并非所有計劃應用程序都是一樣創建的。 (Not all scheduling apps are created equal.)

As any college student will tell you, we use When2Meet almost religiously. Between classes, extracurriculars, work, and simply living, When2Meet is the scheduling app that holds all our commitments in a tenuous balance. There’s a lot of reasons why we like it: it’s free, easy to use, and has no frills.

正如任何大學生都會告訴您的那樣，我們幾乎虔誠地使用When2Meet 。 在課程，課外活動，工作和簡單生活之間，When2Meet是一個調度應用程序，可以使我們的所有承諾保持微妙的平衡。 我們喜歡它的原因有很多：它是免費的，易于使用的，而且沒有多余的裝飾。

On that last part: When2Meet is so no frills to the point that it almost feels undesigned. It’s typeset in Arial, not Helvetica; its accent color is a blinding electric green; and anywhere from a third to a half of the home screen is its black footer. “It’s not aesthetically pleasing, that’s for sure,” my friends would say, and I’d agree. For a site that hasn’t changed much at all since its debut in 2012, When2Meet certainly won’t be winning any design awards anytime soon.

在最后一部分：When2Meet如此簡潔，以至于幾乎感覺不到設計。 它是用Arial(而不是Helvetica)排版的； 它的重點顏色是令人眼花electric亂的綠色。 黑色屏幕頁腳是主屏幕的三分之一到一半。 我的朋友會說：“這肯定在美學上并不令人滿意，”我同意。 對于自2012年首次亮相以來并沒有太大變化的網站，When2Meet當然不會很快獲得任何設計大獎。

Compared to When2Meet, LettuceMeet looks amazing (at least, at first glance). The site is typeset in Quicksand, a pleasing rounded sans serif; there’s a healthy amount of whitespace; and the tool maintains an overall clean aesthetic.

與When2Meet相比， LettuceMeet看起來很棒(至少乍一看)。 該網站使用流沙(一種令人愉悅的無襯線襯線)排版； 有大量的空白； 該工具可保持整體清潔美觀。

However, despite LettuceMeet’s aesthetically pleasing design, I’ve yet to see it used in the wild the way When2Meet is. So why has LettuceMeet not permeated the campus consciousness the way When2Meet has?

但是，盡管LettuceMeet具有美學上令人愉悅的設計，但我還沒有看到它像When2Meet那樣被廣泛使用。 那么，為什么LettuceMeet不能像When2Meet那樣滲透到校園意識中呢？

從審美角度而言， ≠良好的用戶體驗。 (Aesthetically pleasing ≠ good user experience.)

Part of the reason LettuceMeet hasn’t been used more widely is its relative infancy, having debuted just last year. More importantly, though, is the fact that underneath the sheen of tasteful typefaces and pretty placements lies a far inferior user experience.

LettuceMeet尚未得到更廣泛使用的部分原因是它的相對嬰兒期，它在去年才首次亮相。 但是，更重要的是，事實是，在雅致的字體和漂亮的位置的光澤下，用戶體驗要差得多。

The problem lies in the flow that LettuceMeet forces into to input information. Take, for example, the steps required to set up an availability calendar:

問題出在LettuceMeet強迫輸入信息的流程中。 例如，采取設置可用性日歷所需的步驟：

The user must go through two whole pages before getting to the meeting link. Compare that to When2Meet’s economical page that gathers everything you need to know in one go:

在進入會議鏈接之前，用戶必須瀏覽整個兩頁。 與此相比，When2Meet的經濟型頁面可以一次性收集您需要了解的所有信息：

Actually adding availability in LettuceMeet isn’t much better, requiring users to go through three more pages before seeing their availability on-screen:

實際上，在LettuceMeet中添加可用性并沒有改善多少，要求用戶再瀏覽三個頁面才能在屏幕上看到其可用性：

Compare the above flow with that of When2Meet, which condenses the same task into two pages:

將以上流程與When2Meet的流程進行比較，后者將同一任務濃縮為兩頁：

By splitting information up into separate pages, LettuceMeet forces users through a taskflow that isn’t necessarily intuitive to how we chunk information. Why must we select what days to meet on one page and what time range on a different one? Why am I adding my availability before declaring who I am?

通過將信息分成單獨的頁面， LettuceMeet迫使用戶通過任務流程，而該任務流程對于我們如何分塊信息不一定很直觀。 為什么我們必須在一頁上選擇什么日子見面，而在另一頁上選擇什么時間范圍？ 為什么在聲明我是誰之前添加我的空閑時間？

For a user who wants to schedule a group meeting quickly and efficiently, the streamlined taskflow of When2Meet just feels right, reinforcing the information I need to provide and then providing an immediate response to my need.

對于想要快速高效地安排小組會議的用戶而言，When2Meet簡化后的任務流程感覺不錯，可以增強我需要提供的信息，然后立即對我的需求做出回應。

記住UI中的U。 (Remember the U in UI.)

Let me be clear: When2Meet isn’t great design. There are many improvements one could make to the overall experience, like drawing more attention to the required info in When2Meet, or consolidating the taskflow for adding availability to one page. Moreover, LettuceMeet might get the upper hand on mobile, where its responsive design and bite-sized steps make a little more sense.

讓我清楚一點：When2Meet不是很好的設計。 人們可以對整體體驗進行許多改進，例如，將更多的注意力放在When2Meet中的必需信息上，或者合并任務流程以將可用性添加到一頁上。 此外，LettuceMeet可能會在移動設備上占上風，其響應式設計和小巧的步驟更具意義。

However, what When2Meet does better than any of its alternatives is understand the needs of its users, who prioritize efficiency over attractiveness. Despite the relatively steeper learning curve in figuring out how to use When2Meet, using it in the long-term is far less cumbersome than the multi-page design of LettuceMeet, aesthetics be damned. And on the whole, When2Meet’s core tasks are better implemented than LettuceMeet’s.

但是，When2Meet比任何其他替代產品都有更好的表現是要了解其用戶的需求 ，他們將效率置于吸引力之上。 盡管在確定如何使用When2Meet時會遇到相對較陡的學習曲線，但長期使用它比LettuceMeet的多頁設計麻煩得多，但該死的是美學。 總體而言，When2Meet的核心任務比LettuceMeet的更好。

As UX designers, it’s very easy to get lost in the pixel-precision we desire—the thing is, that’s only one part of what we do. In actuality, we are tasked to create intentional experiences, and things like typography and color are tools to design for those intentional experiences. Rarely is a fundamentally bad user experience improved by making it pretty. So what do we do?

作為UX設計師，很容易迷失我們想要的像素精度-事實是，這只是我們所做工作的一部分。 實際上， 我們的任務是創造意向性體驗，而版式和顏色之類的東西就是設計這些意向性體驗的工具。 通過使其變得漂亮，從根本上改善不好的用戶體驗。 那么我們該怎么辦？

Keep the user in mind as you design your interface, and have users test it out themselves to ensure its usability. What are their needs? What do they prioritize? And how can I design this experience intentionally to meet their needs and priorities?

在設計界面時要牢記用戶，并讓用戶自己對其進行測試以確保其可用性。 他們有什么需求？ 他們優先考慮什么？ 我如何才能有意識地設計這種體驗以滿足他們的需求和優先級？

In this way, we aren’t making just pretty tools; we’re creating intuitive and useful ones, too.

這樣，我們不僅可以制作漂亮的工具，還可以制作精美的工具。 我們也在創建直觀而有用的工具。