当我们出版时results of our eyetracking study of flat design,我惊讶地发现这个话题仍然是非常有争议的(尽管自2011年以来是一个受欢迎的设计风格)。许多评论,线程和推文以响应文章发布的是积极的。其他人是至关重要的,并享受回应。

关于平面设计研究的系列

在我回应个人投诉之前,我将指出,我们的结论是平面设计源的问题两年的UX研究,使用不同的方法,只有其中一个was eyetracking. Our eyetracking study was simply the latest in a series, and we triangulated insights from a much broader range of inquiry than what was described in the article reporting on it.

这项两年的努力提供了3个背景福利,如果我们只是运行一项研究,我们就会缺乏。

  • 经过gradually deepening our understanding平面设计,我们能够定义眼镜研究的假设。我们不只是去钓鱼探险,看看是否有任何昂贵的方法会出现任何事情。我们的定性结果建议了可能有意义的指标。
  • 经过跨越方法的三角形洞察,我们提高了我们的结论不是由任何个人研究的弱点引起的。
  • 两年后,我们看了很多broader range of web designs比选择的研究。此前的经验使我们(a)选择代表我们所看到的许多网站的研究刺激,(b)确信我们的结论适用于广泛的网站。

我们的全部工作组在以下文章,视频和在线研讨会上发表:manbetx官网手机登陆

对平面设计眼镜研究的批判

如上所述,我们的文章产生了相当数量的怀疑论。以下是我们收到的最重要的投诉以及我对他们的回应。

“标题误导了。”

Compared to the others, this is the argument that I personally find most valid. I always struggle with writing headlines for my articles. I find it particularly difficult when I’m trying to summarize a complex and nuanced research study into 70 characters. If I could’ve, I would’ve titled the article “Weak Signifiers Used in Flat Design Can Attract Less Attention and Cause Uncertainty.”

不幸的是,写作文章标题必然涉及简化。我们喜欢技术和理论术语(比如“弱意义者”),但这些不是最适合头条新闻的术语,因为这不是我们大多数读者的语言熟悉。我非常同意Cigna的Sean Dexterthat you shouldn’t make decisions based solely on article titles.

有些人抱怨我们的研究不仅测试了针对2D设计的3D / SkeOomorphic设计,还包括比较实践鬼纽扣或称为链接文本作为静态文本。这最严格,最简单的平面设计定义将是一个没有任何3D或伴侣效应的界面。但是,在实践中,人们使用这个术语时平面设计they commonly are referring to more than just the absence of drop shadows. Flat design is a reaction against the heavy-handed skeuomorphism of traditional clickability clues, and so often includes design patterns like ghost buttons and static-looking links. We decided to use that meaning of平面设计在设计我们的研究时 - 不仅仅是缺乏深度。

并非每个扁平UI都将使用我们测试的每个相关技术。当然,平面设计并不总是意味着破碎的互动设计。但是平面设计几乎总是均值的亚特勒,不禁用户不帮助用户在接口中识别其可用行动的显着视觉提示。这就是我们试图测试的东西。

“The comparisons weren’t fair to flat design.”

Our study goal was to compare strong, traditional visual signifiers against weak or absent visual signifiers, which are strongly associated with flat design andfrequently found in flat UIs.

Of course,not every single instance of flat design will look like our stimuli. But very many do.我们测试的每一次改变我们测试的弱者UIS来自真正的平面网站。许多设计师创造平UI使用完全像静态文本和空鬼按钮而不是彩色按钮的链接。

一些批评者指出,与强大可发电机版本相比,弱者设计的设计是低对比度。例如,与传统的3D按钮相比,空鬼按钮缺乏对比度。但对比的差异正是我们试图比较 - 强大,传统上,高对比度,一致的可点球线索对他们的奉承,更薄,彩色替代品。

“我永远不会像这样设计这些接口。”

作为前一项投诉的变种,一些高音扬声器声称他们永远不会设计在眼科研究中丢失的页面。嗯,这是一个共同的反应。一旦可用性研究数据已经确定了一定数量的屏幕设计问题,对于任何具有体面的UX知识的人来说,这对什么ui是错误的并且应该改变。可用性问题become obvious after they are identified

