读后感：在没读这篇文章之前，我一直以为苹果的成功很大程度上来自大众对乔布斯个人魅力的斯德哥尔摩情节。但是读完这篇文章，我发现苹果之所以成为苹果，还是有很平常的道理的。

 

即将于7月1日出版的第147期美国《Fast Company》杂志将刊登科技专栏作家法哈德·曼约奥(Farhad Manjoo)的文章，对苹果的成功秘诀进行全面总结。一家企业如何能够成为“某某行业的苹果”呢?在与大量苹果前雇员、现有合作伙伴以及其他一些关注苹果多年的人进行沟通后，答案便非常明确地集中在纪律、专注、长期思考以及突破传统等方面。

导读：即将于7月1日出版的第147期美国《Fast Company》杂志将刊登科技专栏作家法哈德·曼约奥(Farhad Manjoo)的文章，对苹果的成功秘诀进行全面总结。

　　以下为文章概要：

　　2010年5月26日星期三，刚过下午两点半，一件不可思议的事情发生了：苹果变成了科技行业最大的企业，成为市值仅次于埃克森美孚的全美第二大上市公司。几个月来，苹果的市值一直都徘徊在微软之下。此前，恰恰是微软将苹果逼至绝境，并于1997年以1.5亿美元的投资将苹果从死亡线上救了回来。而如今，微软却与谷歌、亚马逊、宏达电、诺基亚和惠普等公司一道成为苹果决心铲除的对象。这家一度被人轻视的企业，如今却成为全球最大的音乐公司，而且很快也将统治电子书市场。接下来是什么?农业?牙刷?还是改革航空业?

　　目前看来，这些事情苹果似乎都能做，而且还不止于此。这家公司过去几年经历了火箭发射般的增长，它的一系列紧凑而迅速的爆发不仅让所有人感到震惊，也给人们带来了快乐。整个事情发生得那么快，但又那么理所当然，以至于我们几乎没有什么机会理解我们所看到的一切。

　　苹果公司、苹果的领导者以及苹果的产品都已经成为了通用的文化符号。戴尔希望成为企业界的苹果;Zipcar希望成为汽车分享领域的苹果。医疗保健和清洁能源等行业也都在寻找他们自己的史蒂夫·乔布斯(Steve Jobs)，而喜剧演员比尔·马赫(Bill Maher)甚至表示，如果让乔布斯当总统，美国政府会干得更好。但正在对苹果展开调查的美国司法部和美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)或许不会认同这一观点。而iTunes也被用于体育界，专指那些在某位球员辉煌时期将其引入，而不是终身买断这名球员的行为。

　　这种简短的称谓的确有用，但是却会鼓励对苹果的盲目模仿。苹果并没有公布过该公司关键的成功因素。与产品相比，这些成功准则的保密措施更为到位。乔布斯并没有对此发表评论。他少有的几次公开言论都是在一些精心安排的环境(比如MacWorld大展，或者在新品发布时期的接受某些杂志的专访)中发表的，或者是在深夜通过邮件发表的辩解性言论。但每每谈及如何领导他的公司成为全美甚至全球模范企业时，他总是保持沉默。

　　一家企业如何能够成为“某某行业的苹果”呢?在与大量苹果前雇员、现有合作伙伴以及其他一些关注苹果多年的人进行沟通后，答案便非常明确地集中在纪律、专注、长期思考以及突破传统等方面。这是一种难以参透的方法，想要模仿则更为困难。但是所有人都想要一试身手。所以，这篇文章就是我们关于苹果成功法则的报道。这应该会为你呈现一个更为真实的苹果。

　　1、两耳不闻窗外事

　　如果乔布斯是一名建筑师，他会在国际建筑和设计公司Eight Inc。位于旧金山的未来派办公室里工作。这里的墙壁都是四白落地，感觉就像是在苹果的天才吧(Genius Bar)客服部门。到了二楼，则会发现一扇毛玻璃门，上面印着白色的苹果商标，门后面则是Eight公司的苹果团队。这个团队从上世纪90年代末便开始与苹果合作，为苹果各式各样的用户体验活动设计外观和感觉，包括展览会、重大的产品发布会以及287间零售店。但这个房间的门却是锁着的。

　　门后面是什么?“我们真的不能透露太多。”Eight首席设计师威廉·奥荷(Wilhelm Oehl)说。他只是用一些非常模糊而安慰的话来描述与苹果之间的合作，比如“重新定义高雅”，保持“设计的完善性”，从而“将产品打造成英雄”。最后，奥荷含糊地说道：“我们试图捕捉到一些魔幻般的感觉。”

　　这扇毛玻璃门以及与之相似的设施遍及世界各地，保护着苹果的智囊们，同时也成为苹果狂热保密制度的一种象征。但是设计这些门也并不仅仅是一种偏执行为。包括竞争对手、行业观察家、分析师、博客以及像我这样的记者在内，很多人都会不停地给苹果提建议或者发表溢美之词，当然也不乏批评的声音。但在这些门后面，苹果却将所有的噪音抛于脑后，专心制定自己的计划。

　　乔布斯从来都不会过度关注同行的看法。上世纪80年代，当他还在领导团队开发Mac时，经常会就电脑的外观为工程师提供建议。“他曾经在梅西百货看到过一款Cuisinart(译注：美国知名厨房家电品牌)的产品，并认为这款产品外观非常漂亮。”Mac团队早期成员之一、畅销书《硅谷革命》(Revolution in the Valley)的作者安迪·赫兹菲尔德(Andy Hertzfeld)说，“而且他还让设计人员将Mac设计成了那款产品的样子。”还有一次，他想让Mac看起来像一辆保时捷跑车。

　　明白了吗?电脑应该更像是跑车和厨房家电。这就是苹果的受众，那些已经购买或希望购买保时捷的高端主流用户。听硅谷的建议根本无法与这些用户建立联系。即使已经过去多年，但在苹果看来，技术人员依旧陷在配置、速度和开发者合约等因素中难以自拔。在观点趋同的环境中，是不可能诞生奇迹的。

　　2、独裁无碍

　　麦克·伊万吉里斯特(Mike Evangelist)还记得他最初见到乔布斯时的情景。那是2000年初在苹果的会议室里，苹果当时刚刚收购了德国软件公司Astarte的美国分部。伊万吉里斯特当时则担任Astarte运营主管。长期负责苹果营销工作的菲尔·席勒(Phil Schiller)任命伊万吉里斯特负责一个团队，该团队的任务是为苹果即将发布的高端Mac电脑开发一款DVD烧录软件，也就是后来的iDVD。

　　“我们大约有三周的准备时间。”伊万吉里斯特说。他和他的手下开始创建漂亮的模型，描绘这款新程序的完美界面。到了指定日期，伊万吉里斯特和其他团队成员一起来到会议室。他们准备了许多页的原型截图，以展示新软件的多个窗口和目录选项，同时还配了许多图片和资料，用于说明这款软件的工作方式。

　　“然后乔布斯进来了，”伊万吉里斯特回忆道，“他没有看我们的任何工作。只是拿起一支笔，然后向白板走去。他画了一个长方形。‘这是新的应用，’他说，‘它有一个窗口，你把视频拖到窗口里。然后点击一个烧录按钮。就这样，这就是我想要的。’”

　　“我们都惊呆了。”伊万吉里斯特说。他们以前的公司可不是这样制定产品决策的。的确，科技行业没有哪家公司会这样做产品决策。

　　科技企业相信包罗万象、自下而上、群体智慧式的创新。面铺得越宽，产品就越好。这种理念在谷歌表现得最为突出，谷歌的员工可以将部分工作时间花在一些他们真正感兴趣的事情上，这就是著名的“20%项目”，包括Gmail和谷歌资讯(Google News)等产品都来自于这一项目。

　　苹果则需要将100%的工作时间用于开发一些由少数高管设计的产品，有些时候，这些计划甚至完全是由乔布斯本人制定的。在所有重要产品中，这位CEO其实都充当了产品经理的角色。乔布斯通常每周都会与新设备和新应用的开发团队见一次面，并借此将他的创意灌输到产品中。“他很有激情，”伊万吉里斯说，“他会说，‘这是一堆垃圾，我们可以做的更好。’”

　　在苹果这么大的企业中，这么少的几个人怎么能够有权制定多数创意决策呢?更别提他们还要有足够的时间来做这些决策。这的确出现了一些瓶颈。据一名苹果前工程师介绍，整个Mac操作系统都是由大约10名人机交互设计师组成的团队负责的。由于决策团队太小，苹果每年只能推出一两款新产品。

　　但是这种方法之所以能够奏效，是因为乔布斯和他的团队的确知道他们想要什么。像谷歌这样的分散化企业或许每年都能够推出数十款新品，但失败的概率却很大。苹果产品的平均水平更高。“所有人都知道计划是什么，”发明iMovie并参与其他几款iLife应用开发工作的苹果前工程师格列·里德(Glenn Reid)说，“很少有内讧。”

　　“我仍然保存着我为那次会议准备的幻灯片，它们复杂得有点可笑。”伊万吉里斯特说。他记得，当时房间里的所有人都立刻明白，乔布斯的正方形才是对的。“其他所有的内容都是多余的。”他说。

　　3、超越理性的正教

　　科技行业掀起了一场大战：一方认为软件应该开放，另外一方则认为，限制开发没有什么不妥。在技术派看来，开放不仅是大势所趋，而且符合道德标准。谷歌就在大力宣传，Android手机比iPhone更为开放。Adobe也夸耀自己的软件工具能够帮助开发者将同一组代码应用于不同的平台，并认为这是典型的开放。苹果则对此予以反击，希望用HTML5和H.264等标准取代Adobe Flash，并认为后者才是真正开放的互联网标准。然而苹果被外界认为是封闭的企业。美国科技博客Boing Boing编辑科利·多克托罗(Cory Doctorow)将反对苹果的观点提炼成了一句话：“在一个有创意的世界中，任何有好想法的人都可以付诸实施，并且使之在你的硬件上运行。如果你希望生活在这样的环境中，那么iPad就不适合你。”

　　这种观点或许无法打动你，并且让你感觉有些无聊，甚至干脆让你更喜欢苹果。尽管有关苹果思想封闭的噪音不绝于耳，但该公司选择立场的基础却是是否能够推出好产品和好业务。苹果就像是一家注重结果的企业，而非教条主义的大学哲学教授。例如，苹果曾经欣然接受了音乐行业的版权保护要求，因为他们帮助苹果成功推出了iTunes音乐商店。当他们不再具有商业价值时，苹果就会抛弃他们。

　　对于苹果而言，封闭与自由并不冲突。听说苹果在iPhone和iPad上封杀Flash的消息后，美国博客网站Gawker编辑瑞恩·塔特(Ryan Tate)曾经对乔布斯进行了批评。但乔布斯却发邮件给塔特说：“我们只是尽我们所能来尝试并实现我们所想象的用户体验。你可以不认同我们，但我们的动机很纯粹。”乔布斯还反讽道：“(应用商店)会为窃取你隐私数据的程序提供自由，会为弄坏你电池的程序提供自由，为色情提供自由。没错，自由。”

