【科普 | 干货】四次工业革命中的设计（中英双语）文长慎点
文章来源： Medium 原作者：Boris Müller 翻译：龚淑宇 审阅：李想，曾鸿铭
Design in Four Revolutions
Interaction design is the design discipline of the third industrial revolution.
《四次工业革命中的设计》
交互设计是在第三次工业革命中诞生的设计准则
全文：22325字数 | 建议阅读 ：60Min
In order to understand interface and interaction design, it is useful to look at the history of design — and at the history of industrial revolutions. Every single one of these revolutions had its characteristic technologies that changed social, economic and environmental conditions. And each revolution had its specific design.
Industrial production and design are fundamentally connected. New technologies allow for new ways of production. Industrial products are not crafted but designed and mass-produced. A design is a template, the production is the implementation of the design.
为了理解界面设计和交互设计，让我们回顾一下设计和工业革命的历史。每一次工业革命都有特有的科技进步，它们改变了社会、经济和环境的方方面面。每一次工业革命也都有其特有的设计理论。
工业生产和设计在根本上是相关的，新的技术允许新的生产方式的产生。工业产品不是手工加工的，而是被设计和大量生产出来的。设计是一个模板，产品则是设计的实现。
This connection is not necessarily obvious. The Arts and Crafts movement was highly influential for the emergence of design as a professional discipline — but it was essentially anti-industrial although it advocated economic and social reform. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the working conditions in most factories were hellish and many workers lived in squalor. Furthermore, many of the industrial products had a poor quality compared to those created by a craftsman. As an answer to the poor quality, the Arts and Crafts movement emphasised traditional craft methods.
But some members of the Arts and Crafts movement — notably Henry Cole — realised that industrially manufactured goods also had the potential for creating durable and aesthetic products for the masses. Not a designer himself, Cole campaigned for improving the standards of industrial production and industrial design. He understood that by employing good and thoughtful designs it was possible to industrially mass produce goods of high quality. So in his understanding, the designer was no longer a craftsman but someone who created templates and planned the production process while the machine and the factory worker implemented the design.
工业生产和设计间的联系不一定是显而易见的。工艺美术运动对设计作为专业学科的出现有很大影响。尽管它提倡经济和社会改革，但是其根本上是反对工业化的。在19世纪中期，大多数工厂的工作条件都很恶劣，许多工人生活在肮脏的条件中。更有甚者，相比手工业者创造的产品，许多工业化生产出来的产品质量更差。因此，工艺美术运动更看重传统手工加工，这是它对低质量工业产品给出的答案。
但是一些工艺美术运动的成员，特别是亨利·科尔（Henry Cole）意识到工业化生产也有潜力为大众创造耐用和美观的产品。科尔本身不是一个设计师，但他为提高工业生产和工业设计的标准而奔走。他认为，通过良好和周到的设计，工业化生产有可能制造高质量的产品。所以在他的理解中，设计师不再是工匠，是创建范式（paradigm）和计划生产过程的人, 而机器和工厂工人执行了设计。
Industrial manufacturing and design are deeply related. So in a strict sense: if you create a unique chair, you are a craftsman — but not a designer.
I will come back to industrial manufacturing later. My main point right now is to illustrate the inextricable link between design and industry. As industrial revolutions have changed the working conditions, production process and product development, the design questions changed accordingly. So let’s have a look at a bit of history.
工业生产与设计有着密切的关系。因此，严格意义上说，如果你创建了一个独特的椅子，那么你是一个工匠，但不是一个设计师。
我稍后会再回到工业化生产的话题。我现在的主要论点是阐释设计和工业之间不可分割的联系。工业革命改变了工作条件、生产过程和产品开发，设计问题也发生了相应的变化。因此，让我们来回顾一下历史。
第0次工业革命
The printing press is usually not considered in the canon of industrial revolutions. And yet — it allowed the mass production of books, posters and pamphlets. It was definitely a revolution in terms of mass communication and it certainly was a catalyst for social change. Without printing, the Reformation would not have had the same impact.
Johannes Gutenberg is widely considered to be the inventor of modern printing. He introduced moveable type to Europe and invented a number ofimportant methods and devices for printing. But more important for our debate, Johannes Gutenberg was the first designer. He was the first graphic designer — and the first type designer.
