I offended an Apple employee the other day when I was checking out the new iPad Pro and I told him that I was an Android phone user. Eyes rolled, jokes were made, and we agreed to disagree.

前幾天，我在檢閱新iPad Pro時冒犯了一名蘋果員工，并告訴他我是Android手機用戶。 睜開眼睛，開玩笑，我們同意不同意。

While leading and designing mobile experiences, I’ve spent a ton of time in mobile ecosystems, even including a brief stint designing for the Windows Phone. This perspective has taught me that while platform allegiance can be a passionate and heated subject, the reality is that iOS and Android experiences aren’t, and shouldn’t be, massively different from one another.

在領導和設計移動體驗時，我花了很多時間在移動生態系統中，甚至包括簡短的Windows Phone設計。 這種觀點告訴我，盡管平臺忠誠度是一個充滿激情和熱情的話題，但現實是iOS和Android的體驗并沒有太大的不同，而且不應該有很大的不同。

將蘋果與Android進行比較 (Comparing Apples to Androids)

In reality, the difference between each OS continues to get smaller and smaller. With the upcoming release of iOS 14, the gap between Android and iOS is narrowing more than it ever has before, and that’s a great thing for all users.

實際上，每個操作系統之間的差異越來越小。 隨著即將發布的iOS 14的發布，Android和iOS之間的鴻溝比以往任何時候都縮小了，這對所有用戶來說都是一件好事。

It’s absolutely critical to consider the basics of each OS and to design accordingly. But it’s equally important to know when to bend the rules for an improved experience. Google is famous for breaking its own rules. They consider the Material Design guidelines as precisely that — a set of guidelines provided to inform and empower designers to make decisions. If you look at both Google and Apple historically, they have taken different directions toward the same end goal. Google has played fast and loose by breaking their own rules, then re-writing them as these deviated experiences helped evolve their system. Apple has generally approached design with a more steadfast approach by making changes to the rules before implementing changes in their experiences. But the outcome for both companies has been the same — the establishment of guides to be followed and ultimately modified.

考慮每個操作系統的基礎并進行相應設計絕對至關重要。 但是知道何時為改善體驗而改變規則也同樣重要。 Google以違反自己的規則而聞名。 他們認為材料設計指南正是這樣-提供了一組指南，以告知設計人員并使其具有決策權。 如果您從歷史上考察Google和Apple，那么他們朝著同一最終目標采取了不同的方向。 Google打破了自己的規則，然后又重新編寫它們，因為這些偏離的體驗幫助他們開發了系統，從而發揮了快速和寬松的作用。 蘋果通常采用更堅定的方法來進行設計，方法是在實施經驗更改之前先對規則進行更改。 但是，兩家公司的結果都是相同的-建立要遵循并最終進行修改的指南。

經驗應該很熟悉 (Experiences Should be Familiar)

My colleague Jay Coudriet is a proponent of designing familiar experiences. Essentially, Jay advocates that the best user experiences leverage users’ existing mental models built from both the OS and their most used apps. Or, put another way, users expect new apps to work like other apps they already know and love.

我的同事Jay Coudriet支持設計熟悉的體驗 。 從本質上講，Jay主張最佳的用戶體驗應利用用戶從操作系統及其最常用的應用程序構建的現有思維模型。 或者換一種說法，用戶希望新應用程序像他們已經知道和喜歡的其他應用程序一樣工作。

This reduction of cognitive load should be a primary driver in all UX design. However, an understanding of the OS is important not just because it helps increase understanding of the idiosyncrasies of each platform, but because it provides insight into the similarities as well. These similarities should be leveraged as much as possible to create consistency across platforms.

