交互設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文2658字</b></p><p><b>　　畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)）</b></p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　題 目： 交互設(shè)計(jì)是什么？ </p><p>　　系

2、部名稱： 機(jī)械工程系 專業(yè)班級(jí)： 工設(shè)081 </p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名： 學(xué) 號(hào)： 200780714107 </p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師： 教師職稱： 講師 </p><p><b>　　2012年4月5日</b></p&

3、gt;<p><b>　　交互設(shè)計(jì)是什么?</b></p><p>　　像電動(dòng)機(jī)械、無(wú)線電廣播、機(jī)構(gòu)連接、機(jī)械部件等，都是相對(duì)于電子元件以直接的方式展現(xiàn)。當(dāng)我們轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)撥號(hào)盤(pán)，我們的指尖和肌肉都會(huì)有所感受。自從有了電腦，無(wú)論距離有多遠(yuǎn)，都可以聯(lián)系在一起。它可以體現(xiàn)在兩個(gè)方面：一方面，通過(guò)鍵盤(pán)就可以在電腦屏幕里輸入所想的信息，另一方面，也可以從電腦屏幕中得知外面所發(fā)生的一切。所以有了

4、電腦，我們可以更直接的了解訊息。但是我們的物質(zhì)世界和電腦的虛擬世界相比相差很大。</p><p>　　在這個(gè)時(shí)期，我們需要一種清晰的思維模式為我們所用，舉一個(gè)實(shí)例,早期使用腳本系統(tǒng)的蘋(píng)果電腦，有一個(gè)很完整的系統(tǒng)模式，就像是堆積起來(lái)的卡片：對(duì)需要完成的工作都有一個(gè)精確地模擬，以及如何計(jì)劃這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的運(yùn)作。同時(shí)，對(duì)用戶來(lái)說(shuō)就像是在翻閱卡片，可以得到更直觀的使用。所以完整的思維模式所起到的作用是顯而易見(jiàn)的。但是，由于種種

5、原因這種方式?jīng)]有使用到更多的應(yīng)用程序中。</p><p>　　良好的設(shè)計(jì)系統(tǒng)體現(xiàn)在可以得到有效的反饋，以便知道我們所做的一切都確實(shí)做到了。舉一個(gè)例子,當(dāng)我們?cè)阪I盤(pán)上輸入時(shí)，我們做到的不僅僅是字符出現(xiàn)在屏幕上，同時(shí)我們也能感覺(jué)到鍵盤(pán)的敲打，以及聽(tīng)見(jiàn)鍵盤(pán)所發(fā)出的滴答聲。早期的時(shí)候我經(jīng)常使用命令處理器去做一些重復(fù)的事情，或者做一個(gè)鍵入命令的序列“tetick，tick，tick-tick；tetick，tick，tic

6、k-tick.”如果它變成了“tick，tetick，tock”我就知道我做錯(cuò)了。對(duì)于我來(lái)說(shuō)，聽(tīng)覺(jué)反饋的速度要比視覺(jué)反饋的速度快。</p><p>　　仔細(xì)查看電腦的每一部分是必不可少的，特別是在屏幕上的一些圖標(biāo)。你需要知道你在哪個(gè)界面，在那里你能做些什么，怎樣到下一層面，以及怎樣返回。麥金塔電腦在這方面具有很好的影響力：菜單在屏幕頂端勾畫(huà)出所有的可能性，清楚的告訴你怎樣進(jìn)入和提示你將要做什么。</p>

7、;<p>　　同樣重要的就是一致性。在系統(tǒng)中的一個(gè)命令應(yīng)該和系統(tǒng)的其他部分具有同樣的效果。舉一個(gè)例如,不久前,蘋(píng)果工具之一的第一綜合辦公程序蘋(píng)果II，那些“ransom-note”字符在黑色的銀幕上只有非常局限的功能。但蘋(píng)果工具還是一直很優(yōu)秀的，令人滿意的。例如：你能精確地知道你做了什么。一個(gè)命令可以在數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)中做完全相同的文字處理，無(wú)論你在哪里，退出鍵都可以帶你返回上一層面，你不會(huì)迷失和較多的犯錯(cuò)誤。與現(xiàn)代“整合”的應(yīng)用程

8、序相比較，這種形式的一致性是令人滿意的，但也是較難實(shí)現(xiàn)的。</p><p>　　當(dāng)我們與日常生活中的產(chǎn)品交互時(shí)，例如一輛汽車，我們不需要花太多的時(shí)間去考慮互動(dòng)，我們應(yīng)該想一想我們的交互設(shè)計(jì)，我們想做的事情。直觀的交互能減少負(fù)擔(dān)對(duì)意識(shí)思維的影響，使意識(shí)更好的操作于某個(gè)系統(tǒng)，讓我們把精力集中在我們的目標(biāo)。一個(gè)很好的例子就是夸克軟件，可以讓你在不知不覺(jué)中放大圖象，按住兩個(gè)鍵并且點(diǎn)擊就可以看清你想看的了，這就像是在移動(dòng)你