When I mention the “printing press”, it is important to point out that I mean a whole manufacturing process — and not simply the press itself. In order to truly revolutionise printing, the process had to become fast, flexible, robust and cheap. It involved a number of different devices and techniques that are easily overlooked. And at the heart or the printing process was an inconspicuous invention that allowed for the mass production of letters: the hand mould.
The hand mould was used for casting moveable type. Each letter was cut in metal which was then used to create a matrix. This matrix would be held in the lower part of the mould. Molten metal was poured into the hand mould, casting the letter. Using this method, Gutenberg was able to quickly create large numbers of letters that were all copies of the designed template.
This process is an early precursor of industrial manufacturing. Gutenberg designed a product — the letters — and then mass-produced them. Furthermore, he designed the letters as basic elements and then used them to design the layout of a page. The modularity of moveable type enabled him and other printers to plan the layout of a page in a highly flexible and iterative manner, thus creating the disciplines of typography and graphic design.
The design of the letters was strongly influenced by the calligraphy of the time. It is based on the Textura Quadrata that was one of the leading book hands for bibles. Gutenberg formalised the Textura and optimised it for printing. Instead of coming up with a completely new design, his typeface is clearly a simulation of calligraphy. The aesthetic simulation of “old” technology in a revolutionary product is (by the way) a typical pattern in design history.
Although the printing press is not an “official” industrial revolution, it already introduced design problems and it demonstrates how fundamentally design and industrial production are linked.
印刷机的发明通常不被认为是工业革命，然而它让书籍、海报和宣传册子的大量生产成为可能。这绝对是一场大众传播方面的革命，也是社会变革的催化剂。要是没有印刷术，宗教改革就不会产生如此的影响。
约翰斯·古登堡（Johannes Gutenberg）被广泛认为是现代印刷的发明者，他将活字印刷引入欧洲，并且发明了许多印刷的重要方法和设备。但是在我们的讨论中更重要的是，古登堡是第一位设计师。他是第一位图形设计师和第一位字体设计师。
当我提到“印刷机”，我的意思是指整个生产过程，而不是单纯的印刷机本身，这是需要重点说明的。为了能够彻底改变印刷方式，生产过程必须变得快速、灵活、耐用和廉价，这涉及了许多容易忽视的不同设备和技术，印刷过程的核心就是一个能够允许文字页面大量生产的不显眼的发明：手铸模具。
手铸模具被用来铸造活动铅字，每一个字母被金属切削从而制造一个字模，这个字模被放置在手铸模具的下方。熔化的金属被倒入手铸模具中，从而铸造了铅字母。使用这个方法，古登堡能够快速制造大量铅字母，即设计规范的副本。
这个过程是工业化生产的早期先驱。古登堡设计了一个产品，就是这个铅字母，然后大量生产它们。此外，他设计将铅字母作为基本元素，然后使用它们来设计页面的布局。模块化的活动铅字使他和其他印刷者能够以高度灵活和迭代的方式规划页面布局，因此创建了排版和平面设计的设计原则。
古登堡的铅字母的设计受到当时书法的强烈影响，他基于当时书籍的主要字体 Textura Quadrata 进行设计，将 Textura 字体规范化并针对印刷作出了优化。他的字体显然是对现有书法的模拟，而不是一个全新的设计。在设计历史中，一个革命性的产品对“旧有”技术的审美模仿是一个典型的模式。
虽然印刷机的发明不是"官方"的工业革命，但它已经引入了设计问题，并且阐释了根本上设计和工业生产是如何联系的。
第1次工业革命
The first “proper” industrial revolution was triggered by the invention of the steam engine. Steam not only powered trains — it created the possibility to deploy large machines with enormous capabilities. These machines produced everyday merchandise (not just letters) in large quantities at low prices.
New manufacturing methods emerged that also created new design possibilities. A prime example for this is the no. 14 chair by Thonet. It was introduced in 1859 and became one of the best-selling chairs ever made. Its design is based on a new manufacturing process called steam-bending. The wood was heated with steam, bent into the required shape and then dried. All the tasks could be completed by unskilled workers — a craftsman was no longer required. The product was planned by designers and engineers and then manufactured by machines and unskilled workers.
So instead of conceiving and constructing each product individually, the planning and the manufacturing of a product were clearly separated. A new discipline — industrial design — emerged.
