In this lecture, I'd like to talk about creating goals for design which is

going to be a step before actually creating the design itself.

And a step after doing a lot of your need finding observations that we've talked

about so far. What we're going to look at in these

lectures, the interplay between the tasks that somebody has and the environment or

the design that we offer. Herb Simon tells the story watching an

ant cross the sand in the desert, and the ant's behavior has a whole lot of weaves

and its navigation is quite complex. And, Herb noticed that a lot of the

complexity that was apparent there came from the environment, from the structure

of the desert sand. And that if he changed the environment,

he could change the ant's behavior. And this is an example of how design is a

way of transforming people's existing situations, get in to, hopefully ones

that people find preferable. And the other thing this tells me is that

all design is redesigned. That, people already have a particular

design that they're using now. Even if it's cobbled together or not

intended for exactly the thing that they're doing.

And what we're doing is we're transforming their existing situation

into a preferred situation. And, I emphasize that all design is

redesigned, because, especially in the world of technology, it's easy to believe

that we're creating new things out of whole cloth that are unlike anything

ever, anybody's ever seen before. But that's just not the case.

People already have ways of communicating, of talking, of sharing, of

creating. Technology create new and different ones,

but they always have some connection to what people are doing already.

And what you want to do in your need finding is to find those things that are

the closest existing analog to understand what peoples' goals and values are.

And so, from your need finding, from the techniques we've talked about in the past

couple of videos, you have a sense of what people do and what their high-level

values, goals are, and what the context that their doing those things in are.

And one thing that's been great about teaching this class has been looking at

your design work, and I see how across the world, the design context, and

values, and goals very dramatically. And, and I think that's really important

and it's really exciting for me to see that as a teacher.

And so, because of that, what we want to be able to do is, take the observations

that we have so far and connect those to actual design.

Now, we're not going to get to the actual designing part today, that's going to

come in the next set of lectures. What we're going to look at today is this

intermediate representation of the goals, and one way to think about that is,

what's our lever as a designer? How are we going to be able to do this

transformation? And what's key to being able to do this

is to figure out what matters in a design.

often, we think about designing as laying things out on a page, and that's an

important piece, and that's a piece that we're going to come to.

But, the layout, the interface is trying achieve some larger task or help people

with some activity. And if you understand what matters, that

also gives you a way of understanding whether different designs are

meaningfully different, or how they're meaningfully different, or what it means

for a design to be different. And understanding what differences make a

difference will come up in terms of deciding which design to follow or which

features you should prioritize and which ones you can cut out.

How you should spend your time and what things you can just let fall however they

may, and you're doing this already. I think, nearly everybody who's

designing, there's some kind of implicit understanding of people's activities.

And what I found in teaching design is that, if we leave it implicit, it's easy

to leap to a particular solution and not understand what the space of

possibilities is. And this has several problems.

One is your particular solution, the first thing you think of maybe

suboptimal. Also, if different people have different

ideas. you can get in silly arguments like let's

do my idea. No, let's do my idea.

No, let's do my idea. And that doesn't accomplish anything.

And so, what we're trying to do is, by having this intermediate representation,

by making the goals explicit we're going to give you a way of talking about

the differences between designs. So this conceptual representation that

we're going to get out of activity analysis increases your mindfulness as a

designer. It's going to connect you to the texture

of the domain and it's going to help you communicate and discuss with other

stakeholders. It also makes it easier for you to be

creative, because by understanding these intermediate representations, it, it

makes it easier to take a couple of small leaps, rather than one big one.

And what I want to emphasize again is that these intermediate representations

are not tied to any particular design. So if it's not a design that we're

going to create through activity analysis, what are we going to create?

Activity analysis is going to give you a couple of different things.

You're going to write out, for the activity that your design supports, what

are the steps for what are the artifacts that people are using currently or might

use in your design? And what are the goals?

What are the people, who are using your system, trying to accomplish and how will

you measure success if you watch somebody use your system?

How would you know whether to say oh, this is great, things are going really

well or oh, man, this is, this is really bad, this is not what we want at all?

Another important thing to do for activity analysis is to see what are the

pain points that people experience already.

Whenever you see workarounds or breakdowns, those are great opportunities

for you to intervene in a way that people will enthusiastically adopt.

And you can have a lot of fun with this. one thing that you can do is get all of

these ideas, and stick them on a big wall, and share them with a lot of

people. Because, what you're doing is you're

trying to get the entire design team, in fact, all of the stakeholders, clients,

even users on the same page in terms of what the goals of the interface are going

to be? What the problems are now?

What are the steps that people are currently performing?

So, let's make this concrete. Let's take the example of starting an

automobile. What are the steps?

First the driver might unlock the driver's door, then, take a seat behind

the wheel, insert the key into the ignition switch, turn the key fully

clockwise and when the engine starts, release the key.

this is not a particularly complex task, it's one that people do often.

And in fact, even this simple task offers a great opportunity for redesign.

So, what are the artifacts? Well, you've got the key, you've got the

car. And you might break that down further

into the door lock, maybe the handle, the ignition switch, possibly the steering

wheel the gear shift potential. The, these are all artifacts that are

involved. And what are the goals of this task?

Well, in a literal sense, the goal is to turn on the car.

But, what you take the goal to be is tremendously important to your point of

view as a designer. And, it's totally reasonable to take the

narrow goal, and say can we turn on the car better?

Or you could take a much broader goal and say well the person's really trying to

pick up bread or even more broadly, make a meal.

Or even more, more broadly, had a satisfying evening in which the meal and

the bread are parts and the car is just a way get to that goal.

