http://renhaohao.blogbus.com/logs/98947890.html
我们应该以改变设计的姿态来迎接设计的改变。
发邮件征得了DON NORMAN(唐纳德 诺曼)的同意，翻译他的《why design education must change?》.
以下是翻译稿和原稿，也可看core77上的原文。
多谢主机帮我校对。
为什么设计教育必须要改变？
作为一个设计期刊和相关学术会议的论文审稿人、设计比赛的评委，也是设计类学生的导师和设计院系的顾问，我被迫去看许多垃圾言论。我看过许多设计师提出的极不合理的论断，他们对其正在试图解决的问题的复杂性和能够得出结论的依据标准并没有很深入地理解。那些胡扯的言论经常性的出自一些很出名又很有才华的人，他们拥有非常好的创意和很棒的实体的展示品、概念或模拟装置。这些废话出自他们的言论。
I am forced to read a lot of crap. As a reviewer of submissions to design journals and conferences, as a juror of design contests, and as a mentor and advisor to design students and faculty, I read outrageous claims made by designers who have little understanding of the complexity of the problems they are attempting to solve or of the standards of evidence required to make claims. Oftentimes the crap comes from brilliant and talented people, with good ideas and wonderful instantiations of physical products, concepts, or simulations. The crap is in the claims.
在工业设计的早期，主要的任务是致力于解决物质（实体）产品相关的问题。然而到了如今，设计师却致力于解决组织结构和社会问题，及交互、服务和体验设计。许多问题涉及了复杂的社会与政治议题。结果就是设计师已经成为了应用行为科学家，但是遗憾地是他们并没有在学校接受为了解决这些任务的教育。设计师通常不能理解对问题的复杂性和对已有知识的深度了解。他们辩解说只要敏锐的嗅觉，就能提出创新的解决方案，最后他们想知道为什么那些解决方案几乎无法实施，即使实施，也失败了。敏锐的嗅觉的确能提出有与众不同的方案，但也必须是受过专业知识的教育。设计师通常缺少这种必不可少的理解，因为设计学院并没有对学生进行关于分析这些复杂问题的训练，包括相互关联的人和社会的复杂性，及行为科学、技术和商业。几乎或者根本没有关于科学、科学的方法和实验方法设计的教育。
In the early days of industrial design, the work was primarily focused upon physical products. Today, however, designers work on organizational structure and social problems, on interaction, service, and experience design. Many problems involve complex social and political issues. As a result, designers have become applied behavioral scientists, but they are woefully undereducated for the task. Designers often fail to understand the complexity of the issues and the depth of knowledge already known. They claim that fresh eyes can produce novel solutions, but then they wonder why these solutions are seldom implemented, or if implemented, why they fail. Fresh eyes can indeed produce insightful results, but the eyes must also be educated and knowledgeable. Designers often lack the requisite understanding. Design schools do not train students about these complex issues, about the interlocking complexities of human and social behavior, about the behavioral sciences, technology, and business. There is little or no training in science, the scientific method, and experimental design.
即使受过工程类学科教育的设计师也会出现相关的问题，因为他们即使能懂自然科学（硬科学）也往往会容易忽略包括社会学、行为学等学科的哲学社会科学（软科学）。他们不了解人的行为习惯，反而报怨用户不会正确使用相关技术，责备他们没有逻辑性。（你可能会听到许多类似的抱怨：“如果不是给别人使用，我们的产品一定不会出错”，他们已经忘记产品是为用户服务的基本思想了。）工程师经常会不注意人的行为习惯。工程师和设计师通常都会忽略的两点是：在实验设计中会出现的不可避免的个人偏好和不恰当的归纳总结所产生的问题。
Related problems occur with designers trained in engineering, for although they may understand hard-core science, they are often ignorant of the so-called soft areas of social and behavioral sciences. The do not understand human behavior, chiding people for not using technology properly, asking how they could be so illogical. (You may have all heard the refrain: "if only we didn't have people, our stuff would work just fine," forgetting that the point of the work was to help people.) Engineers are often ignorant of how people actually behave. And both engineers and designers are often ignorant of the biases that can be unwittingly introduced into experimental designs and the dangers of inappropriate generalization.
