extjs6 引入ux

Do you ever browse social media, internet, or talk to colleagues and hear them say something UX related you disagree with so much that you just want to lecture them on the spot?

您是否曾經瀏覽過社交媒體，互聯網或與同事交談，并聽到他們說與您相關的UX相關內容非常不同，以至于您只想當場授課？

I know I have and I’m sure I’m not the only one. My problem is, however, that I always come up with what to say after the moment has passed. I get that eureka moment in the elevator after that one discussion with my colleague, or when I have put down my phone. It is too late then.

我知道我有，而且我肯定我不是唯一的一個。 但是，我的問題是，時刻過后，我總是想出要說些什么。 與同事進行了一次討論之后，或者放下電話后，我在電梯中得到了尤里卡的那一刻。 那時為時已晚。

This got me thinking. I need a way to structure my thoughts if I really want to improve the position and general knowledge of what UX is in the world. So without delaying things further, let’s take a look at some common misconceptions about UX and how you can get past them.

這讓我開始思考。 如果我真的想提高UX在世界上的地位和常識，我需要一種思路來整理自己的想法。 因此，在不拖延時間的情況下，讓我們看一下關于UX的一些常見誤解以及如何克服它們。

UI vs UX番茄醬瓶 (The UI vs UX ketchup bottle)

Ah, yes. That picture of the two ketchup bottles. It is supposed to show what the difference between UI and UX is. The left bottle is just UI with a broad base so that the bottle can stand securely. Yet, this is troublesome for users since they have to flip it around when they want to use it. It is a challenge for people with dexterity issues. Not to mention the time it takes for the ketchup to flow down once you flip the bottle.

是的。 兩個番茄醬瓶的照片。 它應該顯示UI和UX之間的區別是什么。 左邊的瓶子只是具有寬闊基礎的UI，因此瓶子可以安全站立。 然而，這對于用戶來說是麻煩的，因為當他們想要使用它時他們必須翻轉它。 對于有靈活性問題的人來說，這是一個挑戰。 更不用說一旦翻轉瓶子，番茄醬流下來所需的時間。

Tim O’Sullivan.Tim O'Sullivan拍攝 。

The UX solution, according to the image, is flipping the bottle design so that the user doesn’t have to flip the bottle anymore. This fixes the dexterity and content flow issues, which is very good of course.

根據圖像，UX解決方案正在翻轉瓶子的設計，以便用戶不再需要翻轉瓶子。 這解決了靈活性和內容流的問題，這當然是非常好的。

However, this is not UX. The misconception is that a differently shaped bottle is a metaphor for what we call UX.

但是，這不是UX。 誤解是形狀不同的瓶子是我們所謂的UX的隱喻。

Actually, both bottles are UI. In this case, the bottle is the bridge between the user and the desired user experience. When we design applications, this bridge is called the user interface, or UI in short. The second bottle is an improved version of the first bottle based on careful user observation, testing, and design thinking.

實際上，兩個瓶子都是UI。 在這種情況下，瓶子是用戶與所需用戶體驗之間的橋梁。 在設計應用程序時，此橋稱為用戶界面，簡稱UI。 第二瓶是基于仔細的用戶觀察，測試和設計思想的第一瓶的改進版本。

The resulting user experience of a bottle of ketchup that is more accessible, easy to use, and good looking is achieved by UX design processes. The bottle itself, however, is not UX. It is UI. Just like the first bottle.

用戶體驗設計流程可實現一瓶番茄醬的用戶體驗，該番茄醬瓶更易于訪問，易于使用且外觀精美。 但是，瓶子本身不是UX。 它是UI。 就像第一瓶一樣。

賈里德·史普(Jared Spool)2016年關于UX產品組合的推文 (Jared Spool’s 2016 tweet on UX portfolio’s)

Don’t you just hate it when people misinterpret something someone says? Jared Spool is somewhat of a UX rockstar. His Twitter profile is a gold mine full of valuable UX knowledge. Yet, people seem to focus on one particular tweet from years ago.

