主模式和野蠻模式

Taking a dig at Jakob Nielsen’s po-faced disapproval of Flash, Joel Spolsky wrote a post that has been echoing around the internet for the last 20 years. It’s short and funny, so I’ll quote it all here:

Joel Spolsky深入研究了Jakob Nielsen對Flash的不贊成，他撰寫了一篇帖子 ，該帖子在過去20年間一直在互聯網上回蕩。 它又短又有趣，所以我在這里引用它們：

Jakob Nielsen says that Flash is ‘99% bad.’ I have to agree. Flash always reduces usability.

雅各布·尼爾森(Jakob Nielsen)說，Flash的“不良率是99％”。 我必須同意。 Flash總是會降低可用性。

On the other hand, every time I read Jakob Nielsen, I get this feeling that he really doesn’t appreciate that usability is not the most important thing on earth. Sure, usability is important (I wrote a whole book about it). But it is simply not everyone’s number one priority, nor should it be. You get the feeling that if Mr Nielsen designed a singles bar, it would be well lit, clean, with giant menus printed in Arial 14 point, and you’d never have to wait to get a drink. But nobody would go there, they would all be at Coyote Ugly Saloon pouring beer on each other.

另一方面，每次閱讀Jakob Nielsen時，我都會感覺到他真的不欣賞可用性不是地球上最重要的事情。 當然，可用性很重要(我為此寫了一本書)。 但這根本不是每個人的頭等大事，也不應該。 您會感覺到，如果尼爾森先生設計了一個單人酒吧，那么酒吧將光線充足，干凈整潔，并在Arial 14點上印有豐富的菜單，您將永遠不必等待喝一杯。 但是沒有人會去那里，他們都會在土狼丑陋的轎車上互相傾倒啤酒。

Spolsky’s post reads differently today than it did in 2000, a few years before web accessibility regulations were legislated into federal law. Usability now has to be everyone’s priority. WCAG standards are our rules of the road, preventing needless ambiguity, error, and exclusion. Yet the standardization of web patterns and general obsession with optimization have prompted calls for a return to the “weird web” (calls which notably reminisce about Flash development in the early aughts). We got too serious, too mainstream, as the web grew.

Spolsky的帖子今天的閱讀方式與2000年的閱讀方式有所不同，在2000年，網絡可訪問性法規被立法成為聯邦法律之前的幾年。 可用性現在必須成為每個人的首要任務。 WCAG標準是我們的工作之道，可避免不必要的歧義，錯誤和排斥。 然而，Web模式的標準化和對優化的普遍癡迷促使人們呼吁回到“怪異的Web” (這種調用在早期引起了人們對Flash開發的特別回憶)。 隨著網絡的發展，我們變得太認真，太主流了。

The web is fundamental to modern life, but modern life is also weird and bizarre and our commitment to usability needn’t hinder the expression of that strangeness. Thankfully, you can spend Bill Gates’ money using just keyboard navigation. There’s more strange out there.

網絡是現代生活的基礎，但是現代生活也很奇怪和離奇，我們對可用性的承諾無須阻礙這種陌生的表達。 值得慶幸的是，您可以僅使用鍵盤導航來花費比爾·蓋茨的錢 。 那里還有更多奇怪的地方。

We see a little of this weirdness in the sites cataloged on Brutalist Websites. Web Brutalism has become a catchall term for websites that flout the conventions of modern web design with a kind of droll, utilitarian nostalgia for the early web. Think JNCO jeans in a sea of khaki Wordpress chino sameness. Things animate that shouldn’t, things don’t animate that should, things animate in ways that they shouldn’t. Navigation elements are either in your face or purposefully obscured. 3D art, italics, plain, neo grotesk fonts, monstrous hover states, jewel tones, thick dividing lines, harsh contrasts are some of the hallmarks. The trend is decidedly hip, and popular enough to show up in The New York Times articles and Bloomberg design conference sites. You know it when you see it.

