為什么張揚(yáng)的人別人很討厭

重點(diǎn) (Top highlight)

微處理 (Microprocessing)

In Microprocessing, columnist Angela Lashbrook aims to improve your relationship with technology every week. Microprocessing goes deep on the little things that define your online life today to give you a better tomorrow.

在 微處理中 ，專(zhuān)欄作家Angela Lashbrook的目標(biāo)是每周改善與技術(shù)的關(guān)系。 微處理深入探討了定義您今天的在線(xiàn)生活的小事情，從而為您帶來(lái)更美好的明天。

Whenever a popular web interface gets any kind of significant visual change, a lot of people react with confusion, dismay, and even anger. This month, it’s the new Google Docs sharing interface: The Next Web wrote an entire piece detailing complaints about the new sharing menu. One podcaster says she “just doesn’t like it,” and others are “completely baffled.”

w ^ henever一個(gè)流行的Web界面得到任何顯著的視覺(jué)變化，很多人困惑，沮喪，甚至憤怒React。 本月，它是新的Google文檔共享界面： The Next Web撰寫(xiě)了整篇文章，詳細(xì)介紹了有關(guān)新共享菜單的投訴。 一位播客說(shuō)她“只是不喜歡它”，而其他播客則“ 完全困惑” 。

Though the obvious reason people react so negatively to product redesigns and updates appears straightforward enough — people dislike change — the mechanisms behind why people get so frustrated, and what designers and companies have to do to mitigate that anger, is more complicated.

盡管人們對(duì)產(chǎn)品重新設(shè)計(jì)和更新做出如此消極React的明顯原因似乎很簡(jiǎn)單(人們不喜歡變更)，但人們?yōu)槭裁慈绱司趩室约霸O(shè)計(jì)師和公司為減輕這種憤怒而必須采取的行動(dòng)背后的機(jī)制卻更加復(fù)雜。

One theory, the “endowment effect,” helps explain this aversion to the new. It posits that people prefer what they already have, regardless of the benefits they may gain from adopting something new, because they are afraid of what they might lose. A 1990 study, one of the first to provide evidence for the idea, helps illustrate how it works. The study separated participants into three groups. The first group was given a choice between two objects: a mug or a chocolate bar. The group was more or less evenly split between their choices. A second group was given mugs, but they were allowed to later exchange it for a chocolate bar if they so desired. A third group was given a chocolate bar and likewise allowed to later switch it out for a mug.

一種理論，即“ effect賦效應(yīng)”，有助于解釋這種對(duì)新事物的厭惡。 它假定人們更喜歡自己已經(jīng)擁有的東西，而不管采用新事物可能帶來(lái)的好處，因?yàn)樗麄儞?dān)心自己會(huì)失去什么。 1990年的一項(xiàng)研究 (第一個(gè)為該想法提供證據(jù)的研究)有助于說(shuō)明其原理。 該研究將參與者分為三組。 第一組在兩個(gè)對(duì)象之間進(jìn)行選擇：杯子或巧克力棒。 小組或多或少地在他們的選擇之間平均分配。 第二組被給了杯子，但是如果他們?cè)敢獾脑?huà)，他們可以稍后再換成巧克力棒。 第三組被分配了一塊巧克力棒，同樣允許后來(lái)將其換成杯子。

The two latter groups largely refrained from switching out their original items for something new, despite the first group being evenly split on what they went with. The researchers gathered from this experiment that even though people may equally prefer two items if presented with them simultaneously, they’ll almost always prefer the item they already have when offered something new later.

后兩個(gè)小組在很大程度上避免了將自己的原始物品換成新東西的做法，盡管第一個(gè)小組對(duì)所使用的物品進(jìn)行了平均分配。 研究人員從該實(shí)驗(yàn)中收集到，即使人們可能同時(shí)偏愛(ài)兩個(gè)物品，但在以后提供新物品時(shí)，他們幾乎總是會(huì)偏愛(ài)他們已經(jīng)擁有的物品。

Thus the “endowment effect” — people favor what they’re already “endowed” with over what they could have instead. Another, relevant theory is known as the “status quo effect,” which says people prefer what they’re already familiar with versus something new, even when there’s a strong possibility that the new thing could dramatically improve their lives. It is, quite simply, easier to stick with what you know than adapt to what you don’t; adopting a new technology means you need to disrupt your workflow and take the time and energy to learn something new. The lazy approach (which, to be clear, most people take) is to stay with the old, crappy version.

