Design for the product structure, for the design of the user's task

Let's take a look at two actual cases:
In QQ, will http://www.aliyun.com/zixun/aggregation/24036.html "> chat record in the picture Save as Expression Design: Right button picture, add to expression."

Second example ... Not 360.
In Rtx, the image in the chat record as the expression of the design: first collection of pictures, and then in the Expression panel "add a custom expression" to open the Expression management interface, select the collection of pictures added as a custom expression.

RTX design ensures that the product structure is clear:
1. The expression list has added, changes, deletes the function, adds the source is the local folder.
2. Any picture can be saved as a local picture.
These functions are very complete, but also ensure that the chat record in a picture as an expression of the operation can be achieved. is achievable, but not so easy. Not easy to use-the number of clicks is not easy to remember-to add to the expression, you need to remember, in the picture's right-click menu, select "Favorite Pictures."
and QQ design, taking into account the product structure of the clear, the above mentioned functions are available, while also taking into account the use of the situation: in the chat record to see a picture, the picture to save as expression. Designed to work with user tasks: Do you want to add it as an expression? I'll give you a function called "Add to Expression".

Similar issues have been mentioned in the design Principles vs Completion task: the "Upload photos" button should not be available on the album List page. The final conclusion: to "Upload photos" button, it is a user to do a thing, to serve the user's task, rather than the logical structure of the product as a standard.

The use of QQ and rtx "add as expression" design, is hoping to further draw conclusions, in the design process, how to grasp the "product structure design" and "for the user task design."

We have done to ensure that the product logic structure clear, accurate design, the main is to ensure that the product can be learned. The product structure is clear and accurate, you may not use it the first time you see it, but it is easy to learn. We often say: "Not so design, this is wrong!" "This right and wrong is often based on the structure of the product is clear, accurate, logical as the standard judgment."

It is right to ensure that the product structure is clear, accurate and logical. But not enough. Because the high availability of products not only contains the ability to learn, but also the use of high efficiency.
Strictly speaking, the learning is actually to improve the efficiency of use, is indirect. It is easier to learn, to learn quickly, this must be more than half a day can not understand the efficiency of high. The efficiency of the above mentioned is specific to those factors that directly affect the efficiency of the use-the number of clicks, is easy to ...

In the above example, if the product structure is only guaranteed to be clear, accurate, and logical, you do not need to design the "Add as expression" feature in the right menu of the picture. When chatting, users often need to add a picture of the chat record as a facial expression, designed for this user task "Add for expression" function, improve the use efficiency.
Designed for user tasks, the main purpose is to improve the efficiency of product use.

The above two lines of bold text summarize the "Product structure design" and "for user task design" individual characteristics.

You can use a diagram to show the relationship between the two:

In order to ensure that the product structure is clear, accurate, logical design ensures that all people in any case ultimately can find their own needs. For the user task is designed in the original product structure based on a "behavior flow", a fast channel.
Of course, the user task does not mean all possible user actions, which are the actions that most users often appear. Otherwise, to all the use of the situation, to arrange the combination of all the possibilities, that do not know to draw a fast channel, nature is not fast.

It is necessary to ensure that the product structure is clear and accurate; the design for the user's task is supplemented by a clear product structure. If a product is missing a fast channel, it is not fatal, through clear, accurate, logical product structure users can eventually find the required functionality. (Hopefully he will spend more time looking for it.) If the structure of the product of the expression of the problem, it is deadly, may not be able to find, how also do not understand, perhaps this time through the fast channel confusedly completed the operation, the next time a situation and confused.

With this design, the ultimate effect is: If a user is going to do something that is common, then the action button is right in front of him because it is designed for this user task, and if it is a very rare operation, then there is no fast channel to learn, and the user can find it by themselves. The understanding and planning of "product structure" and "User task" is the realization way of "highlighting common operation, hiding not common" design principle. (after writing this sentence, I vaguely recall the wording of the political textbook, the pernicious of poor education in infancy. ）

Distinguishing between the characteristics of the two, and how their status is weighed, still leaves some questions:
Question one. As mentioned above, user tasks refer to the main operations of those primary users, not all of them. Painting too little is not enough, painting too much will lose the fast value. So how many quick passages are there to draw? This needs to be based on the specific product of artificial grasp.

Question two. Why is it divided into two levels to design? Why can't the "design for product structure" and "Design for user Tasks" be combined? It's better, of course, but I didn't think of a way. If simply said: "To ensure a clear product structure based on the user's actual use of the situation." "This seems to be one, but the actual problem has not been solved, become a slogan, is not an operable method." It seems to me that this is the difficulty of design.

Source: http://www.chouyu.com.cn/?p=298