社会学与行为学有他们自身的问题，因为他们通常不重视理论的应用和实践，并且他们的实验方法也不恰当：科学家追求“真理”而实践者追求“适用”。科学家的目标是寻根究底而设计师想要得到的是科技的应用产生具大影响。人机交互、认知科学和人机工程学的研究人员经常会忽视设计的因素。所有的学科都有自身存在的问题：每个学科都应接受责备的意见。
The social and behavioral sciences have their own problems, for they generally are disdainful of applied, practical work and their experimental methods are inappropriate: scientists seek "truth" whereas practitioners seek "good enough." Scientists look for small differences, whereas designers want large impact. People in human-computer interaction, cognitive engineering, and human factors or ergonomics are usually ignorant of design. All disciplines have their problems: everyone can share the blame.
是时候改变设计教育了
Time to change design education
曾几何时，工业设计师主要只关注产品的造型、功能、材料和生产，如今他们却面对更加复杂的问题和更大的挑战。现在设计师所面临的新的问题和挑战对其自身提出了更高的新的技能要求，尤其是交互设计、体验设计和服务设计这些新领域的设计师。原来典型的工业设计就是应用艺术造型设计，它对设计师所要求的主要是材料知识、造型能力、徒手绘图能力、绘画能力和渲染能力。以上所说的新的领域更象是应用性的社会科学和行为科学，设计师需要理解人的认知和情感、感知和运动系统以及具备足够的科学方法、统计学和实验设计方面的知识，只有如此才能在展开项目之前对他们的想法进行有效的且合理的评估。
Where once industrial designers focused primarily upon form and function, materials and manufacturing, today's issues are far more complex and challenging. New skills are required, especially for such areas as interaction, experience, and service design. Classical industrial design is a form of applied art, requiring deep knowledge of forms and materials and skills in sketching, drawing, and rendering. The new areas are more like applied social and behavioral sciences and require understanding of human cognition and emotion, sensory and motor systems, and sufficient knowledge of the scientific method, statistics and experimental design so that designers can perform valid, legitimate tests of their ideas before deploying them.
如今的设计师需要有效的利用微处理器、显示装置，电子元器件以及传感器。从烤面包机到墙壁开关，从卫浴产品到书籍（现在叫电子书），通信模块越来越多的被应用于各种各样的产品。关于安全性、保密性、社交网络和人机交互的知识显得极为重要。绘画、草图、造型和模型这些旧有的技能必须得到有效的补充，甚至在某些情况下会被程序设计、交互设计和人类认知学科的相关技能所取代。对如今的设计师来说，快速原型构建和用户测试是非常重要的，这也就意味着相关的社会学、行为科学、统计学和实验设计知识的重要性。
Designers need to deploy microprocessors and displays, actuators and sensors. Communication modules are being added to more and more products, from the toaster to the wall switch, the toilet and books (now called e-books). Knowledge of security and privacy, social networks, and human interaction are critical. The old skills of drawing and sketching, forming and molding must be supplemented and in many cases, replaced, by skills in programming, interaction, and human cognition. Rapid prototyping and user testing are required, which also means some knowledge of the social and behavior sciences, of statistics, and of experimental design.
在教育机构里，工业设计专业通常被设置在艺术或建筑学院，学生接授的是实践性的教学，最终会被授予文学学士、文学硕士或艺术学硕士。在学校的设计教育中，会把自然科学、数学、技术或社会科学相关的课程作为工业设计专业必备课的情况极少见。这导致了设计师的技能无法适应现代的需求。
In educational institutions, industrial design is usually housed in schools of art or architecture, usually taught as a practice with the terminal degree being a BA, MA, or MFA. It is rare for in design education to have course requirements in science, mathematics, technology, or the social sciences. As a result the skills of the designer are not well suited for modern times.
外行人指导外行人
The Uninformed Are Training the Uninformed
根据我与欧美及亚洲的一些世界知名的设计学院接触的情况表明，学生们对人的行为科学是一知半解的，而这类学科恰恰是他们将来从事交互设计与用户体验设计所必不可少的。学生们并不理解严谨的实验设计和设计师在评估他们的产品甚至他们自己的实验结果时所表现出来的潜在的认知偏倚。他们的老师们也缺乏这方面的相关知识。
My experience with some of the world's best design schools in Europe, the United States, and Asia indicate that the students are not well prepared in the behavioral sciences that are so essential for fields such as interaction and experience design. They do not understand experimental rigor or the potential biases that show up when the designer evaluates their own products or even their own experimental results. Their professors also lack this understanding.
