一致性設計

重點 (Top highlight)

If we ask any design system advocate what are the main reasons to build and maintain a design system, chances are ‘Consistency’ will come up as first or second in their list, together with the ‘A single source of truth’ point, which is pretty much saying the same, with different words. This reasoning is valid but incomplete, and it could lead to a wrong product strategy and overall poor results.

如果我們問任何設計系統的擁護者，構建和維護設計系統的主要原因是什么，那么“一致性”將在其列表中排在第一或第二，同時出現“單一真相”點，這就是說的差不多，只是話不同。 這種推理是有效的但不完整，并且可能導致錯誤的產品策略和總體較差的結果。

設計一致性是錯誤的方法 (Consistency in Design is the Wrong Approach)

There are 3 major problems with a ‘consistency focus’ approach:

“一致性焦點”方法存在3個主要問題:

1. It is artificial. When designing for consistency, we are not only ignoring our users but focusing on administrative and maintenance tasks instead. Nothing can’t be further from the real purpose of a human-centred system. Uniformity might look good on paper, but it is boring, disconnected from the real use cases, and most importantly, it is inefficient.

1.是人造的。 在設計一致性時，我們不僅會忽略我們的用戶，而且會專注于管理和維護任務。 以人為中心的系統的真正目的無外乎。 一致性在紙上看起來不錯，但它很無聊，與實際用例脫節，最重要的是，效率低下。

In his article ‘Consistency in Design is the Wrong Approach’, Jared M. Spool explains it perfectly:

Jared M. Spool在他的文章“ 設計的一致性就是錯誤的方法 ”中完美地解釋了這一點:

The problem with thinking in terms of consistency is that those thoughts focus purely on the design and the user can get lost. “Is what I’m designing consistent with other things we’ve designed (or others have designed)?” is the wrong question to ask.

從一致性方面進行思考的問題在于，這些思想僅集中在設計上，用戶可能會迷失方向。 “我設計的內容是否與我們設計的(或其他人設計的)其他東西一致？” 是個錯誤的問題。

2. It is rigid. A system -to provide us with satisfactory results- needs to be able to change itself, to accommodate and maximise the benefits of constant change. If we aim for consistency above efficiency, we simply are building a monolithic structure with no capacity to respond to the natural product fluctuations: The users needs and behaviour, software and hardware updates or marketing campaigns, to name a few.

2.它是剛性的。 一個為我們提供令人滿意的結果的系統需要能夠自我改變，以適應不斷變化的利益并使之最大化。 如果我們追求高于效率的一致性，那么我們只是在建立一個沒有能力應對自然產品波動的整體結構:用戶的需求和行為，軟件和硬件更新或營銷活動等等。

3. It kills innovation. As Oscar Wilde said: “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.” A consistent system is something relatively easy to achieve, but building one that works is a completely different story.

3.它扼殺了創新。 正如奧斯卡·王爾德(Oscar Wilde)所說:“生活中只有兩個悲劇:一個沒有得到一個想要的，而另一個卻得到了。” 一致的系統相對容易實現，但是構建一個有效的系統則完全不同。

Achieving consistency is easier than the ongoing ‘sweet’ struggle of creating new and thriving solutions, taking risks, exploring the unexplored and breaking parts of the system to rebuild them again. If we make of consistency our primary goal, we can end up rejecting everything that threads that consistency, and with this, the first thing to die in our process will be newborn ideas.

實現一致性要比正在進行的“甜蜜”奮斗要容易得多，后者正在努力創建新的，蓬勃發展的解決方案，冒險，探索系統中尚未探索和破壞的部分來重新構建它們。 如果我們將一致性作為我們的主要目標，那么我們最終可能會拒絕一切貫徹一致性的東西，由此，我們流程中首先要消亡的就是新生的想法。

Of the 2 tragedies presented by Mr. Wilde, I personally would choose the first one. That’s the one that keeps us moving.

在王爾德先生提出的兩個悲劇中，我個人會選擇第一個。 那是使我們前進的動力。

連貫性設計 (Design for Coherence)

Consistency and coherence might seem like very similar concepts, but they are fundamentally different. Consistency’s sole purpose is to make the elements of a system uniform. It is about how similar the parts look and feel throughout the entire system. On the other hand, coherence aims for clarity. It is about how well something is understood and if it makes sense. If a system is coherent, it will be clear and easy to understand.