　　开发者却早已牢骚满腹，他们之所以认为应用商店封闭，原因在于苹果会为应用的开发流程制定规则。但这是一种误导：问题不在于封闭，而在于规则的武断、隐秘以及频繁更改。如果苹果采用透明政策，就可以避免多数的非议。但说到底，谁会真的在乎那些废话呢?尽管博客界非常愤怒，应用商店却获得了实实在在的成功，就连那些最激烈的反对者也承认苹果提供了一种简便而充满乐趣的方式，使得用户可以找到有用的内容来充实手机和平板电脑。对于苹果而言，这才是唯一重要的哲学。

　　4、直接说不

　　新款MacBook Touch可以弯曲，它只配备一款OLED屏幕，可以任意弯曲，从而变身为笔记本、13英寸的平板电脑甚至台式机，一切都取决于你如何弯折它。这款电脑还配有6个外设接口，提供一款触控笔，而且有两种颜色可选。不过，我要补充一点，这款产品并不存在。这是由意大利威尼斯一位名叫托马索·基切林(Tommaso Gecchelin)的学生设计的，他与苹果毫无关系。但在全球各地却有很多像他这样按照自己想法创造并分享苹果概念设计的人。

　　尽管这些作品很多都很漂亮，有的甚至有些超现实主义的味道，但它们却存在着相同的致命缺点，那就是将功能作为考虑因素。苹果的风格在于简约，MacBook Touch上的6个接口明白无误地告诉人们，这不是苹果的产品。就连基切林自己也承认：“这不符合苹果的哲学。”

　　乔布斯在苹果的主要职责就是拒绝一些功能。“他是个过滤器。”前Mac工程师赫兹菲尔德说。每天都会有大量的新产品以及想要在现有产品中添加新功能的想法呈现到这位CEO面前。默认的回答都是“不”。每个跟乔布斯一起审核产品的工程师都会对乔布斯点击“删除”键的速度有着很深的印象。“对于我们做过和没做的产品，我有着同样的骄傲之情。”乔布斯2004年接受采访时如是说。

　　乔布斯之所以说不，并不仅仅是因为他厌恶复杂的事物。由于苹果一直以来都在享受高利润率，而对新功能说不则可以维持较低的生产成本。删除某些功能还有利于创造舆论。“删除某些人们想要的功能所带来的一大好处就是让他们开始大声喧闹。”雷德说，“当你在下一代产品中为他们提供这一功能后，他们会更加高兴。”苹果对此已经屡试不爽。最近的一个例子就是iOS 4。该产品配备了多任务功能，但用户早在2007年就开始要求这一功能，等到Palm的WebOS去年推出了多任务功能后，这种意愿更是大大增强。

　　iPhone怎么可以一直到第四代才推出这种基本的功能呢?或者看看iPad，没有摄像头?真的吗?现在可是2010年。有一段YouTube视频显示，一个两岁半的小女孩都能够熟练使用iPad。但就连这个小女孩都在抱怨iPad没有摄像头。苹果，你到底在想什么?

　　或许，它在想一个理由，让你明年再来买它的产品。

　　5、全心全意为用户服务

　　杰里米·德尔(Jeremy Derr)2002年开始在休斯顿格拉瑞尔(Galleria)的苹果零售店担任客服人员。在许多愤怒的用户中，令他印象最为深刻的是一名火线接口损坏的专业摄影师。德尔说：“这家伙处理这个问题已经好几个星期了，所以他进门时非常懊恼。”德尔认为这款产品需要返厂维修，而且要花一个星期的时间。“那时，他终于如释重负。”德尔说。

　　无论产品有多好，总是难免出现故障。而按照传统的客服理论，只有这时，用户才能真正看清你的公司。最近几年，各类企业——尤其是苹果在电脑和手机领域的竞争对手——都采取了逃避策略。他们花很少的钱将业务外包给呼叫中心，把用户打发到那些只会照本宣科的接线生那里，更有甚者，有些公司会直接让用户上网阅读“常见问题解答”(FAQ)。当谷歌今年1月通过网上商店推出Nexus One手机时，便忽略了这一问题，没有安排足够的人手来提供现场解答。没过多久，谷歌的网上论坛就被愤怒的用户挤爆了。

　　当苹果十年前设计零售战略时，只有一个最为重要的目标：为用户提供与传统电脑行业的体验截然不同的零售店。苹果分别从塔吉特百货(Target)百货和美国服装零售商Gap挖来了罗恩·约翰逊(Ron Johnson)和乔治·布兰肯希普(George Blankenship)。(布兰肯希普去年跳槽到微软，帮助该公司开发零售业务。)约翰逊开始调查用户最满意的客户服务体验来自哪里，他发现多数人都认同酒店前台的服务。他们的目标就是在天才吧中创造与四季酒店相同的友好氛围，约翰逊称之为“全心全意”计划。

　　无论购买地是哪里，天才吧的客服人员都会免费检查所有的苹果产品。他们不仅会修复一些与苹果无关的软件问题，甚至会帮用户完成一些与技术支持无关的任务。“我曾经帮助一名女士学习iMovie，方便他录制婚礼餐会。”德尔说。

　　苹果不会因此收取任何费用。只有超出保质期的商品才会收费。员工完全有权免除这些费用。苹果怎么能够如此慷慨?“这是亏本生意。有时，人们进来寻求帮助，但出门时决定再买点东西。”德尔说。他于2006年离开苹果，并创办了一家软件公司。

　　前面提到的那位愤怒的摄影师就是这么做的。当这名顾客为没有电脑可用而生气时，德尔建议他或许应当买一台笔记本作为备用机。德尔说：“我当时的话就像是魔法一样。”这名摄影师离开时买了一台全新的笔记本。

　6、营销无处不在

　　正如天才吧被证明是一个天才的想法一样，如今已被奉为经典的苹果广告语“不同凡想”(Think Different)也已经超越了文字的范畴：苹果粉丝的头脑的确与众不同。当畅销书《买》(Buyology: The Truth and Lies About Why We Buy)的作者、品牌咨询师马汀·林德斯特罗姆(Martin Lindstrom)通过核磁共振扫描这些粉丝的大脑时，他发现这些粉丝与耶稣信徒并无二致。“苹果的品牌力量如此强大，以至于某些人已经把它视为一个真正的宗教。”林德斯特罗姆说。

　　苹果通过一些巧妙的方式培养其信徒的宗教热情，包括神秘感以及暗示用户是被选定的人。或许最重要的还在于苹果对于符号化信息的忠诚。林德斯特罗姆认为，苹果最有效的营销方式都被整合到了他们自己的产品中。想想iPod的白色耳机、Mac的开机声音以及MacBook那与众不同的后盖。没有一个是意外选择。苹果理解这种持续性感知暗示的力量，并且不遗余力地将所有能够增强用户记忆的想法都用于宣传品牌。

　　这种思路也延伸到了外界对苹果重大产品发布会的广泛关注中。通常在苹果产品正式发布前几个月，甚至几年就已经开始出现相关传言。例如，早在2002年就出现过关于苹果平板电脑的传言。而真正的发布日则会经过精心设计，就像独裁者在军队面前亮相一样隆重。例如，在最近的产品发布会举行之时，苹果买下了会场所在地旧金山芳草地艺术中心周围的所有公交车站广告。当乔布斯登台演讲时，所有的海报都被换掉了。所以今年1月27日，当我前往苹果iPad发布会现场时，街道两侧的广告似乎还一切如故，但当我离开时，却发现随处都能看到iPad的身影。研究一下海报中的iPad，便会发现，上面的时间显示的是上午9:41分。为什么是这个时间?这也是苹果精心设计的。因为这正是乔布斯向全世界展示iPad的时间。除了苹果，还有哪家公司的品牌宣传能够达到这种程度呢?

　　苹果文化的普及或许会对该公司的发展造成一定的限制。该公司面临一种风险，会变得像星巴克一样遍地开花。林德斯特罗姆说，这正是苹果当前面临的主要品牌问题。一旦我们都成了苹果的教徒，我们是否还会聚在一起祈祷?或者是否会有一些先驱独辟蹊径寻找一些普及率更低的东西，寻找下一个令人疯狂的伟大事物?

　　7、抛弃过去

　　如果苹果哪天推出一款“无桌面”电脑，千万不要感到惊讶。这种电脑可以让你躺在沙发上使用无线键盘来操纵电脑，而所有的内容都会通过巨大的投影仪来显示。或者会提供一个平面来识别手写姿势，以便在触摸屏上实现签名。3D计算也有着光明的未来，你可能不再需要使用iMac中扁平的窗口，而是可以利用方块、棱柱和金字塔来代表应用，并且在3D空间内与应用的不同部分进行互动。

　　还有更多苹果迷的幻想吗?不，这不是幻想。苹果最近的专利文件中已经提到了这些内容。你或许从没见过这样的产品，但苹果却会经常兴致勃勃地重新思考其业务的基本元素。从这一点来讲，的确无人能敌。例如，过去几年间，我们已经看到苹果通过一次成型的生产流程改革了整个笔记本行业。现在，苹果的电脑都是通过激光从一块铝板或聚碳酸酯塑料中切割出来的，这与传统的笔记本生产方式有着很大的不同。

　　苹果完全漠视向后兼容的概念，而对于微软等竞争对手而言，这一功能可谓毁誉参半。在苹果的历史上，已经多次更新操作系统和底层芯片架构。每次升级都会使其现有的产品立刻黯然失色。乔布斯在iMac中抛弃了软盘，并且宣称随着MacBook Air的推出，光驱也将逐步退出历史舞台。现在，随着该公司大力发展触摸屏设备，苹果似乎开始抛弃鼠标。而鼠标之所以能够流行，恰恰要归功于苹果上世纪80年代的大力推广。这种毫不留恋过去，一心向前发展的方法总是能够奏效吗?不，乔布斯在第一代Mac中取消了arrow键，但在后来的版本中却被迫再次增加了这一按键，而且一直沿用至今。

　　但更多的情况下，苹果抛弃过去的做法却能够生产出更好的产品。正因如此，苹果总是能够站在科技前沿。另外，这一战略也迫使忠实的苹果粉丝不断购买最新产品。一名苹果用户最近发邮件给乔布斯，询问苹果是否会继续支持2007年的第一代iPhone。乔布斯的回答是：“抱歉，不会。”

　　8、将反馈转化成灵感

　　乔布斯经常引用亨利·福特(Henry Ford)的一句名言：“如果我当年去问顾客他们想要什么，他们肯定会告诉我，‘一匹更快的马’。”

　　这是乔布斯为苹果拒绝倾听用户建议所做的辩解，即使是那些最富激情的用户也不例外。“苹果的整个理念是，人们并不真正了解他们需要什么。”雷德说，“他们会告诉你一堆想要的东西。但当你真的做了，却会发现做错了。要想象出并不存在的东西很困难。”

　　但乔布斯并没有完全忽视用户，他将用户的想法作为一种灵感，而非方向;作为一种手段，而非目的。自从上网本兴起以来，许多人都在乞求苹果推出同类产品。这些体积小巧且非常便携的产品是PC市场增长最快的一个领域，而苹果却似乎正在错过这一机遇。有些人(恐怕也包括你自己)甚至对上网本进行破解，为的就是安装Mac OS。乔布斯却表现得异常坚决。在谈到苹果上网本的前景时，他说：“我不知道怎么做出500美元而又不是垃圾的电脑。”

　　时间转眼来到了2010年1月，乔布斯的确发布了一款500美元而又不是垃圾的电脑。但是iPad并不是上网本。既有优于上网本的地方，也有不如上网本的地方，但绝不仅仅是一匹更快的马。

