The core of design thinking is to only design something that will bring value and fill the gap in consumer needs. Right? Why else would one design something that no one asked for? While that may be true to some extent, there’s also value in designing for the times; meaning redesigning or updating a brand’s art direction to adapt to trends or improving user experience, which fluctuates often.

设计思维的核心是仅设计能够带来价值并填补消费者需求缺口的产品。 对？ 为什么还要设计一个没人要的东西？ 尽管在某种程度上可能是正确的，但在当今时代进行设计也很有价值。 意思是重新设计或更新品牌的艺术方向，以适应经常变化的趋势或改善用户体验。

Let’s try an exercise. Take a few seconds and try and think of Instagram’s old logos. Do you recall them? If not, do you remember what the majority of the reactions were like when Instagram came out with its new logo in 2016? Here’s a refresher:

让我们来练习一下。 花费几秒钟的时间，尝试思考一下Instagram旧徽标。 你还记得他们吗？ 如果不是，您还记得2016年Instagram推出新徽标时大多数人的React吗？ 这是一个复习：

This reaction is pretty normal, even with design improvements. It’s been four years since the change from a more analog icon to the round, gradient design it is today. In hindsight, did we really need the redesign? While certain camps will still insist that the old logo was fine and that the change was unnecessary, it’s pretty obvious that it wouldn’t fare well today. Besides simply modernizing the logo, there’s a whole strategy behind the new logo which you can read about here.

即使进行了设计改进，这种React还是很正常的。 从更具模拟性的图标更改为如今的圆形渐变设计已经四年了。 事后看来，我们真的需要重新设计吗？ 尽管某些阵营仍然会坚持认为旧徽标很好，并且不需要进行更改，但很明显，今天的情况并不理想。 除了简单地对徽标进行现代化改造之外，您还可以在此处阅读有关新徽标的整体策略。

Why the backlash? Why are humans wired to resist change?

为什么会出现反弹？ 人类为什么要抗拒变化？

According to “Overcoming Resistance to Change” by A. J. Schuler, Psy. D.,

根据Psy的AJ Schuler的“ 克服变化的阻力 ”。 D.

Some people will, in part, be aligned against change because they will clearly, and in some cases correctly, view the change as being contrary to their interests.

有些人会部分地反对变更，因为他们会清楚地(在某些情况下正确地)认为变更违反了他们的利益。

While organizational change is quite different than design changes, the same principles apply in human psychology. Change means disruption, and disruption means effort. In design, it’s imperative to provide users with an experience so seamless that it minimizes the cognitive load required to absorb information. The opposite of seamless design would cause cognitive overload ( processing that takes up mental resources but doesn’t actually help users understand the content (for example, different font styles that don’t convey any unique meaning). Because the change in Instagram’s logo was so drastic and sudden, user backlash was inevitable because it caused a mix up in what is called a mental model: “What users believe they know about a UI strongly impacts how they use it. Mismatched mental models are common, especially with designs that try something new.”

虽然组织变更与设计变更有很大不同，但相同的原理适用于人类心理学。 改变意味着破坏，而破坏意味着努力。 在设计中，必须为用户提供无缝的体验，以最小化吸收信息所需的认知负担。 无缝设计的反面将导致认知超负荷(处理过程占用了智力资源，但实际上并没有帮助用户理解内容(例如，不同的字体样式没有传达任何独特的含义) 。因为Instagram徽标的更改是如此激烈和突然，用户的反对是不可避免的，因为它引起了所谓的心理模型的混淆： “用户认为他们对UI的了解强烈影响他们的使用方式。不匹配的心理模型很常见，尤其是对于尝试新鲜玩意。”

Because of such a drastic change in the UI, many users reacted viscerally, which is to automatically reject it.

由于UI发生了如此巨大的变化，许多用户的内在React是自动拒绝它。

In “Why redesigns don’t make users happy” by Vitaly Dulenko, he writes:

他在Vitaly Dulenko撰写的“为什么重新设计不会使用户满意”中写道：

Redesigns are changes and people don’t like changes. People don’t like them for two reasons — changes require efforts to make and people don’t know what to expect from changes.