當人們誤解某人說的話時，您不只是討厭它嗎？ Jared Spool有點像UX搖滾明星。 他的Twitter個人資料是一個金礦，里面蘊藏著寶貴的UX知識。 但是，人們似乎只專注于幾年前的一條特定推文 。

“If you’re trying to hire designers & require a portfolio, you’re not gonna get top talent. The best designers don’t have them. Too busy.?”—?Jared Spool

“如果您要雇用設計師并需要投資組合，那么您就不會獲得頂尖人才。 最好的設計師沒有他們。 太忙了。 ”-賈里德·史波(Jared Spool)

A famous person from the field of design says the top design talent doesn’t have a portfolio. Now I don’t have to spend time and effort to create a portfolio myself!

設計領域的一位著名人士說，頂尖的設計人才沒有投資組合。 現在，我不必花費時間和精力自己創建投資組合！

This of course isn’t how it works. A tweet from a well-known UX professional isn’t an excuse to be lazy and not work on your portfolio.

這當然不是它的工作原理。 來自知名UX專業人士的推文不是懶惰且無法在您的產品組合上使用的借口。

You don’t need a portfolio only when your actions speak for you. If you’re famous, built and sold a well-known startup, or have a great design-related product, you don’t need a portfolio. You don’t ask Bill Gates or Jony Ive for a portfolio. Everybody knows who they are and what they do.

僅當您的行為能夠代表您時，您才不需要投資組合。 如果您是著名的，建造和出售了知名的初創公司，或者擁有與設計相關的出色產品，則不需要投資組合。 您不需要向比爾·蓋茨或喬尼·伊夫索要投資組合。 每個人都知道自己是誰，做什么。

For everybody else, yes, you will need a portfolio. Design is a very portfolio-driven field of work. It is a great way of showing who you are and what you are capable of.

對于其他所有人，是的，您將需要一個投資組合。 設計是一個非常受項目組合驅動的工作領域。 這是顯示您是誰以及您有能力的好方法。

Someone with a portfolio isn’t always a great designer and someone without a portfolio isn’t always a bad designer. The one just doesn’t exclude the other.

擁有投資組合的人并不總是一個偉大的設計師，而沒有投資組合的人并不總是一個糟糕的設計師。 一個只是不排除另一個。

Instead of focusing on Jared’s 2016 tweet, why don’t you focus on his series of tweets that provide valuable tips and tricks on creating great portfolios? It is the road less traveled, but at least it will get you somewhere.

除了關注Jared的2016年推文之外，您為什么不關注他的一系列推文 ，這些推文提供有關創建出色投資組合的寶貴技巧和竅門？ 這是一條人跡罕至的道路，但至少它將帶您到某個地方。

UX就像個玩笑。 如果您必須解釋一下，那就不好了。 (UX is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it is not that good.)

It is super awkward if you have to explain a joke. You wanted it to be funny but the result was a deafening silence.

如果你要開個玩笑，那真是太尷尬了。 您希望它有趣，但結果是震耳欲聾的沉默。

Nobody likes it when they don’t get it. Photo by Brendan Church on Unsplash沒有人喜歡時，沒人會喜歡。 布倫丹教堂 ( Brendan Church)在Unsplash上拍攝的照片

Just like a joke you had to explain, unintended results happen in design as well. This could be because of a lack of understanding of the user’s wants and needs. At other times, the context of your application might be hard to understand at first.

就像您要講的一個笑話一樣，設計中也會發生意想不到的結果。 這可能是由于缺乏對用戶需求的了解。 在其他時候，您的應用程序上下文一開始可能很難理解。

There’s this misconception about how UX will make every product easy to use instantly. If you have to explain something, you haven’t designed the product very well. That’s what they say.

人們對UX如何使每個產品都易于立即使用存在誤解。 如果您必須解釋一些問題，則說明您對產品的設計不是很好。 他們就是這么說的。

This isn’t how UX works. As a user experience designer, you work towards your goal of understanding the user’s wants and needs. This is something that takes time. After your initial research, you’re going to have to validate your design solution. With every repeating run of these steps, you’re getting closer to understanding your users. This is called design thinking.

這不是UX的工作方式。 作為用戶體驗設計師，您將朝著理解用戶需求的目標努力。 這是需要時間的。 初步研究之后，您將必須驗證您的設計解決方案。 通過重復執行這些步驟，您將更接近于了解用戶。 這稱為設計思維。

Besides, there’s also the user-side of things. Users have to get used to your (new) product design. They were used to finding UI elements in certain places and doing something in a certain way. Now that things have changed, they have to change as well. This is a difficult and energy-draining process.

