Imagine, you are out waiting for a taxi. You are about to miss your appointment. You wait for minutes but Good Lord! — there’s not a single taxi that can offer you a ride.

想象一下，您正在外面等出租車。 您將錯過約會。 您等待幾分鐘，但好主！ -沒有一輛出租車可以為您提供乘車服務。

This is a problem, and it needs to be solved. So, you come up with an idea that you will connect yourself with every taxi driver in the city through an app so that they are notified when and where you need them. Just like that — you have your million dollar idea and you forget about your appointment, get back to your apartment to plan out everything that you need to do to make that app happen.

這是一個問題，需要解決。 因此，您想到了一個想法，可以通過一個應用程序將自己與城市中的每個出租車司機聯系起來，以便在需要的時間和地點通知他們。 就是這樣-您有數百萬美元的想法，卻忘了約會，回到您的公寓，計劃一切以實現該應用所需的一切。

This is how we can define Design. It’s a plan or specification to construct something that only exists because there is a need. Through Design, you are taking a step toward solving the problem. Remember, the problem isn’t solved yet, you need to construct (development) the entire product according to your plan (Design) to actually solve the problem.

這就是我們定義設計的方式。 這是一種計劃或規范，用于構造僅因需要而存在的事物。 通過設計，您正在朝解決問題邁出一步。 請記住，問題尚未解決，您需要根據計劃(設計)構造(開發)整個產品才能真正解決問題。

設計的作用 (Roles of Design)

As we have learned earlier that the purpose of Design is to initiate a solution to a problem, this initiative can be divided into two roles:

正如我們先前所了解的那樣，設計的目的是發起問題的解決方案，該計劃可以分為兩個角色：

1. Making the solution functional
   使解決方案發揮作用
2. Making the solution look good
   使解決方案看起來不錯

Look at this button design. The functional role of the Design is to make you click on the button. On the other hand, the secondary role is to make it look appealing.

看一下這個按鈕的設計。 設計的功能作用是使您單擊按鈕。 另一方面，次要作用是使其具有吸引力。

好的設計還是不好的設計？ (Good Design or Bad Design?)

Based on the evaluation of these two roles, we can easily distinguish good designs from bad ones. A good design makes the solution (read product) perfectly functional and aesthetic at the same time. A perfectly functional, but not so aesthetic solution can also be a result of good Design. However, if a design offers an aesthetic solution with bad functionality, it is just a bad design.

根據對這兩個角色的評估，我們可以輕松地將好的設計與壞的設計區分開。 良好的設計可以使解決方案( 讀取產品)同時完美地發揮功能和美觀。 一個好的功能，但不是那么美觀的解決方案也可以歸功于良好的設計。 但是，如果設計提供的美感解決方案具有不良的功能，那么它就是一個不良的設計。

“Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” — Steve Jobs

“設計不僅是外觀和感覺。 設計就是它的工作方式。” —史蒂夫·喬布斯

藝術或科學 (Art or Science)

Is design art, or is it science? Before we dive in, let’s take a step back and refresh the fundamentals.

是設計藝術，還是科學？ 在深入探討之前，讓我們退后一步，刷新一下基礎知識。

Art is an expression of human creation of which the primary purpose is to convey emotions, thoughts, desires, or intuitions; an artist communicates with the audience through art. On the other hand, science is a system of acquiring knowledge that encompasses systematic study through observations and experiments.

藝術是人類創造的一種表達，其主要目的是傳達情感，思想，欲望或直覺。 藝術家通過藝術與觀眾交流。 另一方面，科學是一種獲取知識的系統，其中包括通過觀察和實驗進行的系統研究。

While artists and designers often use similar tools, Design is far from art. Moreover, despite both Design and science requiring systematic study, they are not synonymous. The bottom line is that Design is an aggregate of both. It is neither as subjective as art nor as objective as science. Unlike art, Design is not contingent on personal views. Contrary to science, it does not limit itself to solid reality.

盡管藝術家和設計師經常使用類似的工具，但設計遠非藝術。 而且，盡管設計和科學都需要系統研究，但它們并不是同義詞。 底線是設計是兩者的綜合。 它既不像藝術那樣主觀，也不像科學那樣客觀。 與藝術不同，設計并非視個人觀點而定。 與科學相反，它并不局限于實體現實。

In a nutshell, Design lies in the middle.