因此，“ end賦效應(yīng)”-??人們偏愛(ài)他們本來(lái)可以“擁有”的東西，而不是他們本可以擁有的東西。 另一種相關(guān)的理論被稱(chēng)為“狀態(tài)效應(yīng)”，即人們更喜歡自己已經(jīng)熟悉的事物而不是新事物，即使新事物很有可能極大地改善他們的生活。 很簡(jiǎn)單，堅(jiān)持自己知道的事情比適應(yīng)自己不知道的事情容易。 采用新技術(shù)意味著您需要中斷工作流程，并花費(fèi)時(shí)間和精力來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)新知識(shí)。 懶惰的方法(很顯然，大多數(shù)人會(huì)采用這種方法)是保留舊的，version腳的版本。

So, even if the change to Google Docs was objectively better than what everyone had before, people were still going to be pissed off, because they’re naturally inclined to prefer what they already had. Looking at it from another angle, though, consumers aren’t the only ones with an issue: Designers tend to overestimate the value of their products, or at least how much consumers will value them. John Gourville, a professor at Harvard Business School, calls this the “9x effect”: Consumers value what they have as three times better than what they stand to gain, while designers overvalue their new creation by the same factor. “The result is a mismatch of nine to one, or 9x, between what innovators think consumers desire and what consumers really want,” Gourville wrote in a 2006 piece for the Harvard Business Review.

因此，即使從客觀上說(shuō)，對(duì)Google文檔的更改要比每個(gè)人都好，但人們?nèi)匀粫?huì)感到惱火，因?yàn)樗麄冏匀粌A向于喜歡已經(jīng)擁有的內(nèi)容。 但是，從另一個(gè)角度來(lái)看，消費(fèi)者并不是唯一一個(gè)有問(wèn)題的人：設(shè)計(jì)師往往高估了產(chǎn)品的價(jià)值，或者至少高估了消費(fèi)者對(duì)產(chǎn)品的重視程度。 哈佛商學(xué)院教授約翰·古維爾(John Gourville)稱(chēng)其為“ 9倍效應(yīng)”：消費(fèi)者認(rèn)為自己擁有的產(chǎn)品要比獲得的產(chǎn)品好三倍，而設(shè)計(jì)師則以相同的因素高估了他們的新產(chǎn)品。 Gourville在2006年為《 哈佛商業(yè)評(píng)論 》撰寫(xiě)的文章中寫(xiě)道：“結(jié)果是創(chuàng)新者認(rèn)為消費(fèi)者期望與消費(fèi)者真正期望之間存在9比1或9倍的不匹配。”

This disconnect between designers and consumers is a frequent contributor to innovations that don’t quite hit the mark with users, says Lars Perner, an assistant professor of clinical marketing at University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business.

南加州大學(xué)馬歇爾商學(xué)院臨床營(yíng)銷(xiāo)助理教授拉爾斯·佩納(Lars Perner)說(shuō)，設(shè)計(jì)師與消費(fèi)者之間的這種脫節(jié)是導(dǎo)致創(chuàng)新的常見(jiàn)原因，而創(chuàng)新并未給用戶(hù)帶來(lái)任何好處。

“With technology-driven companies run by engineers, they may go more with values of technical excellence,” without taking into account what users truly want or need, Perner says. At these companies, designers are “surrounded by people who are more technically savvy and who will maybe be more receptive to some of those designs.”

Perner說(shuō)：“在工程師驅(qū)動(dòng)的技術(shù)驅(qū)動(dòng)型公司的情況下，他們可能會(huì)獲得更高的技術(shù)卓越價(jià)值，”而無(wú)需考慮用戶(hù)的真正需求。 在這些公司中，設(shè)計(jì)師“被技術(shù)上更精明的人所包圍，并且可能會(huì)更愿意接受其中一些設(shè)計(jì)。”

So, if the company does limited public testing and instead relies on its employees to gauge how positively users are going to react to a new release, it’s going to get a skewed perspective. Communities built around specific industries tend to place higher demands on their product than the general customer base; compare, for example, the sort of wine a sommelier may prefer compared to your average, run-of-the mill drinker who just wants a $10 bottle of pinot noir.

