它很自然地看看像谷歌,亚马逊和苹果这样的科技巨人,以实现设计灵感。这些公司显然是成功,对客户的欢迎,为什么不将其解决方案复制到共同的设计问题?

It’s actually a great idea to take a look around at your industry’s leading companies for inspiration about how to solve your own problems. But it’s not advisable toblindly复制设计只是因为另一家更大的公司首先做到了。除此之外giant companies operate in a completely different brand context,真相是因为公司成功并不意味着你可以假设其设计的一切都很好。

以下是一些明确的设计示例,绝对应该是notbe copied, in case you aren’t convinced — or, in case you need to convince someone else!

极简主义输入字段

在过去的几年里,minimalism has become wildly popular among designers。This trend has been so influential that some teams even attempted to apply it to basic data-entry fields, by replacing the traditional input box with a single line.

Left: Traditional form fields are displayed as rectangles in which users should click or tap before entering their information; Right: A recent minimalist approach to input-field design uses only a bottom line to represent a textbox.

This input-field style was even adopted by Google (the biggest of the big): prior to 2017,it was included in Google’s Material Design

Google obviously has a lot of talented designers and engineers doing fantastic work. But even a talented team doesn’t guarantee that everything they try will be perfect. In this case, the switch from boxes to underlines wasn’t actually an improvement in the user experience, and, in 2017, Google changed the Material Design input-field component back to a rectangles instead of an underline. Susanna Zaraysky and Michael Gilbert shared their research results about this design evolution publicly, explaining that after testing both usability and user preferences with hundreds of users, they concluded that “Enclosed text fields with a rectangular (box) shape performed better than those with a line affordance.”

Teams which rely on experimental, data-driven approaches to design usually try a lot of unsuccessful solutions before settling on good ones. An outside observer has no way of knowing which aspects of a design have been thoroughly tested and which are guesses that may not have yet received careful review.

过度装饰菜单

Amazon is another tech leader well-known for data-driven decision making. So, following its example may seem like a safe bet — but keep in mind that constant experimentation means a lot of ideas may get released only to be discarded after finding out they aren’t successful. Trying a design that ends up being hard to use may have only a small negative impact for a big company’s business, especially if it carefully monitors performance and quickly makes adjustments. But companies that don’t have the resources to constantly monitor and update their designs have more to lose by implementing a risky design and should be cautious about copying a pattern just because Amazon uses it.

For example, a while back Amazon used decorative, thematic images as backgrounds behind product menus in its mobile shopping app. Shoppers browsing the户外加热department saw a text menu of subcategories overlaid on top of an attractive image of a fire pit. Unfortunately, thebackground image made some menu labels quite difficult to read。此设计现已被一个类别菜单取代,该类别更容易读取,具有高对比度文本标签,出现在普通背景上。

左:2016年,亚马逊的移动购物应用程序使用的菜单在与菜单类别相关的背景图像上覆盖,但一些菜单标签很难读取。右:后来的设计在纯背景上显示清晰的菜单标签,伴随着代表性的图像。

亚马逊可能没有注意到难以阅读的菜单的影响很大。Even if customers struggled with this menu, they’d be highly motivated to keep using Amazon due to other factors like its huge selection, low prices, free shipping, and the fact that so many customers already have an account with their address and payment information saved to make checkout easy. Ecommerce sites thatdon’thave those advantages are much more at risk of losing customers who can’t easily find a product.

Inaccessible Content: Gray on Gray

Reducing the contrast of less-important information is an effective strategy for making the most important information more noticeable. But it’s easy to get carried away and use colors that are太光明了— especially when displaying gray text on a gray background.

Apple is often associated with design excellence and has produced many examples of superb user experiences. But, unfortunately, it also exemplifies the problem of deemphasizing some parts of the design too much. As of this writing, Apple’s homepage shows product prices that are gray text on a gray background with a contrast ratio of only 3.47, well short of the4.5 contrast ratio needed to meet the most minimal accessibility requirements

Apple.com: The product prices shown in light-gray text on gray background fall short of minimum requirements for text contrast.

当然,这并不意味着Apple的业务面临风险,或者客户不会购买其产品。但只是因为苹果可能能够逃脱它并不意味着没关系。使用颜色会使文本困难或不可能阅读许多人是错误的。当您可以轻松调整文本颜色时,无发挥作用,可以将文本颜色调整为几个色调。

增加侮辱伤害,苹果选择不顾(价格)的信息并不重要。也许是苹果wantscustomers to ignore the price of its products, but all our电子商务用户研究研究(whether of B2C orB2B buyers) have unanimously concluded that users want to see the price. Pricing is one of the most important pieces of information considered when purchasing a product.

Use Context to Explain Limitations of Design Patterns

Many UX pros find that their colleagues advocate for design patterns solely because they are used by other successful companies. As one stakeholder put it: “If it’s good enough for Apple, it’s good enough for us.” The problem with this attitude is that你不是苹果。确保将这种背景人提出来解释为同事如何行业,市场和客户的先前经验使每个品牌的UX独特。而且领导科技公司一直在改变他们的设计,因此即使是他们今天使用的设计也可能很容易被明天更好的东西取代。做你自己的原型orA / B测试to ensure that a design solution works with your audience before you invest in building it, only to discover that it does not deliver the results you need.

参考

Zaraysky, S. "The Evolution of Material Design’s Text Fields." Medium. 1 November 2019.https://medium.com/google-design/the-evolution-material-designs-text-fields-603688b3fe03.