评论
打印
because usability studies tend to be very vertical.
因为可用性研究是垂直的。
A study might ask，“What do you think of this particular feature?”
一项调查可能会问：“您认为此特性如何？”
But it’s not easy to ask, “What do you think of this language?”Where would you begin?
但是不会问：“您认为此语言如何？”从何开始呢？
How can you possibly attack that in a two-hour usability study? It’s just impossible.
你能通过两个小时的可用性研究解决可用性问题吗？不 可能。
Somebody has to have depth of understanding.
一些人需要有很深的理解。
Working with a programming language is a much more immersive process.
使用一种编程语言是一个 使人沉醉的过程。
People don’t really come to appreciate a programming language until they’ve worked with it for months.
只有在使用几个月之后，人们才会慢慢地欣赏一种语言。
And then they may gradually realize, “Wow, this is really comfortable.”
他们会渐渐意识到，“啊，使用这种语言真舒服。”
You just can’t do that very quickly.
你不可能很快就得到这种印象。
That being said, we did a bunch of usability studies,
海尔其实，我们也做了很多可用性研究，
but they were more vertically targeted on particular features.
但都垂直集中在某些特性上。
For example?
比如说？
Most of it was actually usability studies of IDE features.
实际上，大部分可用性研究都集中在集成开发环境的特性上。
We might ask, “Can people understand that they right click to do this or that?”
我们有可能会问：“使用者会知道通过点 击右键来做这个或那个吗？”
We did some usability studies for the pure language syntax itself
我们也对纯粹的语法做可用性研究，
—I think we did some with properties and events, for example—but it was not necessary really.
比如属性和事件，但实际上没有必要。
I don’t think that you get as high a yield from usability studies for language features as for IDE features.
我认为对语言做可用性研究的收益比对集成开发环境的特性做相关研究的相同。
IDEs are very interactive. You can watch users right click menu items and get good feedback.
集成开发环境有很强的互动性。你可以看到用户右键菜单里的条目，并且可以得到良好的反馈。
the question is more, “Is it conceptually understandable?”
有更多的问题，比如：“这个东西在概念上可以理解吗？ ”
That’s done very well by having a customer advisory councils, sounding boards.
客户建议委员会通过 “传声板”能很好地解决 这种问题。
You want places where you can say, “Here’s what we’re thinking about doing for this particular new feature. What do you all think?”
我们希望可以有一个地方向客户提问，比如：“这是我们对某个新特性的理解，你们感觉怎样？”
