事物要不是從無發展出來，就是走向無。當傍晚降臨郊野，旅人尋覓擋風遮雨的掩蔽處。他發現到處都長滿高聳的燈芯草，於是割下一捆捆的草，將它們豎立在原野上，並將頂部綁緊豎好，就這樣，一座草屋出現了。第二天早上，在繼續接下來的行程之前，他鬆開燈芯草束，一瞬間草屋又瓦解消失，回歸成為廣大草原上的草堆之一。表面上原野恢復原樣，但遮蔽處的短暫蹤跡仍然保留。燈芯草上總會有輕微扭曲或彎折過的痕跡，而在草屋夜宿的記憶也會留存在旅人 – 還有正在閱讀這篇文章的讀者 – 的腦海中。wabi-sabi最純粹、最理想的表現形式，就正是關於這些褪淡的痕跡、薄弱的證據，遊走在無的邊界上。
– Leonard Koren，《Wabi-Sabi：給設計者、生活家的日式美學基礎》
在《Wabi-Sabi：給設計者、生活家的日式美學基礎》這本很快就能讀完一遍，但是不知道到底讀懂多少的小書當中，這是我最喜歡的一段文字。
英文原版下載請到這邊。
中文翻譯版下載則是這邊。
第一次看到這本小書，是在網路上搜尋usability相關資料，逛到了Userfocus的網站時碰巧看到的。當時下載的是英文版的pdf。
後來參加insight舉辦的UX夏日聚活動，當娟姐講到她們做的平版電腦介面測試時，發現測試照片裡出現了一本叫做「一則關於用戶導向設計師的寓言故事」的電子書。回來之後搜尋了一下，在這邊找到了中文翻譯版。
其實這本小書裡頭的資訊量不高，如果你對UCD已經有些概念，大概不會覺得學到很多新東西。不過它仍是本有意思的小書，而且透過小故事來呈現內容，多少也為讀者留下一些自己發展與詮釋的空間，如果有空的話，倒也不妨花點時間讀讀。
張貼於閱讀::Reading, 雜談::Talk
你不需要在每個產品開發專案的前期，特別為這個專案做使用者研究。
為什麼？因為這些研究是平常就應該持續進行的，要做產品或服務的開發時，手邊應該已經有不少可用的現成研究資料才對。
Norman爺有一篇文章《Act First, Do the Research Later》，提到了五個他認為不見得要把design research當成產品/服務開發專案起手式的理由。而上面我所提到的，正是其中的一個(The researchers should always be studying the domain)。
Norman爺提到的五個理由包含了：
1. Case studies of products done without design research.
2. Experienced designers have a lot of pre-existing knowledge.
3. The researchers should always be studying the domain.
4. Too much research can inhibit creativity.
5. When the product is launched and the team assembled, it is already too late.
附帶一提，Norman爺的文章千萬不能只看標題就當結論，最好花點時間看內文。因為他經常會下很聳動的標題，但文章裡才會把標題要成立的各種但書或前提寫出來。
以下摘錄部分我閱讀時畫線的內容：
I find that in my design consulting, I will sometimes skip the research phase. Act first, then analyze and think about it afterwards. I can get away with this because I did the necessary research over the preceding years: I have a lot of pre-existing knowledge.
======================================
All fields have their bodies of pre-existing knowledge, thereby allowing skilled practitioners to act without apparent research or planning. That is, others have done the thinking for us: we can simply act, replying upon the existing wisdom to guide us.
======================================
I argued that we should not even bother to try to start with research. Instead, design researchers should always be studying the relevant issues. After all, the design researchers in a company know what kinds of products the company is interested in. Then when a project starts, hey guess what, the research has already been done.
======================================
I learned that reading and becoming expert at the existing research literature created a delicate tradeoff.
…(中略)…
Read too much of the existing literature about what previous researchers have thought and done and you will follow in their footsteps. This means that you will also encounter the same dead ends.
…(中略)…
But, and this is a most important 『but』: whenever I do this myself (which is frequent), and whenever I urge my students to do this, I then require extensive literature review after their work has gotten underway. This is to avoid what has already been done
======================================
But one important reason for design research is to influence and shape these decisions, to suggest new approaches and to ensure that real needs of the intended audience are met. The place for design research is at the executive table where the decisions are being made.
======================================
Skipping the research phase is only appropriate when, as I have said, the people doing this already have considerable experience with the situation. They already have considerable pre-existing knowledge. You could say that they have already done the research.
======================================
Yes, I believe that research is important, but it does not have to be done at the start of a design project. It can be done far ahead of time, or even just afterwards. Good designers should always be engaged in observation, in mentally reviewing and creating artifacts, in sketching, writing, planning and thinking.
…(中略)…
Act first, research later? Well, not quite. Always be researching. Always be acting.
– Donald A. Norman，《Act First, Do the Research Later》
If you’re designing a new product, it’s definitely a good idea to do some field research. You may think you can’t study people because your product idea is so new and innovative, but it really pays to observe and interview people who are doing things the old-fashioned way before you forge ahead and change things.
You may discover that you’re solving the wrong problem, or that there are parts of the old way of doing things that work pretty well — so you should hang on to them.
– Jared Spool，《Field Research Fundamentals: An Interview with Kate Gomoll》
現在回想起來，不管我和客戶溝通時所採用的詞彙是使用者/用戶研究(user research)、設計研究(design research)、脈絡研究(contextual research)、同理研究(empathic research)都一樣，中文名稱後頭的「研究」兩字帶來的困擾似乎多過簡化溝通的好處。
當我在進行用戶「研究」專案時，我真正在做的其實是盡可能的同理使用者，並從他們的生活中獲取靈感與啟發。但「研究」兩字卻容易讓客戶想要從中得到某些反直覺的「真理」，而「真理」恰好是我無法在短短幾個月裡，在與十來個使用者互動後所能提供的東西。
更糟的是，對單一真理結論的渴求，會讓客戶拒絕在專案過程中花心力去同理使用者，所有的情境脈絡與故事細節都成了有趣但並不重要的小插曲。
「請直接告訴我結論。那個單一，直接，我從來沒想過的，反直覺的，而且可以很容易轉換成能賺錢的產品的結論。」客戶的心裡這麼渴求著。
是不是我為了說服客戶投資用戶「研究」，為了迎合客戶的胃口，導致溝通出了問題，導致客戶有錯誤期待呢？
也許Jared Spool的文章是對的，我根本不該去「說服」？可是以台灣現在的環境，如果不去「說服」，難道只能「等」嗎？又或者，「臥底」會是一條出路？
如果我做的不是用戶「研究」專案，我在和客戶交談時，該用什麼詞彙指涉我要做的事情呢？
We believe in going undercover.
We believe in introducing UX from the ground up.
We believe change comes through small victories.
We believe in delivery, not deliverables.
We believe good design today is better than great design next year.
We believe in working with people, not against them.
We believe in action, not words.
– Cennydd Bowles, James Box，《Undercover User Experience Design》
臥底宣言全文請見該書官網上的 The undercover manifesto。
張貼於閱讀::Reading, 話語::Quote
近期迴響