唐·诺曼先生发表文章《为什么设计教育必须改变》，谈了自己对于设计教育的看法和认识。这篇文章醍醐灌顶，把英文亲自翻译成中文送给大家！

唐·诺曼声称，他的人生目标是做出重大改变，但同时也要从中获得乐趣。他在加州大学圣地亚哥分校(University of California，San Diego)建立了设计实验室(Design Lab)，并将其发展成为一个主要的设计中心，专注于将以人为中心的设计原则应用于复杂的社会技术系统，如医疗保健和自动化。他既是一名商人(苹果公司副总裁、惠普公司高管和一家初创公司)，也是一名学者(哈佛大学、加州大学圣地亚哥分校、西北大学、KAIST大学)。作为尼尔森诺曼集团(Nielsen Norman Group)的联合创始人，他在公司董事会任职，帮助公司让产品更有趣、更容易理解、更有利可图。他是IDEO研究员和美国国家工程院院士。他经常发表主题演讲，并以他的许多著作而闻名，包括“日常事物的设计”、“情感设计”和“生活在复杂中”(反对简单)，以及完全修订、更新的“日常事物的设计”。他现在已经从这个职位上退休了(他的第五个退休，第二次从加州大学圣地亚哥分校退休)，正在努力改革设计教育，当然，还在写一本书。

Traditionally what designers lack in knowledge, they make up for in craft skills. Whether it be sketching, modeling, detailing or rendering, designers take an inordinate amount of pride in honing key techniques over many years. Unfortunately many of these very skills have limited use in the new design domains. (Core 77 columnist Kevin McCullagh.)

传统上，设计师在知识上的不足，他们在工艺技能上弥补了这一点。无论是素描、建模、细节处理还是渲染，设计师们都以多年磨练关键技术为荣。不幸的是，这些技能中的许多在新的设计领域中的使用都是有限的。(CORE 77专栏作家Kevin McCullagh)

以下是正文：

为什么设计教育必须改变 Why Design Education Must Change

I am forced to read a lot of crap. As a reviewer of submissions to design journals and conferences, as a juror of design contests, and as a mentor and advisor to design students and faculty, I read outrageous claims made by designers who have little understanding of the complexity of the problems they are attempting to solve or of the standards of evidence required to make claims. Oftentimes the crap comes from brilliant and talented people, with good ideas and wonderful instantiations of physical products, concepts, or simulations. The crap is in the claims.

我被迫读了很多废话。作为设计期刊和会议提交的审稿人、设计竞赛的评委，以及设计学生和教师的导师和顾问，我读到了一些对他们所尝试的问题的复杂性知之甚少的设计师提出的令人发指的声明、解决或提出索赔所需的证据标准。废话通常来自才华横溢的人，他们有好的想法和对物理产品、概念或模拟的精彩实例。废话在索赔中。

In the early days of industrial design, the work was primarily focused upon physical products. Today, however, designers work on organizational structure and social problems, on interaction, service, and experience design. Many problems involve complex social and political issues.

在工业设计的早期，工作主要集中在物理产品上。然而，今天设计师从事于组织结构和社会问题、交互、服务和体验设计。许多问题涉及复杂的社会和政治问题。

As a result, designers have become applied behavioral scientists, but they are woefully undereducated for the task. Designers often fail to understand the complexity of the issues and the depth of knowledge already known. They claim that fresh eyes can produce novel solutions, but then they wonder why these solutions are seldom implemented, or if implemented, why they fail. Fresh eyes can indeed produce insightful results, but the eyes must also be educated and knowledgeable. Designers often lack the requisite understanding. Design schools do not train students about these complex issues, about the interlocking complexities of human and social behavior, about the behavioral sciences, technology, and business. There is little or no training in science, the scientific method, and experimental design.

