工业设计毕业论文李四外文翻译

毕业论文（设计）外文翻译

题目：交互设计是什么？

系部名称：机械工程系专业班级：工设081 学生姓名：** 学号： 2

指导教师：孙东* 教师职称：讲师

2012年4月5日

交互设计是什么?

像电动机械、无线电广播、机构连接、机械部件等，都是相对于电子元件以直接的方式展现。当我们转动拨号盘，我们的指尖和肌肉都会有所感受。自从有了电脑，无论距离有多远，都可以联系在一起。它可以体现在两个方面：一方面，通过键盘就可以在电脑屏幕里输入所想的信息，另一方面，也可以从电脑屏幕中得知外面所发生的一切。所以有了电脑，我们可以更直接的了解讯息。但是我们的物质世界和电脑的虚拟世界相比相差很大。

在这个时期，我们需要一种清晰的思维模式为我们所用，举一个实例,早期使用脚本系统的苹果电脑，有一个很完整的系统模式，就像是堆积起来的卡片：对需要完成的工作都有一个精确地模拟，以及如何计划这个项目的运作。同时，对用户来说就像是在翻阅卡片，可以得到更直观的使用。所以完整的思维模式所起到的作用是显而易见的。但是，由于种种原因这种方式没有使用到更多的应用程序中。

良好的设计系统体现在可以得到有效的反馈，以便知道我们所做的一切都确实做到了。举一个例子,当我们在键盘上输入时，我们做到的不仅仅是字符出现在屏幕上，同时我们也能感觉到键盘的敲打，以及听见键盘所发出的滴答声。早期的时候我经常使用命令处理器去做一些重复的事情，或者做一个键入命令的序列“tetick，tick，tick-tick；tetick，tick，tick-tick.”如果它变成了“tick，tetick，tock”我就知道我做错了。对于我来说，听觉反馈的速度要比视觉反馈的速度快。

仔细查看电脑的每一部分是必不可少的，特别是在屏幕上的一些图标。你需要知道你在哪个界面，在那里你能做些什么，怎样到下一层面，以及怎样返回。麦金塔电脑在这方面具有很好的影响力：菜单在屏幕顶端勾画出所有的可能性，清楚的告诉你怎样进入和提示你将要做什么。

同样重要的就是一致性。在系统中的一个命令应该和系统的其他部分具有同样的效果。举一个例如,不久前,苹果工具之一的第一综合办公程序苹果II，那些“ransom-note”字符在黑色的银幕上只有非常局限的功能。但苹果工具还是一直很优秀的，令人满意的。例如：你能精确地知道你做了什么。一个命令可以在数据库中做完全相同的文字处理，无论你在哪里，退出键都可以带你返回上一层面，你不会迷失和较多的犯错误。与现代“整合”的应用程序相比较，这种形式的一

致性是令人满意的，但也是较难实现的。

当我们与日常生活中的产品交互时，例如一辆汽车，我们不需要花太多的时间去考虑互动，我们应该想一想我们的交互设计，我们想做的事情。直观的交互能减少负担对意识思维的影响，使意识更好的操作于某个系统，让我们把精力集中在我们的目标。一个很好的例子就是夸克软件，可以让你在不知不觉中放大图象，按住两个键并且点击就可以看清你想看的了，这就像是在移动你的目光，你不必再到处寻找正确的工具了。但较多的系统仍然要求保持较高的注意力，就如不称职的老板，时刻把注意力放在我们得工作上。

当我们设计了一个计算机系统或者是设备，我们要设计的不仅仅是它的样子，而是它如何运转，品质如何，以及它们之间的相互作用。这就是交互设计师所应具备的技能，它的部分反映有：当你移动你的鼠标，比如：感觉它迟钝、凛冽或明快？当你操作你的iPod表盘，结合声音和感觉，就像告诉你正在做什么，这些都是微妙和令人满意的。我们可以设计互动的品质，与我们所看到的，我们所听到的，或有相同的感觉的相结合。

但是，互动的品质必须有适当的环境。一个冒险游戏需要一个互动微妙的氛围和有趣的具有挑战性的导航栏，中央控制系统提供了这些品质。

当新技术出现时，我们一般都会想到熟悉的场景。当电影开始的时候，人们会认为它是用摄影机对着戏院舞台，而声音是与之分离的。只到语言的彻底利用，电影独一无二的品质才彰显出来。然而旧的模式从未逝去它的有效性：电影继续使用着戏剧和小说，它们只是增添了新的语言形式。

我认为交互设计与早期的影片有着相似的阶段。到目前为止，我们还没有充分发展语言的交互技术。所以我们仍需要借鉴前面创造的语言模式。因为它可以帮助这些语言进行分类，根据他们的“标准”：:一维、平面、立体、四维。

