Internet product Design: Design principles and ease of design

Concept can not be our product design of the lasso, even if the design of the head buttresses, trickery, as long as the user needs to meet. In the design is not committed to what the principle of error, but the way of typesetting has not been seen in any place, but the issues raised must be taken seriously.

Concept vs Function: in several product meetings, often hear colleagues that XX products should be like XX, can not have yy, zz function. Feeling somewhat too conceptualized.

Although a molded product, such as SNS should have a friend relationship, log and other functions, if there is no such function may be no one said it is SNS. However, when we need to design a product, whether we need to first set the concept of what to do after, and then according to their own needs to modify the concept of the product under the function;

I don't think anyone would think so, no matter what we do a product, we need to first determine what needs to meet, what function to meet, determine the main function, and then look back and what products or concepts similar, can learn from some design ideas, or to see whether the existing products to achieve;

The concept cannot be the lasso of our design products, even if the design of the head buttresses, trickery, as long as the user needs to meet, I believe that no user will say what ah, in other words, a few users understand some "concept", these concepts are our industry to facilitate communication, a brief description of a functional group of words Bale;

principle vs. ease of use: when discussing the effects of a design with a very personal vision designer who is a new company intern, you often hear her say that some of the designs in the product prototypes are not logical and have not seen such typography ...

In the past, only colleagues suggested that the design was problematic or needed improvement, but did not encounter "principle" there is a problem, of course, not in the design of what the principle of error, but the way of typesetting has not been seen in any place, but the question must be put forward, such as the following label page and breadcrumbs location, logically indeed wrong:

The purpose of the design is this: some of the ancillary pages originally do not belong to the home page, in order to maintain the unity of the page and let users always know their location and the page "hanging" in the bottom of the homepage, but also worried that some users in this case do not know how to return to the home page, more likely to appear afraid to point So add a breadcrumb-like entry below, which seems clear, but does not conform to logic or principles;

Find some colleagues on the relevant pages of this area to do a test, they did not ask questions, and can be at a glance, then whether it can be designed like this?

There are several versions before this release:

↑ The disadvantage of this typesetting is that the page is not unified, losing the main label page (navigation bar)

↑ The disadvantage of this typesetting is the structure is not clear, can not tell the user the current position

↑ The disadvantage of this typesetting is ... Look, it's weird! And the user does not know how to look back (many users will not go to the point of the selected label)

Compared to see, it should still be the most clear bar, although there are many better, but little D has not thought of the solution.

That being the case, the design lost some principle still can, as long as the use of good ~