结果，设计师成为了应用行为科学家，但他们在完成这项任务方面的教育严重不足。设计人员往往无法理解问题的复杂性和已知知识的深度。他们声称全新的视角可以产生新颖的解决方案，但随后他们想知道为什么这些解决方案很少实施，或者如果实施了，为什么会失败。全新的视角确实可以产生有见地的结果，但全新的视角也必须有教养和知识。设计师往往缺乏必要的理解。设计学校不会就这些复杂的问题、人类和社会行为的相互关联的复杂性、行为科学、技术和商业对学生进行培训。很少或根本没有科学、科学方法和实验设计方面的培训。

Related problems occur with designers trained in engineering, for although they may understand hard-core science, they are often ignorant of the so-called soft areas of social and behavioral sciences. The do not understand human behavior, chiding people for not using technology properly, asking how they could be so illogical. (You may have all heard the refrain: "if only we didn't have people, our stuff would work just fine," forgetting that the point of the work was to help people.) Engineers are often ignorant of how people actually behave. And both engineers and designers are often ignorant of the biases that can be unwittingly introduced into experimental designs and the dangers of inappropriate generalization.

受过工程培训的设计师会出现相关问题，因为虽然他们可能了解硬核科学，但他们往往对社会和行为科学的所谓软领域一无所知。不了解人类行为的人，责备人们没有正确使用技术，问他们怎么会如此不合逻辑。（你们可能都听过这样的说法：“如果我们没有人，我们的东西就会很好地工作，”忘记了工作的重点是帮助人们。）工程师通常不知道人们的实际行为。工程师和设计师通常都不知道可能会在不知不觉中引入实验设计的偏见以及不适当概括的危险。

The social and behavioral sciences have their own problems, for they generally are disdainful of applied, practical work and their experimental methods are inappropriate: scientists seek "truth" whereas practitioners seek "good enough." Scientists look for small differences, whereas designers want large impact. People in human-computer interaction, cognitive engineering, and human factors or ergonomics are usually ignorant of design. All disciplines have their problems: everyone can share the blame.

社会科学和行为科学也有自己的问题，他们普遍不屑于应用的、实际的工作，他们的实验方法也不合适：科学家追求“真理”，而实践者追求“足够好”。科学家寻找微小的差异，而设计师则想要大的影响。从事人机交互、认知工程、人为因素或人体工程学的人们通常对设计一无所知。所有学科都有自己的问题：每个人都有责任。

是时候改变设计教育了 Time to change design education

Where once industrial designers focused primarily upon form and function, materials and manufacturing, today's issues are far more complex and challenging. New skills are required, especially for such areas as interaction, experience, and service design. Classical industrial design is a form of applied art, requiring deep knowledge of forms and materials and skills in sketching, drawing, and rendering. The new areas are more like applied social and behavioral sciences and require understanding of human cognition and emotion, sensory and motor systems, and sufficient knowledge of the scientific method, statistics and experimental design so that designers can perform valid, legitimate tests of their ideas before deploying them.

工业设计师曾经主要关注形式和功能、材料和制造，今天的问题要复杂得多，也更具挑战性。需要新的技能，特别是在交互、体验和服务设计等领域。古典工业设计是一种应用艺术，需要对形式和材料有深刻的了解，并具备素描、绘画和渲染的技能。新的领域更像是应用社会科学和行为科学，需要了解人类的认知和情感、感觉和运动系统，并对科学方法、统计学和实验设计有足够的知识，这样设计师才能在运用他们的想法之前对他们的想法进行有效、合理的测试。

Designers need to deploy microprocessors and displays, actuators and sensors. Communication modules are being added to more and more products, from the toaster to the wall switch, the toilet and books (now called e-books). Knowledge of security and privacy, social networks, and human interaction are critical. The old skills of drawing and sketching, forming and molding must be supplemented and in many cases, replaced, by skills in programming, interaction, and human cognition. Rapid prototyping and user testing are required, which also means some knowledge of the social and behavior sciences, of statistics, and of experimental design.

设计者需要部署微处理器、显示器、执行器和传感器。越来越多的产品增加了通信模块，从烤面包机到墙上开关，从马桶到书籍(现在称为电子书)。安全和隐私、社交网络和人际互动方面的知识至关重要。旧的绘画和素描、成型和铸造的技能必须得到补充，在许多情况下，必须被编程、交互和人类认知方面的技能所取代。快速原型设计和用户测试是必需的，这也意味着需要一些社会科学和行为科学、统计学和实验设计方面的知识。

In educational institutions, industrial design is usually housed in schools of art or architecture, usually taught as a practice with the terminal degree being a BA, MA, or MFA. It is rare for in design education to have course requirements in science, mathematics, technology, or the social sciences. As a result the skills of the designer are not well suited for modern times.

