因为他们通常不是UI设计师。这是一种不同的技能。这是它。

我知道微软和他们自己的指导方针不太一致，但我发现阅读他们的Windows设计指导方针真的对我有帮助。我的网站上有一份，向下滚动一下Vista用户体验指南。它在颜色、间距、布局等方面帮助了我。

我为社交圈之外的人设计了一个程序，并观察他们的行为。在这样做的过程中，我不再受制于朋友们的偏见，也不再受制于我自己的骄傲和自我。在改进应用程序的过程中，我变得更加谦虚，对设计问题更加敏感。我学到了以任务为导向的设计和简单的重要性。我明白了拥有太多功能的代价。有了经验，你也会的。

我强烈推荐一些参考资料:

Joelonsoftware杰夫·拉斯金的“人性化界面” 罗宾·威廉的《非设计师设计指南》 大多数UI文章都在alistapart上 Jwz关于编程的博客 苹果人机界面指南

我强烈建议你忽略一些参考文献和哲学:

“主题” 一般的桌面应用程序，除非您需要访问驱动程序/文件系统 “越多越好”的理念

我认为主要的问题与不同的才能或技能无关。主要的问题是，作为一名开发人员，您对应用程序是做什么的以及它是如何做的了解太多，并且您自动地从具有这些知识的人的角度来设计您的UI。

而用户通常一开始对应用程序一无所知，也不需要了解它的内部工作原理。

不使用你拥有的知识是非常困难的，几乎是不可能的——这就是为什么UI不应该由开发它背后应用程序的人来设计。

我尽量与设计相关的网站和文本保持联系。我发现Robin Williams的著作《the Non-Designer’s Design book》在这些研究中也很有趣。

我相信设计和可用性是软件工程中非常重要的一部分，我们应该更多地学习这方面的知识，不要再为我们不应该做设计找借口了。

每个人都可以偶尔成为设计师，每个人也都可以成为程序员。

用户界面不像一层薄薄的油漆，是事后才可以涂上去的。它需要从一开始就存在，并基于真正的研究。当然，有大量可用性研究可用。它不仅需要在一开始就存在，它还需要构成你制作软件的核心原因:世界上存在一些差距，一些问题，它需要变得更可用和更有效。

软件不是为了它自己而存在的。软件存在的原因是为了人们。这绝对是荒谬的，甚至试图提出一个新的软件的想法，而不理解为什么人们会需要它。然而，这种情况一直在发生。

在编写每一行代码之前，您应该先检查界面的纸质版本，并在真人身上进行测试。这有点奇怪和愚蠢，它最适合孩子们，有人扮演“电脑”。

界面需要利用我们自然的认知能力。穴居人会怎么使用你的程序?例如，我们已经进化到非常擅长追踪移动的物体。这就是为什么使用物理模拟的界面，比如iphone，比即时发生变化的界面效果更好。

We are good at certain kinds of abstraction, but not others. As programmers, we're trained to do mental gymnastics and backflips to understand some of the weirdest abstractions. For instance, we understand that a sequence of arcane text can represent and be translated into a pattern of electromagnetic state on a metal platter, which when encountered by a carefully designed device, leads to a sequence of invisible events that occur at lightspeed on an electronic circuit, and these events can be directed to produce a useful outcome. This is an incredibly unnatural thing to have to understand. Understand that while it's got a perfectly rational explanation to us, to the outside world, it looks like we're writing incomprehensible incantations to summon invisible sentient spirits to do our bidding.

普通人能理解的抽象概念包括地图、图表和符号。小心符号，因为符号是一种非常脆弱的人类概念，需要有意识的精神努力来解码，直到学会符号。

The trick with symbols is that there has to be a clear relationship between the symbol, and the thing it represents. The thing it represents either has to be a noun, in which case the symbol should look VERY MUCH like the thing it represents. If a symbol is representing a more abstract concept, that has to be explained IN ADVANCE. See the inscrutable unlabled icons in msword's, or photoshop's toolbar, and the abstract concepts they represent. It has to be LEARNED that the crop tool icon in photoshop means CROP TOOL. it has to be understood what CROP even means. These are prerequisites to correctly using that software. Which brings up an important point, beware of ASSUMED knowledge.

我们大约在4岁左右才能获得理解地图的能力。我记得我曾经在什么地方读到过，黑猩猩在六七岁左右获得了理解地图的能力。

The reason that guis have been so successful to begin with, is that they changed a landscape of mostly textual interfaces to computers, to something that mapped the computer concepts to something that resembled a physical place. Where guis fail in terms of usability, is where they stop resembling something you'd see in real life. There are invisible, unpredictable, incomprehensible things that happen in a computer that bare no resemblance to anything you'd ever see in the physical world. Some of this is necessary, since there'd be no point in just making a reality simulator- The idea is to save work, so there has to be a bit of magic. But that magic has to make sense, and be grounded in an abstraction that human beings are well adapted to understanding. It's when our abstractions start getting deep, and layered, and mismatched with the task at hand that things break down. In other words, the interface doesn't function as a good map for the underlying software.

有很多书。我读过的两本，因此可以推荐给你，一本是唐纳德·诺曼的《日常事物的设计》，另一本是杰夫·拉斯金的《人机界面》。

I also reccomend a course in psychology. "The Design of Every day Things" talks about this a bit. A lot of interfaces break down because of a developer's "folk understanding" of psychology. This is similar to "folk physics". An object in motion stays in motion doesn't make any sense to most people. "You have to keep pushing it to keep it in motion!" thinks the physics novice. User testing doesn't make sense to most developers. "You can just ask the users what they want, and that should be good enough!" thinks the psychology novice.

我推荐菲利普·津巴多主持的PBS系列纪录片《发现心理学》。如果做不到，那就找一本好的物理教科书。贵的那种。不是你在Borders书店里找到的低级小说自助废话，而是你只能在大学图书馆里找到的厚精装书。这是一个必要的基础。没有它，你也可以做出好的设计，但你只能凭直觉理解正在发生的事情。读一些好书会给你一个好的视角。