9、的目光，你不必再到處尋找正確的工具了。但較多的系統(tǒng)仍然要求保持較高的注意力，就如不稱職的老板，時(shí)刻把注意力放在我們得工作上。</p><p>　　當(dāng)我們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)了一個(gè)計(jì)算機(jī)系統(tǒng)或者是設(shè)備，我們要設(shè)計(jì)的不僅僅是它的樣子，而是它如何運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，品質(zhì)如何，以及它們之間的相互作用。這就是交互設(shè)計(jì)師所應(yīng)具備的技能，它的部分反映有：當(dāng)你移動(dòng)你的鼠標(biāo)，比如：感覺(jué)它遲鈍、凜冽或明快？當(dāng)你操作你的iPod表盤(pán)，結(jié)合聲音和感覺(jué)，就像告訴你正在

10、做什么，這些都是微妙和令人滿意的。我們可以設(shè)計(jì)互動(dòng)的品質(zhì)，與我們所看到的，我們所聽(tīng)到的，或有相同的感覺(jué)的相結(jié)合。</p><p>　　但是，互動(dòng)的品質(zhì)必須有適當(dāng)?shù)沫h(huán)境。一個(gè)冒險(xiǎn)游戲需要一個(gè)互動(dòng)微妙的氛圍和有趣的具有挑戰(zhàn)性的導(dǎo)航欄，中央控制系統(tǒng)提供了這些品質(zhì)。</p><p>　　當(dāng)新技術(shù)出現(xiàn)時(shí)，我們一般都會(huì)想到熟悉的場(chǎng)景。當(dāng)電影開(kāi)始的時(shí)候，人們會(huì)認(rèn)為它是用攝影機(jī)對(duì)著戲院舞臺(tái)，而聲音是與之分

11、離的。只到語(yǔ)言的徹底利用，電影獨(dú)一無(wú)二的品質(zhì)才彰顯出來(lái)。然而舊的模式從未逝去它的有效性：電影繼續(xù)使用著戲劇和小說(shuō)，它們只是增添了新的語(yǔ)言形式。</p><p>　　我認(rèn)為交互設(shè)計(jì)與早期的影片有著相似的階段。到目前為止，我們還沒(méi)有充分發(fā)展語(yǔ)言的交互技術(shù)。所以我們?nèi)孕枰梃b前面創(chuàng)造的語(yǔ)言模式。因?yàn)樗梢詭椭@些語(yǔ)言進(jìn)行分類，根據(jù)他們的“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”：:一維、平面、立體、四維。</p><p>　　一

12、維包括單詞和詩(shī)歌。例如：他們?cè)谇榫暗谋磉_(dá)中能否精確的運(yùn)用詞匯？這些詞匯是否具有連貫性？同時(shí)與你所想象的“語(yǔ)氣”相比，是否他們有太多的唐突、傲慢，或者不健談？</p><p>　　二維交互設(shè)計(jì)的語(yǔ)言可以借用包括繪畫(huà)、排版、圖形和圖表。當(dāng)我們看到一幅畫(huà)，即使它不是代表性的，但它也不難解釋為一個(gè)透視空間。我們可以使用這樣的成分更深層次的表現(xiàn)當(dāng)前重要的元素。我們可以用我們熟知的、慣用的技術(shù)運(yùn)用到屏幕的結(jié)構(gòu)中去。同時(shí)以時(shí)間

13、的不同來(lái)區(qū)分音色和語(yǔ)言的意義。我們也可以利用語(yǔ)言的圖表和信息的搜集來(lái)說(shuō)明錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的事物，從而讓人更好的理解。另一種二維交互設(shè)計(jì)的語(yǔ)言是運(yùn)用計(jì)算機(jī)接口，以圖標(biāo)的形式讓事物微小簡(jiǎn)化，從而闡述一個(gè)較大的概念或事物的立場(chǎng)。</p><p>　　三維語(yǔ)言是以物體、雕塑的形式。一個(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)的產(chǎn)品設(shè)計(jì)，是以“產(chǎn)品語(yǔ)義學(xué)”探索人們?nèi)绾卫斫獠煌囊卦诋a(chǎn)品中的表現(xiàn)。如果事情有一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)，例如，我們知道我們是為了抓住它，或者遇到比它的頂點(diǎn)