在教育单位，工业设计通常隶属于艺术或建筑学院，以实务教学为主，并以BA，MA或MFA为最终学位。很少见到设计教育的课程将科学、数学、科技或社会科学课程纳入规划中，所培养出的设计师也因此不具备当代所需的技能。

不知情的人正在训练不知情的人 The Uninformed Are Training the Uninformed

My experience with some of the world's best design schools in Europe, the United States, and Asia indicate that the students are not well prepared in the behavioral sciences that are so essential for fields such as interaction and experience design. They do not understand experimental rigor or the potential biases that show up when the designer evaluates their own products or even their own experimental results. Their professors also lack this understanding.

我在欧洲、美国和亚洲一些世界上最好的设计学校的经历表明，学生们在行为科学方面没有做好充分的准备，而行为科学对于交互和体验设计等领域非常重要。他们不理解实验的严谨性，也不理解设计师在评估自己的产品甚至自己的实验结果时所表现出的潜在偏见。他们的教授也缺乏这种理解。

Designers often test their own designs, but with little understanding of statistics and behavioral variability. They do not know about unconscious biases that can cause them to see what they wish to see rather than what actually has occurred. Many are completely unaware of the necessity of control groups. The social and behavioral sciences (and medicine) long ago learned the importance of blind scoring where the person scoring the results does not know what condition is being observed, nor what is being tested.

设计师经常测试他们自己的设计，但对统计数据和行为可变性知之甚少。他们不知道无意识的偏见会导致他们看到他们希望看到的而不是实际发生的事情。许多人完全没有意识到控制组的必要性。社会和行为科学（和医学）很久以前就了解到盲目评分的重要性，其中评分结果的人不知道正在观察什么情况，也不知道正在测试什么。

The problem is compounded by a new insistence by top research universities that all design faculty have a PhD degree. But given the limited training of most design faculty, there is very little understanding of the kind of knowledge that constitutes a PhD. The uninformed are training the uninformed.

顶尖研究型大学坚持要求所有设计教师都拥有博士学位，这使问题变得更加复杂。但鉴于大多数设计教师的培训有限，对构成博士学位的知识种类知之甚少。不知情的人正在训练不知情的人。

There are many reasons for these difficulties. I've already discussed the fact that most design is taught in schools of art or architecture. Many students take design because they dislike science, engineering, and mathematics. Unfortunately, the new demands upon designers do not allow us the luxury of such non-technical, non science-oriented training.

造成这些困难的原因有很多。我已经讨论过这样一个事实，即大多数设计都是在艺术或建筑学校教授的。许多学生选择设计是因为他们不喜欢科学、工程和数学。不幸的是，对设计师的新要求不允许我们享受这种非技术、非科学导向的培训。

A different problem is that even were a design school to decide to teach more formal methods, we don't really have a curriculum that is appropriate for designers. Take my concern about the lack of experimental rigor. Suppose you were to agree with me - what courses would we teach? We don't really know. The experimental methods of the social and behavioral sciences are not well suited for the issues faced by designers.

另一个问题是，即使设计学校决定教授更正式的方法，我们也没有真正适合设计师的课程。以我对缺乏实验严谨性的担忧为例。假设你同意我的看法——我们会教哪些课程？我们真的不知道。社会和行为科学的实验方法不太适合设计师面临的问题。

Designers are practitioners, which means they are not trying to extend the knowledge base of science but instead, to apply the knowledge. The designer's goal is to have large, important impact. Scientists are interested in truth, often in the distinction between the predictions of two differing theories. The differences they look for are quite small: often statistically significant but in terms of applied impact, quite unimportant. Experiments that carefully control for numerous possible biases and that use large numbers of experimental observers are inappropriate for designers.

