personal.Uhoh,thisisnotwhatengineersliketohear.Ifyoucan'tputanumbertoit,it'snotimportant.Asaresult,thereisatrendtoeliminatedesigners.Whoneedsthemwhenwecansimplytestourwaytosuccess?Theexcitementofpowerful,captivatingdesignisdefinedasirrelevant.Worse,thenatureofdesignisindanger.Don'tbelieveme?ConsiderGoogle.Inawell-publicizedmove,aseniordesigneratGooglerecentlyquit,statingthatGooglehadnointerestinorunderstandingofdesign.Google,itseems,reliesprimarilyupontestresults,nothumanskillorjudgment.Wanttoknowwhetheradesigniseffective?Tryitout.Googlecanquicklysubmitsamplestomillionsofpeopleinwell-controlledtrials,pittingonedesignagainstanother,selectingthewinnerbaseduponnumberofclicks,orsales,orwhateverobjectivemeasuretheywish.Whichcolorofblueisbest?Test.Itemplacement?Test.Webpagelayout?Test.ThisprocedureishardlyuniquetoGoogle.Ahaslongfollowedthispractice.YearsagoIwasproudlyinformedthattheynolongerhavedebatesaboutwhichdesignisbest:theysimplytestthemandusethedatatodecide.Andthis,ofcourse,istheapproachusedbythehuman-centerediterativedesignapproach:prototype,test,revise.Isthisthefutureofdesign?Certainlytherearemanywhobelieveso.Thisisahottopiconthetalkandseminarcircuit.Afterall,theproponentsaskreasonably,whocouldobjecttomakingdecisionsbasedupondata?

TwoTypesofInnovation:IncrementalImprovementsandNewConcepts

Indesign—andalmostallinnovation,forthatmatter—thereareatleasttwodistinctforms.Oneisincrementalimprovement.Inthemanufacturingofproducts,companiesassumethatunitcostswillcontinuallydecreasethroughcontinual,incrementalimprovements.Asteadychainofincrementalinnovationenhancesoperations,thesourcingofpartsandsupply-chainmanagement.Theproductdesigniscontinuallytinkeredwith,adjustingtheinterface,addingnewfeatures,changingsmallthingshereandthere.Newproductsareannouncedyearlythataresimplysmallmodificationstotheexistingplatformbyadifferentconstellationoffeatures.Sometimesfeaturesareremovedtoenableanew,low-costline.Sometimesfeaturesareenhancedoradded.Inincrementalimprovement,thebasicplatformisunchanged.Incrementaldesignandinnovationislessglamorousthanthedevelopmentofnewconceptsandideas,butitisbothfarmorefrequentandfarmoreimportant.Mostoftheseinnovationsaresmall,butmostarequitesuccessful.Thisiswhatcompaniescall"theircashcow":aproductlinethatrequiresverylittlenewdevelopmentcostwhilebeingprofitableyearafteryear.Thesecondformofdesigniswhatisgenerallytaughtindesign,engineeringandMBAcourseson"breakthroughproductinnovation."Hereiswherenewconceptsgetinvented,newproductsdefined,andnewbusinessesformed.Thisisthefunpartofinnovation.Asaresult,itisthearenathatmostdesignersandinventorswishtoinhabit.Buttherisksaregreat:mostnewinnovationsfail.Successfulinnovationscantakedecadestobecomeaccepted.Asaresult,thepeoplewhocreatetheinnovationarenotnecessarilythepeoplewhoprofitfromit.InmyAppleexample,thedesignersweredevisinganewconception.InthecaseofGoogleandAmazon,thecompaniesarepracticingincrementalenhancement.Theyaretwodifferentactivities.NotethattheAppleproduct,likemostnewinnovations,failed.Why?Ireturntothisexamplelater.Bothformsofinnovationarenecessary.Thefightoverdata-drivendesignismisleadinginthatitusesthepowerofonemethodtodenytheimportanceofthesecond.Data-drivendesignthroughtestingisindeedeffectiveatimprovingexistingproducts.Butwheredidtheideafortheproductcomefrominthefirstplace?Fromsomeone'screativemind.Testingiseffectiveatenhancinganidea,butcreativedesignersandinventorsarerequiredtocomeupwiththeidea.