此外，還有用戶方面的東西。 用戶必須習慣您的(新)產品設計。 他們習慣于在某些地方查找UI元素并以某種方式做某事。 現在情況已經改變，它們也必須改變。 這是一個困難且耗能的過程。

Hmm, this isn’t how it used to be.?—?your users

嗯，這不是以前的樣子。 -您的用戶

This process users have to go through is called the valley of despair. Good UX design keeps this period short and helps users get through the valley. Yet, it is not so that users will get everything right away. They cannot skip the valley of despair. You have to guide them by explaining something every now and then. And that’s okay.

用戶必須經歷的這個過程稱為絕望之谷。 好的UX設計可以使這段時間縮短，并幫助用戶度過難關。 但是，并不是這樣，用戶才能馬上獲得一切。 他們不能跳過絕望的山谷。 您必須不時地解釋一些事情來指導他們。 沒關系。

UI是UX (UI is UX)

There’s a lot of confusion going around about this one. In the field of design, any of the following points of discussion is something you will encounter very often either during interviews or during your lunch break.

關于這個有很多困惑。 在設計領域，以下任何討論點都是您在面試中或午休期間經常遇到的問題。

• What is the difference between UI and UX?
  UI和UX有什么區別？
• Is there even a difference?
  有什么區別嗎？
• Why do most companies search for ‘UI/UX’ designers?
  為什么大多數公司都在尋找“ UI / UX”設計師？

The list goes on. Some say UI and UX is the same thing. In a way, they’re right. There’s a lot of overlap between UI and UX. I believe we’re all just designers. There’s no real need to add a prefix.

清單繼續。 有人說UI和UX是同一回事。 在某種程度上，他們是對的。 UI和UX之間有很多重疊之處。 我相信我們都是設計師。 真正不需要添加前綴。

UX and service design have been founded to include more than just web design and the user interface in our design process. However, as a UX designer or service designer, you need at least some skills in UI. You have to be able to present your work in a visually appealing way to your stakeholders, just to give you an example.

UX和服務設計已經建立，不僅在我們的設計過程中還包括Web設計和用戶界面。 但是，作為UX設計師或服務設計師，您至少需要一些UI技能。 您必須能夠以視覺上吸引人的方式向利益相關者展示您的工作，僅舉一個例子。

So even though there is an overlap in UI and UX skills, they are not the same.

因此，即使UI和UX技能有所重疊，但它們也不相同。

如果亨利·福特給人們他們想要的東西，他們將擁有更快的馬匹 (If Henry Ford gave the people what they wanted they’d have got faster horses)

This is a special one. The Henry Ford quote is often used as an argument that user research and testing isn’t necessary. One of Steve Jobs’ quotes is often used along the same line.

這是一個特殊的。 亨利·福特(Henry Ford)的報價經常被認為不需要用戶研究和測試。 史蒂夫·喬布斯(Steve Jobs)的一句話經常被用在同一行上。

“People don’t know what they want until you show it to them.?”—?Steve Jobs

“人們不知道自己想要什么，除非您向他們展示。 ”-史蒂夫·喬布斯

More similar quotes are out there as well, but let’s focus on the one of Henry Ford.

還有更多類似的報價，但讓我們關注亨利·福特(Henry Ford)之一。

There are two things wrong with the Henry Ford quote. The first one is that there is no evidence that he actually said it. Also, the real story shows actually how Henry Ford fixed a real problem by applying UX and service design principles.

亨利·福特的報價有兩件事是錯誤的。 第一個是沒有證據表明他確實說過。 此外，真實的故事實際上顯示了Henry Ford如何通過應用UX和服務設計原理解決了一個實際問題。

In the early 1900s, cars were around for quite a bit. They were expensive. As an alternative, people still used horses for transportation. However, there were several problems with using horses in the city.

在1900年代初期，汽車流行了很多年。 他們很貴。 作為替代，人們仍然使用馬來運輸。 但是，在城市中使用馬匹存在一些問題。

• Horse excrement filled the streets.
  馬糞排滿了街道。
• Horses needed a lot of space and care.
  馬需要大量空間和照料。
• Horses occasionally killed people.
  馬偶爾會殺死人。

What Henry Ford noticed by doing research and observing user behaviour was that people were looking to replace their horses, but cars were not only too expensive to buy but also very expensive to produce.