More to the point, even if you might not have designed the UI that failed the test,有人设计了这些网站。这些设计师不是all愚蠢和无能的,因为大多数扁平网站都来自大型和资金的公司,并且许多激发我们研究的现场网站,除了平坦的视觉特征,我们还没有明显的可用性问题。

“NN / G只是讨厌平面设计。”

我们经常在出现新的设计模式时谈论。那是因为我们做了研究。当数据表明时尚的新方法对用户产生了不利影响时,我们也可以这么说,即使有不受欢迎的风险。

那说,we aren’t arguing against flat design.正如我所说的那样我的前一篇文章, flat design can be done well.平面设计不是敌人 - 弱者或缺席的意小。平面设计中固有的危险是它看起来易于执行,但难以实现,使其不会引起可用性问题。

再次,经验丰富的设计师对其产品进行可用性研究,可能会创建一个平整的UI,它很好。我们没有发现任何定量证据表明用户无法弄清楚平面设计 - 只是他们有时候struggle more to find what they’re looking for

“研究中的页面不再存在于有问题的网站上。”

As stated in the original article, we didn’t aim to study the usability of any of the websites that inspired the research stimuli. Sites change all the time, for the better or sometimes for the worse. If any of the companies had hired us to consult on how to improve their online business performance, we would have conducted a very different study, looking at broader issues in user experience, and not just comparing signifiers of different degrees of flatness.

For our research, we needed pairs of stimuli that were realistic for current websites, which is why we derived them from pages that were live on the web back when we planned the study. There are many reasons why some of the companies might have changed their websites during the several months between our initial planning and the publication of our results. Maybe they ran their own user testing studies and discovered issues that needed fixing. We don’t claim that these companies have (or had) bad sites. We simply claim that a certain design style has a high potential for usability problems (unless one follows our减少平面设计的UX风险的指南)。

“没有足够的用户/足够的网站。”

那就是什么统计学意义是为:它告诉我们,考虑到研究中的参与者或网站的数量,我们可以成为真实的发现。除非您测试每个最后一个人和每一个网站,否则在世界上所有人或地点都不保证100%。但如果统计分析所说,我们可以对我们的结果具有很高的信心。在我们的研究中,结果在统计学上显着P.<0.05 level, which is the level used for published academic research.

不,P.<0.05 doesn’t give us 100% confidence, but it does give us a high degree of confidence (precisely 95%) that we’re right. And for sure, this level of statistical significance is vastly better than chance, which is what one would get byin the absence of any data.

有些数据总是比没有数据更好,在这种情况下,我们的数据很好。

“Sites were not representative of the entire internet.”

我们在6个非常不同的域名(电子商务,酒店,旅行,技术,金融和非营利)测试了9个非常不同的网站。这是800%的网站和500%的域比大多数人测试更多 - 而且许多人甚至没有伤心测试自己的网站。

As always, it’s surely best if you test your own website to make sure that you are not a special case. However, many mainstream websites fall roughly within the design space spanned by our stimuli and therefore our results should be roughly applicable to these sites.

“More research is needed.”

当然!始终需要更多的研究,因为没有研究可以探索所有变体和研究问题的细节。在这篇文章, I devote an entire section to the limitations of our study. We only had the time and resources to run a 70-user eyetracking study on 9 paired designs. We only used small findability tasks, rather than full, realistic, natural tasks. I would love to see more research on this topic, even if it contradicts our findings.

请记住,我们的研究结果based on fine-grain metrics (number and duration of fixations on one page) rarely (if ever) used in usability studies. It’s very possible that coarser performance measures such as task time and success show no difference between flat and non-flat sites — because these page-level time differences may be absorbed by the larger variability inherent when you make tasks more realistic. However, that is the strength of our study: it shows that there isa hidden, hard-to-measure cost of weak signifiers.

I’d be particularly interested in seeing how weak or absent signifiers impact discoverability — that is, whether users recognize a feature or element they didn’t expect.

未来的研究肯定会发现关于平面设计的影响以及不同用户体验中的平面设计和不同风格的影响,并且影响肯定会随着时间的推移而发展。但我们认为,我们的核心发现像常用于平面设计中使用的弱视症的视觉指示剂比强烈的视觉指标可能仍然有效。