On the good design

For what is good design, 10,000 people there are at least 10,001 answers. Everyone has their own answers, and some people have more than one answer.

The teacher said, must in the design perfusion own thought, has own thought your design only then the soul, can be the good design.
After work I found that "if a design has only the designer's mind, then the design is just like a stool". You will feel good after the stool, others will be smelly, only the designers of the design of their own ideas, designers cool, others will be very awkward, uncomfortable. The others include bosses, co-workers, and especially users. ...

In the design company, the boss said, the design must be good-looking, must let the customer likes, the customer does not like your design equals zero. A design that doesn't make money is not a good design.
Later, I found that all customer satisfaction with the design finally to the market, is usually the user curse. Because the customers who have a beer belly, taste is always lower than his users.

In the securities company, the boss said that the design must be reasonable, rigorous, can not make a mistake, the function is stronger, the page needs of the operation of the reasonable appearance.
Later, our product users, if not after a week of training, will not use our audit monitoring system. Because this system is very strong, very perfect.

As we discover more and more functions, the product architecture is becoming more and more complex. The page content area is getting smaller, the auxiliary navigation area is getting bigger and larger, everybody has no way. The boss is not willing to streamline, also can not be streamlined, because those things "how much is useful." We do not dare to streamline, because the boss is in charge, we can not think.
Later, the foreigner consultant told us: "Less, is more." Design does not need you to put all the functions in front of him, but first to meet their basic, digging in-depth needs, "of course, when you want to find, to find", this is enough. For example, the homepage of the Help information area, even if placed at the bottom of the page, as long as the user needs him can be found, even if you put in the middle of the first screen, users do not need to see the same.

I suddenly realized, "the original good design is to hide the unimportant, when you need to find on the line." So, I began to design, try to use the "user trajectory" to design. At that time we did not know what is called "role", more do not know what "scene design".
This "progress" let me become "senior designer", because the boss found that my design is always more direct than others, not complicated. Moreover, I can always stand in the "user use" angle, to him on the product planning ideas, a lot of adoption.

After I took the team to do the project, I found that the trick of "hiding what is not important" is not working. I met a few big questions:

1. The more detailed the demand analysis, the more delay time. And the need for change or integration of the back, will always involve the overall situation.
2. My time, my human resources are not enough to complete those detailed near perfect powerful functional requirements.

Slowly I summed up: "Less, is more", not only to "performance" of less. Those I stand in the "user use" angle, mining out of the very proud of the demand, in fact, it is not worth doing. "In the case of limited conditions, design is how to better meet most of the needs of most people."
At the same time, with the advent of web2.0, the product iteration is getting faster, the idea of "removing the excess" is gaining popularity in the Internet field.

With the "Concise", "Ajax" two words for the basic characteristics of the "2.0-style design, there is a metamorphosis of the phenomenon: we are constantly pursuing" this detail can be more user-friendly in the interaction, "" This jump window can be removed, with the pop-up layer, "... Many of our so-called "interaction designers" deviate from the nature of human-computer interaction, known by their peers as "a little bit of tricks," and are often squeezed out by too many tricks. Because, the pattern always wants to delay the time.

If, finally, one day, with a bunch of "very dazzling interaction" to show the negative, I summed up today my view of "Good design":
The good design must first understand "solves what problem", then analyzes "solves with what", then designs "The concrete how solves", finally when the condition allows the situation to think "this solution can be better".

In short, good design is to use the lowest interactive cost to help users solve problems and gain business benefits . It has nothing to do with how it interacts, and whether or not to dazzle.