What do you think of when I say the word "design"? You probably think of things like this, finely crafted objects that you can hold in your hand, or maybe logos and posters and maps that visually explain things, classic icons of timeless design. But I'm not here to talk about that kind of design. I want to talk about the kind that you probably use every day and may not give much thought to, designs that change all the time and that live inside your pocket. I'm talking about the design of digital experiences and specifically the design of systems that are so big that their scale can be hard to comprehend. Consider the fact that Google processes over one billion search queries every day, that every minute, over 100 hours of footage are uploaded to YouTube. That's more in a single day than all three major U.S. networks broadcast in the last five years combined. And Facebook transmitting the photos, messages and stories of over 1.23 billion people. That's almost half of the Internet population, and a sixth of humanity.
提到「設計」這個詞時 你想到了什麼? 你可能想到這些東西 可以握在手、精緻製造的東西 或是商標、海報和圖表 這類用視覺傳達事物的東西 永不褪流行的經典圖示設計 但我不是來這裡談這類設計的 我想要談一種 也許你每天都使用 卻很少想到的設計 它時常在變動 也活在你的口袋裡 我說的設計是關於 數位經驗 具體來說系統的設計 它們的規模巨大 很難掌握 想想看 Google 每天處理 超過十億的搜尋次數 每分鐘有超過一百小時的影片 上傳到 Youtube 一天的播出量 比美國三大電視網 過去五年播出的總和還多 使用 Facebook 傳輸照片 照片、訊息和故事 的用戶超過 12.3 億人 幾乎是全世界網路使用者的一半 和全球總人口的六分之一
These are some of the products that I've helped design over the course of my career, and their scale is so massive that they've produced unprecedented design challenges. But what is really hard about designing at scale is this: It's hard in part because it requires a combination of two things, audacity and humility — audacity to believe that the thing that you're making is something that the entire world wants and needs, and humility to understand that as a designer, it's not about you or your portfolio, it's about the people that you're designing for, and how your work just might help them live better lives. Now, unfortunately, there's no school that offers the course Designing for Humanity 101. I and the other designers who work on these kinds of products have had to invent it as we go along, and we are teaching ourselves the emerging best practices of designing at scale, and today I'd like share some of the things that we've learned over the years.
這些是我工作以來 協助設計過的一些產品 它們數量巨大 產生了前所未有的 設計挑戰 但大規模設計 真正困難的是: 它很難 一部分是因為 需要兩種東西的結合: 膽量和謙卑 要有膽量相信你正在做的東西 是全世界想要且需要的 並且謙卑地理解到 身為一個設計師 重點不是你或是你的作品集 而是在於如何對待那些用戶 以及設計的產品是否 能讓他們更好的生活 很不幸 沒有學校 提供「人性設計入門」這門課 我和其他設計這類產品的設計師 是在設計過程慢慢發明這項學問的 我們教導自己 要在實踐中形成 最好的規模設計 今天我想要分享一些 我們這些年學到的東西 首先關於設計規模的規則 你需要知道的是
Now, the first thing that you need to know about designing at scale is that the little things really matter. Here's a really good example of how a very tiny design element can make a big impact. The team at Facebook that manages the Facebook "Like" button decided that it needed to be redesigned. The button had kind of gotten out of sync with the evolution of our brand and it needed to be modernized. Now you might think, well, it's a tiny little button, it probably is a pretty straightforward, easy design assignment, but it wasn't. Turns out, there were all kinds of constraints for the design of this button. You had to work within specific height and width parameters. You had to be careful to make it work in a bunch of different languages, and be careful about using fancy gradients or borders because it has to degrade gracefully in old web browsers. The truth is, designing this tiny little button was a huge pain in the butt.
細節真的很重要 這裡有個很好的例子來解釋 極小的設計元素如何帶來巨大的影響 臉書裡負責「讚」 這個按鈕的團隊 決定它必須被重新設計 這按鈕有點不太跟得上 我們品牌的進化 因此它必須被更新 現在你也許會想 這就只是個小按鈕 它可能是一個 很簡單的設計任務 但並不是 後來 我們設計這個按鈕時 有各種限制 你必須在特定的長寬參數內製作 你必須注意它可以在 不同的語言裡使用 同時要小心使用花俏的漸層或邊界 因為它必須能優雅地降用在 舊的瀏覽器上 事實是 設計這個小小的按鈕 是很令人頭痛的事情 這是這個按鈕的新版
Now, this is the new version of the button, and the designer who led this project estimates that he spent over 280 hours redesigning this button over the course of months. Now, why would we spend so much time on something so small? It's because when you're designing at scale, there's no such thing as a small detail. This innocent little button is seen on average 22 billion times a day and on over 7.5 million websites. It's one of the single most viewed design elements ever created. Now that's a lot of pressure for a little button and the designer behind it, but with these kinds of products, you need to get even the tiny things right.