　　9、不要发明，要改造

　　“革命性的”(Revolutionary)是乔布斯最喜欢的单词之一。当他展示iPhone时候，曾经说：“今天，我们将推出三款革命性的产品。”这句话的巧妙之处在于，他只推出了一款设备，但却具备三种革命性的力量。三年后，他在发布iPad时说：“我们想要通过推出一款神奇而又具有革命性的产品来开始2010年。”其实，他早在多年前就已经习惯使用这个词：1989年，当乔布斯推出Next电脑时就将其称作“下一个计算革命”。

　　“革命性的”是一个推动他疯狂的批判性思维的单词。乔布斯认为，他的每个发明都具有独特和原创的特性。而贬低他的人则坚持认为，这些产品只是自由地使用了早已存在的技术。这的确很难反驳，毕竟早在iPod诞生前，音乐播放器便早已存在，而智能手机的诞生也早于iPhone。部分批评甚至让苹果面临专利侵权诉讼，多数诉讼都是由诺基亚或宏达电发起的。其实苹果对此并不陌生，iPod和iPhone也都曾经遭遇过类似的问题。

　　这都取决于你对“革命性的”的定义。与简单的侵权相比，苹果更为狡猾，利润率也更高。苹果搜集科技行业的最佳创意并将其变成自己的东西。苹果还是一个伟大的修理师，它可以改进现有产品的缺点。

　　iPad就是一个绝佳的例子。很多功能以前都出现过，比尔·盖茨(Bill Gates)曾于2001年展示过一款基于Windows的平板电脑，并预言该产品将在5年内成为一款主导产品。但Windows平板电脑很快就失败了。为什么?首先，微软并没有完全改革台式机的界面，需要使用蹩脚的触控笔来完成所有任务。盖茨还不鼓励开发者开发专门针对平板电脑的应用。微软前高管迪克·布拉斯(Dick Brass)今年2月在《纽约时报》撰文称，就连微软自己的Office团队都拒绝为平板电脑设计专门的版本。

　　乔布斯发现，苹果可以解决所有问题。论操作系统，苹果iPhone已经解决了这一问题，而且赢得了满堂彩;论界面，iPhone的多点触控完全不需要使用触控笔;论应用，应用商店已经具备吸引了大量开发者为新产品开发应用的能力。所有这一切，再加上对设计和营销的大量思考造就了iPad。这是一款全世界都想要的平板电脑。至于iPad是否真的是一款“新”设备，这真的有关系吗?该产品上市60天便已经售出了200万台。

　　10、按照自己的节奏发展

　　iPad上市几周后，便有消息称，惠普决定推迟并重新开发Slate平板电脑。在此之前，该产品被认为是有希望挑战苹果“耶稣平板”(Jesus tablet)的产品。同一天，美国科技博客Gizmodo报道称，微软取消了Courier平板电脑计划，该产品同样被外界誉为iPad杀手。RIM也将平板电脑计划推迟到2011年。

　　从我们的所见所闻来看，这些产品都比iPad更为复杂——只是将一台功能齐全的电脑以平板电脑的形式生产出来，而不像iPad这样精简。由于iPad的市场反响强烈，因此这些对手意识到他们只是提供了“一匹更快的马”。于是，他们纷纷开始重新设计产品。与此同时，其他的苹果竞争对手，包括谷歌、英国电信和英特尔也都宣称要进军平板电脑市场。

　　苹果并没有受到这种狂热竞争态势的影响(或许是因为他们一直都在那扇锁着的门后面工作)。他们一直都在按照自己的节奏发展。苹果的产品发布计划完全围绕着自己的战略以及自己对产品长期发展目标的判断。苹果之所以能够做到这一点，部分原因在于乔布斯在CEO中的显赫地位。美国CEO的平均任期约为6年，而且还在稳步下滑。许多CEO甚至只干了几个季度就被解雇。乔布斯知道，他永远不会被解雇，所以他才会无拘无束的制定多年发展计划，以实现苹果的高标准，并获取丰厚的利润。但多数CEO都没有这么幸运。

　　苹果的长期专注使之可以做一些更为复杂的事情：借助现有的产品来拓展未来。过去10年间，该公司推出了一系列平台，例如Mac OS X、iOS、iTunes、零售店、应用商店，最近，苹果还推出了自己的微处理器和iAd广告平台，这都为苹果今后的产品奠定了坚实的基础。iPad是这些产品的集大成者。它的玻璃屏幕、界面、一次成型的结构、操作系统和应用商店都来自其他的苹果产品。在iPad身上，处处都透露着苹果对未来产品和服务的展望，尽管我们只能在事后发现这一点。

　　在我们本文提到的所有内容中，长远发展的意愿或许才是苹果最大的优势。苹果有一个计划，而且正在沿着正确的道路发展，这可以激发信心和远大的抱负。最起码，它也的确在身体力行。这就是苹果之所以成为苹果的原因。(鼎宏)

 

http://prezi.com/

Giving You Fitts

One of the most well-understood and salient principles underlying the ergonomics of graphical user interface design is Fitts' Law.

Named for Paul Fitts, a psychologist at Ohio State University, Fitts' Law is a mathematical model of fine motor control which predicts how long it takes to move from one position to another as a function of the distance to and size of the target area. Papers outlining what became known as Fitts' Law were published in 1954 and 1964.

Fitts himself was an expert in aviation psychology, and he developed his research around more ergonomic layouts for cockpit instrumentation as a way of increasing aviation safety. You can read more about the early history and mathematics behind Fitts' Law on Wikipedia.

Fitts' model proved especially relevant to the early research on computer input devices performed in the late 1970s. Although Fitts' model was originally formulated to project how quickly a human could point at a physical button, it turns out that the same set of rules governs how quickly someone can target an area on the screen with a mouse cursor.

Although there's a great deal of subtlety to Fitts' research, what became known as Fitts' law is a fairly simple intuitive concept.

1. The farther away a target is, the longer it takes to acquire it with the mouse.
2. The smaller a target is, the longer it takes to acquire it with the mouse.

The inverse of both statements is true as well (closer and bigger targets can be more quickly acquired.)

One common mathematical formulation of this relationship is:

• MT is the average time taken to acquire the target.
• a and b are empirical constants determined through linear regression.
• A is the distance from the starting point to the center of the target.
• W is the width of the target measured along the axis of motion (how close to the target you need to get to count as acquiring it.)
• c is a constant which is either 0, .5, or 1, depending on the specific environment.

Here's a cool Java-based applet which lets you play around with Fitts' Law to see how it feels in practice: http://www.tele-actor.net/fitts/

How Fitts' Law Affects User Interface

The key takeaway for interface designers is clear: the farther away a button is from the current mouse position, the larger it needs to be to achieve the same average acquisition speed. Put another way, there are two main ways to improve mouse efficiency: put the controls closer, or make them bigger. (There are other more avant-garde ways to alter the physics of mouse travel which I won't go into today.)

Over the years, as monitors have gotten bigger and screen resolutions have increased, Fitts' law dictates that actual mouse efficiency has gone down.

Think about Word 1.0, which was designed for a common maximum 640x480 screen resolution. Toolbar buttons in Word 1.0 were 20x20 buttons with 16x16 icons in them.

Word 2003, on the other hand, is commonly run at resolutions as high as 1600x1200 and beyond--yet the toolbar buttons remain the same 20x20 size they were in Word 1.0. But because the screen is so much larger, most of the time your mouse cursor will be much farther away than it could have been on a 640x480 screen. Greater mouse distances mean an increased MT target acquisition time.

In other words, the same button takes much longer to click than it did fifteen years ago.

Mile-High Menus and Magic Corners

One of the most useful aspects of applying Fitts' Law to computers is that screen size is bounded. No matter how far you move your mouse to the left, the cursor will never go farther than the left side of the screen.

In a Fitts' Law sense, you can think of the edges of the screen as being infinitely wide.

Think about how long it would take you to move your cursor from the right side of the screen to the left edge of the screen. Now compare that to how long it would take you to move your cursor from the right side of the screen to a spot 2 pixels from the left edge.

Obviously, you would be much faster in the first case because you can literally slam your mouse to the left as fast and as hard as you want and you won't overshoot. It's infinitely wide.

This is the same reason that the Mac user interface has been said to have "mile-high menus." The Mac menu bar is permanently affixed to the top of the screen regardless of what program you're in. As a result, you only have to worry about targeting a menu horizontally. Because the top edge of the screen is essentially "infinitely" tall, you can acquire the menus very quickly.

The Windows taskbar is a mile-high the other direction: you can move your mouse to the bottom of the screen quickly and only worry about targeting horizontally. (If you resize your taskbar to be two rows high, of course, all bets are off.)

Wait, it gets even better. There are four places on the screen that are effectively both infinitely wide and infinitely tall. You guessed it: the four corners.

Regardless of how distant a corner is from your current mouse position, you can get to the corner in no time at all. Acquiring the corner requires very little fine motor control at all because the virtual target is so huge. In GUI terms, the corners are so good they're often called "magic."

The Start button in Windows is seemingly located in an ideal place for fast acquisition, and in recent versions of Windows that's certainly true. Prior to Windows 2000, however, the Start button had a single "dead" pixel along the left and bottom sides of it in which clicking didn't open the Start menu. The result: slower acquisition times and a startling number of missed clicks.

Windows 95: Missed by a pixel
Windows XP: Good to the last drop

Happily, the Windows team fixed this almost eight years ago.

Office 2007 and Fitts' Law

We've tried to pay attention to Fitts' Law throughout the redesign of the Office user interface.

First off, most controls in the Ribbon are labeled. This helps discoverability and usability considerably, but it also makes the buttons bigger and easier to target. As your screen resolution increases, the width of the Ribbon also increases, providing room for more labels and larger buttons.

Larger, labeled controls can be clicked more quickly

In a sense, the Ribbon tries to keep MT from Fitts' Law relatively constant by compensating for the greater average travel distance required at higher resolutions by displaying larger controls.

The Mini Toolbar was designed with Fitts' Law in mind as well. Whenever you select text or right-click selected text, a small toolbar appears directly next to the mouse cursor (you've seen the movie, right?) As you move closer to it, it fades in; as you move away, it fades out.

Mini Toolbar: Close to the cursor

The controls on the Mini Toolbar are small, but because they're located directly next to your cursor, they're easy to target. In this case, you want to have small buttons because it means you can have as many as possible located as close as possible to the cursor.

We did look at other more radical designs (such as positioning the Mini Toolbar directly on the cursor, or a radial design) but we were also trading off with being able to see the text you've just selected and how easy it is to scan the controls on the toolbar. The design we went with provided the best overall balance of efficiency and utility.

The Ribbon is designed to increase W; the Mini Toolbar is designed to reduce A. Both of these affordances help to reduce MT, the time it takes to click a button.

Quick Access a Mile High

The operating system really has the best opportunity to take advantage of the edges and corners of the screen. When Office windows are floating around on the desktop, we're sort of confined to the window we're in.

But there's good news: according to the Customer Experience Improvement Program data, a startling number of Office windows run maximized. Even at high resolutions like 1280x1024 and 1600x1200, Office windows are maximized most of the time. And at 1024x768 and below, we're maximized almost all the time.

Why is this good news? Because when we're maximized, we suddenly get edges of the screen to play with. The right edge of the screen is used for the scroll bar, which we are careful to make sure extends all the way to the edge of the screen so that it's a "mile wide." The left edge of the screen is used differently in each program.