设计师经常测试他们的设计，但对统计学与人的行为变化知之甚少。设计师们不知道潜在的人为偏倚会导致设计师看不到问题的本质，而只看到他们想看的东西。许多人完全没有意识到control groups（在不同实验条件下进行相同实验的结果对比）的重要性。社会学与行为学很早之前就认识到blind scoring（没有诱导性的评分）的重要性，它是指参与实验的人在不知道实验条件已经改变也不知道测试内容的情况下对结果进行评分。
Designers often test their own designs, but with little understanding of statistics and behavioral variability. They do not know about unconscious biases that can cause them to see what they wish to see rather than what actually has occurred. Many are completely unaware of the necessity of control groups. The social and behavioral sciences (and medicine) long ago learned the importance of blind scoring where the person scoring the results does not know what condition is being observed, nor what is being tested.
这个问题由于那些顶级研究型大学的一个新的要求而变得更加严重，它们要求所有的设计专业教师拥有博士学位。由于大多数目前的教员所接受的相关教育有限，他们对于那些构成他们的博士学位的相关知识知之甚少。造成的情况是外行人教外行人。
The problem is compounded by a new insistence by top research universities that all design faculty have a PhD degree. But given the limited training of most design faculty, there is very little understanding of the kind of knowledge that constitutes a PhD. The uninformed are training the uninformed.
以上的这些问题有许多原因造成的。我已经讲了，大部分的设计专业都是设置在艺术或建筑学院。许多学生选择设计并不是因为他们热爱设计而是因为不喜欢科学、工程和数学。遗憾地是对设计师的新的要求无法让我们进行这种不考虑技术和科学的教学。
There are many reasons for these difficulties. I've already discussed the fact that most design is taught in schools of art or architecture. Many students take design because they dislike science, engineering, and mathematics. Unfortunately, the new demands upon designers do not allow us the luxury of such non-technical, non science-oriented training.
另一个问题是即使设计学院决定开设更多的正统的方法论课程，我们也确实无法提供一张合适的针对设计师培养的课表。我所担心的是实验中缺少严谨。假如你同意我的想法，那么我们应该开设什么样的课程？我们真的不知道。社会学与行为学的实验方法其实无法很好的适应设计师所面临的现状。
A different problem is that even were a design school to decide to teach more formal methods, we don't really have a curriculum that is appropriate for designers. Take my concern about the lack of experimental rigor. Suppose you were to agree with me - what courses would we teach? We don't really know. The experimental methods of the social and behavioral sciences are not well suited for the issues faced by designers.
设计师是实践者，这意味着他们不应该去努力专注于科学基础知识的拓展而是应用这些知识。设计师的目标是让知识在应用过程中产生具大的影响。科学家们对真理感兴趣，通常是两种不同理论的预测情况之间的差别。他们一直所追求的差别是非常细微的：通常在统计学意义上是非常有意义的，但是从应用上的影响来说并不十分重要。实验中严谨的操作尽量使许多的潜在人为偏倚不产生影响，还会使用大量的实验观察员，但是这些实验对设计师来说并不合适。
Designers are practitioners, which means they are not trying to extend the knowledge base of science but instead, to apply the knowledge. The designer's goal is to have large, important impact. Scientists are interested in truth, often in the distinction between the predictions of two differing theories. The differences they look for are quite small: often statistically significant but in terms of applied impact, quite unimportant. Experiments that carefully control for numerous possible biases and that use large numbers of experimental observers are inappropriate for designers.
设计师需要快速的得到结果，一个小时或者也有可能是几天。通常的测试中有5到10个人参与就十分足够了。的确，关注点必须有放在可能出现的固有人为偏倚上（比如实验者的人为偏倚和多次测试的顺序）。但是，如果是为了追求巨大的实验效应，只要做些比科学界的更简单和更快速的测试就够了。设计不可能达到最理想或最完美的：那些并没有达到最理想最完美的效果的设计通常能完全的满足日常使用。没有一个日用产品是完美的，也不需要完美。我们需要的实验方法是能够辨别出那些有实际应用价值的目标信息。
The designer needs results immediately, in hours or at possibly a few days. Quite often tests of 5 to 10 people are quite sufficient. Yes, attention must be paid to the possible biases (such as experimenter biases and the impact of order of presentation of tests), but if one is looking for large effect, it should be possible to do tests that are simpler and faster than are used by the scientific community will suffice. Designs don't have to be optimal or perfect: results that are not quite optimum or les than perfect are often completely satisfactory for everyday usage. No everyday product is perfect, nor need they be. We need experimental techniques that recognize these pragmatic, applied goals.