一致性和連貫性可能看起來非常相似，但是本質上是不同的。 一致性的唯一目的是使系統的元素統一。 這是關于零件在整個系統中的外觀和感覺有多相似。 另一方面，連貫性是為了清楚起見。 它是關于某種事物的理解程度以及它是否有意義。 如果系統是連貫的，它將是清晰且易于理解的。

Applying coherence over consistency will enable us to build a better, more resilience and flexible system:

在一致性上應用一致性將使我們能夠構建更好，更具彈性和靈活性的系統:

1. It is natural. When designing for coherence your focus is not just on building and maintaining the user interface elements, but on the problem you are trying to solve and the people you are trying to help. Everything else will be subject to this. Modifying the user interface won’t be a problem as long as it is properly planned and responding to what Jared M. Spool calls the user’s ‘current knowledge’, which is basically how much the user knows when interacting with your product as a result of the sum of previous experiences.

1.自然。 在設計一致性時，您的重點不僅在于構建和維護用戶界面元素，還在于您要解決的問題以及您要幫助的人員。 其他所有內容都將受此約束。 只要適當地計劃了用戶界面并響應Jared M. Spool所說的用戶的“當前知識”，修改用戶界面就不會成為問題，這基本上是用戶與產品交互時所了解的知識。先前經驗的總和。

Funny thing about thinking about current knowledge: when you’re done, your interface will feel consistent. Why? Because it will match the users’ expectations and, where they expect it to behave like something they’ve encountered before, it does. — Jared M. Spool

關于當前知識的思考很有趣:完成后，您的界面將保持一致。 為什么？ 因為它可以滿足用戶的期望，并且可以滿足用戶期望的行為，就像以前遇到的一樣。 —賈里德·史普

2. It is flexible. Flexibility can take many shapes when working on products/systems, from strategic, to organisational, decision or operations flexibility. Developing a coherent system easy to understand requires covering the wide range of flexibility types to iterate as often and quickly as needed. Luckily, this is aligned with the need of the system to respond to the constant changes mentioned before.

2.靈活。 在產品/系統上工作時，靈活性可以有多種形式，從戰略，組織，決策或運營靈活性。 開發一個易于理解的一致系統需要覆蓋各種靈活性類型，以便根據需要頻繁且快速地進行迭代。 幸運的是，這符合系統對前面提到的不斷變化做出響應的需要。

A coherent approach not only will benefit this important aspect of the system, but it will enhance it. How? For instance, instead of trying to get everyone to use the ‘right’ button, focus on facilitating that everyone contributes to the system by enhancing or creating new buttons if needed. By changing the approach, the users (product teams) will go from being the consumers to the main contributors of the system.

連貫的方法不僅會有益于系統的這一重要方面，而且會增強它。 怎么樣？ 例如，與其嘗試使每個人都使用“正確”按鈕，不如著重于通過增強或創建新按鈕(如果需要)來促進每個人對系統做出貢獻。 通過更改方法，用戶(產品團隊)將從原來的消費者變成系統的主要貢獻者。

3. A fertile soil for innovation. A coherent design system benefits innovation, but this alone is not enough. Innovation alone often fails to align with the strategic needs of the systems or the problems of the users. Having clarity as the primary purpose of a coherence focus system naturally adds boundaries to the space where innovation happens. Wait, but innovation with boundaries? Yes, and this is something good, since it doesn’t limit our capacity to think out of the box and bring new ideas to the tables, but adds a clear purpose to these ideas and brings the focus back to what is important: A system that works and serves efficiently its users.

3.創新的沃土。 連貫的設計系統有益于創新，但僅此還不夠。 單靠創新往往無法滿足系統的戰略需求或用戶的問題。 將清晰度作為一致性焦點系統的主要目的自然會為創新發生的空間增加邊界。 等待，但是創新有邊界嗎？ 是的，這是一件好事，因為它不限制我們開箱即用的思想和將新思想帶到桌面的能力，但可以為這些思想添加明確的目的并使重點重新回到重要的方面:系統可以有效地為其用戶提供服務。

結論 (Conclusion)

Thinking of consistency as the primary goal of your product or design system can result in clean libraries, tidy components and many things feeling and looking the same, but this doesn’t equal a good experience for your users. Instead, we should design for coherence, tailored solutions for multiple and diverse use cases and advocate for the right balance of flexibility and automation. I believe this is achievable by looking at our systems through the lenses of more scalable human-centred solutions, and this is where coherence comes into play.

將一致性視為產品或設計系統的主要目標可能會導致干凈的庫，整潔的組件以及許多感覺相同的外觀，但這對于您的用戶而言并不等于好的體驗。 代替， 我們應該針對一致性設計，針對多種多樣的用例量身定制的解決方案，并倡導靈活性與自動化之間的適當平衡。 我認為，這可以通過以更具擴展性的以人為中心的解決方案來查看我們的系統來實現，而這正是一致性發揮作用的地方。

Thank you for reading!

感謝您的閱讀！

This article was written with Writty. ?

本文是用Writty撰寫的。 :鉛筆:

翻譯自: https://blog.prototypr.io/design-for-coherence-not-consistency-8d890760dc4c

一致性設計

總結

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的一致性设计，而不是一致性的全部內容，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。