Historically, the top edge of the screen is used for the title bar. Having a title bar is probably necessary, but it's a huge waste of easily-targeted space, especially when your windows is maximized (meaning that you're not dragging it around to move it anyway!)

So, we wanted to take advantage of the title bar space to help make certain controls faster to target; this is why the Quick Access Toolbar is located in the title bar by default.

We designed the customizable Quick Access Toolbar to contain features people use frequently and regardless of the Ribbon tab they're on. By default, it contains Save, Undo, and Redo, but you can add any control in the Ribbon to your QAT by right-clicking it and choosing "Add to Quick Access Toolbar."

Because the Quick Access Toolbar is in the title bar, the buttons are effectively infinitely tall. You can target and click each of the buttons very quickly; they're a "mile high." Finally, you can reclaim this valuable screen edge to put features you want to access ultra-efficiently.

Quick Access that's a mile high...

(Note: In Beta 2, there's a bug which keeps these controls from extending to the top of the screen; it's fixed in the upcoming Beta 2 Technical Refresh.)

And We Didn't Leave Out the Magic Either…

I mentioned before how special the corners of the screen are because they're effectively infinitely tall and wide.

The bottom-left and bottom-right corners are taken up by the Windows taskbar, so those can't be used by Office. The upper-right corner is used for the window close button in each app, so it's kind of off-limits as well.

The upper-left corner, though, in most programs is used for a system menu which is mostly intended to be used via the keyboard: not a good use of the most premium real-estate on the screen.

In Office 2007, we decided to take advantage of that corner by using it for the Office button.

 
Magic Corner: Office Button in the upper-left corner

Although the button itself is round, the hit target for it actually extends on a maximized window all the way to the upper-left edge of the screen.

As a result, accessing the Office menu to Save, Open, Print, Send (or to access one of your Recent Documents) is ultra-efficient. Fitts' Law was actually one of the driving forces behind the Office Button design.

Summary

Speed of target acquisition is but one of the many characteristics of a graphical user interface, but it's an important one. In Office's redesign, we've tried to take advantage of Fitts' Law in several key ways: the control layout and scaling of the Ribbon, the Mini Toolbar and other "by the cursor" contextual UI, and the usage of the edges and corners of the screen for the Quick Access Toolbar and Office Button.

Extreme User Research

by Daniel Lafreniere on 2008/03/26 | [35 Comments]

What is the biggest problem I face almost every time a client hires me to do something about a web project going awry? They don’t know a thing about their users. They don’t have a clue, whatsoever. Unbelievable but true!

 

Good designers will certainly argue that THEY don’t need user data to do proper design. That if THEY like it, EVERYBODY will… sure! This probably explains why so many web projects fail in so many levels: Usability, aesthetics, emotions, and profitability.

 

 

What’s the remedy to this world-wide infection? User research… but not in the typical version, meaning lengthy ethnographic studies that seem to take forever before obtaining some data. I’m talking about a simpler way, a faster way of doing it. I call it "extreme user research." What’s so extreme about it? Well, it can be done in 30 minutes per interviewee, and it generates loads of useful data that will have a real impact on design, thus making your website more profitable.

 

Getting information from surrogate users

 

 

Doing user research doesn’t have to be tedious and cost lots of money. In many cases, you should be able to do it in a few days, even a few hours, depending of the scope your project. The main idea behind extreme user research is that instead of going for the real users, we go for surrogate users. Those are the ones within a company who talk directly to the customers. We want to talk to the people who talk to the people.

 

For instance, let’s say we do an e-commerce project for a cable company. The surrogate users would be those in the call centers—the first-line personnel who provide information about products and the second-line personnel who provide customer support for billing issues and technical problems. Talking to those people means having access to tens, hundreds, or even thousands of clients. Not bad at all!

 

Doing extreme user research is simple. We simply perform individual semi-structured interviews that last no longer than 30 minutes. This time limit is a profitable constraint. It adds a stress that forces the interviewee to focus on the core, on the essentials. During those 30 minutes, we want to know as much as possible about the customers:

 

 

 

What triggered the call? For example, was it a problem, advertisement, word of mouth, season, news in the media, life event like a birth, the first job, moving to another place?

What is the whole purpose of the call?

What are the callers’ main concerns? Are there any misconceptions or incomprehensions about the company’s products or services?

What words do the callers use to express their needs?

 

 

Do what people do during speed-dating sessions: Focus on the essence. Ask for the top ten questions from customers. Ask for the five things you should know if you’d have to replace a surrogate user for an afternoon. You’ll see, it works!

 

Go for the individuals. Don’t, I repeat don’t go for group interviews, the infamous focus groups. Otherwise, you’ll have to deal with strong-minded individuals whose influence biases the group and thus the whole process.

 

How many surrogate users should you interview? About five per job description. You want a certain degree of repetition among the interviewees to avoid anecdotes or personal perceptions. Because of the speed factor, you can interview up to 12-14 people in a single day, which means more than 60 interviews in a week! Yes, these will be long days. Yes, at a certain point, it will be tedious to hear the same thing over and over again. But that’s the whole point. We want to make sure we have solid data based on facts, not perceptions.

 

Okay. Now, you have done your 40 interviews. You’re swamped with data. What’s next? Well, all you have to do is:

 

 

 

Extract all the facts that you’ve found.

Write them on sticky notes.

Tag each note appropriately using a word or a symbol. I usually use words like user, goal, trigger, concern, FAQ, love factor, hate factor, and incomprehension. These tags will really help you later on for documentation. You can also use different colored sticky notes for this purpose.

Find patterns and create groups around types of users.

Create some first-version personas and then refine them.

Show and tell everyone about your findings.

 

 

Designing using facts, not opinions

 

 

During the Québec city website redesign (which is not yet online), we interviewed five call-center employees and discovered that citizens interact mostly with city hall for:

 

 

 

their home (garbage collection and recycling, permits, taxes)

their street (parking, lighting, pavement and road works, snow removal)

public services schedules (library, swimming pools, skating rinks, etc.)

 

 

Knowing these interactions really helped us focus on what citizens really need. Garbage collection by definition is not very sexy, but when 30% of the calls are about this topic (based on interviews and call log analysis), it becomes clear that the city website has to address this subject before anything else!

 

Call-center personnel also told us that citizens always ask the same four questions about a topic:

 

 

 

How to get a service from the city? They want to know the procedure (for example, how to get rid of an old sofa).

When is it going be done? What is the schedule?

How much does it cost?

Who’s in charge?

 

 

Having this information helped us design page templates with placeholders answering those four questions. It’s that simple and straightforward.

 

Conclusion

 

 

Knowing, I mean really knowing your users has great benefits. Your design will be based on facts, not on suppositions or false perceptions.

 

Knowing your users means that you’ll spend money on what users really need, NOT on what you suppose they would need or like. It usually leads to simpler solutions. Having facts reduces those never-ending discussions where everybody has his own solution based on his own personal needs and preferences. It has been said before but I’ll say it again: We, the designer and the client, are NOT the users.

 

Get out of your cubicle. Get out of your meeting room. Go and get those surrogate users and know as much as you can about your users. You’ll see: Your users are not who you think they are.

Preparing for User Research Interviews: Seven Things to Remember

By Michael Hawley

Published: July 7, 2008

Interviewing is an artful skill that is at the core of a wide variety of research methods in user-centered design, including stakeholder interviews, contextual inquiry, usability testing, and focus groups. Consequently, a researcher’s skill in conducting interviews has a direct impact on the quality and accuracy of research findings and subsequent decisions about design. Skilled interviewers can conduct interviews that uncover the most important elements of a participant’s perspective on a task or a product in a manner that does not introduce interviewer bias. Companies hire user researchers and user-centered designers because they possess this very ability.

There is a wide variety of literature regarding best practices for user research interviews. For example, in their book User and Task Analysis for Interface Design, Hackos and Redish devote an entire section to the formulation of unbiased questions. They advise interviewers to avoid asking leading questions, to ask questions that are based on a participant’s experience, and to avoid overly complex, lengthy questions.

Writing interview scripts in advance of a session lets researchers review and revise wording to elicit useful and unbiased responses from participants. However, in many interview formats, a significant portion of each session involves ad-hoc, probing, follow-up questions that require researchers to think quickly to maximize their time with participants. In my experience, this is where the potential to introduce bias is the greatest. In addition, conducting a successful interview involves more than just asking questions. There are also a number of guidelines for how researchers should interact with participants to enable successful interviews. These include monitoring body language, recognizing self-censoring, and understanding the correct balance between leading an interview and listening to a participant.

Experienced researchers may become more comfortable in different kinds of interview situations and have an easier time interacting with participants during interview sessions. But, over time, researchers may also develop familiar patterns for asking questions and ways of interacting with participants that could prevent them from uncovering a unique perspective in the context of a particular interview. Also, the introduction of bias in an interview is often subtle, and it may be difficult even for researchers with years of experience to notice it during one of their own sessions.

Seven Interview Best Practices

Given everything there is to remember to ensure we conduct successful interviews, I find it helpful to remind myself of the following seven key best practices immediately before an interview session:

1. Set proper expectations. Generally, interview participants are not experienced with the user-centered design process. A recruiter may have given them a brief description of the purpose of an interview during the recruiting process, but it’s very likely participants don’t have a clear sense of why they are there. They may be apprehensive, nervous, or skeptical about your intentions. Business stakeholders especially may come to a session with a negative attitude if they believe a researcher is there to check up on them. All of this will serve to influence the responses they give to interview questions. To minimize this impact, be sure to describe the intent of the interview, your role in the design process, and how the interview process will proceed. Include details such as why you will be taking notes and how you will compile the results.
2. Shut up and listen. As a researcher, it is easy to get wrapped up in the interview script you developed, all of the questions you want to ask, and your own ideas about the salient points to uncover. It is easy to dominate the conversation and move through the interview at a pace that is too fast for a participant to keep up. In my experience, participants often raise the most interesting points only once they’ve had a chance to internalize and think about a researcher’s question. Listening appropriately involves minimizing interruptions and slowing down the pace of the interview to give participants an opportunity to qualify their statements or provide additional insights.
3. Minimize biased questions. Asking leading or biased questions is all too easy to do. Even a simple question such as How did you like that process? subconsciously suggests to participants that they should like the process more than they should dislike it. In our attempt to be conversational, such questions as these often roll off the tongues of even the most experienced interviewers. I’ve found the best way of minimizing these types of leading questions is to read a set of good and bad examples before an interview session. Examples might include:

Bad: How did you like the login screen?

Good: What do you think about the login screen?

Bad: Is the feature helpful to you?

Good: Is the feature helpful or not helpful to you? Why?

Bad: Would this be a good idea?

Good: How valuable would this be to you in your job?