主導這個專案的設計師估計 他數個月來花了超過280 小時 重新設計這個按鈕 我們為何會花這麼多時間 在這麼小的東西上? 因為當你在做設計規模的時候 是不存在大小之分的 這個單純的小按鈕 每天出現 220 億次 在超過 750 萬個網站上 它是有史以來被檢視最多次的設計元素 這對這個小按鈕 和它背後的設計者來說壓力很大 但在這類產品 即使細微的細節也要做對
Now, the next thing that you need to understand is how to design with data. Now, when you're working on products like this, you have incredible amounts of information about how people are using your product that you can then use to influence your design decisions, but it's not just as simple as following the numbers. Let me give you an example so that you can understand what I mean. Facebook has had a tool for a long time that allowed people to report photos that may be in violation of our community standards, things like spam and abuse. And there were a ton of photos reported, but as it turns out, only a small percentage were actually in violation of those community standards. Most of them were just your typical party photo. Now, to give you a specific hypothetical example, let's say my friend Laura hypothetically uploads a picture of me from a drunken night of karaoke. This is purely hypothetical, I can assure you. (Laughter) Now, incidentally, you know how some people are kind of worried that their boss or employee is going to discover embarrassing photos of them on Facebook? Do you know how hard that is to avoid when you actually work at Facebook? So anyway, there are lots of these photos being erroneously reported as spam and abuse, and one of the engineers on the team had a hunch. He really thought there was something else going on and he was right, because when he looked through a bunch of the cases, he found that most of them were from people who were requesting the takedown of a photo of themselves. Now this was a scenario that the team never even took into account before. So they added a new feature that allowed people to message their friend to ask them to take the photo down. But it didn't work. Only 20 percent of people sent the message to their friend. So the team went back at it. They consulted with experts in conflict resolution. They even studied the universal principles of polite language, which I didn't even actually know existed until this research happened. And they found something really interesting. They had to go beyond just helping people ask their friend to take the photo down. They had to help people express to their friend how the photo made them feel.
另一個你需要了解的是 如何在設計中應用數據 當你在做這類的產品的時候 關於人們怎麼用你的產品 你有多得難以想像的資訊 這可以能用來影響 你的設計決策 但這不是盲從數字這麼簡單 讓我舉個例子 你就明白我的意思了 臉書從很久之前就有工具 讓人檢舉違反 我們社群標準的照片 例如垃圾郵件或濫用訊息 有成千上萬的照片被檢舉 但事實證明 只有很小一部分 真的違反社群標準 大部分只是一般的派對照片 現在 我用具體一點的例子 假設我朋友蘿拉 她上傳了一張 我在喝醉後晚上唱歌時拍的照片 這完全是假設 我跟你保證 (笑聲) 順帶一提 你知道有些人多擔心 他們的老闆或員工 在臉書上發現 他們令人尷尬的照片? 你知道當你真的在臉書上班 避免這種事多難? 總而言之 有很多這種照片 被錯誤舉報為垃圾訊息或者濫用 負責的小組裡 有個工程師有種預感 他認為其中一定有別的事發生 而他是對的 因為當他檢視了一些被檢舉的案件 他發現大部分檢舉的人 都是想删除自己被標記的照片 這是這個團隊 從來沒想過的情況 所以他們加入了一個新功能 讓人們可以傳訊息給他們的朋友 請他們移除照片 但這沒有用 只有兩成的人 傳訊息給他們的朋友 所以這小組回頭來 他們諮詢了處理衝突的專家 他們甚至研究了 禮貌用語的通則 我在這個研究開始前 甚至不知道有這樣的原則存在 他們發現了一些有趣的事 他們必須更進一步 幫用戶請朋友移除照片還不夠 他們要幫助用戶向他們的朋友 表達他們看這些照片時的感覺 如今的設計就是這個經歷帶來的
Here's how the experience works today. So I find this hypothetical photo of myself, and it's not spam, it's not abuse, but I really wish it weren't on the site. So I report it and I say, "I'm in this photo and I don't like it," and then we dig deeper. Why don't you like this photo of yourself? And I select "It's embarrassing." And then I'm encouraged to message my friend, but here's the critical difference. I'm provided specific suggested language that helps me communicate to Laura how the photo makes me feel. Now the team found that this relatively small change had a huge impact. Before, only 20 percent of people were sending the message, and now 60 percent were, and surveys showed that people on both sides of the conversation felt better as a result. That same survey showed that 90 percent of your friends want to know if they've done something to upset you. Now I don't know who the other 10 percent are, but maybe that's where our "Unfriend" feature can come in handy.