認知負擔的減少應該是所有UX設計中的主要驅動力。 但是，對操作系統的理解很重要，不僅因為它有助于增加對每個平臺的特質的理解，而且還因為它還提供了對相似性的洞察力。 應盡可能利用這些相似性，以在各個平臺之間建立一致性。

減少社會認知負擔 (Reducing Social Cognitive Load)

We live in a world of shared experience and collaboration. Friends share music playlists and photos, they work out together, and they are in constant communication. There is a shared vocabulary that users develop when experiencing a product. Consistency across platforms ensures this communication is seamless regardless of the platform.

我們生活在共享經驗和協作的世界中。 朋友共享音樂播放列表和照片，一起工作，并且不斷交流。 用戶在體驗產品時會開發一個共享的詞匯表。 跨平臺的一致性確保無論平臺如何，這種通信都是無縫的。

As an example, I had a friend over for dinner the other night. We were discussing our upcoming annual group trip where we spend the weekend listening to music by a pool in the middle of nowhere. In these times of COVID, having a remote destination in the woods surrounded by farmland is the place you want to be. But the downside is that the internet doesn’t really exist there. So we were chatting about downloading our 12.5-hour playlist before leaving for our trip. My friend is an iPhone user and I am an Android user. I was able to tell her not only that downloading playlists was an available feature, but I was also able to tell her how to download the playlist without looking at her phone.

舉個例子，那天晚上我有一個朋友過來吃晚飯。 我們正在討論即將到來的年度團體旅行，我們將在周末度過一個半夜，在游泳池旁聽音樂。 在當今的COVID時代，您想要成為一個偏僻的目的地，在被農田包圍的樹林中。 但是缺點是互聯網實際上并不存在。 所以我們在出發前聊聊下載12.5小時播放列表的問題。 我的朋友是iPhone用戶，我是Android用戶。 我不僅可以告訴她下載播放列表是一項可用功能，而且還可以告訴她如何下載播放列表而不用看她的手機。

Though the UI features several differences across Android and iOS, the experience retains enough consistency that anyone familiar with Spotify on any platform should feel comfortable when they pick up a different device and play some music. This frictionless experience reinforced our positive opinions of the product.

盡管UI在Android和iOS上存在一些差異，但用戶體驗仍保持足夠的一致性，以至于任何平臺上熟悉Spotify的人在選擇其他設備并播放音樂時都應該感到舒適。 這種無摩擦的經驗加強了我們對產品的正面評價。

奇異的產品愿景 (A Singular Product Vision)

Spotify achieves this consistency through a robust and unified vision of what their experience should be. They have created a navigation that is the same across devices with only minor experiential differences where the OS dictates change. For example, the option to download a playlist is an icon-based button on iOS and a text-based toggle on Android. Additionally, the “more options” button is a three-dot button, rotated 90-degrees, and moved across the screen. These options are presented differently but they are similar enough to understand the function upon first glance.

Spotify通過對他們的經驗應該具有的強大而統一的愿景來實現這種一致性。 他們創建了一個導航，該導航在設備之間是相同的，只是操作系統指示更改的體驗差異很小。 例如，下載播放列表的選項是iOS上的基于圖標的按鈕和Android上的基于文本的切換。 此外，“更多選項”按鈕是一個三點按鈕，旋轉了90度，并在屏幕上移動。 這些選項的顯示方式有所不同，但乍一看就足以理解其功能。

This familiarity of experience across platforms strengthens the overall product by reducing social cognitive load when users of different platforms interact with one another. The single most effective way to break this vision and weaken the overall strength of a product is through a lack of feature parity.

當不同平臺的用戶彼此交互時，跨平臺的這種熟悉性可以通過減少社交認知負擔來增強整體產品。 打破這一愿景并削弱產品整體實力的最有效方法就是缺乏功能均等性。

功能奇偶校驗至關重要 (Feature Parity is Essential)

Take Peloton as an example. Here we have a digital product that oozes “luxury brand.” They sell a $2,000 bike with an additional monthly subscription fee on top of that. Their digital experience must reflect the price that their users are paying. But the ways in which they fail to do this are interesting and, frankly, confounding.