设计师是实践者，这意味着他们不是要扩展科学的知识基础，而是要应用知识。 设计师的目标是产生巨大而重要的影响。科学家们对真理感兴趣，通常是对两种不同理论的预测之间的区别感兴趣。他们寻找的差异非常小：通常具有统计意义，但就应用影响而言，则非常不重要。仔细控制许多可能的偏差并使用大量实验观察者的实验不适合设计师。

The designer needs results immediately, in hours or at possibly a few days. Quite often tests of 5 to 10 people are quite sufficient. Yes, attention must be paid to the possible biases (such as experimenter biases and the impact of order of presentation of tests), but if one is looking for large effect, it should be possible to do tests that are simpler and faster than are used by the scientific community will suffice. Designs don't have to be optimal or perfect: results that are not quite optimum or les than perfect are often completely satisfactory for everyday usage. No everyday product is perfect, nor need they be. We need experimental techniques that recognize these pragmatic, applied goals.

设计人员需要在几小时内或几天内立即获得结果。通常5到10人的测试就足够了。是的，必须注意可能的偏差（例如实验者的偏差和测试呈现顺序的影响），但是如果要寻找大的效果，则应该可以进行比使用更简单和更快的测试由科学界就足够了。设计不必是最优的或完美的：不太理想或不完美的结果对于日常使用通常是完全令人满意的。没有任何日常产品是完美的，也不需要完美。我们需要能够识别这些务实的应用目标的实验技术。

Design needs to develop its own experimental methods. They should be simple and quick, looking for large phenomena and conditions that are "good enough." But they must still be sensitive to statistical variability and experimental biases. These methods do not exist: we need some sympathetic statisticians to work with designers to develop these new, appropriate methods

设计需要发展自己的实验方法。它们应该简单快捷，寻找“足够好”的大现象和条件。但他们仍然必须对统计变异性和实验偏差敏感。这些方法并不存在：我们需要一些富有同情心的统计学家与设计师合作开发这些新的、合适的方法。

设计师以为他们知道，事实却不是 When Designers Think They Know, But Don't

Designers fall prey to the two ailments of not knowing what they don't know and, worse, thinking they know things they don't. This last condition is especially true when it comes to human behavior: the cognitive sciences. Designers (and engineers) think that they understand human behavior: after all, they are human and they have observed people all their lives. Alas, they believe a "naive psychology": plausible explanations of behavior that have little or no basis in fact. They confuse the way they would prefer people to behave with how people actually behave. They are unaware of the large experimental and theoretical literature, and they are not well versed in statistical variability.

设计师受到两种病症的困扰，一种是不知道自己不知道的东西，更糟糕的是，认为他们知道自己不知道的东西。最后一种情况在人类行为方面尤其正确：认知科学。设计师(和工程师)认为他们理解人类的行为：毕竟，他们是人类，他们一生都在观察人类。唉，他们相信一种“天真的心理学”：对几乎没有事实根据的行为的貌似合理的解释。他们把他们希望人们的行为方式与人们实际的行为方式混为一谈。他们不了解大量的实验和理论文献，也不精通统计学上的可变性。

Real human behavior is very contextual. It is readily biased by multiple factors. Human behavior is driven by both emotional and cognitive processes, much of which is subconscious and not accessible to human conscious knowledge. Gaps and lapses in attention are to be expected. Human memory is subject to numerous biases and errors. Different memory systems have different characteristics. Most importantly, human memory is not a calling up of images of the past but rather a reconstruction of the remembered event. As a result, it often fits expectations more closely than it fits reality and it is easily modified by extraneous information.

真实的人类行为是非常符合情境的。它很容易受到多种因素的偏见。人类行为是由情绪和认知过程驱动的，其中大部分是潜意识的，人类意识知识无法获得。注意力的差距和失误是可以预料的。人类的记忆受到许多偏见和错误的影响。不同的内存系统具有不同的特性。最重要的是，人类的记忆不是对过去图像的召唤，而是对记忆事件的重建。因此，它通常更符合期望而不是符合现实，并且很容易被无关的信息修改。

Many designers are woefully ignorant of the deep complexity of social and organizational problems. I have seen designers propose simple solutions to complex problems in education, poverty, crime, and the environment. Sometimes these suggestions win design prizes (the uninformed judge the uninformed). Complex problems are complex systems: there is no simple solution. It is not enough to mean well: one must also have knowledge.