WhyTestingIsBothEssentialandIncomplete

Data-drivendesignis"hill-climbing,"awell-knownalgorithmforoptimization.Imaginestandinginthedarkinanunknown,hillyterrain.Howdoyougettothetopofthehillwhenyoucan'tsee?Testtheimmediatesurroundingstodeterminewhichdirectiongoesupthemoststeeplyandtakeastepthatway.Repeatuntileverydirectionleadstoalowerlevel.Butwhatiftheterrainhasmanyhills?Howwouldyouknowwhetheryouareonthehighest?Answer:youcan'tknow.Thisiscalledthe"localmaximum"problem:youcan'ttellifyouareonhighesthill(aglobalmaximum)orjustatthetopofasmallone.Whenacomputerdoeshillclimbingonamathematicalspace,ittriestoavoidtheproblemoflocalmaximabyinitiatingclimbsfromnumerous,differentpartsofthespacebeingexplored,selectingthehighestoftheseparateattempts.Thisdoesn'tguaranteetheveryhighestpeak,butitcanavoidbeingstuckonalow-rankingone.Thisstrategyisseldomavailabletoadesigner:itisdifficultenoughtocomeupwithasinglestartingpoint,letalonemultiple,differentones.So,refinementthroughtestingintheworldofdesignisusuallyonlycapableofreachingthelocalmaximum.Isthereafarbettersolution(thatis,isthereadifferenthillwhichyieldsfarsuperiorresults)?Testingwillnevertellus.Hereiswherecreativepeoplecomein.Breakthroughsoccurwhenapersonrestructurestheproblem,therebyrecognizingthatoneisexploringthewrongspace.Thisisthecreativesideofdesignandinvention.Incrementalenhancementswillnotgetusthere.

BarrierstoGreatInnovation

Dramaticnewinnovationhassomefundamentalcharacteristicsthatmakeitinappropriateforjudgmentthroughtesting.Peopleresistnovelty.Behaviortendstobeconservative.Newtechnologiesandnewmethodsofdoingthingsusuallytakedecadestobeaccepted-sometimesmultipledecades.Butthetestingmethodsallassumethatonecanmakeachange,tryitout,andimmediatelydetermineifitisbetterthanwhatiscurrentlyavailable.Thereisnoknownwaytotellifaradicalnewideawilleventuallybesuccessful.Hereiswheregreatleadershipandcourageisrequired.Historytellsusofmanypeoplewhoperseveredforlongperiodsinthefaceofrepeatedrejectionbeforetheirideawasaccepted,oftentothepointthataftersuccess,peoplecouldnotimaginehowtheygotalongwithoutitbefore.Historyalsotellsusofmanypeoplewhoperseveredyetneverwereabletosucceed.Itispropertobeskepticalofradicalnewideas.Intheearlyyearsofanidea,itmightnotbeacceptedbecausethetechnologyisn'tready,orbecausethereisalotmoreoptimizationstilltobedone,orbecausetheaudienceisn'tready.Orbecauseitisabadidea.Itisdifficulttodeterminewhichofthosereasonsdominates.Thetaskonlybecomeseasyinhindsight,longafteritbecomesestablished.Theselongperiodsbetweenformationandinitialimplementationofanovelideaanditseventualdeterminationofsuccessorfailureinthemarketplaceiswhatdefeatsthosewhowishtouseevidenceasadecisioncriterionforfollowinganewdirection.Evenifasuperiorwayofdoingsomethinghasbeenfound,theautomatedtestprocesswillprobablyrejectit,notbecausetheideaisinferior,butbecauseitcannotwaitdecadesfortheanswer.Thosewholookonlyattestresultswillmissthelargepayoff.Ofcoursetherearesoundbusinessreasonswhyignoringpotentiallysuperiorapproachesmightbeawisedecision.Afterall,iftheaudienceisnotreadyforthenewapproach,itwouldinitiallyfailinthemarketplace.Thatistrue,intheshortrun.Buttoprosperinthefuture,thebestapproachwouldbetodevelopandcommercializethenewideatogetmarketplaceexperience,tobegintheoptimizationprocess,andtodevelopthecustomerbase.Atthesametimeoneispreparingthecompanyforthedaywhenthemethodtakesoff.Sure,keepdoingtheold,butgetreadyforthenew.Ifthecompanyfailstorecognizethenewlyemergingmethod,itscompetitorswilltakeover.Quiteoftenthesecompetitorswillbeastartupthatexistingcompaniesignoredbecausewhattheyweredoingwasnotwellaccepted,andinanyeventdidnotappeartochallengetheexistingbusiness:see"Theinnovator'sdilemma."Gestural,multi-touchinterfacesforscreen-drivendevicesandcomputergamesaregoodexamples.Aretheseabrilliantnewinnovation?Brilliant?Yes.New?Absolutelynot.Multi-touchdeviceswereinresearchlabsforalmostthreedecadesbeforethefirstsuccessfulmass-producedproducts.Isawgesturesdemonstratedovertwodecadesago.Newideastakeconsiderabletimetoreachsuccessinthemarketplace.Ifanideaiscommercializedtoosoon,theresultisusuallyfailure(andalargelossofmoney).ThisispreciselywhattheAppledesignerofmyopeningparagraphhaddone.WhatIwasshownwasaportablecomputerdesignedforschoolchildrenwithaformfactorunlikeanythingIhadeverseenbefore.Itwaswonderful,andeventomynormallycriticaleye,itlookedlikeaperfectfitforthepurposeandaudience.Alas,theproductgotcaughtinapoliticalfightbetweenwarringAppledivisions.Althoughitwaseventuallyreleasedintothemarketplace,thefightcrippleditsintegrityanditwasbadlyexecuted,badlysupported,andbadlymarketed.Theresistanceofacompanytonewinnovationsiswellfounded.Itisexpensivetodevelopanewproductlinewithunknownprofitability.Moreover,existingproductdivisionswillbeconcernedthatthenewproductwilldisruptexistingsales(thisiscalled"cannibalization").Thesefearsareoftencorrect.Thisisaclassiccaseofwhatisgoodforthecompanybeingbadforanexistingdivision,whichmeansbadforthepromotionandrewardopportunitiesfortheexistingdivision.Isitawondercompaniesresist?Thedataclearlyshowthatalthoughafewnewinnovationsaredramaticallysuccessful,mostfail,oftenatgreatexpense.Itisnowonderthatcompaniesarehesitant-resistant-toinnovationnomatterwhattheirpressreleasesandannualreportsclaim.Tobeconservativeistobesensible.