簡而言之，設計位于中間。

是設計藝術嗎？ (Is Design Art?)

Design can convey emotions and intuitions of the designer as art does. However, the purpose of Design itself is crucial to distinguish between Design and art. Although Design also communicates with its audience, its objectivity and universality separate it from art. Art expresses itself with its visibility, while Design by its solution and stays unnoticed. (you will understand this by the end of the article).

設計可以像藝術一樣傳達設計師的情感和直覺。 但是，設計本身的目的對于區分設計和藝術至關重要。 盡管設計還與觀眾交流，但其客觀性和普遍性將其與藝術區分開。 藝術以可見性表達自己，而設計以其解決方案表達自己，卻不被關注。 (您將在本文結尾處了解這一點)。

是設計科學嗎？ (Is Design Science?)

Just like science which is the system of acquiring knowledge, Design is a system of making a plan. Although both having systematic approaches toward them and research being part of the systems, the purpose is quite different — science offers explanations, while Design provides solutions.

就像科學是獲取知識的系統一樣，設計也是制定計劃的系統。 盡管對它們都有系統的方法并且研究是系統的一部分，但目的卻大不相同-科學提供解釋，而設計提供解決方案。

Art is in your heart but the heart doesn’t necessarily suggest you a solution, design does and so does brain!

藝術在您的心中，但內心不一定會為您提供解決方案，設計也可以為您提供靈感！

設計的客觀性 (The Objectivity of Design)

We keep saying that art is subjective, science is objective, and Design is somewhere in between. Let’s try to visualize that for a moment.

我們一直在說藝術是主觀的，科學是客觀的，而設計則介于兩者之間。 讓我們試著想象一下。

Suppose we want to design a movie poster. Now let’s put that in the context of our definition of Design — Design, only exists when there is a need, is a plan to create something to initiate a solution to a problem. The Design of the poster will only exist because there is a need. What can be the need here? Marketing needs.

假設我們要設計一個電影海報。 現在，在我們對設計的定義的上下文中，將設計放到設計中，即只有在有需要時才存在，它是創建一些東西來啟動問題解決方案的計劃。 海報的設計只會存在，因為有需要。 這里可能有什么需要？ 營銷需求。

Next, the Design will initiate a solution to a problem. So, what’s the problem, and what’s the solution to the problem? The problem is that people won’t watch our movie unless they know about its existence and are intrigued to watch it. The physical poster that will let people know about the movie and intrigue them is the solution.

接下來，設計將啟動問題解決方案。 那么，有什么問題，有什么解決方案呢？ 問題在于，除非人們知道我們的電影并且對它感興趣，否則他們不會觀看。 解決方案就是讓人們了解電影并吸引他們的物理海報。

At this point, we have defined our problem and have an idea about the solution. Let’s hire two talented designers to create a model of the solution so that our expectation of the solution meets the reality after the Design is implemented. Now, we provide the designers with the necessary information. Let’s assume that both of them will create great designs (because we hired great designers).

至此，我們已經定義了問題，并對解決方案有了一個想法。 讓我們聘請兩位才華橫溢的設計師來創建解決方案的模型，以便我們對解決方案的期望能夠在實施設計后滿足現實。 現在，我們為設計師提供了必要的信息。 假設他們兩個都將創造出色的設計(因為我們聘用了出色的設計師)。

Once submitted, let’s compare the designs. What are the differences, and what are the similarities? Obviously, both will look significantly different from each other. However, the significant similarity we will notice is that both are communicating the same thing, both the designs are intriguing the viewers, and both are containing a similar set of elements (texts, images, graphics).

提交后，讓我們比較一下設計。 有什么區別，有什么相似之處？ 顯然，兩者看起來將彼此顯著不同。 但是，我們將注意到的一個顯著相似之處是，兩者都傳達著同一件事，兩種設計都吸引著觀眾，并且都包含一組相似的元素(文本，圖像，圖形)。

Let’s revise the roles of Design we have learned earlier. We use Design to make the solution functional and look good. Now let’s put these roles into the context of our poster design example. The aesthetic aspect of the designs varied, where the functionality remained the same. It leads us to the conclusion that the functionality aspect of a design is objective and universal. However, the looks will always be subjective.

