評論
打印
because usability studies tend to be very vertical.
因為可用性研究是垂直的。
A study might ask，“What do you think of this particular feature?”
一項調查可能會問：“您認為此特性如何？”
But it’s not easy to ask, “What do you think of this language?”Where would you begin?
但是不會問：“您認為此語言如何？”從何開始呢？
How can you possibly attack that in a two-hour usability study? It’s just impossible.
你能通過兩個小時的可用性研究解決可用性問題嗎？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.
使用一種編程語言是一個 使人沉醉的過程。
People don’t really come to appreciate a programming language until they’ve worked with it for months.
只有在使用幾個月之后，人們才會慢慢地欣賞一種語言。
And then they may gradually realize, “Wow, this is really comfortable.”
他們會漸漸意識到，“啊，使用這種語言真舒服?！?/p>
You just can’t do that very quickly.
你不可能很快就得到這種印象。
That being said, we did a bunch of usability studies,
海爾其實，我們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?
比如說？
Most of it was actually usability studies of IDE features.
實際上，大部分可用性研究都集中在集成開發環境的特性上。
We might ask, “Can people understand that they right click to do this or that?”
我們有可能會問：“使用者會知道通過點 擊右鍵來做這個或那個嗎？”
We did some usability studies for the pure language syntax itself
我們也對純粹的語法做可用性研究，
—I think we did some with properties and events, for example—but it was not necessary really.
比如屬性和事件，但實際上沒有必要。
I don’t think that you get as high a yield from usability studies for language features as for IDE features.
我認為對語言做可用性研究的收益比對集成開發環境的特性做相關研究的相同。
IDEs are very interactive. You can watch users right click menu items and get good feedback.
集成開發環境有很強的互動性。你可以看到用戶右鍵菜單里的條目，并且可以得到良好的反饋。
the question is more, “Is it conceptually understandable?”
有更多的問題，比如：“這個東西在概念上可以理解嗎？ ”
That’s done very well by having a customer advisory councils, sounding boards.
客戶建議委員會通過 “傳聲板”能很好地解決 這種問題。
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?”
我們希望可以有一個地方向客戶提問，比如：“這是我們對某個新特性的理解，你們感覺怎樣？”