我看到這張假想的照片時 它不是垃圾訊息 不是濫用訊息 但我真的希望它不出現在這個網站上 所以 我檢舉它 並寫道: 「我在這張照片裡 但我不喜歡它」 然後我們試圖更深入 為什麼你不喜歡這張有你的照片? 我選了令人尷尬 然後視窗鼓勵我 要發訊息告訴好友 這裡就有了很大不同 它向我提供了準確的話語 幫助我跟蘿拉交流 說這張照片帶給我的感受 我們發現這個小小的改變 有著巨大的影響 在這之前只有 20% 的人 會發送訊息 現在達到 60% 調查表明 對話的雙方 對於結果的感覺不錯 這項調查還表明 90% 的人都希望知道 自己是否做了什麼讓你不高興的事 我不知道剩下的 10% 怎麼想的 這可能就是刪好友功能 非常好用的時候了
So as you can see, these decisions are highly nuanced. Of course we use a lot of data to inform our decisions, but we also rely very heavily on iteration, research, testing, intuition, human empathy. It's both art and science. Now, sometimes the designers who work on these products are called "data-driven," which is a term that totally drives us bonkers. The fact is, it would be irresponsible of us not to rigorously test our designs when so many people are counting on us to get it right, but data analytics will never be a substitute for design intuition. Data can help you make a good design great, but it will never made a bad design good.
你可以發現 這些決定都十分微妙 我們當然使用了大量數據 來支持我們的決定 但同時我們反覆試驗 研究、測試、運用直覺和人類同理心 這是藝術和科學的結合 有時 我們把這類設計者 叫做數據驅動者 這是個完全讓我們瘋狂的詞 事實上 沒有嚴格測試自己的設計 是不負責的表現 尤其是那麼多人指望我們 做對的事時 但是數據分析 永遠不會代替設計的直覺 數據能幫你使設計更完美 但絕不會讓壞設計變好
The next thing that you need to understand as a principle is that when you introduce change, you need to do it extraordinarily carefully. Now I often have joked that I spend almost as much time designing the introduction of change as I do the change itself, and I'm sure that we can all relate to that when something that we use a lot changes and then we have to adjust. The fact is, people can become very efficient at using bad design, and so even if the change is good for them in the long run, it's still incredibly frustrating when it happens, and this is particularly true with user-generated content platforms, because people can rightfully claim a sense of ownership. It is, after all, their content.
下一個你必須要理解的事是 當你想要改變時 需要極度小心 我經常開玩笑說 我花了很多時間 設計產品改變的介紹詞 和我實際改變產品 花的時間差不多 而且我相信我們都能體會 當我們常使用的東西改變時 我們就需要適應 事實上 人們會因使用了 不好的設計而變得十分有效率 從長遠來看 即使改變對他們是有好處的 這還是會讓人受挫 並且這在用戶創建的 內容平台更是如此 因為人們有權要求所有權 畢竟都是他們自己發佈的內容
Now, years ago, when I was working at YouTube, we were looking for ways to encourage more people to rate videos, and it was interesting because when we looked into the data, we found that almost everyone was exclusively using the highest five-star rating, a handful of people were using the lowest one-star, and virtually no one was using two, three or four stars. So we decided to simplify into an up-down kind of voting binary model. It's going to be much easier for people to engage with. But people were very attached to the five-star rating system. Video creators really loved their ratings. Millions and millions of people were accustomed to the old design. So in order to help people prepare themselves for change and acclimate to the new design more quickly, we actually published the data graph sharing with the community the rationale for what we were going to do, and it even engaged the larger industry in a conversation, which resulted in my favorite TechCrunch headline of all time: "YouTube Comes to a 5-Star Realization: Its Ratings Are Useless."