1. Be friendly. Interview scripts are useful, because they help researchers remember all of the topics they need to cover. But reading directly from interview scripts can have a negative effect on the dialogue between an interviewer and a participant. The result: formal, unengaged conversations in which participants give the shortest, simplest possible response to a question so they can move on to the next one. Developing a friendly relationship and an open style with participants starts with the initial greeting and continues through the interview to the closing. Establish eye contact, remember each participant’s name, and develop a casual conversational style to elicit the most thoughtful, considered responses from each participant.
2. Turn off your assumptions. It is human nature to let your perceptions of a given topic influence your questions and even the responses you hear from participants. You may also be biased by responses you’ve heard from other participants, perhaps earlier in the same study. While it may be impossible to avoid these influences altogether, reminding yourself that they exist before the start of an interview session helps minimize their effects. Especially during the last interview in a series of interviews, make it a point to be open-minded and responsive to alternate points of view.
3. Avoid generalizations. In rare circumstances, it may be appropriate to ask participants to speak on behalf of others or predict how certain groups of people would react to particular experiences. However, for the most part, the best research interviews are those in which the participants speak about their own experiences and preferences. Researchers must recognize when participants are generalizing their responses and attempting to answer on behalf of others. In such cases, a researcher should politely ask participants to speak about their own experiences.
4. Don’t forget the non-verbal cues. Participants communicate through more than just their verbal responses. Body language and tone of voice convey a great deal about participants’ comfort levels with the interview session in general, their perspectives on a task or product domain, or their opinions of a researcher or the goal of a project. Researchers who focus too intently on their interview scripts and miss participants’ non-verbal cues may miss the necessary clues that would suggest they should adjust some aspect of the interview. Customers might be nervous or apprehensive and limit their answers. Business stakeholders might be skeptical about a project or the context of an interview. So, researchers need to recognize the clues that indicate such emotional responses and be flexible enough to adjust an interview session to ensure they can properly interpret participants’ responses and get the maximum return on their effort.

Conclusion

As Dumas and Loring note in their excellent new book Moderating Usability Tests, it’s difficult to conduct a perfect interview session. All of us are prone to bias or can fall into bad habits that can limit the reliability and effectiveness of results. This is especially true for the last sessions in a series of interviews, when you’re likely to be tired or already have formulated opinions on the outcome of a study. But, by reviewing a checklist of best practices before each interview session to remind yourself of the things you should avoid, you can minimize the impact of these pitfalls and maximize the return on your research effort.

Additional Resources

Dumas, J. and Loring, B. Moderating Usability Tests. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 2008.

Hackos, J. and Redish, J. User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. New York: Wiley, 1998.

Website User Research  Guide

V0.1

 

 

 

 

By cnscorpio

本文档内容仅代表本人观点

 

写在前面

站点的运营目标分为两个方面，对外就是为用户提供无可挑剔的购买前体验服务和购买后的SAAS产品服务，对内则是为公司创造不可量化的利润（如果可以的话:>）。而这一目标的实现，需要整个公司的每个环节都能做到真正的“以用户为中心”，从web开发部这个节点来说，就是要做好用户在站点前端页面上的体验，优化操作流程，最大化的将潜在顾客，准用户转化为真正的购买用户，让他们真正享受服务。

几乎每个人都在谈用户体验，无论是什么岗位，什么部门，但是，大家理解：

1.什么叫用户体验？

2.为什么要做用户体验改善？

3.怎么做用户体验改善？

4.用什么方法做？

5.在哪里做合适？

……………..

这些概念，事情，方法论却鲜有人去思考，总结，研究，所以，造成了目前站点在进行视觉设计和产品开发的时候，没有足够的数据分析来支撑，去判断开发的产品好与坏，合适与否，视觉设计作品也是一千个人眼里有一千个哈姆雷特。

所以，只有通过不断的进行用户行为研究来持续的改善站点的用户体验，才能为各种开发，视觉设计提供可信赖的决策条件。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

目录

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.为什么要做用户研究？

关于这个，在前言中也说到了一部分。开展这个工作，就是为了研究用户在站点前端页面上发生的行为（暂时不包括社区和后端的saas产品）根据这些特征得出某些用户想做，而做不到的，或者令用户疑惑的、易造成错误的、或者存在了却不想做的需求点，以及各种供分析的样本数据。

而上述的这些成果将会在公司进行各种决策时提供分析依据，这里就包括了市场营销决策，功能开发决策，以及视觉交互设计决策，这样将能够避免不同的意见（正确的与不正确的）左右最终决策的现象。

图一

 

 

 

 

 

2.如何做用户研究？

2.1问卷

就是通过设计一系列的问题，可以是纸质的，也可以是电子档的，让被访者来回答，最后通过统计这一样本量的问卷得出若干数据，在这个的基础上去寻找某些共同的用户行为规律和其他有价值的结论。

实施：问卷可以在某个同学的版本上进行改进。

2.2点击行为轨迹

使用点击热点，轨迹跟踪记录系统进行统计给用户的DEMO,或者目前正在运行的界面，例如目前试用的cetrk点击热点记录系统，这种方法能够很形象，很快速的记录下用户的点击行为，最终形成热点图，呈现点击分布规律。

实施：可购买类似cetrk这样的系统，或者自主开发

图二

2.3
可用性实验室（包括眼动仪测试等）

可使用两个，或者两个以上的视频采集，同时对用户脸部和用户操作的界面进行拍摄与观察。最后将两者进行合成对比，既能够观察到用户在操作体验时所由里到外的情感流露。通过一些关键点，再对照当时的操作点，推断出某刻用户的惊喜，疑惑，担忧等情感因素。或者使用眼动仪对用户眼球视网膜的光线反射进行扑捉，以记录用户的心理活动。

实施：如果还没有购置或租借眼动仪，也没没有可用性研究室，但可以临时搭建，可使用两台DV同时对用户脸部以及操作界面进行记录，以得到分析样本

图三

2.4
Google Analytics

从Google Analytics等分析系统中提取与用户相关的数据，例如用户客户端使用的浏览器分布，什么时段是浏览站点的高峰期，那些页面的点击率是多少，离开率是多少，等等，比较粗糙，但能够结合其他的方法进行互补，估计能够得到更丰满的结果。

实施：目前已经在使用，但是站点使用的统计分析JS系统过多会引发性能问题，如：页面加载不顺畅。

图四

2.5
Focus group

这个方法是看的老外用的，就是组织小部分人做圆桌讨论，需要一个比较精通业务又熟悉用户的主持人，把握好讨论的气氛，让每个人都能自由发问，自由回答，自由交流，随时灵巧的将偏题的用户拉回到话题中。通常旁边会有原始记录员，尽量忠于现场的记录一切，包括录音，文字，甚至视频音频。

实施：可邀请50作于的用户进行分几组进行，预先挑选好主持人，并进行多次排练，以免冷场，如果主持的不好，可能这个方法得到的分析结果将是无效的。

图五

图六（摘自blueidea）

图七（摘自blueidea）

2.6
访谈方式

研究员与被访用户面对面的交流，通过在轻松的交流中，将问题一一进行讨论，引导用户进行思考，得到大概的用户心智模型。

实施：此种小样本量的调研要么得到很好的效果要么偏差就很大，因为不能够保证每个接受访谈的用户都是忠实的。适合直接到用户所在的环境去进行，能够得到更多的其他地点不能获取的细节。尽量营造轻松的气氛。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.划分被访用户的维度

3.1
传统的划分

传统上的划分通常是按照用户某些属性爱好进行划分，然后在统计结果中进行属性交叉分析，常见的是在问卷中的性别，年龄，职业。

 

 

项目	维度
1	性别
2	行业
3	年龄
4	喜欢的站点
5	院校学生（财会专业？非财会专业？）
6	购买决定权
7	………….

 

3.2
产品导向的划分

如果再深入点，可按“使用目标”也就是产品所用人群来划分用户群，然后去了解具有相同目标的用户Demographic。例如：

图八

—–在使用在线会计时，你喜欢以下的那种界面颜色？

A.粉红色
B.浅蓝色
C.灰色
（可以是UI界面图，比较直观）

 

—–以下操作界面，你觉得那个比较上手？

A. B. C. （应该为可操作的DEMO）

 

 

4.选择什么地方来做用户研究？

4.1
在公司的用户研究实验室

如果是在公司的用户研究实验室，对客户比较不便，需要做好接待工作。对于我们，研究设备等比较好准备，但是并不能在用户环境中，可能会对测试数据有影响，或者与用户行为相关的细节不能捕捉。

实施：目前移动互联公司是没有用户研究室的（或者叫可用性实验室），建议着手进行建设，如果建设完善的用户实验室成本过高，可以先从简易的开始（简易可用性实验室搭建方案会另有文档）。

适合：问卷，DEMO测试，视频记录测试，眼动仪，Focus group

4.2
在休闲场所，例如咖啡厅

也可以是公司的咖啡厅（-_-!可惜现在还么有）或者外面的，这样的环境比较轻快，被访者不会过于拘束。

适合：单点访谈

4.3
在用户自己的环境里

可以到用户的工作环境里观察，访谈，问卷等调研活动，通常来说，在用户的环境里研究用户是最合适的，对于活动发出者来说，比较辛苦，且比较耗费时间，但得到的结论确实最有价值的。

适合：单点访谈，观察，视频记录（可以使用简易可用性实验室搭建方案在用户环境进行）

5.人员配备

5.1参与测试的用户

人数要由测试项目的大小和需要样本量的多少来决定。

1. 问卷：200人左右

2. 点击轨迹记录：需要部署到测试demo上进行，10人左右

3. 可用性实验室打包测试：50人左右

4. Google Analytics：目前已经在站点使用这个统计系统，人数是无限

5. Focus group：10人左右，可以分5批

6. 访谈：20人左右，但需要是不同类型的用户分类，以保证大覆盖面

5.2主持人

一人即可，但需要经常排练，有做主持的经验更好，能很好的协调各方人员顺利进行测试。

5.3记录员

负责记录测试过程中用户的操作记录（包括在操作什么界面，会出现什么表情感受等），谈话内容。

5.4观察员

如果是在视频测试或者眼动仪测试中，则需要观察员来直接观察用户表情，操作等，并应用例如出声思维等方法来与用户进行沟通。

6.用户研究流程

图九

User Research Doesn’t Prove Anything

By Steve Baty

Published: March 20, 2007

An Introduction to Science

Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method

by

Steven D. Schafersman
January, 1994

 

---

 

 

Introduction

To succeed in this science course and, more specifically, to answer some of the questions on the first exam, you should be familiar with a few of the concepts regarding the definition of science, scientific thinking, and the methods of science. Most textbooks do an inadequate job of this task, so this essay provides that information. This information in its present form is not in your textbook, so please read it carefully here, and pay close attention to the words in boldface and the definitions in italics.

The Definition of Science

Science is not merely a collection of facts, concepts, and useful ideas about nature, or even the systematic investigation of nature, although both are common definitions of science. Science is a method of investigating nature--a way of knowing about nature--that discovers reliable knowledge about it. In other words, science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature. There are other methods of discovering and learning knowledge about nature (these other knowledge methods or systems will be discussed below in contradistinction to science), but science is the only method that results in the acquisition of reliable knowledge.

Reliable knowledge is knowledge that has a high probablility of being true because its veracity has been justified by a reliable method. Reliable knowledge is sometimes called justified true belief, to distinguish reliable knowledge from belief that is false and unjustified or even true but unjustified. (Please note that I do not, as some do, make a distinction between belief and knowledge; I think that what one believes is one's knowledge. The important distinction that should be made is whether one's knowledge or beliefs are true and, if true, are justifiably true.) Every person has knowledge or beliefs, but not all of each person's knowledge is reliably true and justified. In fact, most individuals believe in things that are untrue or unjustified or both: most people possess a lot of unreliable knowledge and, what's worse, they act on that knowledge! Other ways of knowing, and there are many in addition to science, are not reliable because their discovered knowledge is not justified. Science is a method that allows a person to possess, with the highest degree of certainty possible, reliable knowledge (justified true belief) about nature. The method used to justify scientific knowledge, and thus make it reliable, is called the scientific method. I will explain the formal procedures of the scientific method later in this essay, but first let's describe the more general practice of scientific or critical thinking.