14、還要大的基地，經(jīng)驗(yàn)表明我們應(yīng)該重力保持基地的下跌。設(shè)計(jì)師使用這門(mén)語(yǔ)言將事情弄清楚，但有時(shí)也可以抱有期望，插入一些驚喜與原本的智慧，否側(cè)可能都是平凡無(wú)奇的。</p><p>　　第四維度是時(shí)間。四維語(yǔ)言包括聲音、影視和動(dòng)畫(huà)。在20世紀(jì)80年代比爾Gaver6設(shè)計(jì)了優(yōu)美的音樂(lè)界面--無(wú)線電聲波，提升了蘋(píng)果桌面：當(dāng)你丟棄了一個(gè)文件夾，它會(huì)變成另外一種顏色，同時(shí)發(fā)出了根據(jù)其內(nèi)存大小聲音。這樣提供了很好的反饋，不僅聽(tīng)起來(lái)很

15、好，而且還適合他們的目的。另一個(gè)重要的四維語(yǔ)言是電影：在二十秒一個(gè)的電視廣告里，就能告訴我們一個(gè)復(fù)雜的故事，而且內(nèi)容能被每個(gè)人所了解。一個(gè)多世紀(jì)以來(lái)動(dòng)畫(huà)的發(fā)展較快，他們通過(guò)有限的手段表達(dá)情節(jié)、情感、期望和行動(dòng)。</p><p>　　我們正在設(shè)計(jì)一個(gè)公眾能夠理解的豐富的但同時(shí)又不同于這些的語(yǔ)言：對(duì)話框、圖形、印刷和三維形態(tài)、音、影視和動(dòng)畫(huà)。這使得事情變得困難，因?yàn)闆](méi)有人能流利的掌握這些語(yǔ)言。我們必須聯(lián)同那些有其他技

16、能和經(jīng)驗(yàn)的設(shè)計(jì)師，使交互設(shè)計(jì)師永遠(yuǎn)不可能成為一個(gè)隱士。</p><p>　　然而，經(jīng)歷二十年多年的繪畫(huà)到現(xiàn)有的表現(xiàn)語(yǔ)言，我們現(xiàn)在需要發(fā)展一個(gè)獨(dú)立的交互語(yǔ)言與智能系統(tǒng)和設(shè)備，一個(gè)真實(shí)的語(yǔ)言計(jì)算中心，網(wǎng)絡(luò)媒介和電信。從感性心理學(xué)，我們開(kāi)始明白在人與設(shè)備或系統(tǒng)功能范圍內(nèi)的互動(dòng)：響應(yīng)速度，也就是說(shuō)，一個(gè)小范圍的交際能力。但是在象征性的水平，情緒，社交能力和文明的意義，我們還沒(méi)有達(dá)到驚人的創(chuàng)新。</p>&l

17、t;p>　　本書(shū)講述了一些交互設(shè)計(jì)師的故事，都是非常有意義和快樂(lè)的，然而，重要的是這本書(shū)建議我們，要用自己的方式來(lái)探索交互設(shè)計(jì)。</p><p>　　本文摘譯自《What Is Interaction Design》</p><p>　　What Is Interaction Design</p><p>　　An electromechanical obje

18、ct, a radio say, links its physical mechanical components to its electronic elements in a fairly direct way.When we turn the dial, our fingertips and muscles can almost “feel” the stations being scanned. With computers,

19、however, the distance between, on one hand, keystrokes and</p><p>　　screen image, and, on the other, what’s happening inside the computer, is usually much less direct. Our physical world and the computer’s v

20、irtual world seem miles apart.</p><p>　　In this (historically unprecedented) situation we need a clear mental model of what we’re interacting with. HyperCard,5 for instance, an early scripting system on the

21、Apple, had a very clear mental model, a stack of cards: a precise analogy of what and how the program worked. It was obvious to its users that in effect they were flipping through a stack of cards: everything about the d

22、esign reinforced this metaphor. Sadly, the same can’t be said of many other applications.</p><p>　　A well-designed system has reassuring feedback, so that we know what we’ve done when we’ve done it. On a key

23、board, for example, we can tell what we’ve just done because not only do characters appear on the screen but we can the feel the travel of the key itself and hear the little click it makes. Using an early word processor

24、to do something repetitive, I often had to do a sequence of key commands that went “tetick, tick, tick-tick; tetick, tick, tick-tick.” If it went “tick, tetick, tock,” I’d </p><p>　　Navigability is also esse

25、ntial, particularly with things that are primarily on screen. You need to know where you are in the system, what you can do there, where you can go next, and how to get back. The Star and Macintosh interfaces were very i

26、nfluential in this way.The menu at the top of the screen lays out all the possibilities; it’s clear how you access them and what will happen when you do.</p><p>　　Equally crucial is consistency.A certain com