可悲的是，许多设计师对社会和组织问题的深刻复杂性一无所知。我看到设计师为教育，贫困，犯罪和环境等复杂问题提出了简单的解决方案。有时，这些建议会赢得设计奖（不知情的人会评判不知情的人）。复杂的问题就是复杂的系统：没有简单的解决方案。仅仅意味着好是不够的：一个人还必须有知识。

The same problems arise in doing experimental studies of new methods of interaction, new designs, or new experiences and services. When scientists (and designers) study people, they too are subject to these same human biases, and so cognitive scientists carefully design experiments so that the biases of the experimenter can have no impact on the results or their interpretation. All these factors are well understood by cognitive scientists, but seldom known or understood by designers and engineers. Here is a case of not knowing what is not known.

在对新的交互方法、新的设计或新的体验和服务进行实验研究时，也出现了同样的问题。当科学家（和设计师）研究人时，他们也受到这些相同的人类偏见的影响，因此认知科学家精心设计实验，以便实验者的偏见不会影响结果或他们的解释。认知科学家对所有这些因素都非常了解，但设计师和工程师很少知道或理解。这是一个不知道什么是未知的情况。

为什么设计师必须知道一些科学？ Why Designers Must Know Some Science

Over the years, the scientific method evolved to create order and evaluation to otherwise exaggerated claims. Science is not a body of facts, not the use of mathematics. Rather, the key to science is its procedures, or what is called the scientific method.

多年来，科学方法不断发展，以创建秩序和评估，否则会夸大其词。科学不是事实的主体，不是数学的使用。相反，科学的关键是它的程序，或者所谓的科学方法。

The method does not involve white robes and complex mathematics. The scientific method requires public disclosure of the problem, the method of approach, the findings, and then the interpretation. This allows others to repeat the finding: replication is essential. Nothing is accepted in science until others have been able to repeat the work and come to the same conclusion.

这种方法不涉及白袍和复杂的数学。科学方法需要公开披露问题、处理方法、研究结果，然后再进行解释。这使得其他人可以重复这一发现：复制是必不可少的。在其他人能够重复这项工作并得出同样的结论之前，科学上没有任何东西是被接受的。

Moreover, scientists have learned to their dismay that conclusions are readily biased by prior belief, so experimental methods have been devised to minimize these unintentional biases.Science is difficult when applied to the physical and biological world. But when applied to people, the domain of the social sciences, it is especially difficult. Now subtle biases abound, so careful statistical procedures have been devised to minimize them. Moreover, scientists have learned not to trust themselves, so in the social sciences it is sometimes critical to design tests so that neither the person being studied nor the person doing the study know what condition is involved - this is called "double blind."

此外，科学家们惊愕地发现，结论很容易受到先前信念的影响，因此设计了实验方法来尽量减少这些无意的偏差。科学在应用于物理和生物世界时是困难的。但是，当它应用到人这个社会科学领域时，就特别困难了。现在，微妙的偏见比比皆是，所以人们设计了仔细的统计程序，将其降至最低。此外，科学家们已经学会了不信任自己，所以在社会科学中，有时设计测试是至关重要的，这样被研究的人和进行研究的人都不知道涉及到什么情况-这被称为“双盲”。

Designers, on the whole, are quite ignorant of all this science stuff. They like to examine a problem, devise what seems to be a solution, and then announce the result for all to acclaim. Contests are held. Prizes are awarded. But wait-- has anyone examined the claims? Tested them to see if they perform as claimed? Tested them against alternatives (what science calls control groups), tested them often enough to minimize the impact of statistical variability? Huh? say the designers: Why, it is obvious - just look - What is all this statistical crap?

总的来说，设计师对所有这些科学知识都一无所知。他们喜欢研究一个问题，设计一个看似可行的解决方案，然后宣布结果，让所有人为之喝彩。举行比赛。会颁发奖品。但是等等，有人检查过这些声明了吗？测试他们，看他们的表现是否如声称的那样？对照备选方案(科学界称之为控制组)对它们进行测试，测试它们的频率是否足以将统计可变性的影响降至最低？哈?设计师们说：为什么，这是显而易见的——只要看看这些统计上的废话是什么？

Journals do not help, for most designers are practitioners and seldom publish. And when they do, I find that the reviewers in many of our design journals and conferences are themselves ignorant of appropriate experimental procedures and controls, so even the published work is often of low quality. Design conferences are particularly bad: I have yet to find a design conference where the rigor of the peer review process is satisfactory. The only exceptions are those run by societies from the engineering and sciences, such as the Computer-Human Interaction and graphics conferences run by the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers or the Computer Science society (IEEE, ACM and the CHI and SIGGRAPH conferences). These conferences, however, favor the researcher, so although they are favorite publication vehicles for design researchers and workers in interaction design, practitioners often find their papers rejected. The practice of design lacks a high quality venue for its efforts.