亨利·福特(Henry Ford)通過研究和觀察用戶行為發現，人們正在尋找替換其馬匹的方法，但是汽車不僅價格昂貴，而且生產成本也很高。

The problem was with manufacturing cars, not cars in and of itself.

問題在于制造汽車，而不是汽車本身。

Modern assembly line. Photo by carlos aranda on Unsplash現代裝配線。 Carlos Aranda在Unsplash上拍攝的照片

He solved the manufacturing problem by creating an assembly line for producing cars. Just as Henry Ford didn’t invent the car, he didn’t invent the assembly line either. What he did was applying the process used for chain-driven meat processing facilities to car manufacturing.

他通過創建用于生產汽車的裝配線解決了制造問題。 正如亨利·福特(Henry Ford)沒有發明汽車一樣，他也沒有發明裝配線。 他所做的就是將用于連鎖驅動的肉類加工設施的Craft.io應用于汽車制造。

By decreasing the costs of car manufacturing, he enabled more users to buy cars. This solved the previously mentioned horse problems. He didn’t try to fix the perceived problem of horses. He found the ‘problem behind the problem’ and fixed it.

通過降低汽車制造成本，他使更多的用戶能夠購買汽車。 這樣就解決了前面提到的馬匹問題。 他沒有嘗試解決已知的馬匹問題。 他找到了“問題背后的問題”并加以解決。

If that isn’t the best example of solving an actual problem using UX, design thinking, and service design, I don’t know what is.

如果這不是使用UX，設計思想和服務設計解決實際問題的最佳示例，我不知道這是什么。

三擊規則 (The three-click rule)

This is a classic. Most people seem to believe that every page on your website or application has to be a maximum of three clicks away. The idea behind it is that users will grow tired and stop using your product when they have to click more than a few times.

這是經典。 大多數人似乎認為，您的網站或應用程序上的每個頁面最多都必須單擊三下。 其背后的想法是，當用戶不得不單擊多次時，他們會變得疲倦并停止使用您的產品。

There’s no evidence supporting this rule. In fact, it is impossible to give an absolute maximum number of clicks without knowing the context, content, and complexity of a product.

沒有證據支持該規則。 實際上，如果不了解產品的上下文，內容和復雜性，就不可能給出絕對最大的點擊次數。

Instead, consider that completing a task is like riding a bike up a mountain. You could try and get to the top of the mountain by putting your bike in a very heavy gear. Because of this, you get to the top in only three spins, yet you are very tired.

相反，請考慮完成任務就像騎自行車上山一樣。 您可以嘗試將自行車置于沉重的裝備中，以登上山頂。 因此，您僅經歷了三個旋轉就到達了頂部，但您卻很累。

An alternative could be to set your bike in a much lower gear. You have to spin a lot more, but you get to the top of the mountain without breaking a sweat since every spin is easy and effortless.

另一種選擇是將您的自行車設置為低得多的檔位。 您必須多旋轉一些，但每次旋轉都很容易且毫不費力，因此您可以不費吹灰之力就到達山頂。

See what I mean? You don’t have to comply to the three-click rule. Research your user flow and determine the steps (or clicks) users have to take after that without having a maximum number of clicks in mind beforehand.

明白了嗎？ 您不必遵守三擊規則。 研究您的用戶流程，并確定用戶在此之后必須執行的步驟(或點擊次數)，而不必事先考慮最大的點擊次數。

當然還有更多 (There’s more, of course)

These were just six misconceptions about UX. Obviously, there are more. However, UX designers aren’t perfect either. We have misconceptions about the field we have to work with, like product owners, business analysts, and developers as well.

這些只是關于UX的六個誤解。 顯然，還有更多。 但是，UX設計師也不是完美的。 我們對必須與之合作的領域有誤解，例如產品所有者，業務分析師和開發人員。

Collaborating becomes easier when we communicate and understand each other well. Breaking through some of the most common misconceptions about UX will hopefully be a first step in the right direction.

當我們相互交流和相互了解時，合作變得更加容易。 突破一些關于UX的最常見誤解，有望成為朝著正確方向邁出的第一步。

翻譯自: https://blog.prototypr.io/6-common-misconceptions-about-ux-and-how-to-get-past-them-767871c1eaf6

extjs6 引入ux

總結

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的extjs6 引入ux_关于UX以及如何摆脱UX的6种常见误解的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網站內容還不錯，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。