Scientific and Critical Thinking

When one uses the scientific method to study or investigate nature or the universe, one is practicing scientific thinking. All scientists practice scientific thinking, of course, since they are actively studying nature and investigating the universe by using the scientific method. But scientific thinking is not reserved solely for scientists. Anyone can "think like a scientist" who learns the scientific method and, most importantly, applies its precepts, whether he or she is investigating nature or not. When one uses the methods and principles of scientific thinking in everyday life--such as when studying history or literature, investigating societies or governments, seeking solutions to problems of economics or philosophy, or just trying to answer personal questions about oneself or the meaning of existence--one is said to be practicing critical thinking. Critical thinking is thinking correctly for oneself that successfully leads to the most reliable answers to questions and solutions to problems. In other words, critical thinking gives you reliable knowledge about all aspects of your life and society, and is not restricted to the formal study of nature. Scientific thinking is identical in theory and practice, but the term would be used to describe the method that gives you reliable knowledge about the natural world. Clearly, scientific and critical thinking are the same thing, but where one (scientific thinking) is always practiced by scientists, the other (critical thinking) is sometimes used by humans and sometimes not. Scientific and critical thinking was not discovered and developed by scientists (that honor must go to ancient Hellenistic philosophers, such as Aristotle, who also are sometimes considered the first scientists), but scientists were the ones to bring the practice of critical thinking to the attention and use of modern society (in the 17th and 18th centuries), and they are the most explicit, rigorous, and successful practitioners of critical thinking today. Some professionals in the humanities, social sciences, jurisprudence, business, and journalism practice critical thinking as well as any scientist, but many, alas, do not. Scientists must practice critical thinking to be successful, but the qualifications for success in other professions do not necessarily require the use of critical thinking, a fact that is the source of much confusion, discord, and unhappiness in our sociey .

The scientific method has proven to be the most reliable and successful method of thinking in human history, and it is quite possible to use scientific thinking in other human endeavors. For this reason, critical thinking--the application of scientific thinking to all areas of study and topics of investigation--is being taught in schools throughout the United States, and its teaching is being encouraged as a universal ideal. You may perhaps have been exposed to critical thinking skills and exercises earlier in your education. The important point is this: critical thinking is perhaps the most important skill a student can learn in school and college, since if you master its skills, you know how to think successfully and reach reliable conclusions, and such ability will prove valuable in any human endeavor, including the humanities, social sciences, commerce, law, journalism, and government, as well as in scholarly and scientific pursuits. Since critical thinking and scientific thinking are, as I claim, the same thing, only applied for different purposes, it is therefore reasonable to believe that if one learns scientific thinking in a science class, one learns, at the same time, the most important skill a student can possess--critical thinking. This, to my mind, is perhaps the foremost reason for college students to study science, no matter what one's eventual major, interest, or profession.

The Three Central Components of Scientific and Critical Thinking

What is scientific thinking? At this point, it is customary to discuss questions, observations, data, hypotheses, testing, and theories, which are the formal parts of the scientific method, but these are NOT the most important components of the scientific method. The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific thinking, and scientific (and critical) thinking is based on three things: using empirical evidence (empiricism), practicing logical reasonsing (rationalism), and possessing a skeptical attitude (skepticism) about presumed knowledge that leads to self-questioning, holding tentative conclusions, and being undogmatic (willingness to change one's beliefs). These three ideas or principles are universal throughout science; without them, there would be no scientific or critical thinking. Let's examine each in turn.

1. Empiricism: The Use of Empirical Evidence

Empirical evidence is evidence that one can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell; it is evidence that is susceptible to one's senses. Empirical evidence is important because it is evidence that others besides yourself can experience, and it is repeatable, so empirical evidence can be checked by yourself and others after knowledge claims are made by an individual. Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence that possesses these attributes and is therefore the only type used by scientists and critical thinkers to make vital decisions and reach sound conclusions.

We can contrast empirical evidence with other types of evidence to understand its value. Hearsay evidence is what someone says they heard another say; it is not reliable because you cannot check its source. Better is testimonial evidence, which, unlike hearsay evidence, is allowed in courts of law. But even testimonial evidence is notoriously unreliable, as numerous studies have shown. Courts also allow circumstantial evidence (e.g., means, motive, and opportunity), but this is obviously not reliable. Revelatory evidence or revelation is what someone says was revealed to them by some deity or supernatural power; it is not reliable because it cannot be checked by others and is not repeatable. Spectral evidence is evidence supposedly manifested by ghosts, spirits, and other paranormal or supernatural entities; spectral evidence was once used, for example, to convict and hang a number of innocent women on charges of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, in the seventeenth century, before the colonial governor banned the use of such evidence, and the witchcraft trials ended. Emotional evidence is evidence derived from one's subjective feelings; such evidence is often repeatable, but only for one person, so it is unreliable.

The most common alternative to empirical evidence, authoritarian evidence, is what authorities (people, books, billboards, television commercials, etc.) tell you to believe. Sometimes, if the authority is reliable, authoritarian evidence is reliable evidence, but many authorities are not reliable, so you must check the reliability of each authority before you accept its evidence. In the end, you must be your own authority and rely on your own powers of critical thinking to know if what you believe is reliably true. (Transmitting knowledge by authority is, however, the most common method among humans for three reasons: first, we are all conditioned from birth by our parents through the use of positive and negative reinforcement to listen to, believe, and obey authorities; second, it is believed that human societies that relied on a few experienced or trained authorities for decisions that affected all had a higher survival value than those that didn't, and thus the behaviorial trait of susceptibility to authority was strengthened and passed along to future generations by natural selection; third, authoritarian instruction is the quickest and most efficient method for transmitting information we know about. But remember: some authoritarian evidence and knowledge should be validated by empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and critical thinking before you should consider it reliable, and, in most cases, only you can do this for yourself.

It is, of course, impossible to receive an adequate education today without relying almost entirely upon authoritarian evidence. Teachers, instructors, and professors are generally considered to be reliable and trustworthy authorities, but even they should be questioned on occasion. The use of authoritarian evidence in education is so pervasive, that its use has been questioned as antithetical to the true spirit of scholarly and scientific inquiry, and attempts have been made in education at all levels in recent years to correct this bias by implementing discovery and inquiry methodologies and curricula in classrooms and laboratories. The recently revised geology laboratory course at Miami University, GLG 115.L, is one such attempt, as are the Natural Systems courses in the Western College Program at Miami. It is easier to utilize such programs in humanities and social sciences, in which different yet equally valid conclusions can be reached by critical thinking, rather than in the natural sciences, in which the objective reality of nature serves as a constant judge and corrective mechanism.

Another name for empirical evidence is natural evidence: the evidence found in nature. Naturalism is the philosophy that says that "Reality and existence (i.e. the universe, cosmos, or nature) can be described and explained solely in terms of natural evidence, natural processes, and natural laws." This is exactly what science tries to do. Another popular definition of naturalism is that "The universe exists as science says it does." This definition emphasizes the strong link between science and natural evidence and law, and it reveals that our best understanding of material reality and existence is ultimately based on philosophy. This is not bad, however, for, whether naturalism is ultimately true or not, science and naturalism reject the concept of ultimate or absolute truth in favor of a concept of proximate reliable truth that is far more successful and intellectually satisfying than the alternative, the philosophy of supernaturalism. The supernatural, if it exists, cannot be examined or tested by science, so it is irrelevant to science. It is impossible to possess reliable knowledge about the supernatural by the use of scientific and critical thinking. Individuals who claim to have knowledge about the supernatural do not possess this knowledge by the use of critical thinking, but by other methods of knowing.

Science has unquestionably been the most successful human endeavor in the history of civilization, because it is the only method that successfully discovers and formulates reliable knowledge. The evidence for this statement is so overwhelming that many individuals overlook exactly how modern civilization came to be (our modern civilization is based, from top to bottom, on the discoveries of science and their application, known as technology, to human purposes.). Philosophies that claim to possess absolute or ultimate truth invariably find that they have to justify their beliefs by faith in dogma, authority, revelation, or philosophical speculation, since it is impossible to use finite human logic or natural evidence to demonstrate the existence of the absolute or ultimate in either the natural or supernatural worlds. Scientific and critical thinking require that one reject blind faith, authority, revelation, and subjective human feelings as a basis for reliable belief and knowledge. These human cognitive methods have their place in human life, but not as the foundation for reliable knowledge.

2. Rationalism: The Practice of Logical Reasoning

Scientists and critical thinkers always use logical reasoning. Logic allows us to reason correctly, but it is a complex topic and not easily learned; many books are devoted to explaining how to reason correctly, and we can not go into the details here. However, I must point out that most individuals do not reason logically, because they have never learned how to do so. Logic is not an ability that humans are born with or one that will gradually develop and improve on its own, but is a skill or discipline that must be learned within a formal educational environment. Emotional thinking, hopeful thinking, and wishful thinking are much more common than logical thinking, because they are far easier and more congenial to human nature. Most individuals would rather believe something is true because they feel it is true, hope it is true, or wish it were true, rather than deny their emotions and accept that their beliefs are false.

Often the use of logical reasoning requires a struggle with the will, because logic sometimes forces one to deny one's emotions and face reality, and this is often painful. But remember this: emotions are not evidence, feelings are not facts, and subjective beliefs are not substantive beliefs. Every successful scientist and critical thinker spent years learning how to think logically, almost always in a formal educational context. Some people can learn logical thinking by trial and error, but this method wastes time, is inefficient, is sometimes unsuccessful, and is often painful.

The best way to learn to think logically is to study logic and reasoning in a philosophy class, take mathematics and science courses that force you to use logic, read great literature and study history, and write frequently. Reading, writing, and math are the traditional methods that young people learned to think logically (i.e. correctly), but today science is a fourth method. Perhaps the best way is to do a lot of writing that is then reviewed by someone who has critical thinking skills. Most people never learn to think logically; many illogical arguments and statements are accepted and unchallenged in modern society--often leading to results that are counterproductive to the good of society or even tragic--because so many people don't recognize them for what they are.

3. Skepticism: Possessing a Skeptical Attitude

The final key idea in science and critical thinking is skepticism, the constant questioning of your beliefs and conclusions. Good scientists and critical thinkers constantly examine the evidence, arguments, and reasons for their beliefs. Self-deception and deception of yourself by others are two of the most common human failings. Self-deception often goes unrecognized because most people deceive themselves. The only way to escape both deception by others and the far more common trait of self-deception is to repeatedly and rigorously examine your basis for holding your beliefs. You must question the truth and reliability of both the knowledge claims of others and the knowledge you already possess. One way to do this is to test your beliefs against objective reality by predicting the consequences or logical outcomes of your beliefs and the actions that follow from your beliefs. If the logical consequences of your beliefs match objective reality--as measured by empirical evidence--you can conclude that your beliefs are reliable knowledge (that is, your beliefs have a high probability of being true).