以Peloton為例。 在這里，我們有一種滲入“奢侈品牌”的數字產品。 他們出售一輛價值2,000美元的自行車，并額外收取月租費。 他們的數字體驗必須反映出用戶所付出的代價。 但是，他們未能做到這一點的方式很有趣，而且坦率地說，令人困惑。

Take a look at the following images:

看一下以下圖像：

On iOS, the Peloton app generally accomplishes this goal of creating a luxury brand. But on Android, they have left out compelling content from the experience, making it harder to fully utilize the service.

在iOS上，Peloton應用程序通常可以實現創建奢侈品牌的目標。 但是在Android上，他們從體驗中忽略了引人入勝的內容，因此難以充分利用該服務。

Peloton offers something they call “Programs,” which are essentially a catalog of related classes curated to help you reach a goal. “Crush your core” is a series of workout classes designed to help you strengthen your core muscle group. It’s a great feature. Unfortunately, it doesn’t exist on Android. Nor does the entire feature set of “Challenges.”

Peloton提供了他們稱為“程序”的東西，它們實質上是為幫助您實現目標而精心挑選的相關類的目錄。 “粉碎核心”是一系列旨在幫助您增強核心肌肉群的鍛煉課程。 這是一個很棒的功能。 不幸的是，它在Android上不存在。 “挑戰”的整個功能集也沒有。

The interesting thing here is the parity in navigation design. Both applications utilize a footer navigation with a “More” option on the right. However, the iOS app utilizes an additional header navigation that isn’t present on Android.

這里有趣的是導航設計中的奇偶性。 這兩個應用程序都使用頁腳導航，并在右側帶有“更多”選項。 但是，iOS應用程序利用了Android上沒有的其他標題導航。

分享是關懷 (Sharing is Caring)

Take another example from Peloton. When viewing a class on iPhone, users can hit the “share” button and send a class to a friend — great for coordinated work outs. On Android, this functionality is missing. This approach is a core example of a steep social cognitive load. When I try to coordinate a class with a friend, I have to provide them with the instructor, the date, and the title of the class so that they can find it. My friend on the iPhone only needs to send me a link. But this deviation across our experiences results in mutual frustration, which ultimately impacts both of our experiences.

再以佩洛頓為例。 在iPhone上觀看課程時，用戶可以單擊“共享”按鈕并將課程發送給朋友-非常適合協調鍛煉。 在Android上，缺少此功能。 這種方法是嚴重的社會認知負擔的核心示例。 當我嘗試與朋友協調課程時，我必須向他們提供講師，課程日期和標題，以便他們找到。 我在iPhone上的朋友只需要向我發送一個鏈接。 但是，我們經驗的這種偏離會導致相互的挫敗感，最終會影響我們的兩個經驗。

所有應用程序應相對創建 (All Apps Should be Created Relatively Equal)

These deviations detract from the overall product vision and reflect poorly on the brand. The contrast between Spotify and Peloton is a strong one in my opinion. At the end of the day, these two products strive for the same goal. They want to increase and retain usage through a strong product vision. The user experience of a product has the power to make a $10 experience feel lush or a $39 experience (with expensive accompanying equipment) feel cheap.

這些偏差會損害整體產品的前景，并在品牌上反映不佳。 我認為Spotify和Peloton之間的對比很強烈。 歸根結底，這兩種產品都追求相同的目標。 他們希望通過強大的產品愿景來增加和保留使用量。 產品的用戶體驗可以使10美元的體驗變得郁郁蔥蔥，或者39美元的體驗(帶有昂貴的隨附設備)變得廉價。

The most effective way to design mobile applications is by leveraging knowledge of the OS while focusing on the overall product vision. The last thing a user should be able to say when they open your application is “I know the designer of this product doesn’t use my phone.”

設計移動應用程序的最有效方法是利用OS的知識，同時關注整體產品愿景。 用戶打開您的應用程序時應該說的最后一句話是“我知道該產品的設計者沒有使用我的手機。”