工業(yè)設計畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　畢業(yè)論文（設計）</b></p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　題 目： 交互設計是什么？ </p><p>　　系部名稱： 機械工程系 專業(yè)班級： 工設081 </p>&l

2、t;p>　　學生姓名： ** 學 號： 200780714107 </p><p>　　指導教師： 孫東* 教師職稱： 講師 </p><p><b>　　2012年4月5日</b></p><p><b>　　交互設計是什么?</b></p&g

3、t;<p>　　像電動機械、無線電廣播、機構連接、機械部件等，都是相對于電子元件以直接的方式展現(xiàn)。當我們轉動撥號盤，我們的指尖和肌肉都會有所感受。自從有了電腦，無論距離有多遠，都可以聯(lián)系在一起。它可以體現(xiàn)在兩個方面：一方面，通過鍵盤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。所以有了電腦，我們可以更直接的了解訊息。但是我們的物質世界和電腦的虛擬世界相比相差很大。</p>

4、<p>　　在這個時期，我們需要一種清晰的思維模式為我們所用，舉一個實例,早期使用腳本系統(tǒng)的蘋果電腦，有一個很完整的系統(tǒng)模式，就像是堆積起來的卡片：對需要完成的工作都有一個精確地模擬，以及如何計劃這個項目的運作。同時，對用戶來說就像是在翻閱卡片，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的。但是，由于種種原因這種方式?jīng)]有使用到更多的應用程序中。</p><p>　　良好的設計系統(tǒng)體

5、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做到了。舉一個例子,當我們在鍵盤上輸入時，我們做到的不僅僅是字符出現(xiàn)在屏幕上，同時我們也能感覺到鍵盤的敲打，以及聽見鍵盤所發(fā)出的滴答聲。早期的時候我經(jīng)常使用命令處理器去做一些重復的事情，或者做一個鍵入命令的序列“tetick，tick，tick-tick；tetick，tick，tick-tick.”如果它變成了“tick，tetick，tock”我就知道我做錯了。對于我來說，聽覺反饋

6、的速度要比視覺反饋的速度快。</p><p>　　仔細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。你需要知道你在哪個界面，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出所有的可能性，清楚的告訴你怎樣進入和提示你將要做什么。</p><p>　　同樣重要的就是一致性。在系統(tǒng)中的一個命令應該和系統(tǒng)的其他部分具有同樣的效果

7、。舉一個例如,不久前,蘋果工具之一的第一綜合辦公程序蘋果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。一個命令可以在數(shù)據(jù)庫中做完全相同的文字處理，無論你在哪里，退出鍵都可以帶你返回上一層面，你不會迷失和較多的犯錯誤。與現(xiàn)代“整合”的應用程序相比較，這種形式的一致性是令人滿意的，但也是較難實現(xiàn)的。</p><p>　

8、　當我們與日常生活中的產(chǎn)品交互時，例如一輛汽車，我們不需要花太多的時間去考慮互動，我們應該想一想我們的交互設計，我們想做的事情。直觀的交互能減少負擔對意識思維的影響，使意識更好的操作于某個系統(tǒng)，讓我們把精力集中在我們的目標。一個很好的例子就是夸克軟件，可以讓你在不知不覺中放大圖象，按住兩個鍵并且點擊就可以看清你想看的了，這就像是在移動你的目光，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，時刻把注

9、意力放在我們得工作上。</p><p>　　當我們設計了一個計算機系統(tǒng)或者是設備，我們要設計的不僅僅是它的樣子，而是它如何運轉，品質如何，以及它們之間的相互作用。這就是交互設計師所應具備的技能，它的部分反映有：當你移動你的鼠標，比如：感覺它遲鈍、凜冽或明快？當你操作你的iPod表盤，結合聲音和感覺，就像告訴你正在做什么，這些都是微妙和令人滿意的。我們可以設計互動的品質，與我們所看到的，我們所聽到的，或有相同的感覺

10、的相結合。</p><p>　　但是，互動的品質必須有適當?shù)沫h(huán)境。一個冒險游戲需要一個互動微妙的氛圍和有趣的具有挑戰(zhàn)性的導航欄，中央控制系統(tǒng)提供了這些品質。</p><p>　　當新技術出現(xiàn)時，我們一般都會想到熟悉的場景。當電影開始的時候，人們會認為它是用攝影機對著戲院舞臺，而聲音是與之分離的。只到語言的徹底利用，電影獨一無二的品質才彰顯出來。然而舊的模式從未逝去它的有效性：電影繼續(xù)使用著

11、戲劇和小說，它們只是增添了新的語言形式。</p><p>　　我認為交互設計與早期的影片有著相似的階段。到目前為止，我們還沒有充分發(fā)展語言的交互技術。所以我們?nèi)孕枰梃b前面創(chuàng)造的語言模式。因為它可以幫助這些語言進行分類，根據(jù)他們的“標準”：:一維、平面、立體、四維。</p><p>　　一維包括單詞和詩歌。例如：他們在情景的表達中能否精確的運用詞匯？這些詞匯是否具有連貫性？同時與你所想象的

12、“語氣”相比，是否他們有太多的唐突、傲慢，或者不健談？</p><p>　　二維交互設計的語言可以借用包括繪畫、排版、圖形和圖表。當我們看到一幅畫，即使它不是代表性的，但它也不難解釋為一個透視空間。我們可以使用這樣的成分更深層次的表現(xiàn)當前重要的元素。我們可以用我們熟知的、慣用的技術運用到屏幕的結構中去。同時以時間的不同來區(qū)分音色和語言的意義。我們也可以利用語言的圖表和信息的搜集來說明錯綜復雜的事物，從而讓人更好的

