一个有用的框架是积极地考虑你在设计一个沟通过程时所做的事情。在非常真实的意义上，你的界面是一种语言，用户必须使用它来告诉计算机该做什么。这导致我们考虑以下几点:

Does the user already speak this language? Using a highly idiosyncratic interface is like communicating in a language you've never spoken before. So if your interface must be idiosyncratic at all, it had best introduce itself with the simplest of terms and few distractions. On the other hand, if your interface uses idioms that the user is accustomed to, they'll gain confidence from the start. The enemy of communication is noise. Auditory noise interferes with spoken communication; visual noise interferes with visual communication. The more noise you can cut out of your interface, the easier communicating with it will be. As in human conversation, it's often not what you say, it's how you say it. The way most software communicates is rude to a degree that would get it punched in the face if it were a person. How would you feel if you asked someone a question and they sat there and stared at you for several minutes, refusing to respond in any other way, before answering? Many interface elements, like progress bars and automatic focus selection, have the fundamental function of politeness. Ask yourself how you can make the user's day a little more pleasant.

实际上，很难确定程序员认为界面交互是什么，除了交流过程之外，但问题可能是它根本没有被认为是任何东西。

吃自己的狗粮实际上并不是最好的方式。缺乏对用户关注的关注，虽然这是事实，但也不是故事的全部。同样，随着您的专业知识的增长，您也会逐渐远离正常的用户关注点。我认识的大多数开发人员都想在开发解决问题的软件方面做得很好。

这种脱节发生在想象力的失败。我们人类没有能力思考所有的可能性和组合。当然，我们试图用“更好的”方法来克服这个问题。

我发现唯一有效的方法就是让自己置身于接收用户反馈的火线上。通过这种方式，我了解到我正在解决的问题，不仅仅是一次，而是在用户使用我的软件的过程中持续不断地进行。

这不是一个简单的解决方案。你不仅要成为一名优秀的程序员，还要擅长X，因为X是你试图解决的任何问题。通过擅长X，你可以获得必要的经验来理解可能性和局限性。你可以开始在你的代码中考虑到这一点，从而在你提供的功能和UI设计中产生更精致的软件。

这不是重新训练你的大脑，而是获得有效解决问题所需的经验。如果你要做的是像Stack Overflow这样的全新游戏，你就必须负责用户反馈才能获得游戏体验。

已经有很多好的评论了，所以我不确定还有什么可以补充的。 但仍…

为什么开发者希望能够设计出优秀的UI? 他在那个领域受过多少训练? 他读了多少书? 他在这几年里设计了多少东西? 他有机会看到用户的反应吗?

我们不期望一个随机的“水管工乔”能够写出好的代码。 那么，为什么我们要期望随机的“程序员乔”设计出优秀的UI呢?

移情有帮助。将UI设计和编程分离是有帮助的。可用性测试有帮助。

但是UI设计是一门需要学习和实践的手艺。

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。

当开发人员考虑UI时，他们通常会想到他们可以用于这个或这个任务的完美小部件(这里的小部件指的是文本区域、组合框、交互式Ajax搜索字段……)UI，尤其是HCI，应该在较低的层次上考虑。将关于UI的反思分为4个步骤是很有趣的:

任务和概念模型:从开发人员的角度来看，这是最难以理解的。你必须从反思中抽象出你对未来平台的所有想法，以及你可以使用的语言。[Paterno, 97]是该领域的参考文献。将任务定义为树，其中任务有子任务。 下面是一个导出任务的示例。

然后定义抽象UI:这是关于将任务和子任务分组到工作空间。 具体的UI:你现在可以决定使用哪个交互器。现在您应该考虑平台(大屏幕、PDA、移动电话……)。这是钥匙。您的任务模型和抽象UI可以在多个平台中分解。 最后的UI，用选定的编程语言实现。

一个有用的框架是积极地考虑你在设计一个沟通过程时所做的事情。在非常真实的意义上，你的界面是一种语言，用户必须使用它来告诉计算机该做什么。这导致我们考虑以下几点:

Does the user already speak this language? Using a highly idiosyncratic interface is like communicating in a language you've never spoken before. So if your interface must be idiosyncratic at all, it had best introduce itself with the simplest of terms and few distractions. On the other hand, if your interface uses idioms that the user is accustomed to, they'll gain confidence from the start. The enemy of communication is noise. Auditory noise interferes with spoken communication; visual noise interferes with visual communication. The more noise you can cut out of your interface, the easier communicating with it will be. As in human conversation, it's often not what you say, it's how you say it. The way most software communicates is rude to a degree that would get it punched in the face if it were a person. How would you feel if you asked someone a question and they sat there and stared at you for several minutes, refusing to respond in any other way, before answering? Many interface elements, like progress bars and automatic focus selection, have the fundamental function of politeness. Ask yourself how you can make the user's day a little more pleasant.

实际上，很难确定程序员认为界面交互是什么，除了交流过程之外，但问题可能是它根本没有被认为是任何东西。