软件可用性与效率
确保软件可用性是否总是会导致效率下降？
Does ensuring software usability always result in a decrease in efficiency?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
确保软件可用性是否总是会导致效率下降？
Does ensuring software usability always result in a decrease in efficiency?
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
接受 或继续使用网站，即表示您同意使用 Cookies 和您的相关数据。
发布评论
评论（5）
它通常会提高用户的效率 - 如果您有用户与软件交互，这通常是它实现的任何目标的速率限制步骤，因此考虑到所有因素，我会大声说“不”。
It normally results in an increase in efficiency for the user - if you have a user interacting with the software, this is normally the rate limiting step in anything it achieves anyway, so taking everything into account I'd say a resounding "no".
效率为谁？
可用性应该提高用户的效率——在几乎所有情况下，这应该是最重要的衡量标准。
虽然可用性的衡量标准之一是软件的响应速度，这是效率的一种，所以 - 扭转你的说法 - 通过使软件更高效，你正在使其更可用。
Efficiency for whom?
Usability should increase the user's efficiency - which, in nearly all cases, should be the most important measurement.
Though one measure of usability is the speed of response of the software which is one sort of efficiency, so - turning your statement around - by making the software more efficient you are making it more usable.
答案最终是否定的。
可用性：
理想情况下，您能够对所有这些问题做出非常的回答。
效率：
不可用的应用程序往往具有：
为了成为一个高度可用的程序，这意味着用户必须能够快速、轻松地完成他们的任务任务，没有任何其他事情妨碍他们。
简化
一般来说，这意味着删除用户不需要的所有选项。即使有一个用户可能需要的选项，也应该只在当时是相关选项时才呈现给他们。
这样做可以提高我们之前设定的所有四个效率目标。实现的选项更少，渲染的项目更少，用户效率更快。简化既增强了可用性又提高了效率。然而，这是以更高的前期设计时间为代价的。
图标和指示器
添加图标和指示器通常（如果正确完成）会增强可用性，但是它们确实会降低程序员的效率，因为它们是需要完成的额外任务。假设是一个网络应用程序，如果您发送更多大图像而不是严格的文本页面，它们会增加（无论大小）页面的渲染时间。
然而，它们极大地提高了用户效率和可用性。
基本上，可用性的提高需要预先进行大量投资才能正确设计应用程序，并运行大量可用性测试。这些可能会扰乱您的开发周期，但它们会创建一个更好的项目。它们还将减少错误并减少对支持基础设施的需求，因为您的应用程序将更适合其用途。
可用性总是值得投资。
The answer is ultimately no.
Usability:
Ideally, you would be able to answer very to all of these.
Efficiency:
Applications which are not usable tend to have:
In order to be a strongly usable program, it means that the user must be able to quickly and easily accomplish their tasks without anything else getting in their way.
Simplification
In general, this would mean removing all options that a user does not need. Even if there is an option that a user could need, it should only be presented to them when it is a relevant option at that moment.
Doing this increases all four of the efficiency goals we set out earlier. Fewer options to implement, fewer items to render, and faster user efficiency. Simplification both enhances usability and increases efficiency. However, this is at the cost of a higher upfront design-time.
Icons and indicators
Adding icons and indicators will typically (if done correctly) enhance usability, however they do decrease programmer efficiency, as they are extra tasks which need to be completed. Presuming a web-app, they would increase (to whatever extent, large or small) the render time of the page if you are sending more large images, rather than a strictly text page.
However, they dramatically increase the user efficiency and usability.
Basically, increases in usability require a large investment up front to design your application correctly, and to run a large number of usability tests. These can inturrupt your development cycle but they will create a better project. They will also reduce bugs and require less of a support infrastructure, because your application will be better suited to its purpose.
Usability is always worth investing in.
绝对不是。可用性就是效率。
我想到了“足够”这个词。
无论如何，这个问题有点无关紧要。如果产品现在具有可用性，那么它就不会被使用……所以它的价值就很低。 :-)
罗布·史密斯
Absolutely not. Usability is efficiency.
The word 'sufficient' come to mind.
In any case the question is kinda a non-event. If the product has now usability then it aint going to be used ... so it then has low value. :-)
Rob Smyth
保障还是确保？我假设“确保”。我的回答是“不”。
insuring or ensuring? I'm assuming 'ensuring'. My answer is 'no'.