And so here are pain points. In the narrow version, we can look at can

we make the turning the car on experience better?

Was it necessary to put the key in? It's already in the car, why not just

drive off? Or, if the driver walks up to the door,

and the key is nearby, isn't that sufficient?

And in fact, these are designs that you're seeing today.

The, these are example of taking small pain points and smoothing them to create

a, a more compelling user experience. Now, in the broader framing, you could

think of, well, maybe we can have the bakery deliver the bread by bicycle, so I

don't even need to get in the car. Or maybe we can think of other ways to

provide a satisfying evening. This is your point of view as a designer.

There are many different reasons to do this kind of activity analysis, and one

of them is that interfaces are far more likely to be adopted.

The more that they reflect existing workflows that are familiar or

comfortable, if you come up with a completely different way of doing

something, unless, it's a lot better, it's going to be a hard sell.

Additionally, because you're creating new things, you'll necessarily need to create

metaphors to things that people understand already.

And, the more grounded those metaphors are in everyday tasks, the more that you

can support user's ability to learn new kinds of activities.

You want to be able to, whether your design is a radical change or a modest

one, have it be compatible with the environment that it's going to go into.

We talked already about familiarity of metaphors, and finally, it helps you have

a consistency of presentation. So that, similar things function in a

similar way and integrate with other applications and other software that

people are already used to. And that helps convey interfaces that

feel reliable and are easy to learn. And maybe, most importantly, one of the

things that you'll get out of activity analysis is how, coming up with a design

for something that people actually want to do.

I think that I often see as a designer, as an adviser, as a teacher sometimes we

come up with technologies that are cool, but don't actually accomplish anything.

And if you look at designs that have failed and companies that have failed, an

extremely common reason, which is amazing, because it's so simple to point

out in some ways, is that it doesn't actually accomplish something that people

need done. it's nifty, but not important.

Now, this doesn't mean that our activities are, are baked, and firm, and

solid. life for all of us is different now than

it was a decade ago. For many of us, mobile phones have

changed how we structure our day, how we communicate with others.

So, activities change, culture changes, people change.

But what we want to do is find a way of building technology that's going to help

create a consistent evolution. Because those are the things that people

most naturally start to adopt and use. This process of coming up with steps, and

artifacts, and goals, and pain points is easier for some things than others.

I think for many of you, the kinds of designs that you're thinking about, is

will it be extremely natural? And, for others, it'll, it'll require a

little bit more creativity and stretch a little bit.

So the things that's most natural for are things like business workflows, like

doing your taxes or travel planning. Those are both cases where, if you watch

the steps that people go through, you can see that there's lots and lots of pain

points. And if you watch somebody do their taxes

or plan a trip somewhere, you'd come up with lots of great design ideas.

It also works really well for repeated activities like for example scheduling a

meeting. Why does that take 17 e-mails now?

Well, that question has lead several people to better potential designs.

The challenge, of course, is that although the technologies and designs

that we use are, are part of the activities that we engage in, we're not

actually, as designers, literally designing tasks or designing activities.

Activities and objects don't map one to one.

A smartphone is not just one activity. We're designing the artifacts and any

particular object is going to be composed of lots, and lots, and lots of different

activities. And when you're starting a designer, I

think it's helpful to focus on just a couple, to focus on something that is

narrower rather than broader. But even relatively simple designs often

comprise lots of activities. For example, think about a forum website.

here, you can see a screen shot for a swimming group's web forum.

And you can see how the forum is accomplishing lots of diverse things,

from alerting people to future events, to reporting on recent actions, to random

chatter. there are posts in here about the, I have

a free couch or friends are coming to town, all sorts of stuff.

And, so, this particular technology of a web forum, even an individual web forum,

supports lots of activities. And so, if you were to think about how do

you make a forum better, one opportunity would be to look at the different kinds

of activities that are involved. And your point of view as a designer

might be, well, we should separate these out and give them more structure in some

way. Or, if we're going to make a single

forum, it needs to support all of these diverse kinds of activities.

And so, when you do your activity analysis, you want to support this

diversity. You can watch the same person use the

same design. To do different slightly or broadly

different things. Watch different people do the same thing.

Are there differences in the way that people do their taxes or schedule travel

or talk on forums? And you can use those diversity both to

come up with lead user insights, uh-huh, this person has a clever idea about

planning travel. Let's try and bake that into software.

and also to understand what kind of flexibility you'll need to support.

And what this does is, by consistently grounding peoples' different activities,

and paying attention to those in your design, it keeps you human as a designer

and it can, keeps your design work connected to what people actually need to

do and and care about. And that helps your work be

transformational. So, to recap, what we've learned so far.

The key products of activity analysis are what are the steps?

What are the artifacts? What are the goals?

And what are the pain points of opportunity or opportunities?

And like all of the techniques in this class, you don't, I don't want to be

doctrinaire about it. You can and should adapt this to what

works for you to fit your situations, and your goals, and your activities, and your

stakeholders. You can make this more or less formal.

You can focus on diagrams, or text, r pictures or video, all of these are a

great way to, to remind yourself of what users are doing and to communicate that

to other stakeholders. Like we talked about before, your point

of view can be narrow or it can be extremely broad, and you'll probably pick

different things at different times. And you can have fun with this.

So, if what you're excited about is the elements in an activity that bring people

joy, that's what you can focus on and you can think about amplifying joy rather

than reducing pain. So your point of view and your way of

engaging as a designer will give you lots of flexibility here.

And so what I really want to emphasize is that this is a really great way to be

creative and, and have a lot of fun.

Creating Design Goals

以人为本的设计：概述

与讲师见面