重新设计就是变更，人们不喜欢变更。 人们不喜欢它们有两个原因-改变需要做出努力，而人们也不知道改变会带来什么。

We as users feel almost entitled to be consulted because, after all, didn’t the developers make this app for us? “Don’t fix what’s not broken”, “No one asked for this” are some of the common phrases used when redesign comes out of left field. Of course, the redesign never comes out of the left field. Designers are often presented with a brief to redesign based on many things, whether it be to refresh an outdated design in order to improve its messaging or simply to adapt to new changes in the organization.

作为用户，我们几乎有权获得咨询，因为毕竟开发人员不是为我们制作此应用的吗？ 重新设计出左字段时，使用了一些常用的短语：“不解决未解决的问题”，“没人要这个”。 当然，重新设计永远不会超出左侧范围。 经常向设计师提供基于许多内容进行重新设计的摘要，无论是为了更新过时的设计以改进其消息传递还是只是为了适应组织中的新变化。

That’s not to say every redesign has been successful. Take for instance Tropicana’s short-lived package redesign attempt:

这并不是说每次重新设计都成功。 以Tropicana的短期包装重新设计尝试为例：

When they released the new design in 2009, people hated it so much that they reverted back to the original packaging within two months due to sales drops and consumer backlash. The design itself wasn’t all to blame. In fact, some of the design details are quite smart and intuitive, like turning the cap into an orange. The main takeaway from this case study is simply that they introduced too much too fast. The change in typography and removing the famous iconography of the orange with the straw was simply a blow to consumer’s emotional attachment to the brand, which should not be understated.

当他们在2009年发布新设计时，人们非常讨厌它，以至于由于销量下降和消费者的强烈反对，他们在两个月内恢复了原来的包装。 设计本身并不是所有人的责任。 实际上，某些设计细节非常聪明直观，例如将盖子变成橙色。 此案例研究的主要收获是，它们引入的速度太快了。 字体的更改以及用吸管除去橙子的著名图示，只是对消费者对品牌的情感依恋的打击，这一点不可低估。

It’s hard to say if Tropicana’s sales would have improved had they just stuck it out and let the consumers adapt to the new branding. After all, humans, although adverse to change, have always been able to adapt quite successfully, dating back to the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens.

很难说，如果只是将Tropicana坚持下去，让消费者适应新的品牌，Tropicana的销售是否会有所提高。 毕竟，人类虽然对变化不利，但总是能够非常成功地适应，可以追溯到智人的进化历史。

The fact remains, however, if we don't need to adapt for survivability, we would rather not change. Being pushed out of one's comfort zone isn’t usually a pleasant experience in the beginning, even when we know it’ll do us good.

但是，事实仍然存在，如果我们不需要适应生存能力，我们宁愿不改变。 一开始，即使我们知道这样做对我们有好处，但通常被排斥在舒适区之外并不是一件令人愉快的经历。

So when designers conduct user research for their next design, it’s not often that you’ll see surveys with open-ended questions. The fact is consumers can’t tell you exactly what they want because the bottom line is, they don’t really know what they want. “Build what users need, not what they want”, writes Michael Sueoka, Senior Product Manager at CAIS. Instead, researchers will look at behavior and design psychology for their next design, based on user feedback, but not quite literally.

因此，当设计师进行下一个设计的用户研究时，您很少会看到带有开放式问题的调查。 事实是消费者无法准确告诉您他们想要什么，因为最重要的是，他们并不真正知道他们想要什么。 CAIS高级产品经理Michael Sueoka写道：“ 建立用户所需的东西，而不是他们想要的东西” 。 取而代之的是，研究人员将根据用户反馈来研究其下一个设计的行为和设计心理，但并非完全如此。

What is clear is that it’s natural to reject change at any level. Design isn’t a one-way street and users are subject to emotional attachment to a brand’s identity. Ideally, change is to be introduced in increments to allow smooth onboarding, but when that isn’t the case, it’s up to the brand to decide if it's worth sticking to the change and allow for adaptability or revert back to their old ways based on user backlash.

清楚的是，拒绝任何级别的变更都是很自然的。 设计不是一条单向的道路，用户会受到品牌身份情感的依恋。 理想情况下，应以增量方式引入更改，以实现平稳的入职，但在这种情况下，由品牌决定是否值得坚持更改并允许适应性或基于用户的强烈反对。