Even for us today, the no. 14 chair is an ingenious design. But in 1859, the chair was revolutionary. It was novel, elegant and comfortable — but also cheap, lightweight and durable. Furthermore, it could be disassembled and easily reassembled — making it possible to ship and sell the no. 14 chair in the entire world.
The no. 14 chair is another great example for the fact that design and industrial production are deeply related. The design of the chair would not have been possible without the means of production. But the production method itself would not necessarily have led to the design. This is still valid today. As new forms of production emerge, new chairs will be designed that facilitate the new technologies.
第一次"真正的"工业革命是由蒸汽机的发明引发的。蒸汽不仅可以驱动火车，同时创造了使用巨大体积机器的可能，这些机器以低廉的价格大量生产日常商品（而不只是文字页面）。
14号咖啡椅
新的生产方法的出现也创造了新的设计可能性，主要例子是索耐特（常译作：托勒）（Thonet）的14号椅，它在1859年推出，成为了有史以来最畅销的椅子之一。这把椅子的设计基于一种新的叫作蒸汽弯曲法的制造工艺。木材被用蒸汽加热，弯曲成所需的形状，然后干燥。所有的任务都可以由非熟练工人完成，不再需要工匠。这个产品由设计师和工程师设计，然后由机器和非专业训练的工人制造。
自此，产品不再被单个的构思和制造，其设计和制造被明确分开，工业设计作为一种新的设计理论产生了。
即便对于我们今天来说，14号椅仍是一个精妙的设计。但在1859年，这把椅子是革命性的。它新颖、优雅和舒适，但同时又便宜、轻巧和耐用。此外，它可以拆卸又易于重组，这就使得它向整个世界运输和销售成为可能。
14号椅同时也是设计和工业生产是密切相关的很好的例子。如果没有生产手段，椅子的设计就不可能实现，但生产方法本身并不一定会激发设计，今天仍然如此。随着新的产品形式的出现，新椅子会被设计从而促进新科技的产生。
The second industrial revolution第2次工业革命
The second industrial revolution introduced electricity. So with the second industrial revolution, a new type of product entered the households: the electric appliance. Different kinds of energy generation (lamps, stoves, ovens, etc.) were suddenly replaced with electricity and completely new types of products were introduced (vacuum cleaners, washing machines, radios, etc.). These new machines had to be controlled and they brought a new complexity with them. So electricity created the user.
In many ways, the electric appliance was a strange product. It was neither tool nor kitchenware. In order to introduce them to the households, a new visual language was required — and product design was born.
第二次工业革命引入了电力，所以随着第二次工业革命的发生，一种新的产品进入了千家万户：电器。各种能源产生器具（如电灯、炉子、烤箱等）突然被电力所取代，并且引进了全新的产品（如真空吸尘器、洗碗机、收音机等）。这些新机器需要被操作同时随之也产生了新的复杂性，所以是电力的产生创造了电器的使用者。
在许多方面，电器是一个陌生的产品，它既不是工具也不是厨具。为了能够将它们引入到千家万户，需要一种新的视觉语言，从而产品设计诞生了。
The first designs for these new products followed the tried-and-tested pattern. They basically looked exactly like “old” technology. A good example for this is the electric water kettle by AEG. It was designed by Peter Behrens in 1909.
The electric water kettle is very beautiful — but it still looks like a kettle to put on a stove. New technology is dressed up as old. It is not quite clear if this was intentional — but it made the introduction of the electric appliances much easier. The message was clear: “This water kettle looks and works just like the one you already know”. Even the completely new types of products pretended to be old technology. Vacuum cleaners tried to look like brooms, washing machines like laundry tubs and radios like a cupboard.
这些新产品最初的设计遵循了久经考验的设计模式，它们基本上看起来很像“旧有”技术。一个很好的例子就是 AEG 公司生产的电水壶，它由彼得·贝伦斯（Peter Behrens）在1909年设计。
电水壶非常漂亮，但它看起来仍然像一个要放在炉子上的水壶。我们对设计是否是有意将新的科技装扮成旧有的这点并不太清楚，但它让引进电器更加容易，它传达的消息很清楚：「这个水壶看起来和工作起来就像你已经熟悉的那个水壶」。即使是全新的产品也假装是旧的技术，如真空吸尘器试着像扫帚，洗衣机像洗衣盆，收音机像橱柜。
However, over time product design moved away from quoting traditional forms and tried to find a visual language that would not attempt to hide the new — but to emphasise it. After the First World War, it was relatively easy to break away from traditions and to develop new, modern aesthetics that embraced technology and tried to show the machinery as it is.