因此，如果該公司進(jìn)行有限的公開(kāi)測(cè)試，而是依靠其員工來(lái)衡量用戶(hù)對(duì)新版本的React有多積極，那么它將有一個(gè)偏頗的觀點(diǎn)。 圍繞特定行業(yè)建立的社區(qū)往往比一般客戶(hù)群對(duì)產(chǎn)品的要求更高； 比較一下，例如，一位侍酒師可能會(huì)喜歡的葡萄酒與您只想要10美元一瓶的黑比諾葡萄酒的普通，磨坊般的飲酒者相比。

This isn’t to say you can’t eventually work those $10 pinot drinkers up to, say, an unfiltered sparkling wine. It just needs to be done with a customer-first strategy that fully takes into account that people need to be eased into new features and product changes. Designers should emphasize how painless it is to level up, focusing only on the advantages of the new product in later messaging. A 2016 study investigated how study participants might be persuaded to rent electric cars instead of the diesel cars they were accustomed to. It found that users were overwhelmed by the new technology and afraid that it would inconvenience them or that they would have to change their behavior to use it. Consumers almost always prefer inaction, as it is cognitively easier, the researchers state. So, if designers want to effectively market new technology to users, they need to do so in a way that emphasizes how easy the changes are to implement instead of focusing on how amazing they are.

這并不是說(shuō)您最終不能讓那些10美元的品脫飲用者最多只能使用未經(jīng)過(guò)濾的起泡酒。 只需使用“客戶(hù)至上”的策略來(lái)完成，該策略應(yīng)充分考慮到人們需要簡(jiǎn)化新功能和產(chǎn)品更改。 設(shè)計(jì)師應(yīng)該強(qiáng)調(diào)升級(jí)的過(guò)程很輕松，僅在以后的消息傳遞中重點(diǎn)關(guān)注新產(chǎn)品的優(yōu)勢(shì)。 一項(xiàng)2016年的研究調(diào)查了如何說(shuō)服研究參與者租用電動(dòng)汽車(chē)而不是他們習(xí)慣的柴油汽車(chē)。 它發(fā)現(xiàn)用戶(hù)對(duì)新技術(shù)不知所措，并且擔(dān)心它會(huì)給他們帶來(lái)不便，或者他們不得不改變其行為才能使用它。 研究人員指出，消費(fèi)者幾乎總是喜歡無(wú)所作為，因?yàn)樗谡J(rèn)知上更容易。 因此，如果設(shè)計(jì)人員希望向用戶(hù)有效推銷(xiāo)新技術(shù)，則他們需要以強(qiáng)調(diào)變更實(shí)現(xiàn)起來(lái)的容易程度而不是專(zhuān)注于其驚人程度的方式進(jìn)行。

Of course, as with the Google Docs update, customers often aren’t given much of a choice. Allowing people to opt in to changes can potentially make them more amenable to them, even if they decide to hold off. “Sometimes just the option of ‘Do you want to use the beta now?’ or ‘Do you want to wait until this officially rolls out?’” can improve how well a new release will land with consumers, says Mark Hall, a user experience strategist and instructor at the University of California San Diego Extension. The Google Docs rollout, on the other hand, did not offer this. “Control is a big thing, especially when we have fewer things under control now,” he says.

當(dāng)然，與Google文檔更新一樣，客戶(hù)通常沒(méi)有太多選擇。 允許人們選擇更改，即使他們決定推遲進(jìn)行更改，也有可能使它們更易于接受。 “有時(shí)只是'您現(xiàn)在要使用Beta的選項(xiàng)嗎？' 加州大學(xué)圣地亞哥分校擴(kuò)展中心的用戶(hù)體驗(yàn)策略師兼講師Mark Hall說(shuō)，“或者您是否要等到正式發(fā)布之前？”可以提高新版本在消費(fèi)者中的占有率。 另一方面，“ Google文檔”卷展欄未提供此功能。 他說(shuō)：“控制是一件大事，尤其是當(dāng)我們現(xiàn)在要控制的東西越來(lái)越少時(shí)。”

I tend to sign up for the beta option, as I find it fun to experiment with new features before they’re released to the general public. I’m even more likely to endure any glitches and bugs if I signed on voluntarily. But when sites roll out significant product changes without warning or explanation, without any apparent input from their wider customer base, and with little prospect of going back to the old interface, it’s easy to see why people will get frustrated, especially in a time when we’re already feeling powerless and unmoored. Does a change to the Google Docs sharing interface or how Twitter displays reply threads really matter? Beyond a few moments of initial irritation and a learning curve, no, not really. We’ll acclimate eventually. Companies know that and count on our irritation fading with time, though there are exceptions. (I’m still angry at Apple’s introduction of the dongle, which I felt forced into adopting and years later don’t believe has been anything other than a nuisance.) But customers aren’t robots, and design hits us on an emotional level, even if it isn’t anything close to a life-or-death issue. And right now, everyone’s a little raw.