我們看到這種古怪編目中的網站上有點野獸派網站 。 Web野蠻主義已成為對網站的通俗稱呼，這些網站對早期Web表現出一種愚蠢的，功利的懷舊之情，不符合現代Web設計的慣例。 想想卡其色的Wordpress千篇一律的海洋中的JNCO牛仔褲。 事物本不應該進行動畫處理，事物不應該本應進行動畫處理，事物以本不應該進行的方式進行動畫處理。 導航元素要么在您的臉上，要么故意被遮蓋。 3D藝術，斜體，普通，新格羅特斯克字體，懸停狀態令人恐懼，珠寶色調，粗分界線，鮮明的對比是其中的標志。 這種趨勢絕對是時髦的，并且足夠流行，可以在《紐約時報》的文章和彭博設計會議網站上顯示。 您一看到就知道。

Some Web Brutalist fun. Left to right: book.land, Studio Push, x20xx, In the City. Below, Bloomberg’s 2016 Design Conference registration site. 一些網絡野獸派的樂趣。 從左到右： book.land ， Studio Push ， x20xx ， 在城市 。 下方是彭博社2016年設計大會注冊網站。

There’s some debate about what constitutes Web Brutalism. In “ The Split Personality of Web Brutalism,” Frederick O’Brien quotes Pascal Deville, curator of the Brutalist Websites archive, on the different types of practitioners:

關于什么構成網絡野蠻主義存在一些爭論 。 弗雷德里克·奧布萊恩(Frederick O'Brien)在“ 網絡野蠻主義的分裂人格 ”一文中引用了野蠻主義網站檔案館館長Pascal Deville的不同類型從業者：

The purists reference strongly to the architectural characteristics of Web Brutalism, such as the concept of ‘truth to materials’ and the use of the purest markup elements available. The UX minimalists, in contrast, see efficiency and performance as the main driver of Web Brutalism and even believe that the radical limitation of possibilities can boost conversions. The ‘anti-ists’ or artists see web design as an (still) undervalued form of art and don’t show much respect [to] the status quo and mostly get bad press.

純粹主義者強烈引用了Web野蠻主義的體系結構特征，例如“對材料的真實性”概念以及使用最純凈的標記元素。 相比之下，UX極簡主義者將效率和性能視為Web野蠻主義的主要驅動力，甚至認為，可能性的根本限制可以促進轉換。 “反主義者”或藝術家將網頁設計視為一種(仍然)被低估的藝術形式，對現狀沒有太多的尊重，并且大多受到負面的報道。

Most of what’s labeled Web Brutalism is a normcore visual aesthetic — the web version of anti-art, a rejection of refinement and sophistication — rather than a meaningful digital analogue to architectural Brutalism. Coined by Swedish architect Hans Asplund, “Brutalism” described a style of architecture that intentionally revealed the underlying structural materials, derived from the French béton brut, “raw concrete”. Though it has since been associated with monolithic, domineering concrete government buildings aptly described as brutal, Brutalism is in fact an ethos of truth to materials, emerging from postwar ideals of transparency, economy, and stability.

所謂的網絡殘酷主義大多數是規范性的視覺美學 -反藝術的網絡版本，對精致和復雜性的拒絕-而不是建筑殘酷主義的有意義的數字類似物。 由瑞典建筑師漢斯·阿斯普倫德(Hans Asplund)創造的“野蠻主義”描述了一種建筑風格，有意揭示了源自法國bétonbrut (原始混凝土)的基礎結構材料。 盡管野蠻主義自那時以來就與恰當地描述為野蠻的獨具一格的，統治性的混凝土政府建筑物有關，但野蠻主義實際上是從戰后的透明性，經濟性和穩定性理想中衍生出來的一種對物質的真理精神。

Geisel Library in La Jolla, CA (1968), designed by William Pereira. Photo by Michael Nielsen 加利福尼亞拉荷亞的蓋塞爾圖書館(1968)，威廉·佩雷拉(William Pereira)設計。 邁克爾·尼爾森攝 The Bank of London and South America (1966) in Buenos Aires, designed by Clorindo Testa and SEPRA布宜諾斯艾利斯的倫敦和南美銀行(1966)，由克洛琳多·德斯塔(Crinindo Testa)和SEPRA設計 Kulturzentrum Mattersburg (1976) in Austria, designed by Herwig Udo Graf赫爾維格·烏多·格拉夫(Herwig Udo Graf)設計的奧地利文化馬特斯堡(1976)

People have recently come to the defense of these maligned buildings as they fall into disrepair and become targets for demolition. Brutalist buildings weren’t primarily avant-garde artistic statements — although some are remarkably forward-thinking and provocative — nor were they designed to intimidate inhabitants with monolithic walls and cantilevers. Rather, the style was an attempt to create architecture that honestly reflected purpose and form. Architecture critic Reyner Banham wrote in 1955 that Brutalist buildings exhibit three qualities:

由于這些殘破不堪的建筑物成為拆除的目標，人們最近為這些建筑物辯護 。 野獸派的建筑并不是主要的前衛藝術作品，盡管其中一些具有明顯的前瞻性和挑釁性，但它們的設計目的也不在于用整體墻和懸臂來恐嚇居民。 相反，這種風格是試圖創建能夠真實反映目的和形式的建筑。 建筑評論家雷納·班納姆(Reyner Banham )在1955年寫道 ，野獸派建筑表現出三種品質：

formal legibility of plan,

計劃的正式可讀性

clear exhibition of structure, and

清晰的結構展示，以及

valuation of materials for their inherent qualities ‘as found.’