This new approach — often called “functionalism” — was conceptually oriented towards a utilitarian design. The idea was that the aesthetics of a product should be derived from its function. Consequently, the use of ornaments and “styling” should be abstained as they were irrelevant for the functionality of the product. So instead of finding a design that hides the technology, the design should be derived from the technology. The workings of a machine or the construction of a building should be visible and should define the overall form.
Conceptually, this approach was laudable. Instead of pretending that an electric kettle is “old technology”, designers were trying to find an aesthetic that reflected the qualities of the new technology.
然而，随着时间的推移，产品设计不再引用传统的形式，而是去找到一种不会试图去隐藏新技术的视觉语言，去强调新技术。第一次世界大战后，打破传统去开发一种新的、现代的、拥抱科技并且尝试去展示机器本来样子的美学变得相对容易。
这种通常被称为“功能主义”的新的方法，概念上是面向使用性设计的。这种理念认为产品的美学应该源于它的功能，因此装饰的使用和“风格”应该被废弃，因为他们与产品的功能无关。设计应该源自技术，而不是寻找一种能够隐藏技术的设计。机器的运作或建筑物的结构应该是可见的，并且其应该定义产品整体的形式。
从概念上讲，这种方法值得称赞，因为设计师们试图找到一种反映新技术的质量的美学，而不是假装一个电水壶还是“旧有技术”。
In reality, however, this approach did not always work out. The main problem was that designers and architects mainly focused on the aesthetics of a product and not on its everyday use. They confused the workings of a machine with its functionality. Instead of designing for use, designers celebrated the machinery. In the end, technology became just a new form of ornament.
Even if it did not work out — the design of the second industrial revolution tried to address the aesthetics of technology based on the technology itself — and not on something pre-existing. Technology became part of the aesthetic discourse.
然而事实上，这种方法并不总是奏效，主要的问题是设计师（建筑师）主要关注的是产品的美观性，而不是其日常使用，他们混淆了机器的运作方式和它的功能性。设计师们不是为了使用性而设计，而是在彰显机械美学。最后，技术成为了一种新形式的装饰。
即使这种方法并没有奏效，但第二次工业革命中的设计尝试强调基于技术本身的美感，而不是一些早就存在的美学形式，自此，技术成为了审美表达的一部分。
The third industrial revolution第3次工业革命
The computer — in all its forms and networked states — is at the core of the third industrial revolution. And the design of the third industrial revolution is interface- and interaction design.
The previous industrial revolutions tried to replicate existing products but make the manufacturing cheaper, more efficient and aimed at large volumes. This is as true for Gutenberg’s printing press as for the Thonet chair. And it is partially true of the digital revolution: many digital products and services are faster and more efficient iterations of analogue technology. Word processing software is the digital iteration of a typewriter.
第三次工业革命的核心是计算机的发明，无论是指其本身还是与它相关的网络。第三次工业革命中产生的设计准则是界面设计和交互设计。
以往的工业革命试图去模仿现有的产品的形式，但使其加工制造更便宜，更高效，并且以大规模生产为目标，对于古登堡的印刷机和索耐特的14号椅来说都是如此。这个方法对于数字革命也是部分正确的：许多数字产品和服务是对过去技术的更快和更有效的迭代，如文字处理软件是打字机的数字式迭代。
Furthermore, an important design strategy of the previous industrial revolutions is also valid in the era of computerisation: making technology accessible by referring to well-known, “old” technologies. Just as the electric water kettle by Peter Behrens pretended to be “old” technology, the desktop metaphor pretends to be based on items and elements of pre-existing work environments.
But the third industrial revolution is not simply another iteration of technological innovation. There is something genuinely new to it. I believe that the third industrial revolution is at its heart a design revolution. This statement might surprise some readers — especially those with a tech background — but let me explain.
There are fundamental differences between the third industrial revolution and its predecessors.
