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?

您是否曾经浏览过社交媒体，互联网或与同事交谈，并听到他们说与您相关的UX相关内容非常不同，以至于您只想当场授课？

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个。 但是，我的问题是，时刻过后，我总是想出要说些什么。 与同事进行了一次讨论之后，或者放下电话后，我在电梯中得到了尤里卡的那一刻。 那时为时已晚。

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.

这让我开始思考。 如果我真的想提高UX在世界上的地位和常识，我需要一种思路来整理自己的想法。 因此，在不拖延时间的情况下，让我们看一下关于UX的一些常见误解以及如何克服它们。

UI vs UX番茄酱瓶 (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。 两个番茄酱瓶的照片。 它应该显示UI和UX之间的区别是什么。 左边的瓶子只是具有宽阔基础的UI，因此瓶子可以安全站立。 然而，这对于用户来说是麻烦的，因为当他们想要使用它时他们必须翻转它。 对于有灵活性问题的人来说，这是一个挑战。 更不用说一旦翻转瓶子，番茄酱流下来所需的时间。

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.

根据图像，UX解决方案正在翻转瓶子的设计，以便用户不再需要翻转瓶子。 这解决了灵活性和内容流的问题，这当然是非常好的。

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

但是，这不是UX。 误解是形状不同的瓶子是我们所谓的UX的隐喻。

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.

实际上，两个瓶子都是UI。 在这种情况下，瓶子是用户与所需用户体验之间的桥梁。 在设计应用程序时，此桥称为用户界面，简称UI。 第二瓶是基于仔细的用户观察，测试和设计思想的第一瓶的改进版本。

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.

用户体验设计流程可实现一瓶番茄酱的用户体验，该番茄酱瓶更易于访问，易于使用且外观精美。 但是，瓶子本身不是UX。 它是UI。 就像第一瓶一样。

贾里德·史普(Jared Spool)2016年关于UX产品组合的推文 (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.

当人们误解某人说的话时，您不只是讨厌它吗？ Jared Spool有点像UX摇滚明星。 他的Twitter个人资料是一个金矿，里面蕴藏着宝贵的UX知识。 但是，人们似乎只专注于几年前的一条特定推文 。

“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

“如果您要雇用设计师并需要投资组合，那么您就不会获得顶尖人才。 最好的设计师没有他们。 太忙了。 ”-贾里德·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!

设计领域的一位著名人士说，顶尖的设计人才没有投资组合。 现在，我不必花费时间和精力自己创建投资组合！

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.

这当然不是它的工作原理。 来自知名UX专业人士的推文不是懒惰且无法在您的产品组合上使用的借口。

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.

仅当您的行为能够代表您时，您才不需要投资组合。 如果您是著名的，建造和出售了知名的初创公司，或者拥有与设计相关的出色产品，则不需要投资组合。 您不需要向比尔·盖茨或乔尼·伊夫索要投资组合。 每个人都知道自己是谁，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.

对于其他所有人，是的，您将需要一个投资组合。 设计是一个非常受项目组合驱动的工作领域。 这是显示您是谁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.

拥有投资组合的人并不总是一个伟大的设计师，而没有投资组合的人并不总是一个糟糕的设计师。 一个只是不排除另一个。

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.

除了关注Jared的2016年推文之外，您为什么不关注他的一系列推文 ，这些推文提供有关创建出色投资组合的宝贵技巧和窍门？ 这是一条人迹罕至的道路，但至少它将带您到某个地方。

UX就像个玩笑。 如果您必须解释一下，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.

如果你要开个玩笑，那真是太尴尬了。 您希望它有趣，但结果是震耳欲聋的沉默。

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.

就像您要讲的一个笑话一样，设计中也会发生意想不到的结果。 这可能是由于缺乏对用户需求的了解。 在其他时候，您的应用程序上下文一开始可能很难理解。

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.

人们对UX如何使每个产品都易于立即使用存在误解。 如果您必须解释一些问题，则说明您对产品的设计不是很好。 他们就是这么说的。

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.

这不是UX的工作方式。 作为用户体验设计师，您将朝着理解用户需求的目标努力。 这是需要时间的。 初步研究之后，您将必须验证您的设计解决方案。 通过重复执行这些步骤，您将更接近于了解用户。 这称为设计思维。

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，还有用户方面的东西。 用户必须习惯您的(新)产品设计。 他们习惯于在某些地方查找UI元素并以某种方式做某事。 现在情况已经改变，它们也必须改变。 这是一个困难且耗能的过程。

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

嗯，这不是以前的样子。 -您的用户

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.

