并非所有计划应用程序都是一样创建的。 (Not all scheduling apps are created equal.)

As any college student will tell you, we use When2Meet almost religiously. Between classes, extracurriculars, work, and simply living, When2Meet is the scheduling app that holds all our commitments in a tenuous balance. There’s a lot of reasons why we like it: it’s free, easy to use, and has no frills.

正如任何大学生都会告诉您的那样，我们几乎虔诚地使用When2Meet 。 在课程，课外活动，工作和简单生活之间，When2Meet是一个调度应用程序，可以使我们的所有承诺保持微妙的平衡。 我们喜欢它的原因有很多：它是免费的，易于使用的，而且没有多余的装饰。

On that last part: When2Meet is so no frills to the point that it almost feels undesigned. It’s typeset in Arial, not Helvetica; its accent color is a blinding electric green; and anywhere from a third to a half of the home screen is its black footer. “It’s not aesthetically pleasing, that’s for sure,” my friends would say, and I’d agree. For a site that hasn’t changed much at all since its debut in 2012, When2Meet certainly won’t be winning any design awards anytime soon.

在最后一部分：When2Meet如此简洁，以至于几乎感觉不到设计。 它是用Arial(而不是Helvetica)排版的； 它的重点颜色是令人眼花electric乱的绿色。 黑色屏幕页脚是主屏幕的三分之一到一半。 我的朋友会说：“这肯定在美学上并不令人满意，”我同意。 对于自2012年首次亮相以来并没有太大变化的网站，When2Meet当然不会很快获得任何设计大奖。

Compared to When2Meet, LettuceMeet looks amazing (at least, at first glance). The site is typeset in Quicksand, a pleasing rounded sans serif; there’s a healthy amount of whitespace; and the tool maintains an overall clean aesthetic.

与When2Meet相比， LettuceMeet看起来很棒(至少乍一看)。 该网站使用流沙(一种令人愉悦的无衬线衬线)排版； 有大量的空白； 该工具可保持整体清洁美观。

However, despite LettuceMeet’s aesthetically pleasing design, I’ve yet to see it used in the wild the way When2Meet is. So why has LettuceMeet not permeated the campus consciousness the way When2Meet has?

但是，尽管LettuceMeet具有美学上令人愉悦的设计，但我还没有看到它像When2Meet那样被广泛使用。 那么，为什么LettuceMeet不能像When2Meet那样渗透到校园意识中呢？

从审美角度而言， ≠良好的用户体验。 (Aesthetically pleasing ≠ good user experience.)

Part of the reason LettuceMeet hasn’t been used more widely is its relative infancy, having debuted just last year. More importantly, though, is the fact that underneath the sheen of tasteful typefaces and pretty placements lies a far inferior user experience.

LettuceMeet尚未得到更广泛使用的部分原因是它的相对婴儿期，它在去年才首次亮相。 但是，更重要的是，事实是，在雅致的字体和漂亮的位置的光泽下，用户体验要差得多。

The problem lies in the flow that LettuceMeet forces into to input information. Take, for example, the steps required to set up an availability calendar:

问题出在LettuceMeet强迫输入信息的流程中。 例如，采取设置可用性日历所需的步骤：

The user must go through two whole pages before getting to the meeting link. Compare that to When2Meet’s economical page that gathers everything you need to know in one go:

在进入会议链接之前，用户必须浏览整个两页。 与此相比，When2Meet的经济型页面可以一次性收集您需要了解的所有信息：

Actually adding availability in LettuceMeet isn’t much better, requiring users to go through three more pages before seeing their availability on-screen:

实际上，在LettuceMeet中添加可用性并没有改善多少，要求用户再浏览三个页面才能在屏幕上看到其可用性：

Compare the above flow with that of When2Meet, which condenses the same task into two pages:

将以上流程与When2Meet的流程进行比较，后者将同一任务浓缩为两页：

By splitting information up into separate pages, LettuceMeet forces users through a taskflow that isn’t necessarily intuitive to how we chunk information. Why must we select what days to meet on one page and what time range on a different one? Why am I adding my availability before declaring who I am?

通过将信息分成单独的页面， LettuceMeet迫使用户通过任务流程，而该任务流程对于我们如何分块信息不一定很直观。 为什么我们必须在一页上选择什么日子见面，而在另一页上选择什么时间范围？ 为什么在声明我是谁之前添加我的空闲时间？

For a user who wants to schedule a group meeting quickly and efficiently, the streamlined taskflow of When2Meet just feels right, reinforcing the information I need to provide and then providing an immediate response to my need.

对于想要快速高效地安排小组会议的用户而言，When2Meet简化后的任务流程感觉不错，可以增强我需要提供的信息，然后立即对我的需求做出回应。

记住UI中的U。 (Remember the U in UI.)

Let me be clear: When2Meet isn’t great design. There are many improvements one could make to the overall experience, like drawing more attention to the required info in When2Meet, or consolidating the taskflow for adding availability to one page. Moreover, LettuceMeet might get the upper hand on mobile, where its responsive design and bite-sized steps make a little more sense.

让我清楚一点：When2Meet不是很好的设计。 人们可以对整体体验进行许多改进，例如，将更多的注意力放在When2Meet中的必需信息上，或者合并任务流程以将可用性添加到一页上。 此外，LettuceMeet可能会在移动设备上占上风，其响应式设计和小巧的步骤更具意义。

However, what When2Meet does better than any of its alternatives is understand the needs of its users, who prioritize efficiency over attractiveness. Despite the relatively steeper learning curve in figuring out how to use When2Meet, using it in the long-term is far less cumbersome than the multi-page design of LettuceMeet, aesthetics be damned. And on the whole, When2Meet’s core tasks are better implemented than LettuceMeet’s.

但是，When2Meet比任何其他替代产品都有更好的表现是要了解其用户的需求 ，他们将效率置于吸引力之上。 尽管在确定如何使用When2Meet时会遇到相对较陡的学习曲线，但长期使用它比LettuceMeet的多页设计麻烦得多，但该死的是美学。 总体而言，When2Meet的核心任务比LettuceMeet的更好。

As UX designers, it’s very easy to get lost in the pixel-precision we desire—the thing is, that’s only one part of what we do. In actuality, we are tasked to create intentional experiences, and things like typography and color are tools to design for those intentional experiences. Rarely is a fundamentally bad user experience improved by making it pretty. So what do we do?

作为UX设计师，很容易迷失我们想要的像素精度-事实是，这只是我们所做工作的一部分。 实际上， 我们的任务是创造意向性体验，而版式和颜色之类的东西就是设计这些意向性体验的工具。 通过使其变得漂亮，从根本上改善不好的用户体验。 那么我们该怎么办？

Keep the user in mind as you design your interface, and have users test it out themselves to ensure its usability. What are their needs? What do they prioritize? And how can I design this experience intentionally to meet their needs and priorities?

在设计界面时要牢记用户，并让用户自己对其进行测试以确保其可用性。 他们有什么需求？ 他们优先考虑什么？ 我如何才能有意识地设计这种体验以满足他们的需求和优先级？

In this way, we aren’t making just pretty tools; we’re creating intuitive and useful ones, too.

这样，我们不仅可以制作漂亮的工具，还可以制作精美的工具。 我们也在创建直观而有用的工具。