此外，过去工业革命的一项重要设计策略在计算机时代也是有效的，即通过参照众所周知的"旧有"技术使新技术更易被接受，正如彼得·贝伦斯的电水壶假装是“旧有”技术，桌面隐喻也基于已有的工作环境的项目和元素。
但第三次工业革命并非仅仅是技术革新的另一个迭代，它是一个真正的新事物。我认为第三次工业革命的核心是一场设计革命。这个观点可能会让一些读者感到惊讶，尤其是那些有技术背景的人，但让我解释一下。
第三次工业革命与其之前那些革命之间存在着根本性的差异。
The first difference relates to the objective of the industrialisation. As we have seen before, the first industrial revolutions aimed at simulating manual labour through machines. Steam power and later electric motors replaced manual labour and human strength. The manufacturing process was broken down into clearly describable units that were either performed by machines or by workers at the assembly line. So the objective of the first industrial revolutions was the mechanisation of manual labour.
In the digital revolution, this is different. The object of the digital revolution is not to simulate the human hand but the human mind. As Frieder Nake put it: “computers are the mechanisation of intellectual labour” — or “Maschinisierung der Kopfarbeit” in the German original. Software is the automatisation of thought.
The second difference relates to the first one: the computer is not a single-purpose-machine. This sounds trivial — but it has far reaching consequences. In the analogue industrial age, machines were build and optimised for a specific task — bending wood, punching metal sheets or printing a newspaper.
第一个区别与工业化的目标有关。正如我们以前所看到的，第一次工业革命的目的是通过机器模拟人工劳动，如蒸汽机和后来的电动机取代了体力和人力。制造过程被分解成明显的可描述单位，它们要么由机器执行，要么由装配线上的工人来完成。因此，第一次工业革命的目标是手工劳动的机械化。
在数字革命中，这是不同的。数字革命的目标不是模仿人手而是模仿人脑。正如 Frieder Nake 所说：「计算机是脑力劳动的机械化」，或者德语原话就是“Maschinisierung der Kopfarbeit”。软件就是想法的自动化。
第二个区别与第一个区别相关，即计算机不是单一用途的机器。这听起来很琐碎，但却有着深远的影响。在过去的工业化时代，机器针对具体任务而建造和优化，如弯曲木材、冲压金属板或印刷报纸。
The computer, on the other hand, is a universal machine. The hardware itself — in the strict sense of the CPU and the memory — has no specific use case. Even if we add hardware interfaces to this configuration, the computer becomes more specific but still remains a universal machine. Input devices like keyboards, mice and touch screens as well as output devices like monitors, speakers and printers form a standard setup for most computers. This configuration limits the scope of possible applications, but overall it is still a highly unspecific system.
It is the software that specifies and defines the application. And within the limitations of the hardware, the software can be anything. Software itself is ethereal. It only becomes corporeal through interfaces. And transforming the ethereal into the corporeal is a design task.
To put it in a different way: on a sensual level, software only exists in the form of an interface. If you want to experience software and if you want to interact with it, you need an interface. And this interface is always the result of a design process. Design gives software a gestalt.
So interface- and interaction design not only makes the software accessible — it constitutes our idea and our understanding of a computer. Without an interface, the computer would not be present in our world. This sounds esoteric — but it is not. Imagine a future without electricity. If you wanted to understand how a computer works, you could maybe figure out the relationship of the hardware components. But it would be absolutely impossible to understand how a computer was used.
相反，计算机是一台通用机器。硬件本身，即严格意义上的 CPU 和内存，没有特定的使用场景。即使我们在配置中添加硬件接口，计算机虽然变得更加具体，但仍然是一台通用机器。像键盘、鼠标和触摸屏这样的输入设备以及显示器、扬声器和打印机等输出设备构成了大多数计算机的标准设置。此配置限制了可能的应用程序的范围，但总的来说，它仍然是个非常无针对性的系统。
是软件具体化和定义了计算机的应用。即便在硬件的限制下，软件仍可以是任何东西。软件本身是无形的，它只有通过界面变得具化，而将无形转化为具体是一项设计任务。
用另一种方式表述的话，在感官层面，软件只存在于界面的形式。如果你想要体验软件，并且与之发生互动，你需要一个界面，而且这个界面始终是一个设计过程的结果。即设计给软件一个完形。
所以界面设计和交互设计并不仅仅是使软件可操作，它同时构成了我们的想法和我们对计算机的理解。没有界面，计算机就不能被呈现在世界上。这听起来很深奥，但实际上并不是，就像你无法想象一个没有电力的未来。如果你想要了解计算机如何工作，你可能会知道硬件组件之间的关系，但要了解计算机的使用方式是绝对不可能的。
Software is not only ethereal — it is also incredibly flexible and can simulateany kind of machine. This is a fundamental property of the computer that was already proposed by Alan Turing and then later on extended by the teams around Douglas Engelbart, Alan Kay and Steve Jobs. In his essay “Alan Kay’s Universal Media Machine”, Lev Manovich points out: “It was only Kay and his generation that extended the idea of simulation to media — thus turning Universal Turing Machine into a Universal Media Machine, so to speak.”