期刊帮不上忙，因为大多数设计师都是从业者，很少发表文章。当他们这样做的时候，我发现我们许多设计期刊和会议的评审员自己都不知道适当的实验程序和控制措施，所以即使是发表的作品也往往是低质量的。设计会议尤其糟糕：我还没有找到一个同行评审过程的严格性令人满意的设计会议。唯一的例外是由工程学和科学界的学会举办的会议，例如由电子和电气工程师学会或计算机科学学会(IEEE、ACM以及CHI和SIGGRAPH会议)举办的人机交互和图形会议。然而，这些会议偏爱研究人员，因此，尽管它们是设计研究人员和交互设计工作者最喜欢的发表工具，但从业者经常发现他们的论文被拒绝。设计实践缺乏高质量的工作场所。

设计教育必须变革 Design Education Must Change

Service design, interaction design, and experience design are not about the design of physical objects: they require minimal skills in drawing, knowledge of materials, or manufacturing. In their place, they require knowledge of the social sciences, of story construction, of back-stage operations, and of interaction. We still need classically trained industrial designers: the need for styling, for forms, for the intelligent use of materials will never go away.

服务设计、交互设计和体验设计不是关于物理对象的设计：它们只需要最低限度的绘图、材料知识或制造技能。取而代之的是，他们需要社会科学、故事结构、后台操作和互动方面的知识。我们仍然需要训练有素的工业设计师：对造型、形式和材料的智能使用的需求永远不会消失。

In today's world of ubiquitous sensors, controllers, motors, and displays, where the emphasis is on interaction, experience, and service, where designers work on organizational structure and services as much as on physical products, we need a new breed of designers. This new breed must know about science and technology, about people and society, about appropriate methods of validation of concepts and proposals. They must incorporate knowledge of political issues and business methods, operations, and marketing. Design education has to move away from schools of art and architecture and move into the schools of science and engineering. We need new kinds of designers, people who can work across disciplines, who understand human beings, business, and technology and the appropriate means of validating claims.

在当今无处不在的传感器、控制器、马达和显示器的世界里，重点是交互、体验和服务，设计师在组织结构和服务方面的工作与实体产品一样多，我们需要新一代的设计师。这一新一代必须了解科学技术，了解人和社会，了解验证概念和建议的适当方法。他们必须结合政治问题和商业方法、运营和营销方面的知识。设计教育必须走出艺术和建筑学院，进入理工科学校。我们需要新型的设计师，能够跨学科工作的人，了解人类、商业和技术的人，以及验证主张的适当手段。

Today's designers are poorly trained to meet the today's demands: We need a new form of design education, one with more rigor, more science, and more attention to the social and behavioral sciences, to modern technology, and to business. But we cannot copy the existing courses from those disciplines: we need to establish new ones that are appropriate to the unique requirements of the applied requirements of design.

今天的设计师缺乏培训来满足今天的需求：我们需要一种新的设计教育形式，一种更严格、更科学、更关注社会科学和行为科学、现代技术和商业的设计教育形式。但我们不能照搬那些学科的现有课程：我们需要建立适合设计应用要求的独特要求的新课程。

But beware: We must not lose the wonderful, delightful components of design. The artistic side of design is critical: to provide objects, interactions and services that delight as well as inform, that are joyful. Designers do need to know more about science and engineering, but without becoming scientists or engineers. We must not lose the special talents of designers to make our lives more pleasurable.

但请注意：我们不能失去设计中精彩、令人愉悦的组成部分。设计的艺术性是至关重要的：提供既令人愉悦又令人愉悦的对象、互动和服务，令人愉悦。设计师确实需要更多地了解科学和工程知识，但不要成为科学家或工程师。我们不能失去设计师的特殊才能，让我们的生活更愉快。

It is time for a change. We, the design community, must lead this change.

现在是改变的时候了。我们设计界必须引领这场变革。