13、理解。另一種二維交互設計的語言是運用計算機接口，以圖標的形式讓事物微小簡化，從而闡述一個較大的概念或事物的立場。</p><p>　　三維語言是以物體、雕塑的形式。一個動態(tài)的產(chǎn)品設計，是以“產(chǎn)品語義學”探索人們?nèi)绾卫斫獠煌囊卦诋a(chǎn)品中的表現(xiàn)。如果事情有一個機會，例如，我們知道我們是為了抓住它，或者遇到比它的頂點還要大的基地，經(jīng)驗表明我們應該重力保持基地的下跌。設計師使用這門語言將事情弄清楚，但有時也可以抱有期望

14、，插入一些驚喜與原本的智慧，否側可能都是平凡無奇的。</p><p>　　第四維度是時間。四維語言包括聲音、影視和動畫。在20世紀80年代比爾Gaver6設計了優(yōu)美的音樂界面--無線電聲波，提升了蘋果桌面：當你丟棄了一個文件夾，它會變成另外一種顏色，同時發(fā)出了根據(jù)其內(nèi)存大小聲音。這樣提供了很好的反饋，不僅聽起來很好，而且還適合他們的目的。另一個重要的四維語言是電影：在二十秒一個的電視廣告里，就能告訴我們一個復雜的

15、故事，而且內(nèi)容能被每個人所了解。一個多世紀以來動畫的發(fā)展較快，他們通過有限的手段表達情節(jié)、情感、期望和行動。</p><p>　　我們正在設計一個公眾能夠理解的豐富的但同時又不同于這些的語言：對話框、圖形、印刷和三維形態(tài)、音、影視和動畫。這使得事情變得困難，因為沒有人能流利的掌握這些語言。我們必須聯(lián)同那些有其他技能和經(jīng)驗的設計師，使交互設計師永遠不可能成為一個隱士。</p><p>　　然

16、而，經(jīng)歷二十年多年的繪畫到現(xiàn)有的表現(xiàn)語言，我們現(xiàn)在需要發(fā)展一個獨立的交互語言與智能系統(tǒng)和設備，一個真實的語言計算中心，網(wǎng)絡媒介和電信。從感性心理學，我們開始明白在人與設備或系統(tǒng)功能范圍內(nèi)的互動：響應速度，也就是說，一個小范圍的交際能力。但是在象征性的水平，情緒，社交能力和文明的意義，我們還沒有達到驚人的創(chuàng)新。</p><p>　　本書講述了一些交互設計師的故事，都是非常有意義和快樂的，然而，重要的是這本書建議我們

17、，要用自己的方式來探索交互設計。</p><p>　　本文摘譯自《What Is Interaction Design》</p><p>　　What Is Interaction Design</p><p>　　An electromechanical object, a radio say, links its physical mechanical comp

18、onents 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, however, the distance between, on one hand, keystro

19、kes 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 virtual world seem miles apart.</p><p>

20、　　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 Apple, had a very clear mental model, a stack of ca

21、rds: 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 design reinforced this metaphor. Sadly, the same can

22、’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 keyboard, for example, we can tell what we’ve just don

23、e 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 to do something repetitive, I often had to do a seq

24、uence 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 essential, particularly with things that are primarily

25、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 influential in this way.The menu at the top of the s

26、creen 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 command in one part of the system should have the same

27、 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 “ransom-note” characters on a black screen, and ver

28、y 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 processor; where</p><p>　　When we inte

29、ract 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. Intuitive interaction minimizes the burden of conscious th

30、ought 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 holding down two keys and clicking on what you wan

31、ted 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 how it behaves. We’re designing the quality of how

32、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 sprightly? When you manipulate your iPod dial, the

33、 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 qualities of interaction must be appropriate to the contex

34、t. An adventure game needs an interaction offering subtlety of atmosphere and intriguingly challenging navigation; central-heating control systems offering these qualities, however, would be as welcome as a fire alarm wi

35、th 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. When cinema started, people thought of it as pointi

36、ng 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</p><p>　　exploited, the unique qualitie

37、s 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 and the novel. They are just augmented by the new l

38、anguages.</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 unique to interactive technology. So we are still dr

39、awing 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>　　1-D includes words and poetry. Are the words in a

40、 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 abrupt and imperious, or too cloyingly conversational

41、?</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 it’s not representational, it’s difficult not to in

42、terpret 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 can use the familiar hierarchical conventions of typ

43、ography to structure the screen, and our shared sensitivity to minute differences in</p><p>　　3-D languages are those of physical, sculptural form. One movement in product design, “product semantics,” explor

44、es 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 base bigger than its apex, our experience of gravit

45、y 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 </p><p>　　The fourth dimension is time.

46、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 Desktop: when you dropped a folder into another folder, i

47、t 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 poetic and appropriate for their purpose. Another impo

48、rtant 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 for more than a century, so that with very limited

49、 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 languages: dialog, graphics, typography, 3-D form,

50、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 experience.An interaction designer can never be a hermi

51、t.</p><p>　　However, after twenty years of drawing on existing expressive languages, we now need to develop an independent language of interaction with “smart systems and devices, a language true to the medi

52、um of computation, networks, and telecommunications. In terms of perceptual psychology, we’re starting to understand the functional limits of interaction between people and devices or systems: speed of response, say, or

53、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 making interactive products useful, meaningful and jo