Software offers us an amazing optionality. It is possible to create any kind of software-machine within the hardware-machine that we call computer. Compared with analogue machines, designers and developers have an immense freedom for experiments, invention and creativity. Furthermore, the interface and the software itself have an intricate relationship that goes both ways. The interface is not just a representation of an abstract system. The interface also defines and demands how software is organised and what functionalities are required. As Johanna Drucker puts it in her book Graphesis: “We look at interface as a thing, a representation of computational processes that make it convenient for us to interact with what is ‘really’ happening. But the interface is a mediating structure that supports behaviours and tasks. It is a space between human users and procedures that happen according to complicated protocols.”
软件并不仅仅是无形的，它也非常灵活，可以模拟任何类型的机器。这是计算机的基本属性，由艾伦·图灵（Alan Turing）提出，并且后来由 Douglas Engelbart，Alan Kay 和 Steve Jobs 身边的团队延伸。在 Lev Manovich 的文章《Alan Kay 的通用媒体机》中他指出：
可以这么说，只有 Kay 这一代将模拟的想法扩展到了媒体，从而把通用图灵机变成一个通用的媒体机器。
软件为我们提供了惊人的可选性，可以在我们称之为计算机的硬件设备中创建任何类型的软件机器。与过去的机器相比，设计者和开发者拥有巨大的试验、发明和创造的自由。此外，界面和软件本身有一个复杂的双向关系。界面不仅仅是一个抽象系统的代表，同时也定义和要求了软件如何组织和有什么功能被需要。正如 Johanna Drucker 在她的书《Graphesis》中写道：「我们把界面看成是一个事物，一个计算过程的表示，它使我们能够方便地与『真正』发生的事情进行交互。但是界面是一个支持行为和任务的中间结构，它是人类用户和依据复杂协议执行的程序之间的空间。」
The desktop metaphor was not successful because it solved a technicalproblem but because it solved a usability problem. And it is important to point out that many other design solutions would have been possible. It proved to be an successful solution — but the user interface of the Xerox Star was not determined by the technology. As it is software, it could have been designed in a completely different way. Again — we sometimes tend to forget that out there are innumerable possible solutions that were not realised.
The extraordinary thing about software interfaces is that they are completely fictional, fabricated and imaginary. If you take an analogue camera apart, you can see how it works. It’s complicated, but you can figure out the relationship between the cogs, wheels and lenses. The controls are directly and physically linked to the workings within the machine. So the user interface of an analogue camera is determined by its mechanics. This is verydifferent with computers. If you take a computer apart, you cannot figure out how the software was used and operated. There is no inherent and binding relationship between the hardware and the software interface. On a computer, the technology does not determine the software interface.
We have agreed to interact with software in a certain way — via programming languages, command line interfaces or graphical user interfaces. But not out of a technical necessity but simply because it seems to work. So the software user interface is more of a social convention than a technical requirement.
All these observations lead to my statement from above: the third industrial revolution is at its heart a design revolution.
The design of an analogue machine can be derived from the technology. But software interface design has no technical form it can derive from. Due to its ethereal nature, software can only be revealed and experienced through design. Furthermore, due to the fact that the computer is a universal machine, the relationship between the software-machine and the software-interface is completely arbitrary. The only limiting component are the human mind and the human hand.
All this gives interface- and interaction design a relevance and a potency that goes way beyond the form-giving of the previous industrial revolutions.