Many people believe that skeptics are closed-minded and, once possessing reliable knowledge, resist changing their minds--but just the opposite is true. A skeptic holds beliefs tentatively, and is open to new evidence and rational arguments about those beliefs. Skeptics are undogmatic, i.e., they are willing to change their minds, but only in the face of new reliable evidence or sound reasons that compel one to do so. Skeptics have open minds, but not so open that their brains fall out: they resist believing something in the first place without adequate evidence or reason, and this attribute is worthy of emulation. Science treats new ideas with the same skepticism: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to justify one's credulity. We are faced every day with fantastic, bizarre, and outrageous claims about the natural world; if we don't wish to believe every pseudoscientific allegation or claim of the paranormal, we must have some method of deciding what to believe or not, and that method is the scientific method which uses critical thinking.

The Scientific Method in Practice

Now, we are ready to put the scientific method into action. Many books have been written about the scientific method, and it is a long and complex topic. Here I will only treat it briefly and superficially. The scientific method, as used in both scientific thinking and critical thinking, follows a number of steps.

1. One must ask a meaningful question or identify a significant problem, and one should be able to state the problem or question in a way that it is conceivably possible to answer it. Any attempt to gain knowledge must start here. Here is where emotions and outside influences come in. For example, all scientists are very curious about nature, and they have to possess this emotional characteristic to sustain the motivation and energy necessary to perform the hard and often tedious work of science. Other emotions that can enter are excitement, ambition, anger, a sense of unfairness, happiness, and so forth. Note that scientists have emotions, some in high degree; however, they don't let their emotions give false validity to their conclusions, and, in fact, the scientific method prevents them from trying to do this even if they wished.

   Many outside factors can come into play here. Scientists must choose which problems to work on, they decide how much time to devote to different problems, and they are often influenced by cultural, social, political, and economic factors. Scientists live and work within a culture that often shapes their approach to problems; they work within theories that often shape their current understanding of nature; they work within a society that often decides what scientific topics will be financially supported and which will not; and they work within a political system that often determines which topics are permitted and financially rewarded and which are not.

   Also, at this point, normally nonscientific emotional factors can lead to divergent pathways. Scientists could be angry at polluters and choose to investigate the effects of pollutants; other scientists could investigate the results of smoking cigarettes on humans because they can earn a living doing this by working for tobacco companies; intuition can be used to suggest different approaches to problems; even dreams can suggest creative solutions to problems. I wish to emphasize, however, that the existence of these frankly widespread nonscientific emotional and cultural influences does not compromize the ultimate reliability and objectivity of scientific results, because subsequent steps in the scientific method serve to eliminate these outside factors and allow science to reach reliable and objective conclusions (admittedly it may take some time for subjective and unreliable scientific results to be eliminated). There exists a school of thought today in the humanities (philosophy, history, and sociology) called post-modernism or scientific constructivism, that claims that science is a social and cultural construct, that scientific knowledge inevitably changes as societies and cultures change, and that science has no inherently valid foundation on which to base its knowledge claims of objectivity and reliability. In brief, post-modernists believe that the modern, scientific world of Enlightenment rationality and objectivity must now give way to a post-modern world of relativism, social constructivism, and equality of belief. Almost all scientists who are aware of this school of thought reject it, as do I; post-modernism is considered irrelevant by scientists and has had no impact on the practice of science at all. We will have to leave this interesting topic for a later time, unfortunately, but you may be exposed to these ideas in a humanities class. If you are, remember to think critically!

2. One must next gather relevant information to attempt to answer the question or solve the problem by making observations. The first observations could be data obtained from the library or information from your own experience. Another souce of observations could be from trial experiments or past experiments. These observations, and all that follow, must be empirical in nature--that is, they must be sensible, measurable, and repeatable, so that others can make the same observations. Great ingenuity and hard work on the part of the scientist is often necessary to make scientific observations. Furthermore, a great deal of training is necessary in order to learn the methods and techniques of gathering scientific data.
   
3. Now one can propose a solution or answer to the problem or question. In science, this suggested solution or answer is called a scientific hypothesis, and this is one of the most important steps a scientist can perform, because the proposed hypothesis must be stated in such a way that it is testable. A scientific hypothesis is an informed,testable, and predictive solution to a scientific problem that explains a natural phenomenon, process, or event. In critical thinking, as in science, your proposed answer or solution must be testable, otherwise it is essentially useless for further investigation. Most individuals--noncritical thinkers all--stop here, and are satisfied with their first answer or solution, but this lack of skepticism is a major roadblock to gaining reliable knowledge. While some of these early proposed answers may be true, most will be false, and further investigation will almost always be necessary to determine their validity.
   
4. Next, one must test the hypothesis before it is corroborated and given any real validity. There are two ways to do this. First, one can conduct an experiment. This is often presented in science textbooks as the only way to test hypotheses in science, but a little reflection will show that many natural problems are not amenable to experimentation, such as questions about stars, galaxies, mountain formation, the formation of the solar system, ancient evolutionary events, and so forth. The second way to test a hypothesis is to make further observations. Every hypothesis has consequences and makes certain predictions about the phenomenon or process under investigation. Using logic and empirical evidence, one can test the hypothesis by examining how successful the predictions are, that is, how well the predictions and consequences agree with new data, further insights, new patterns, and perhaps with models. The testability or predictiveness of a hypothesis is its most important characteristic. Only hypotheses involving natural processes, natural events, and natural laws can be tested; the supernatural cannot be tested, so it lies outside of science and its existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to science.
   
5. If the hypothesis fails the test, it must be rejected and either abandoned or modified. Most hypotheses are modified by scientists who don't like to simply throw out an idea they think is correct and in which they have already invested a great deal of time or effort. Nevertheless, a modified hypothesis must be tested again. If the hypothesis passes the further tests, it is considered to be a corroborated hypothesis, and can now be published. A corroborated hypothesis is one that has passed its tests, i.e., one whose predictions have been verified. Now other scientists test the hypothesis. If further corroborated by subsequent tests, it becomes highly corroborated and is now considered to be reliable knowledge. By the way, the technical name for this part of the scientific method is the "hypothetico-deductive method," so named because one deduces the results of the predictions of the hypothesis and tests these deductions. Inductive reasoning, the alternative to deductive reasoning, was used earlier to help formulate the hypothesis. Both of these types of reasoning are therefore used in science, and both must be used logically.

   Scientists never claim that a hypothesis is "proved" in a strict sense (but sometimes this is quite legitimately claimed when using popular language), because proof is something found only in mathematics and logic, disciplines in which all logical parameters or constraints can be defined, and something that is not true in the natural world. Scientists prefer to use the word "corroborated" rather than "proved," but the meaning is essentially the same. A highly corroborated hypothesis becomes something else in addition to reliable knowledge--it becomes a scientific fact. A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it. This type of reliable knowledge is the closest that humans can come to the "truth" about the universe (I put the word "truth" in quotation marks because there are many different kinds of truth, such as logical truth, emotional truth, religious truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, etc.; it should be clear that this essay deals with scientific truth, which, while certainly not the sole truth, is nevertheless the best truth humans can possess about the natural world).

   There are many such scientific facts: the existence of gravity as a property of all matter, the past and present evolution of all living organisms, the presence of nucleic acids in all life, the motion of continents and giant tectonic plates on Earth, the expansion of the universe following a giant explosion, and so forth. Many scientific facts violate common sense and the beliefs of ancient philosophies and religions, so many people persist in denying them, but they thereby indulge in irrationality and perversity. Many other areas of human thought and philosophy, and many other knowledge systems (methods of gaining knowledge), exist that claim to have factual knowledge about the world. Some even claim that their facts are absolutely or ultimately true, something science would never claim. But their "facts" are not reliable knowledge, because--while they might fortuitously be true--they have not been justified by a reliable method. If such unreliable "facts" are true--and I certainly don't maintain that all such knowledge claims are false--we can never be sure that they are true, as we can with scientific facts.

6. The final step of the scientific method is to construct, support, or cast doubt on a scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

   These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking.

Copyright © 1994 by Steven D. Schafersman

 

---

 

 

Steven D. Schafersman

http://www.developer.com/design/article.php/2109801

Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover the mysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learn how the world works? Forget it!

 Science is fun and exciting. The thrill of discovery is unique. If you are smart, ambitious and hard working you should major in science as an undergraduate. But that is as far as you should take it. After graduation, you will have to deal with the real world. That means that you should not even consider going to graduate school in science. Do something else instead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or something else which appeals to you.

 

Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you from following a career path which was successful for me? Because times have changed (I received my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American science no longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school in science it is in the expectation of spending your working life doing scientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve important and interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed, probably when it is too late to choose another career.

 

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the price drops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes the form of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs. Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaining a real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) most young scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have no prospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoral position and move every two years. For many more details consult the Young Scientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of the Washington Monthly.

 

As examples, consider two of the leading candidates for a recent Assistant Professorship in my department. One was 37, ten years out of graduate school (he didn't get the job). The leading candidate, whom everyone thinks is brilliant, was 35, seven years out of graduate school. Only then was he offered his first permanent job (that's not tenure, just the possibility of it six years later, and a step off the treadmill of looking for a new job every two years). The latest example is a 39 year old candidate for another Assistant Professorship; he has published 35 papers. In contrast, a doctor typically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at 31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27 (computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrial demand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.). Anyone with the intelligence, ambition and willingness to work hard to succeed in science can also succeed in any of these other professions.

 

Typical postdoctoral salaries begin at $27,000 annually in the biological sciences and about $35,000 in the physical sciences (graduate student stipends are less than half these figures). Can you support a family on that income? It suffices for a young couple in a small apartment, though I know of one physicist whose wife left him because she was tired of repeatedly moving with little prospect of settling down. When you are in your thirties you will need more: a house in a good school district and all the other necessities of ordinary middle class life. Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not justify an oath of poverty or celibacy.

 

Of course, you don't go into science to get rich. So you choose not to go to medical or law school, even though a doctor or lawyer typically earns two to three times as much as a scientist (one lucky enough to have a good senior-level job). I made that choice too. I became a scientist in order to have the freedom to work on problems which interest me. But you probably won't get that freedom. As a postdoc you will work on someone else's ideas, and may be treated as a technician rather than as an independent collaborator. Eventually, you will probably be squeezed out of science entirely. You can get a fine job as a computer programmer, but why not do this at 22, rather than putting up with a decade of misery in the scientific job market first? The longer you spend in science the harder you will find it to leave, and the less attractive you will be to prospective employers in other fields.

 

Perhaps you are so talented that you can beat the postdoc trap; some university (there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences) will be so impressed with you that you will be hired into a tenure track position two years out of graduate school. Maybe. But the general cheapening of scientific labor means that even the most talented stay on the postdoctoral treadmill for a very long time; consider the job candidates described above. And many who appear to be very talented, with grades and recommendations to match, later find that the competition of research is more difficult, or at least different, and that they must struggle with the rest.

 

Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professorship. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. They're not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in a proposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, however original and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that original ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet been proved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they can be, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you find that it is not what you wanted after all.

 

What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyone who does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue another career.

 

This will spare you the misery of disappointed expectations. Young Americans have generally woken up to the bad prospects and absence of a reasonable middle class career path in science and are deserting it. If you haven't yet, then join them. Leave graduate school to people from India and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse. I have known more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physics than by drugs.

 

If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try to persuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. The glut of scientists is entirely the consequence of funding policies (almost all graduate education is paid for by federal grants). The funding agencies are bemoaning the scarcity of young people interested in science when they themselves caused this scarcity by destroying science as a career. They could reverse this situation by matching the number trained to the demand, but they refuse to do so, or even to discuss the problem seriously (for many years the NSF propagated a dishonest prediction of a coming shortage of scientists, and most funding agencies still act as if this were true). The result is that the best young people, who should go into science, sensibly refuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled with weak American students and with foreigners lured by the American student visa.