對材料的固有質量進行“評估”。

Banham formed his definition in part by reflecting on the work of British architects Alison and Peter Smithson whose mid-century buildings anticipated the early phases of Brutalism. Writing about a Soho project in 1953, the Smithsons described what would come to be called “the warehouse aesthetic:” “It is our intention in this building to have the structure exposed entirely, without interior finishes wherever practicable. The contractor should aim at a high standard of basic construction, as in a small warehouse. “

Banham通過反思英國建筑師Alison和Peter Smithson的作品來形成他的定義，他們的世紀中葉建筑預見了野蠻主義的早期階段。 史密森夫婦(Smithsons)在1953年撰寫有關Soho項目的文章時，描述了后來被稱為“倉庫美學”的概念：“我們打算在此建筑物中將結構完全暴露，在可行的情況下不進行內部裝飾。 承包商應針對高標準的基礎建設，例如在小型倉庫中。 “

Brutalist buildings are notable for their use of unadorned materials — “raw” concrete and wood. Yet at the core of the Brutalist ethos is a tension between two philosophies that have been the topic of a long-standing debate in information design: the merits of “seamless” and “seamful” design, “seams” in this context taken to mean revelations of an object’s inner workings.

野獸派建筑以使用未經修飾的材料(“原始”混凝土和木材)而著稱。 但是，野獸派精神的核心是兩種哲學之間的張力，這一直是信息設計領域長期爭論的主題：“無縫”和“無縫”設計的優點，在這種情況下的“接縫”是指物體內部運作的啟示。

It is our intention in this building to have the structure exposed entirely, without interior finishes wherever practicable. The contractor should aim at a high standard of basic construction, as in a small warehouse.

我們打算在此建筑物中將結構完全暴露，在可行的情況下不進行室內裝飾。 承包商應像在小型倉庫中一樣，以高標準的基礎建設為目標。

The debate asks the question, To what extent should an object reveal its structure and operation to the user? Seamless proponents argue that tools should be invisible, disappearing into the task at hand. Mark Weiser, writing about Ubiquitous Computing in 1991, summarizes seamlessness well: “By invisible, I mean that the tool does not intrude on your consciousness; you focus on the task, not the tool.” Designers typically take seamlessness as the de facto standard for our work, emphasizing clarity, consistency, simplicity, efficiency, reducing cognitive load. We seek to minimize distractions.

辯論提出了一個問題：物體應在多大程度上向用戶展示其結構和操作？ 無縫的支持者認為工具應該是不可見的，消失在眼前的任務中。 馬克·韋瑟(Mark Weiser)于1991年撰寫了有關“泛在計算”的文章，很好地總結了無縫性：“不可見，我的意思是該工具不會侵入您的意識； 您專注于任務，而不是工具。” 設計師通常將無縫性作為我們工作的事實上的標準，強調清晰度，一致性，簡單性，效率和減輕認知負擔。 我們力求減少干擾。

Yet what if we can achieve a clearer understanding by intentionally revealing how a system works? Proponents of seamfulness argue that revealing an object’s complexity and operation can aid usability. Chalmers and Galani point out that seamful design allows users to “to selectively focus on or reveal [seams] when the task is to understand or even change the infrastructure.” Interactive explorable explanations are some of the best examples of information design that facilitate understanding. They don’t banish complexity, but rather progressively-disclose it to the user as they reveal the system. The concept of meta-moments is another example of seamful design, in which moments of reflection are prompted by thoughtful use of friction in UI design.