桌面隐喻之所以不成功，是因为它解决了一个技术问题，而不是因为它解决了一个可用性问题。需要重点指出的是，许多其他的设计解决方案也有可能成功。施乐星（Xerox Star）的用户界面就不是由技术决定的，但是被证明是一个成功的解决方案。因为它是软件，所以可能是以完全不同的方式设计的。需要再一次提及的是，我们有时会忘记有无数没有意识到的可能解决方案。
软件界面的非凡之处在于它们完全是虚构的、构想的、想象的。如果你把一个模拟相机拆开，你可以看到它是如何工作的。虽然很复杂，但你可以弄明白齿轮、轮盘和镜头之间的关系。这些控件直接地、物理地连接到机器的内部运作，所以过去相机的用户界面由它的机械结构决定。这和计算机十分不同，如果你把计算机拆开，你不能弄明白软件是如何使用和操作的，因为硬件和软件的界面没有固定的、必须遵守的关系。在计算机方面，技术并不能决定软件界面。
我们都遵循通过编程语言、命令行界面或图形用户界面的方式与软件交互，但这不是出于技术上的需要，而只是因为这种方式似乎奏效了。因此，软件用户界面更多的是一个社会惯例，而不是一个技术要求。
所有这些观察都引向了我上述的论点: 第三次工业革命的核心是设计革命。
模拟机本身的设计源于技术，但是软件界面的设计没有依据的技术形式。由于其本质上是无形的，软件只可以经过设计从而被展现、被体验。此外，由于计算机是一台通用机器，软件—机器和软件界面的关系可以是任意的，唯一的限制元素是人脑和人手。
所有这些都使得界面设计和交互设计的相关性和影响力远远超出了以前工业革命的形式。
结语
The industrial revolutions are not sequential, clearly defined events. They are models that allow us to talk about social, economical and environmental change. Furthermore, none of these revolutions are over. We still print books, produce furniture, manufacture appliances and develop software, hardware and services.
But digital technology — in all its forms — is the dominant revolution of our time. And it is not only an industrial one. The digital revolution has great implications for almost every human being and for our planet. We are still right in the middle of it and its impacts and consequences are not yet fully understood. Over the next few years, the relevance of digital technology will increase — and so will the importance of interface- and interaction design.
I believe as designers, we should be aware of our professional role and our responsibilities. Not only in a pragmatic sense within our team, our company or institution — but also in the context of the history of technology.
工业革命不是依序发生的、明确定义的事件。它们是允许我们谈论社会、经济和环境变化的模型。此外，这些革命都没有结束，就像我们仍然在打印书籍，生产家具，制造设备和开发软件、硬件和服务。
但是所有形式的数字技术都是我们这个时代的主导革命，并且它不仅局限在工业方面，它几乎对每一个人和我们的星球都有很大的影响，我们仍在革命之中，并且它的影响和后果尚未被完全理解。在未来的几年中，数字技术的相关性将会增加，同时界面设计和交互设计的重要性也将提高。
我相信作为设计师，我们应该意识到我们的专业角色和肩负的责任重大，不仅在我们的团队、公司或机构的实用意义上如此，在技术的历史背景中也同样如此。
This essay was reviewed by my colleague Prof. Dr. Jan Distelmeyer. He is professor for the history and theory of technical media. I got tons of valuable feedback from him and we discussed so many authors that in this case I will add a list of references for further reading. Some of the references are only available in German — sorry for that. If you speak German, I highly recommend Jan’s brand new book “Machtzeichen” — it was just released this January.
这篇文章由我的同事Jan Distelmeyer教授审阅，他是技术媒体的历史与理论方向的教授。 我从他那里得到了很多有价值的反馈，同时我们讨论了很多作者的观点，因此我将在文后附一份参考书目供进一步阅读，但我很抱歉其中一些参考资料仅提供德语版本。如果你能读懂德语，我强烈推荐一本在今年1月出版的新书《Machtzeichen》。
设计史论资料册
添加微信订购资料册
回复【设计史脉络】
获取设计史脉络高清大图
回复【工业设计史】
获取何人可老师视频课
回复【世界现代设计史】
获取王受之老师视频课
微信号：SuJAY_StuDIO
长按下方二维码添加小编微信
• end •
我是Sujay Wu
一个学英语专业却妄想成为“下一个马云”的
蹩脚设计师
只为圆梦
考
研