27、mand in one part of the system should have the same effect in another part. An example, again from some time ago, was Appleworks, one of the first integrated office programs on the Apple II. Those were the days of green

28、“ransom-note” characters on a black screen, and very limited functionality. But Appleworks was beautifully, satisfyingly, consistent.You knew exactly what to do.A command in the database did exactly the same in the word

29、processor; where</p><p>　　When we interact with everyday artifacts, like a car, we don’t spend too much time thinking about the interaction: we think about where we’re heading and what we want to do. Intuiti

30、ve interaction minimizes the burden of conscious thought needed to operate the system, leaving us to concentrate on our goals. A good example was Quark Express, which let you almost unconsciously zoom in on your image by

31、 holding down two keys and clicking on what you wanted to see better. It was like shifting your gaz</p><p>　　When we design a computer-based system or device, we’re designing not just what it looks like but

32、how it behaves. We’re designing the quality of how we and it interact.This is the skill of the interaction designer. It’s partly responsiveness: when you move your mouse, for instance, does it feel sluggish, or nippy and

33、 sprightly? When you manipulate your iPod dial, the combination of sound and feel, as well as telling you what you’re doing, is subtle and satisfying.We can design those qualities of</p><p>　　But the qualiti

34、es of interaction must be appropriate to the context. An adventure game needs an interaction offering subtlety of atmosphere and intriguingly challenging navigation; central-heating control systems offering these qualiti

35、es, however, would be as welcome as a fire alarm with a snooze</p><p><b>　　button.</b></p><p>　　When new technologies are born, we tend to think of the new in terms of the familiar.

36、When cinema started, people thought of it as pointing a camera at a theater stage, and divided silent films with “chapter headings” as if they were books. New “l(fā)anguages” eventually emerged that were true to, and fully&l

37、t;/p><p>　　exploited, the unique qualities of cinema itself—Eisenstein’s language of montage, for instance. But the old analogies never lose their validity: films continue to use the conventions of the theater

38、and the novel. They are just augmented by the new languages.</p><p>　　I believe that interaction design is still in the equivalent of the early stages of cinema. As yet, we have no fully developed language u

39、nique to interactive technology. So we are still drawing on the language of previous creative modes. It may help to categorize these languages according to their “dimensions”: 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, and 4-D.</p><p>

40、　　1-D includes words and poetry. Are the words in a menu the most accurate encapsulations of the action they denote? Are they used consistently? And the “tone of voice” of the dialog boxes in your system: Are they too ab

41、rupt and imperious, or too cloyingly conversational?</p><p>　　The 2-D languages that interaction design can borrow from include painting, typography, diagrams, and icons. When we look at a painting, even if

42、it’s not representational, it’s difficult not to interpret it as a perspectival space; we can use such compositional tropes to layer the screen in apparent depth or to foreground its currently most important element.We c

43、an use the familiar hierarchical conventions of typography to structure the screen, and our shared sensitivity to minute differences in</p><p>　　3-D languages are those of physical, sculptural form. One move

44、ment in product design, “product semantics,” explores how people understand what the different elements of a product represent. If something has a handle, for example, we know we are meant to grab it; if something has a

45、base bigger than its apex, our experience of gravity suggests that we should keep the base downward. Designers use this language to make things clear, but sometimes also to play with expectations, inserting an element &l

46、t;/p><p>　　The fourth dimension is time. The 4-D languages include sound, film, and animation. In the 1980s Bill Gaver6 designed a beautiful sonic interface, the SonicFinder, an augmentation of the Apple Deskto

47、p: when you dropped a folder into another folder, it made a sound according to its size: an almost-empty folder went “pink,” a fuller one “plonk.” It gave good feedback,</p><p>　　but the sounds were also poe

48、tic and appropriate for their purpose. Another important 4-D language is film: in twenty seconds a TV advertisement can tell a complex story understood by everyone. And animators have been developing their spare language

49、 for more than a century, so that with very limited means they can express plot, emotion, anticipation, and action.</p><p>　　We’re designing for a public that understands the richness of all these different

50、languages: dialog, graphics, typography, 3-D form, sound, film, and animation. This makes things difficult because nobody can be fluent in all these languages.We must collaborate with those who have other skills and expe

51、rience.An interaction designer can never be a hermit.</p><p>　　However, after twenty years of drawing on existing expressive languages, we now need to develop an independent language of interaction with “sma

52、rt systems and devices, a language true to the medium of computation, networks, and telecommunications. In terms of perceptual psychology, we’re starting to understand the functional limits of interaction between people

53、and devices or systems: speed of response, say, or the communicative capacity of a small screen. But at the symbolic level of mood and m</p><p>　　By telling the stories of those who have been committed to ma