TheFuture

Automateddata-drivenprocesseswillslowlymakemoreandmoreinroadsintothespacenowoccupiedbyhumandesigners.Newapproachestocomputer-generatedcreativitysuchasgeneticalgorithms,knowledge-intensivesystems,andotherswillstarttakingoverthecreativeaspectofdesign.Thisishappeninginmanyotherfields,whetheritbemedicaldiagnosisorengineeringdesign.Wewillgetmoredesignwithoutdesigners,butprimarilyoftheenhancement,refinement,andoptimizationofexistingconcepts.Evenwherenewcreativeartificialsystemsaredeveloped,whetherbyneuralnetworks,geneticalgorithms,orsomeyetundiscoveredmethod,anynewconceptwillstillfacethehurdleofovercomingtheslowadoptionrateofpeopleandofovercomingthecomplexpsychological,social,andpoliticalneedsofpeople.Todothis,weneedcreativedesigners,creativebusinesspeople,andrisktakerswillingtopushtheboundaries.Newideaswillberesisted.Greatinnovationswillcomeatthecostofmultiplegreatfailures.Designwithoutdesigners?Thosewhodisliketheambiguityanduncertaintyofhumanjudgments,withitsuncertaintrackrecordandcontradictorystatementswilltrytoabolishthehumanelementinfavorofthecertaintythatnumbersanddataappeartooffer.Butthosewhowantthebiggainsthatcreativejudgmentcanproducewillfollowtheirownjudgment.Thefirstcasewillbringaboutthesmall,continualimprovementsthathavecontributedgreatlytotheincreasedproductivityandloweringofcostsofourtechnologies.Thesecondcasewillberewardedwithgreatfailuresandoccasionalgreatsuccess.Butthosegreatsuccesseswilltransformtheworld.不需要设计师的设计唐·诺曼我永远也不会忘记我第一次向人们介绍优秀产品设计的魅力的经历，那时候我刚刚到苹果公司，还在逐渐的学习工作上的事务。有一个苹果工业设计小组的成员来我这里，向我展示了一个即将推出的产品的泡沫模型，“喔！”我说，“这是什么？我也想要个！”那次经历让我体验到了设计的原始力量：当我还不知道他具体是什么之前我就已经兴奋不已，充满热情了。这种发自肺腑的回应离不开很有创意的设计师。这种想法很主观，也很有个人感情色彩。哦，不过工程师们可不愿意听到这些。如果你不能提供和它有关的数据，它就没什么了不起。这样的结果是有一种不再需要设计师的趋势。当我们可以简单的测试我们的成功之路时，谁还需要设计师呢？令人充满激情兴奋无比的设计被看得无足轻重。更严重的是设计的初衷也岌岌可危了。不相信吧？看看谷歌。最近谷歌的一位高级设计师有一次在公开场合宣称，他们对设计不感兴趣也不懂设计。