讓我們修改一下我們先前學習的設計角色。 我們使用Design來使解決方案正常運行并看起來不錯。 現在，讓我們將這些角色放入海報設計示例的上下文中。 設計的美學方面各不相同，而功能保持不變。 它使我們得出結論：設計的功能性方面是客觀且通用的。 但是，外觀始終是主觀的。

設計與工程 (Design and Engineering)

Are designers engineers, or is it the other way around? To answer this question, we can divide the product development process into two components. To make a solution (read product) functional —

是設計師工程師，還是相反？ 為了回答這個問題，我們可以將產品開發過程分為兩個部分。 為了使解決方案(閱讀產品)正常運行，

a. the specification (or plan) should be made according to the user requirements,

一個。 規格(或計劃)應根據用戶要求制定，

b. the product should be constructed according to the specification.

b。 產品應根據規格進行構造。

People responsible for the former are called designers and people responsible for the latter are called engineers. If we observe carefully, designers are more responsible for ensuring pleasurable human interaction with the product; they closely work with humans to ensure that. On the other side, engineers are more accountable for constructing the product in such a manner that the product functions according to the specification and doesn’t fall apart; they mostly work with the construction tools.

對前者負責的人稱為設計師，對后者負責的人稱為工程師。 如果我們仔細觀察，設計師將負責確保人類與產品的愉快互動。 他們與人類緊密合作以確保這一點。 另一方面，工程師要對產品的構造負責，以使產品能夠按照規格運行且不會崩潰。 他們大多使用施工工具。

Does it mean designers don’t code and engineers don’t plan? Not necessarily. Having coding knowledge is beneficial for designers. Knowing how the product is going to be constructed often helps the designer to design. But when a designer is writing codes, it’s no longer a part of the design; it’s part of engineering. Similarly, when an engineer creates the specifications, it’s not part of the engineering; it’s part of the Design.

這是否意味著設計師不編寫代碼，工程師不規劃？ 不必要。 擁有編碼知識對設計人員是有益的。 知道如何構造產品通常有助于設計師進行設計。 但是，當設計師編寫代碼時，它不再是設計的一部分。 這是工程學的一部分。 同樣，當工程師創建規范時，它也不屬于工程的一部分。 它是設計的一部分。

設計與創新 (Design and Innovation)

At this point, we have an idea about what Design means. To find the connection between Design and innovation, we must define innovation first.

至此，我們對設計的含義有了一個了解。 為了找到設計與創新之間的聯系，我們必須首先定義創新。

Innovation is the process of solving a problem in a way that creates value for customers.

創新是以為客戶創造價值的方式解決問題的過程。

The definition, however, overlaps significantly with that of Design. So what’s the difference? Design is the plan to create something (read to solve a problem), and for it to be innovation, the solution has to create values.

但是，該定義與設計的定義明顯重疊。 那有什么區別呢？ 設計是創造事物的計劃( 閱讀以解決問題)，要想創新，解決方案就必須創造價值。

In the process of product development, it is necessary that we define a problem and reach the solution through the means of Design and implementation. Whether the product will bring innovation or not, depends on how we define that problem. By definition, for a product to bring innovation, it has to create values for its customers. But how do we create value? We create values by making the product feasible, viable, and desirable. Thus our problem statement should include feasibility, viability, and desirability, so the product is designed in a way that checks all the boxes.

在產品開發過程中，有必要定義問題并通過設計和實施的方式來找到解決方案。 產品是否帶來創新，取決于我們如何定義該問題。 按照定義，要想帶來創新的產品，就必須為其客戶創造價值。 但是我們如何創造價值？ 我們通過使產品可行，可行和令人滿意來創造價值。 因此，我們的問題陳述應包括可行性，可行性和合意性，因此產品的設計應能檢查所有復選框。

Here we have two problem statements; the first one is for product development, and the second one is for innovative product development:

這里有兩個問題陳述； 第一個用于產品開發，第二個用于創新產品開發：

• Connect users with the nearest taxi and let them know each other’s location.
  將用戶與最近的出租車聯系起來，讓他們知道彼此的位置。
• Connect users with the nearest taxi and let them know each other’s location in a way that is fast, intuitive and will cost them the amount they are happy to pay and also feasible for the business to continue operating.
  將用戶與最近的出租車聯系起來，使他們以快速，直觀的方式彼此了解對方的位置，這將使他們付出他們樂意支付的費用，并且對于企業繼續經營也是可行的。

設計為橋梁 (Design as a Bridge)

A bridge connects two ends usually divided by some obstacle. Just like that, Design is a bridge between problem and solution, business and people. We already have adequate knowledge about how Design is the bridge between problem and solution. But the latter argument — Design is a bridge between business and people — needs to be constructed.

橋連接通常被一些障礙物分開的兩端。 就像這樣，設計是問題與解決方案，業務與人員之間的橋梁。 我們已經對設計如何成為問題與解決方案之間的橋梁具有足夠的了解。 但是，后一種觀點(設計是企業與人之間的橋梁)需要構建。

To construct the argument, we need to understand the relation between products and services a bit. It is to be mentioned that people often confuse products with goods, but that’s another topic to discuss. How I see it (outside the context of Design), product is the parent of goods and services where goods are tangible, and services are intangible. But we designers set the relationship in a slightly different way. We see a product as a mean to deliver a service. As an example, Uber app is a product and its connecting drivers with passengers is a service.

要構建論點，我們需要稍微了解產品和服務之間的關系。 值得一提的是，人們經常將產品與商品混淆，但這是另一個需要討論的話題。 我如何看待它(在設計的上下文之外)，產品是商品和服務的父項，而商品是有形的，而服務是無形的。 但是我們的設計師以稍微不同的方式設置關系。 我們將產品視為提供服務的一種手段。 例如，Uber應用程序是一種產品，其將駕駛員與乘客連接起來就是一項服務。

Now let’s get back to our bridge argument. Product is made through Design and service is delivered through product. Designers take the problem statement from business to design a product that will serve the customers. So why don’t we say that the product is the bridge between business and people? Or may it’s the service! Well, the product itself can’t connect business with people if there’s no service, and service itself is dependent on the product. If we take a closer look, it’s the design that makes the product deliver the service; hence it’s the actual bridge that connects businesses with people.

現在讓我們回到我們的橋梁論點。 產品通過設計制造，服務通過產品交付。 設計師從業務中獲取問題陳述，以設計將為客戶服務的產品。 那么，為什么不說產品是企業與人之間的橋梁呢？ 還是服務！ 好吧，如果沒有服務，產品本身就無法與人建立業務聯系，并且服務本身取決于產品。 如果我們仔細觀察，是使產品交付服務的設計。 因此，這是將企業與人聯系起來的真正橋梁。

設計的可見性 (The Visibility of Design)

Think about a situation — you are visiting a university from your dream that is full of architectural surprises. You roam around the campus and sheer excitement engulfs you as you finally think about visiting the library. You keep walking and end up in front of the library taking the shortest route possible without asking anyone, without being guided by any signs. This is the power of Design. Great designs being invisible, guide you towards the right direction with the least possible effort. As Design gets better and better, its visibility keeps decreasing.

考慮一下情況–您從夢想中來的大學充滿了建筑上的驚喜。 當您最終考慮參觀圖書館時，您會在校園中四處游蕩，而純粹的興奮感將您吞沒。 您一直走著走，走在圖書館前面，走了盡可能最短的路線，沒有問任何人，也沒有任何標志的指引。 這就是設計的力量。 出色的設計是無形的，可以引導您以最小的努力朝著正確的方向發展。 隨著設計越來越好，其可見性不斷降低。

Great designs are a hundred percent transparent.

出色的設計是百分百透明的。

Design exists to satisfy some need, and it encompasses problem-solving. While Design isn’t the solution, it’s a model of the solution. Not being entirely art or science, it’s a complement of engineering. Great designs being invisible, connect people with businesses in the most efficient way.

存在設計以滿足某些需求，并且它包含解決問題的能力。 盡管設計不是解決方案，但它是解決方案的模型。 不完全是藝術或科學，它是工程學的補充。 出色的設計是無形的，以最有效的方式將人們與企業聯系起來。

Happy Designing!

設計愉快！