我傾向于注冊(cè)beta選項(xiàng)，因?yàn)槲野l(fā)現(xiàn)在將新功能發(fā)布給公眾之前嘗試這些功能很有趣。 如果我自愿簽約，我甚至更有可能忍受任何故障和錯(cuò)誤。 但是，當(dāng)站點(diǎn)在沒(méi)有警告或解釋的情況下推出重大的產(chǎn)品更改，沒(méi)有廣泛的客戶(hù)群提供任何明顯輸入，又沒(méi)有回到舊界面的可能性時(shí)，很容易看出人們?yōu)槭裁磿?huì)感到沮喪，尤其是在我們已經(jīng)感到無(wú)能為力，無(wú)所適從。 更改Google Docs共享界面或Twitter如何顯示回復(fù)線(xiàn)程真的重要嗎？ 除了最初的刺激和學(xué)習(xí)曲線(xiàn)以外，不，不是真的。 我們將最終適應(yīng)。 公司知道這一點(diǎn)，并指望我們的刺激會(huì)隨著時(shí)間的流逝而消失，盡管有例外。 (我仍然對(duì)Apple引入的加密狗感到憤怒，我感到這種加密狗被迫采用，并且?guī)啄旰蟛幌嘈胚@只是滋擾。)但是客戶(hù)不是機(jī)器人，設(shè)計(jì)在情感上給我們帶來(lái)了打擊，即使這不是解決生死攸關(guān)的問(wèn)題。 而現(xiàn)在，每個(gè)人都有些不成熟。

“Designs that advance the organization’s ego instead of solving the customer’s problem are the most frustrating and the least likely to succeed,” says Jeffrey Zeldman, a creative director at Automattic, the company behind WordPress and Tumblr, and an instructor of interaction design at the School of Visual Arts. “Folks will forgive shoddy graphic design, slow performance, and other sins if the design, for all its other failings, lets the customer feel empowered.” Smart design, he says, works with customers, rather than dictating down to them.

WordPress和Tumblr背后的公司Automattic的創(chuàng)意總監(jiān)，互動(dòng)交互設(shè)計(jì)的講師Jeffrey Zeldman說(shuō)：“提高組織的自我意識(shí)而不是解決客戶(hù)的問(wèn)題的設(shè)計(jì)是最令人沮喪，最不可能成功的。”視覺(jué)藝術(shù)學(xué)院。 “如果設(shè)計(jì)能夠解決所有其他缺點(diǎn)，讓客戶(hù)感到被賦予權(quán)力，那么人們將原諒拙劣的圖形設(shè)計(jì)，緩慢的性能以及其他缺點(diǎn)。” 他說(shuō)，智能設(shè)計(jì)與客戶(hù)合作，而不是要求客戶(hù)。

So, sure, maybe your brain, like nearly everyone else’s, is lazy and fearful, and that’s why you’re struggling with the new Google Docs, or Twitter threads, or whatever. But if customers are a group of rowdy, disagreeable children, designers are the adults in the room who are tasked with communicating and delegating changes sensitively. When they release new changes to people’s workflows at a time when their jobs and lives are already massively disrupted, is it any wonder people are going to be upset?

因此，可以肯定的是，也許您的大腦(就像幾乎其他所有人一樣)是懶惰和恐懼的，這就是為什么您在努力使用新的Google文檔，Twitter線(xiàn)程或其他東西。 但是，如果客戶(hù)是一群討厭，討厭的孩子，那么設(shè)計(jì)師就是房間里的成年人，他們負(fù)責(zé)敏感地交流和委派變更。 當(dāng)他們?cè)诠ぷ骱蜕钜呀?jīng)受到嚴(yán)重破壞的時(shí)候?qū)θ藗兊墓ぷ髁鞒踢M(jìn)行新的更改時(shí)，人們是否會(huì)感到沮喪呢？

翻譯自: https://onezero.medium.com/why-everyone-always-hates-redesigns-even-when-theyre-good-26776604b5e9

為什么張揚(yáng)的人別人很討厭

總結(jié)

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的为什么张扬的人别人很讨厌_为什么每个人总是讨厌重新设计，即使他们很好的全部?jī)?nèi)容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問(wèn)題。

如果覺(jué)得生活随笔網(wǎng)站內(nèi)容還不錯(cuò)，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。