据说，谷歌依靠最原始的测试结果而不是人类技巧和判断。怎么知道一个设计是否成功呢？测试一下就可以了。谷歌会迅速地把样品发送给对照试验中数以万计的用户，与其他的设计做个对比，然后选出优胜者。他们可以靠点击量，销售量以及其他任何他们想要采用的客观依据。什么颜色的制服最好？测试一下；哪种项目布置最合理？测试一下；哪种网页排版最好呢？测试一下。这可不是谷歌的专利，亚马逊早就也这么做了。几年前我很荣幸的被告知它们不再为哪个设计最好而争论不休了，他们会测试一下然后用数据来决定。当然，这个也是以人为本的迭代设计法采用的途径：原型，试验和修改。这是设计的未来吗？有很多人会真么认为。这是一个人们谈论和研究交流的热门话题，毕竟，支持者也有理有据：谁不想靠数据来做决定？两种类型的创新：不断改善和全新的概念在设计和几乎所有改革中，其实都至少有两种不同的类型。第一种是持续改进现有产品，在产品制造业中企业认为通过不断地改善和优化单位成本也会持续的降低。不断改善的带来稳定的利益链条又强化了操作，资源部门和产业链管理。产品的设计并没有停止，改变一下外表，增加一些新的功能，不时的做些小的改动。新的产品都是对现有平台很小的改动，每年都宣称有了与众不同的特征。有时候一些功能被去掉以用来支持一条新的，低成本的生产线，有时候很多功能又被组合或被添加上。产品不断地改善，但基础的平台一直没有改变。持续的设计和改进可没有开发新概念或新理念那样的引人瞩目，但是它们很常见也很重要。很多这样的创新都是小规模的，但大多数都很成功。这就是企业们所说的“摇钱树”：一条只需要很小改进的生产线，但是却可以年复一年的有利可图。第二种类型的设计就是在设计，工程和MBA课程中经常谈论到的“有突破性的创新设计”。这里提出了全新的概念，新颖的产品定义和新型的商业模式，而且这些正是设计的乐趣所在。因此，这也是大多数的设计师和发明家乐意为之的地方。但是风险也很大：绝大多数的新发明都以失败告终。那些成功的设计发明往往需要数十年才得到了人们的认可，这样的后果就是发明者不一定就是以它们获利的人。在我刚才提到的苹果公司的例子中，设计者正在开发一种新概念产品。在谷歌和亚马逊的例子中，这些公司在不断地实践着不断的优化。它们是两种不同的行为，看看苹果的产品，像大多数的新发明设计一样失败了。为什么呢？我一会儿再回到这个案例中。这两种设计都是很有必要的。对数据主导型设计的激烈争论误导了人们，我们用前者的力量否定了后者的重要性。通过测试数据主导型设计对改进现有的产品很有效果。但是新产品最初的观念有从何而来？一些人创造性的想法。测试可以高效的优化一个想法，但是创造性的设计者和发明家却需要有自己的想法。为什么说测试既很有必要又不太完美数据主导型的设计就是“爬山策略”，我们熟知的一种追求最优化的算法。假设你在黑夜里站在一个连绵起伏的山坡上，你什么也看不到，你怎么知道你就站在山坡的最高处？检验一下你周围的环境，判断哪个方向最陡峭，然后向这个方向迈进。这样不断的重复而知道每个方向就找到了最低的地方。但是如果山坡上有很多的山峰又该怎么做呢？你怎么知道你是否已经在最高的地方了？答案是你会不知道。这就是所谓的“局部最大值”问题：你不能区分你是在最高处呢还是只在一个小山坡的最高点。当计算机在数学空间里攀登时，它可以通过无数次的尝试来探索不同的空间以避免局部最大化的难题。虽然这不能保证可以找到真正的最高点，但至少可以避免掉入低层次的行列中。对设计师来说这种战略几乎毫无用处。解决一个单一的起点就够困难了，更不用说错综复杂的问题了。通过测试了改良设计通常能够达到局部的最大利益。还有更好的解决办法吗（就是说，有没有受益大于测试结果的情况）？测试不能告诉我们。这时候就得靠有创意的人了，他对问题的重新组合，于是就决定去看似错误的地方探索一下，新的突破就是这样产生的。这正是设计发明创造性的一面，不断地改良和完善不能让我们拥有这样的效果。伟大发明的障碍激动人心的新发明往往有一些基本的特点让它们不适应由测试所做出的判断。人们往往也不太喜欢猎奇，行动也很保守。新的科技发明和方法往往经过数十年或者更长才逐渐被人们认可接受。但是测试的法子都是假设某个东西很有前途值得一试，并来判断它是否比正在使用的更好。我们没有现成的方法判断一个十分新奇的想法会获得成功，这就需要出色的领导和鼓励。历史告诉我们很多在他们的想法被认可以前面临长期不断的抨击的人们获得成功以后就是这样，没有它以前，人们不知道是怎么如何度