一维包括单词和诗歌。例如：他们在情景的表达中能否精确的运用词汇？这些词汇是否具有连贯性？同时与你所想象的“语气”相比，是否他们有太多的唐突、傲慢，或者不健谈？

二维交互设计的语言可以借用包括绘画、排版、图形和图表。当我们看到一幅画，即使它不是代表性的，但它也不难解释为一个透视空间。我们可以使用这样的成分更深层次的表现当前重要的元素。我们可以用我们熟知的、惯用的技术运用到屏幕的结构中去。同时以时间的不同来区分音色和语言的意义。我们也可

以利用语言的图表和信息的搜集来说明错综复杂的事物，从而让人更好的理解。另一种二维交互设计的语言是运用计算机接口，以图标的形式让事物微小简化，从而阐述一个较大的概念或事物的立场。

三维语言是以物体、雕塑的形式。一个动态的产品设计，是以“产品语义学”探索人们如何理解不同的要素在产品中的表现。如果事情有一个机会，例如，我们知道我们是为了抓住它，或者遇到比它的顶点还要大的基地，经验表明我们应该重力保持基地的下跌。设计师使用这门语言将事情弄清楚，但有时也可以抱有期望，插入一些惊喜与原本的智慧，否侧可能都是平凡无奇的。

第四维度是时间。四维语言包括声音、影视和动画。在20世纪80年代比尔Gaver6设计了优美的音乐界面--无线电声波，提升了苹果桌面：当你丢弃了一个文件夹，它会变成另外一种颜色，同时发出了根据其内存大小声音。这样提供了很好的反馈，不仅听起来很好，而且还适合他们的目的。另一个重要的四维语言是电影：在二十秒一个的电视广告里，就能告诉我们一个复杂的故事，而且内容能被每个人所了解。一个多世纪以来动画的发展较快，他们通过有限的手段表达情节、情感、期望和行动。

我们正在设计一个公众能够理解的丰富的但同时又不同于这些的语言：对话框、图形、印刷和三维形态、音、影视和动画。这使得事情变得困难，因为没有人能流利的掌握这些语言。我们必须联同那些有其他技能和经验的设计师，使交互设计师永远不可能成为一个隐士。

然而，经历二十年多年的绘画到现有的表现语言，我们现在需要发展一个独立的交互语言与智能系统和设备，一个真实的语言计算中心，网络媒介和电信。从感性心理学，我们开始明白在人与设备或系统功能范围内的互动：响应速度，也就是说，一个小范围的交际能力。但是在象征性的水平，情绪，社交能力和文明的意义，我们还没有达到惊人的创新。

本书讲述了一些交互设计师的故事，都是非常有意义和快乐的，然而，重要的是这本书建议我们，要用自己的方式来探索交互设计。

本文摘译自《What Is Interaction Design》

What Is Interaction Design

An electromechanical object, a radio say, links its physical mechanical components to its electronic elements in a fairly direct way.When we turn the dial, our fingertips and muscles can almost “feel” the stations being scanned. With computers, however, the distance between, on one hand, keystrokes and

screen image, and, on the other, what’s happening inside the computer, is usually much less direct. Our physical world and the computer’s virtual world seem miles apart.

In this (historically unprecedented) situation we need a clear mental model of what we’re interacting with. HyperCard,5 for instance, an early scripting system on the Apple, had a very clear mental model, a stack of cards: a precise analogy of what and how the program worked. It was obvious to its users that in effect they were flipping through a stack of cards: everything about the design reinforced this metaphor. Sadly, the same can’t be said of many other applications.

A well-designed system has reassuring feedback, so that we kno w what we’ve done when we’ve done it. On a keyboard, for example, we can tell what we’ve just done because not only do characters appear on the screen but we can the feel the travel of the key itself and hear the little click it makes. Using an early word processor to do something repetitive, I often had to do a sequence of key commands that went “tetick, tick, tick-tick; tetick, tick, tick-tick.” If it went “tick, tetick, tock,” I’d know I’d made a mistake.The aural feedback let me go faster than if I’d re lied just on my eyes.

Navigability is also essential, particularly with things that are primarily on screen. You need to know where you are in the system, what you can do there, where you can go next, and how to get back. The Star and Macintosh interfaces were very influential in this way.The menu at the top of the screen lays out all the possibilities; it’s clear how you access them and what will happen when you do.

Equally crucial is consistency.A certain command in one part of the system should have the same effect in another part. An example, again from some time ago, was Appleworks, one of the first integrated office programs on the Apple II. Those were the days of green “ransom-note” characters on a black screen, and very limited functionality. But Appleworks was beautifully, satisfyingly, consistent.You knew exactly what to do.A command in the database did exactly the same in the word

processor; wherever you were, the escape key took you back up a level.You never got lost and rarely made a mistake. Compare that with modern “integrated” applications. Consistency, like all forms of satisfying simplicity, is very difficult to achieve.