幾年前 我還在 YouTube 工作時 我們試圖鼓勵 更多的人去評價影片 這很有趣 因為當我們查看數據時 發現幾乎所有人 都給了最高的五星評價 只有極少人 給了最低的一星 並且幾乎沒有人 會給二星、三星和四星 所以我們決定簡化成 只有好壞兩種評價模式 這人更容易參與評價 但是人們已經習慣了 五星評價體系 影片發佈者很喜歡他們的等級 成百上千萬的人 習慣以前的模式 所以為了幫助用戶 接受改變 更快地熟悉新設計 我們在網上公佈了數據圖表 跟社群的人分享 我們這樣做的原因 在交流中話題甚至被擴大 於是產生了我最喜歡科技部落格標題: YouTube 終於發現五星評價: 毫無用處 改變帶來的反感是不可能完全避免的
Now, it's impossible to completely avoid change aversion when you're making changes to products that so many people use. Even though we tried to do all the right things, we still received our customary flood of video protests and angry emails and even a package that had to be scanned by security, but we have to remember people care intensely about this stuff, and it's because these products, this work, really, really matters to them.
尤其在改變了 許多人熟悉的產品時 即使我們試圖做正確的事 還是會收到如洪水般的 抗議影片和投訴郵件 甚至還有一個需要被安檢的包裹 但是我們需要牢記 人們十分關注產品的改變 因為這些產品 對他們十分重要
Now, we know that we have to be careful about paying attention to the details, we have to be cognizant about how we use data in our design process, and we have to introduce change very, very carefully. Now, these things are all really useful. They're good best practices for designing at scale. But they don't mean anything if you don't understand something much more fundamental. You have to understand who you are designing for.
現在我們知道 要注重細節 要認識到如何在設計中 使用數據 我們要謹慎地 介紹產品變動 這些方法十分有用 它們是大規模設計最好的練習 但它們毫無意義 除非你能理解 其中最基本的道理 你必須明白自己在為誰設計
Now, when you set a goal to design for the entire human race, and you start to engage in that goal in earnest, at some point you run into the walls of the bubble that you're living in. Now, in San Francisco, we get a little miffed when we hit a dead cell zone because we can't use our phones to navigate to the new hipster coffee shop. But what if you had to drive four hours to charge your phone because you had no reliable source of electricity? What if you had no access to public libraries? What if your country had no free press? What would these products start to mean to you? This is what Google, YouTube and Facebook look like to most of the world, and it's what they'll look like to most of the next five billion people to come online. Designing for low-end cell phones is not glamorous design work, but if you want to design for the whole world, you have to design for where people are, and not where you are.
當你設立的設計目標 是為所有人設計時 以認真的態度完成目標 有時候你會 迷失方向 在舊金山 當我們到沒網路覆蓋的區域 就會有點生氣 因為不能用手機導航 尋找新咖啡館 但如果你得開四個小時的車 才能充手機的電 只因為沒有可信賴的電源? 若是你所在地没有公共圖書館? 如果你的國家沒有自由媒體? 這時候 這些產品對你來說有什麼意義? 這就是 Google、YouTube 和臉書 在世界上大多數人眼中的樣子 也是它們在未來 50 億人 上網時看到的樣子 設計低端手機 並不是一個吸引人的工作 但如果你想為全世界設計 你需要站在人們的角度考慮 而不是你自己的角度 那我們如何記住這個觀點呢?
So how do we keep this big, big picture in mind? We try to travel outside of our bubble to see, hear and understand the people we're designing for. We use our products in non-English languages to make sure that they work just as well. And we try to use one of these phones from time to time to keep in touch with their reality.
我們試著走出自己的圈子 去看 去聽 去理解使用者 我們在非英語環境使用這些產品 確保它們能正常工作 我們不時就會使用這些手機 了解它們的真實情況 對全球範圍的設計有什麼意義?
So what does it mean to design at a global scale? It means difficult and sometimes exasperating work to try to improve and evolve products. Finding the audacity and the humility to do right by them can be pretty exhausting, and the humility part, it's a little tough on the design ego. Because these products are always changing, everything that I've designed in my career is pretty much gone, and everything that I will design will fade away. But here's what remains: the never-ending thrill of being a part of something that is so big, you can hardly get your head around it, and the promise that it just might change the world.
它意味著困難 有時甚至讓人厭煩 去試著使產品改善、進化 以大膽和謙遜的心態來做設計 是非常辛苦的 謙遜對設計師來說 是十分艱難的 因為這些產品經常變動 我所設計過的產品 幾乎都已經消失了 我將來設計的產品也會最終消失 但是有些東西猶存不朽 參與一項宏達工程帶來的 永不磨滅的激情 它在腦海中揮之不去 還有對它能改變世界的期許 謝謝
Thank you.
(掌聲)
(Applause)