Scenario Development

Personal space

 Expecting to meet with Ms. Glenn, you might find yourself in a room with four other people: Ms. Glenn, two of her staff, and the Sales Director. Companies often want to gain the insights of various people when interviewing candidates. This method of interviewing is often attractive for companies that rely heavily on team cooperation. Not only does the company want to know whether your skills balance that of the company, but also whether you can get along with the other workers. In some companies, multiple people will interview you simultaneously. In other companies, you will proceed through a series of one-on-one interviews.

• Treat each person as an important individual. Gain each person's business card at the beginning of the meeting, if possible, and refer to each person by name. If there are several people in the room at once, you might wish to scribble down their names on a sheet of paper according to where each is sitting. Make eye contact with each person and speak directly to the person asking each question.
• Use the opportunity to gain as much information about the company as you can. Just as each interviewer has a different function in the company, they each have a unique perspective. When asking questions, be sensitive not to place anyone in a position that invites him to compromise confidentiality or loyalty.
• Bring at least double the anecdotes and sound-bites to the interview as you would for a traditional one-on-one interview. Be ready to illustrate your main message in a variety of ways to a variety of people.
• Prepare psychologically to expend more energy and be more alert than you would in a one-on-one interview. Stay focused and adjustable. 

 

普通民谣吉他，普通耳机mic，Cooledit 录音，降噪。请多对音效点评，少对唱者点评。

Aroud here, however, we don't look backwards for very long.
We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things, because we're curious...
And Curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.

前几天听同学给我讲了一个故事，一个发生在我身边，和我密切相关的故事，事实上还是因我而起的故事。故事已经结束了，但它让我很无语，让我得出了一个令我很惊讶的结论：女生竟然如此注重一些不切实际的感觉。当然，这只是男生的看法，这又让我得出了另外一个显然的问题：我们男生又有多少想法在女生看来是不可理喻的呢？我觉得肯定有，而且不少，而且让女生很无语。另外，如果说上帝创造了人，那么我们可以得出这样一个推论：上帝是一个很糟糕的设计师。理由是：本来要设计男女在一起生活，却把两者的思想设计得那么不同，很多方面甚至还有冲突。但是对于我这样一个科学主义者是不会相信这个糟糕的设计师的存在的。到这里，我只有一个猜想了，不知道怎么证明：还是我们自己的原因，我们太自私，太自我，甚至为了自己一点小小的情绪，去否定一些人，一些事。我自己也犯过这样的错，而且不敢保证将来不会再犯。人，很难绝对的理性。

不过就这样一件小事想些这些乱七八糟的事情本身就不合理，所以全当乱YY了。

一首表达了我部分心情的歌

希望我的35岁开心一点，自律一点，真诚一点，稳重一点，谦虚一点，努力一点，幸福一点，不要没事乱闹情绪。年轻不是借口，每个人都年轻过，不怕.....

又有N久没来这里了，但是现在还是没心情写，不久就要去看“变形金刚了”，暂时换换背景吧。。。

    今天白天勉强看了下书，傍晚出去打球了，回来想休息休息，看看书或者背背单词，可惜又经历了一场小风雨。唉，怕什么，暴风雪都经历过了，这点小雨可以忽略不计了。博客也不能总记录自己的坏心情啊，昨天丹霞传给我一首歌，确实很有青春气息，等过两天心情平静了再放上来，确实好听，听了也有好心情的。4.15，还有15天4月就结束了，每一天现在都很珍贵啊，不努力真的补不回来的。谢谢上面那个我不知道是谁的朋友的鼓励，发现人群中的鼓励还是有真的的。把鼓励放在心里，从深渊里努力的爬起来，既然这样我都没有崩溃，那我绝对不会放弃的。不过真的要跟自己的懒惰做斗争，它太可恶了！

    努力做一个宽容的人，做一个爱憎分明的人。。。

    换了博客，不是为了逃避以前的那段经历，不是害怕自己无法面对，而是MSN出毛病，居然写不了了，我晕。。。如果MSN好了的话还是要回去的，毕竟那是我的经历，见证了我的成长。。。

   昨天The Days in FLA的首映终于办完了，人数不多，都是那几张熟悉的面孔，看到她们心里有的不只是高兴，说实话，很伤心，感觉自己的那些年岁已经不再了，FLA给我的不只是和伙伴们共同经历的那些时光，也给了我一段伤心的回忆。

   曾经对室友说，终于发现自己是个善良的人，昨天又有了这样的感觉，很多人不知道，昨天我想说的话不只那些，还有很多想说的话，想说说做片子的时候发生的一些事，虽然不会明说，但想提提，心里有委屈，有不解，也有一点埋怨。但看到大家那么热心的为首映工作，知道那样的话虽然隐晦，但还是会让人不爽的。一时间，便忍下心来，还是留在心底吧。别人已经给了大家那么好的印象，虽然不全真实，也是努力换来的。也可以说是软弱吧，可是自己就是这样的人，话说的很夸张，但真正要做决定了，如果对不住他人的，还是狠不下心来，也都是埋在心里了。跟老师一起做事的一个同学说我不要什么事情都自己承担，室友也说我埋藏的太深，也许这真的是我的弱点吧。。。

   和很多人也许不同，我不想在博客上细数生活中的点点滴滴，不想展示那些会让人感觉好但是其实完全没必要说的东西。那些小事，也许会改变别人对你的映象，也许会让人觉得你很体贴，让人觉得你很努力，但那毕竟是自己说的，不知为什么，心里就有种不真实的感觉。

   开学一个半月了，过了不知道多少个混混顿顿的日子，不轻松，自己的错。反而好像自己想向别人证明些什么，有什么好证明的呢？别人能睡一觉就忘记那么多事情，那么多心情，自己睡了大半年还是不能忘，似乎说明这就是真的了，但现在也够了，给谁看呢？昨天的首映似乎在我心中划上了一个句号，嗯，可以开始忘记了，别人有别人的生活，自己也不会过得更差，还有好多事情要自己做，尽管FLA的伙伴们都会来安慰，会来支持，正如他们做到的，但最终还是要自己走出来。其实老友记里面的钱得勒也是这样说的，最终还是要靠自己。不过真的很感谢FLA的伙伴们，说实话，我真的不好意思当面说些让你们感动的话，也不好意思当面对你们真诚的笑一笑，只是开些傻傻的玩笑。不过心中的温暖是以前怎么也体会不到的。记得找海丹采访的时候，前面还有一些人，我们就聊了聊，让我吃惊的是，我们那么久没见面，她也能看出我当时的心情，也会不住的安慰我，鼓励我，也会拿自己的经历开涮，当时真的很惊讶，大大咧咧的海丹也如此体贴，而且给人的感觉那么的真实。FLA的伙伴也大都这样，平时不会很表面，都大大咧咧，但有困难的时候，有需要的时候，真的会挺身而出，而不是退缩。真的要谢谢黛瑛，每次找她述苦，不论多晚，她都陪着我，有时候自己亲密的人都走了，她却能这样坚持，这样的挚友，一生中有几个呢？真的是日久才见人心啊！不论好的，坏的，无法判断的，真的要花时间才能看清。上次孙喆找我说要剪片，其实也算是一次叙旧的长谈，依然可以聊的开心，她还时不时在我室友面前叫我“亲爱的！”唉，这样的友谊真的很难得。感觉她更像我高中时候的同学，或者说高中时候的女同学，都能如此不计较小节，也会无聊的闹来闹去，和张亚也是这样，就连开会的时候也会互相“嘲讽”。有人说这样很无聊，那又怎样呢？很开心能有这样的朋友，试想真正走入社会了，有多少人还能这样呢？也许这很幼稚，但纯真的心在这个被表面所迷惑的世界越来越难得了。工作室里的风气也差不多这样，大家也会大大咧咧的开玩笑。小旋风也会当着张亚的面说我傻B，大家也会吵来吵去，直言不讳。虽然这样有时候会不小心说到对方的心事，但如果大家愿意，也能一起分享的，是真正的心灵分享，而不是笑着，假装认真的点点头。

   工作室的人越来越有激情，让我很是感动。洁琦也会说拼了这条命也要跟你好好干了，这样的热情，真的希望每个人都能长久的拥有。那些不快的往事，也就忘了它吧，还有自己的将来。好久没有认真看过书了，好久没有仔细想问题了，表面的光环也无法弥补内心的空虚，有些事情也不想过多的说出去，每件事情都是一样的，可以说得好听点，也可以说得很难听，但到底怎样，却只有事实是真的。就像那段经历，我也可以说它让我的内心更加坚强了，让我更加明白人情世故，不论是好的，还是坏的，还是不好不坏的。但就像老妈这学期开学时说的，小心一点，以免留下一生的伤痛。可惜老妈的劝告来得晚了些。。。算了，这些总要忘的，不再管它说的好不好听，只等将来另一个人能听我述说。那些好听的事，不去说它，也不过如此，没什么大不了的，所以亚、瑛，还是不要把我昨天跟你们说的事跟别人说了吧，我知道那听起来很好，让人觉得很好，但我不喜欢这样的张扬，不喜欢这样表面的去维护自己的形象。其实反而希望别人能认识一个真正的我，不论在朋友面前，还是在对自己很重要的人面前，都希望给他们看的是真的我，而不是那个被装扮出来的我。室友曾说过，漂亮都是打扮出来的，真正的美在心里，那是通过长期的行动表现出来的。

   工作室的片头做了那么久，那种辛苦和心酸可能只有少数人可以体会，现在发现自己一个特点，只有两种事能让我忘记吃饭，其中一件就是CG，讲出来好像很牛，不过也只是说着好听罢了，其实自己还什么都不懂的。不过有时候不爽，别人一句“技术活”就把所有的东西盖住了，所有的辛苦，努力，似乎就值技术两个字。也没所谓了，那么多事情我都能忍，这些无关紧要的小事还不能？

   有些事情还是要做出选择的，导演实在当不了了，该放弃了，但我还是会继续为工作室努力的，大家的热情也是我的动力啊。。这一个半月真的好累好累，不仅生活累，心更累，什么乱七八糟的东西都要想，不想想的也跑来捣乱，经常都不知道自己的心情是什么，想过在这样的压力下自己到底什么时候会崩溃，真的不知道。也希望能有机会好好休息休息，可是总没有这样的机会。昨天的首映后，自己的心情就安静了一些，完成了一些事，圆满了，也许我真的很傻，花这么大精力做这样一部在别人看来毫无意义的片子，很多人置疑过我，也难受过，其实说实话，这是我到现在为止做过的最难受的一部片子，原因也有一些人知道，不过还是做完了，对海丹做过的承诺算是完成了，还是要说声抱歉，迟到了这么久。该走上自己新的路了，大三过了大半，大三对我的意义也不一般，但终究还是要继续走下去的。再静一静，重新上路。彻底的容忍也意味着彻底的淡忘，也许自己真的忍得太多，但要做点事情，真的还要忍一忍。这么久没写博客，那么多心情也是没法表达的，寒假的辛酸，工作的压力，自己的梦想，有些乱，有些远，想着亚也，那么多人说她，多少人真正理解，或者只是用来衬托自己呢？感动放在心里，真的，可以埋藏的东西就不要随便给人看了吧。4.13，明年这个时候我又在干什么呢？呵呵，加油吧，给自己打气！