When we interact with everyday artifacts, like a car, we don’t spend too much time thinking about the interaction: we think about where we’re heading and what we want to do. Intuitive interaction minimizes the burden of conscious thought needed to operate the system, leaving us to concentrate on our goals. A good example was Quark Express, which let you almost unconsciously zoom in on your image by holding down two keys and clicking on what you wanted to see better. It was like shifting your gaze: you didn’t have to march off somewhere to find the right tool. But too many systems still keep demanding too much attention, like incompetent bosses, distracting us from getting on with the job.

When we design a computer-based system or device, we’re designing not just what it looks like but how it behaves. We’re designing the quality of how we and it interact.This is the skill of the interaction designer. It’s partly responsiveness: when you move your mouse, for instance, does it feel sluggish, or nippy and sprightly? When you manipulate your iPod dial, the combination of sound and feel, as well as telling you what you’re doing, is subtle and satisfying.We can design those qualities of interaction, relating what we see to what we hear or feel with the same refinement with which typographers adjust the spacing of type, or product designers the radius of a curve.

But the qualities of interaction must be appropriate to the context. An adventure game needs an interaction offering subtlety of atmosphere and intriguingly challenging navigation; central-heating control systems offering these qualities, however, would be as welcome as a fire alarm with a snooze

button.

When new technologies are born, we tend to think of the new in terms of the familiar. When cinema started, people thought of it as pointing a camera at a theater stage, and divided silent films with “chapter headings” as if they we re books. New “languages” eventually emerged that were true to, and fully

exploited, the unique qualities of cinema itself—Eisenstein’s language of montage, for instance. But the old analogies never lose their validity: films continue to use the conventions of the theater and the novel. They are just augmented by the new languages.

I believe that interaction design is still in the equivalent of the early stages of cinema. As yet, we have no fully developed language unique to interactive technology. So we are still drawing on the language of previous creative modes. It may help to categorize these languages according to their “dimensions”: 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, and 4-D.

1-D includes words and poetry. Are the words in a menu the most accurate encapsulations of the action they denote? Are they used consistently? And the “tone of voice” of the dialog boxes in your system: Are they too abrupt and imperious, or too cloyingly conversational?

The 2-D languages that interaction design can borrow from include painting, typography, diagrams, and icons. When we look at a painting, even if it’s not representational, it’s difficult not to interpret it as a perspectival space; we can use such compositional tropes to layer the screen in apparent depth or to foreground its currently most important element.We can use the familiar hierarchical conventions of typography to structure the screen, and our shared sensitivity to minute differences in letter forms to add distinctions of tone and meaning. We can also use the language of diagrams and information graphics to communicate a complexity which can’t be intelligibly rendered in standard text, particularly on a small screen. Another specialist 2-D language, much used in computer interfaces, is of course that of icons: tiny simplified images that stand for a larger idea or a thing.

3-D languages are those of physical, sculptural form. One movement in product design, “product semantics,” explores how people understand what the different elements of a product represent. If something has a handle, for example, we know we are meant to grab it; if something has a base bigger than its apex, our experience of gravity suggests that we should keep the base downward. Designers use this language to make things clear, but sometimes also to play with expectations, inserting an element of surprise and wit in what otherwise might have been mundane.

The fourth dimension is time. The 4-D languages include sound, film, and animation. In the 1980s Bill Gaver6 designed a beautiful sonic interface, the SonicFinder, an augmentation of the Apple Desktop: when you dropped a folder into another folder, it made a sound according to its size: an almost-empty folder went “pink,” a fuller one “plonk.” It gave good feedback,

but the sounds were also poetic and appropriate for their purpose. Another important 4-D language is film: in twenty seconds a TV advertisement can tell a complex story understood by everyone. And animators have been developing their spare language for

more than a century, so that with very limited means they can express plot, emotion, anticipation, and action.

We’re designing for a public that understands the richness of all these different languages: dialog, graphics, typography, 3-D form, sound, film, and animation. This makes things difficult because nobody can be fluent in all these languages.We must collaborate with those who have other skills and experience.An interaction designer can never be a hermit.

However, after twenty years of drawing on existing expressive languages, we now need to develop an independent language of interaction with “smart systems and devices, a language true to the medium of computation, networks, and telecommunications. In terms of perceptual psychology, we’re starting to understand the functional limits of interaction between people and devices or systems: speed of response, say, or the communicative capacity of a small screen. But at the symbolic level of mood and meaning, of sociability and civility, we haven’t quite achieved the breathtaking innovativeness, the subtlet y and intuitive “rightness,” of Eisenstein’s language of montage.

By telling the stories of those who have been committed to making interactive products useful, meaningful and joyful, however, this important book nevertheless suggests that we are on our way.

《What Is Interaction Design》