但是，如果我們可以通過有意揭示系統的工作原理來獲得更清晰的了解，該怎么辦？ 支持者認為，揭示對象的復雜性和操作性可以幫助提高可用性。 Chalmers和Galani 指出 ，無縫設計允許用戶“在任務是了解甚至改變基礎架構時有選擇地關注或揭示[接縫]。” 交互式可探究性解釋是有助于理解的信息設計的一些最佳示例。 它們不會消除復雜性，而是在揭示系統時逐步將其公開給用戶。 元時刻的概念是無縫設計的另一個示例，其中思考的時刻是通過在UI設計中謹慎使用摩擦而引起的。

Seamlessness emphasizes concealment; seamfulness emphasizes transparency. In architecture, Brutalism’s ethos of transparency was partly a response to the buttoned-up modernist International Style. And on the web, Brutalist websites can be seen as a response to the polished visual style of Material Design and Apple’s Human Interface guidelines.

無縫性強調隱蔽性； 無縫性強調透明度。 在建筑方面，野獸派的透明性在一定程度上是對固定的現代主義國際風格的回應。 在網絡上，野獸派網站可以看作是對Material Design設計的優美視覺風格和Apple人機界面指南的回應。

The International Style of architecture, popularized by architects Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, was known for its abundant use of steel, glass, and concrete, yet architects in the 1960s turned away from its “rigid formal monotony” as they looked for more diverse architectural possibilities (The Art Story). Although aesthetically similar to Brutalism, the International Style came to feel homogenous, predictable, and generic. Photo by Eric Allix Rogers 由建筑師米斯·范德羅(Mies van der Rohe)和沃爾特·格羅皮烏斯(Walter Gropius)推廣的國際建筑風格，因其大量使用鋼，玻璃和混凝土而聞名，但在1960年代，建筑師們尋求其“剛性正式單調”時卻放棄了多樣的建筑可能性(藝術故事)。 盡管在美學上與野獸派相似，但國際風格卻變得同質，可預測且通用。 埃里克·艾利克斯·羅杰斯(Eric Allix Rogers)攝

The anti-art aesthetic has become the face of Web Brutalism because it’s fun and edgy and all the cool kids are doing it. Yet Deville’s purists, minimalists, and anti-ists are all asking, in their own way, what it means to make something on the web that is true to the web. Where is authenticity to be found? In adherence to traditional web markup, or in elegant minimalism, or maybe in the goofy spontaneity of the early web? Are David Copeland’s principles a truer representation of “fidelity to materials” of the web than Google’s Material philosophy? What is the true material of the web? Is it markup, or is it microchips and physical telecommunication networks? Or is it motion, like Frank Chimero argues in “ What Screens Want?” When the Smithsons placed the water heater for the Hunstanton Secondary School prominently above the school’s roofline, they weren’t just revealing the building’s infrastructure, they were reveling in it. What does it look like to do this on the web?

反藝術美學已成為Web野蠻主義的代名詞，因為它既有趣又前衛，并且所有酷酷的孩子都在這樣做。 然而，Deville的純粹主義者，極簡主義者和反主義者都以自己的方式問，在網絡上制作對網絡真實的東西意味著什么。 在哪里可以找到真實性？ 是遵循傳統的Web標記，還是優雅的極簡主義，或者是早期Web愚蠢的自發性？ 大衛·科普蘭(David Copeland)的原則是否比Google的“ 材料”哲學更真實地表示“材料的逼真度”？ 網絡的真正內容是什么？ 是標記，還是微芯片和物理電信網絡？ 還是動議 ，就像弗蘭克·希梅羅(Frank Chimero)在“ 什么屏幕想要什么？”中所說的那樣。 當史密森一家將漢斯坦頓中學的熱水器放在學校屋頂上方的顯眼位置時，他們不僅在揭示建筑物的基礎設施，還陶醉其中。 在網絡上執行此操作看起來像什么？

Hunstanton Secondary School (1954) in Norfolk, England, designed by Alison and Peter Smithson. Photo by Anna Armstrong (2011) 由艾莉森(Alison)和彼得·史密森(Peter Smithson)設計的英格蘭諾福克郡的漢斯坦頓中學(1954)。 安娜·阿姆斯特朗(2011)

Of course there’s no single answer, because the web is simultaneously a physical and digital medium. It is material and it isn’t. It depends on how literally you interpret the question. But taking it somewhere in-between, seeing the web as primarily an information medium, we can ask the question a little differently: what does it look like to design something that is true to the material of digital information?