用户必须经历的这个过程称为绝望之谷。 好的UX设计可以使这段时间缩短，并帮助用户度过难关。 但是，并不是这样，用户才能马上获得一切。 他们不能跳过绝望的山谷。 您必须不时地解释一些事情来指导他们。 没关系。

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.

关于这个有很多困惑。 在设计领域，以下任何讨论点都是您在面试中或午休期间经常遇到的问题。

• What is the difference between UI and UX?
  UI和UX有什么区别？
• Is there even a difference?
  有什么区别吗？
• Why do most companies search for ‘UI/UX’ designers?
  为什么大多数公司都在寻找“ UI / UX”设计师？

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.

清单继续。 有人说UI和UX是同一回事。 在某种程度上，他们是对的。 UI和UX之间有很多重叠之处。 我相信我们都是设计师。 真正不需要添加前缀。

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和服务设计已经建立，不仅在我们的设计过程中还包括Web设计和用户界面。 但是，作为UX设计师或服务设计师，您至少需要一些UI技能。 您必须能够以视觉上吸引人的方式向利益相关者展示您的工作，仅举一个例子。

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

因此，即使UI和UX技能有所重叠，但它们也不相同。

如果亨利·福特给人们他们想要的东西，他们将拥有更快的马匹 (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.

这是一个特殊的。 亨利·福特(Henry Ford)的报价经常被认为不需要用户研究和测试。 史蒂夫·乔布斯(Steve Jobs)的一句话经常被用在同一行上。

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

“人们不知道自己想要什么，除非您向他们展示。 ”-史蒂夫·乔布斯

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

还有更多类似的报价，但让我们关注亨利·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·福特的报价有两件事是错误的。 第一个是没有证据表明他确实说过。 此外，真实的故事实际上显示了Henry Ford如何通过应用UX和服务设计原理解决了一个实际问题。

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，汽车流行了很多年。 他们很贵。 作为替代，人们仍然使用马来运输。 但是，在城市中使用马匹存在一些问题。

• Horse excrement filled the streets.
  马粪排满了街道。
• Horses needed a lot of space and care.
  马需要大量空间和照料。
• Horses occasionally killed people.
  马偶尔会杀死人。

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)通过研究和观察用户行为发现，人们正在寻找替换其马匹的方法，但是汽车不仅价格昂贵，而且生产成本也很高。

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

问题在于制造汽车，而不是汽车本身。

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.

他通过创建用于生产汽车的装配线解决了制造问题。 正如亨利·福特(Henry Ford)没有发明汽车一样，他也没有发明装配线。 他所做的就是将用于连锁驱动的肉类加工设施的Craft.io应用于汽车制造。

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.

通过降低汽车制造成本，他使更多的用户能够购买汽车。 这样就解决了前面提到的马匹问题。 他没有尝试解决已知的马匹问题。 他找到了“问题背后的问题”并加以解决。

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.

如果这不是使用UX，设计思想和服务设计解决实际问题的最佳示例，我不知道这是什么。

三击规则 (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.

这是经典。 大多数人似乎认为，您的网站或应用程序上的每个页面最多都必须单击三下。 其背后的想法是，当用户不得不单击多次时，他们会变得疲倦并停止使用您的产品。

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.

没有证据支持该规则。 实际上，如果不了解产品的上下文，内容和复杂性，就不可能给出绝对最大的点击次数。

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，请考虑完成任务就像骑自行车上山一样。 您可以尝试将自行车置于沉重的装备中，以登上山顶。 因此，您仅经历了三个旋转就到达了顶部，但您却很累。

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.

另一种选择是将您的自行车设置为低得多的档位。 您必须多旋转一些，但每次旋转都很容易且毫不费力，因此您可以不费吹灰之力就到达山顶。

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.

明白了吗？ 您不必遵守三击规则。 研究您的用户流程，并确定用户在此之后必须执行的步骤(或点击次数)，而不必事先考虑最大的点击次数。

当然还有更多 (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.

这些只是关于UX的六个误解。 显然，还有更多。 但是，UX设计师也不是完美的。 我们对必须与之合作的领域有误解，例如产品所有者，业务分析师和开发人员。

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.

当我们相互交流和相互了解时，合作变得更加容易。 突破一些关于UX的最常见误解，有望成为朝着正确方向迈出的第一步。