當然，沒有唯一的答案，因為網絡同時是物理和數字媒體。 它是物質，不是物質。 這取決于您對問題的理解。 但是，將其作為中間的一種方式，將網絡視為主要的信息媒介，我們可以提出一些不同的問題：設計出符合數字信息內容的東西看起來像什么？

I’ve been thinking about this as I spend more time using Notion, an application designed for organizing and sharing information. At first glance, it doesn’t seem all that different from the Evernotes and Google Keeps of the world. It allows you to create pages which include calendars, to do lists, image galleries, tables, and the like. What makes it different than other note-taking tools is its flexibility: a page can contain just a calendar, or it can contain text, images, video embeds, all of which are treated as defined, linkable content blocks.

我一直在考慮這個問題，因為我花了更多時間使用Notion (一種用于組織和共享信息的應用程序)。 乍一看，它與世界上的Evernotes和Google Keeps似乎并沒有什么不同。 它允許您創建包含日歷，任務列表，圖像畫廊，表格等的頁面。 它與其他筆記記錄工具的不同之處在于它的靈活性：頁面可以僅包含日歷，也可以包含文本，圖像，視頻嵌入，所有這些都被視為已定義的可鏈接內容塊。

Notion’s flexibility is too unrestricted and ambiguous for some. The app doesn’t prescribe an organizing structure to information, allowing you to nest and combine pages and content in whatever way makes sense for you and your work. Yet it has very clear structures for the types of content blocks that can be created: something is either a video, or a heading, or quote, and is styled and formatted accordingly.

對于某些人來說，概念的靈活性過于寬松和模棱兩可。 該應用程序沒有規定信息的組織結構，允許您以對您和您的工作有意義的任何方式嵌套和組合頁面和內容。 但是，對于可以創建的內容塊的類型，它具有非常清晰的結構：某些東西可以是視頻，也可以是標題或引號，并相應地設置樣式和格式。

This, I think, is the brilliance of Notion, and what makes it one of the best examples of “fidelity to digital information” that I’ve come across. The structure of the app reflects the structure of the web itself: digital content is purposefully formatted, like semantic HTML elements, and exists in a hierarchical structure (directories on the web, nested pages in Notion), yet can be linked and referenced to create a complex network of information. And pages in Notion reveal the structure of the information: when nesting a page within a page, the child page always displays on the parent page. There’s no way to create a child page that doesn’t display on a parent page, no way to obscure the structure of the information. The semantic structure of Notion reflects the semantic structure of the web itself.

我認為，這就是概念的光輝，這使其成為我遇到的“忠實于數字信息”的最好例子之一。 該應用程序的結構反映了Web本身的結構：數字內容經過專門格式化，就像語義HTML元素一樣，并以分層結構(Web上的目錄，Notion中的嵌套頁面)存在，但可以鏈接和引用以創建復雜的信息網絡。 而Notion中的頁面則揭示了信息的結構：在頁面中嵌套頁面時，子頁面始終顯示在父頁面上。 無法創建不會顯示在父頁面上的子頁面，也無法掩蓋信息的結構。 概念的語義結構反映了Web本身的語義結構。

Habitat 67 in Montreal (1967), designed by Moshe Sadie. Its plan of modular blocks form a kind of architectural proto-Notion. 莫西·薩迪(Moshe Sadie)設計的蒙特利爾人居67號(1967年)。 它的模塊化塊計劃構成了一種建筑原型。

Which brings us back to seams, and Web Brutalism. By the looks of it, Notion isn’t an exemplar of the style. It’s a highly-polished consumer app, technically complex, and goes far beyond the strictures of vanilla HTML markup. Yet it thoughtfully balances the tension between seamfulness and seamlessness, revelation and disclosure at the heart of the Brutalist ethos. The app reflects ideas of information design that inspired the web itself, which makes sense given their admiration of early web pioneers like Doug Englebart.

這使我們回到了接縫和網絡野蠻主義。 從外觀上看，Notion并不是這種風格的典范。 這是一個經過高度拋光的消費者應用程序，技術復雜，并且遠遠超出了原始HTML標記的限制。 然而，它在野蠻主義精神的核心思想上平衡了無縫性與無縫性，啟示和公開之間的張力。 該應用程序反映了信息設計的思想，這些思想啟發了網絡本身，這對早期Doug Englebart等早期網絡先驅者的欽佩是有道理的。

The concept of seamfulness prompts designers to ask how an object can aid understanding and usage by showing its users what’s going on inside. How can we create what Mark Weiser, later revising his ideas of seamless design, calls “beautiful seams” — thoughtfully-crafted moments of revelation? Notion doesn’t show us how it’s literally working — the background processes constantly running to enable editing, collaboration, and the like. We don’t need to see our car’s engine to know it’s running. But it shows users how their understanding is working, how our ideas are structured, connected, and evolving. The app is reminiscent of Kedit, a program essayist John McPhee asked a friend to develop for him:

無縫性的概念促使設計者提出一個問題，即向對象展示用戶內部的情況如何幫助理解和使用。 我們怎樣才能創造出馬克·韋瑟(Mark Weiser)，后來修改他的無縫設計理念，將其稱為“美麗的接縫”-精心設計的啟示時刻？ 概念并沒有向我們展示它實際上是如何工作的-后臺進程不斷運行以啟用編輯，協作等功能。 我們不需要看汽車的引擎就可以知道它在運行。 但是它向用戶顯示了他們的理解是如何工作的，我們的思想是如何構成，聯系和發展的。 該應用讓人想起Kedit，程序散文作者John McPhee 要求一個朋友為他開發：

Kedit did not paginate, italicize, approve of spelling, or screw around with headers, wysiwygs, thesauruses, dictionaries, footnotes, or Sanskrit fonts. Instead, [Howard J. Strauss, then-head of Princeton’s Office of Information Technology] wrote programs to run with Kedit in imitation of the way I had gone about things for two and a half decades…Howard thought the computer should be adapted to the individual and not the other way around. One size fits one. The programs he wrote for me were molded like clay to my requirements-an appealing approach to anything called an editor.

Kedit不會對頁眉，斜體，批準拼寫進行分頁，也不使用標頭，所見即所得，敘詞表，字典，腳注或梵語字體擰緊。 相反，[普林斯頓大學信息技術辦公室主任霍華德·斯特勞斯(Howard J. Strauss)編寫了與Kedit一起運行的程序，以模仿我過去二十五年來的處事方式……霍華德認為計算機應該適合于個人，而不是相反。 一種尺寸適合一種。 他為我編寫的程序完全符合我的要求，對任何稱為“編輯器”的人來說都是有吸引力的方法。

Prior to using Kedit, McPhee would document notes on individual notecards, then arrange and rearrange them on his kitchen table or living room floor as he organized the structure of his essays. What he lost visually in using Kedit, no longer seeing groups of notecards on the floor, he gained in a searchable, flexible database of information that gave him an effective way to shape knowledge in idiosyncratic ways.

在使用Kedit之前，McPhee會將筆記記錄在單個筆記卡上，然后在他整理論文結構時在廚房的桌子或客廳地板上進行整理和重新排列。 他在使用Kedit時在視覺上失去了什么，不再在地板上看到成組的記錄卡，而是在一個可搜索的靈活信息數據庫中獲得了知識，這為他提供了一種以特有的方式塑造知識的有效方法。

This is the essence and opportunity of Web Brutalism: more than a utilitarian aesthetic, it’s a way of creating spaces for thought and expression on the web that reflect the nature of thought and the web. The best tools — digital or otherwise — give enough structure and flexibility for the task at hand. When that task is thinking, the best tools reflect the way that thinking happens, a meandering, back-and-forth process of exploring and refining our hunches and questions and notions.

這是網絡野蠻主義的本質和機遇：它不僅僅是一種實用主義的美學，它還是一種在網絡上創造思想和表達空間的方式，以反映思想和網絡的本質。 最好的工具(無論是數字工具還是其他工具)都可以為當前任務提供足夠的結構和靈活性。 當任務正在思考時，最好的工具會反映思考的方式，這是探索和完善我們的直覺，問題和觀念的曲折，反復的過程。

Originally posted on viget.com

最初發布于 viget.com

Bay Area Black Designers: a professional development community for Black people who are digital designers and researchers in the San Francisco Bay Area. By joining together in community, members share inspiration, connection, peer mentorship, professional development, resources, feedback, support, and resilience. Silence against systemic racism is not an option. Build the design community you believe in.海灣地區黑人設計師 ：一個專業的黑人開發社區，他們是舊金山灣區的數字設計師和研究人員。 通過在社區中團結起來，成員可以共享靈感，聯系，同伴指導，專業發展，資源，反饋，支持和韌性。 對系統性種族主義保持沉默是不可行的。 建立您相信的設計社區。

翻譯自: https://uxdesign.cc/web-brutalism-seamfulness-and-notion-8004b89751a2

主模式和野蠻模式

總結

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的主模式和野蛮模式_网络野蛮行为的含混性和观念的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網站內容還不錯，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。