设计专业需要开发出适合自己的简单易用快速方便的实验方法，希望通过它能得到明显的现象和对现象产生作用的条件。但是人们依然必须对统计学上变化和实验中存在的人为偏倚保持敏感。这些实验方法目前并没有，我们需要富有热情的统计学家和设计师一起去开发。
Design needs to develop its own experimental methods. They should be simple and quick, looking for large phenomena and conditions that are "good enough." But they must still be sensitive to statistical variability and experimental biases. These methods do not exist: we need some sympathetic statisticians to work with designers to develop these new, appropriate methods.
设计师自认为自己知道，其实不然
When Designers Think They Know, But Don't
现在的设计师表现出两种不良的状态，一种是他们不知道自己缺少哪些知识，还有一种更糟糕的是他们一直认为自己懂某些知识，其实他们不懂。说到对人类行为方面知识（即认知科学），后面一种情况显得尤为突出。设计师和工程师认为他们自己理解人的行为方式：毕竟他们自己也是人，而且他们也一直在观察生活中的人的行为。他们相信“朴素心理学”（也叫直觉心理学）：对人的那些几乎或根本不存在的行为进行修饰性的说明和解释。他们总是混淆以下两点：他们希望看到的人的行为和人的真实的行为。他们不关注大规模实验与理论上存在的研究成果的文献，并且对分析数据上的变化趋势也不擅长。
Designers fall prey to the two ailments of not knowing what they don't know and, worse, thinking they know things they don't. This last condition is especially true when it comes to human behavior: the cognitive sciences. Designers (and engineers) think that they understand human behavior: after all, they are human and they have observed people all their lives. Alas, they believe a "naive psychology": plausible explanations of behavior that have little or no basis in fact. They confuse the way they would prefer people to behave with how people actually behave. They are unaware of the large experimental and theoretical literature, and they are not well versed in statistical variability.
真正的人的行为与实际的情境是非常有关系的，它们很容易受到多种因素的影响而出现偏倚。人的行为受到情感和认知的双重过程驱动，这种情感和认知的过程属于潜意识，并没有达到人的意识层面。对于这些所关注的隔阂与偏差都在意料之中。人的记忆受制于大量的人为偏倚和失误，不同的记忆系统有不同的特点。最重要的是人的记忆并不是唤醒过去的脑子里的意象而是对记住的事件在脑子里进行重建。其结果就是通常情况下，与忠于真实情况相比，人的记忆结果更加的符合人所期望的结果，并且很容易受到外部信息的干扰而改变。
Real human behavior is very contextual. It is readily biased by multiple factors. Human behavior is driven by both emotional and cognitive processes, much of which is subconscious and not accessible to human conscious knowledge. Gaps and lapses in attention are to be expected. Human memory is subject to numerous biases and errors. Different memory systems have different characteristics. Most importantly, human memory is not a calling up of images of the past but rather a reconstruction of the remembered event. As a result, it often fits expectations more closely than it fits reality and it is easily modified by extraneous information.
许多设计师对极度复杂性的社会问题和组织结构的非常不了解。我看到设计师为教育、贫困、犯罪和环境方面的复杂的问题提出简单的解决方案。有些时候，这些解决方案还赢得了某些设计奖（外行人评判外行人的结果）。复杂的问题就是复杂的系统，不可能用简单的解决方案去解决。仅仅对那些问题感兴趣是不够的，必须要用专业的知识去解决。
Many designers are woefully ignorant of the deep complexity of social and organizational problems. I have seen designers propose simple solutions to complex problems in education, poverty, crime, and the environment. Sometimes these suggestions win design prizes (the uninformed judge the uninformed). Complex problems are complex systems: there is no simple solution. It is not enough to mean well: one must also have knowledge.
这些复杂的问题同样出现在对新的交互设计、新的体验和服务的新方法的实验性的研究中。当科学家和设计师研究人时，他们也同样受制于这些人为偏倚，因此认知学的科学家精心设计实验，确保实验者的偏倚不会对实验结果或他们的解释说明造成影响。认知科学的科学家明白所有的这些因素，但是设计师和工程师却很少了解。这里有一个“他们不知道自己不懂什么”的事例。
The same problems arise in doing experimental studies of new methods of interaction, new designs, or new experiences and services. When scientists (and designers) study people, they too are subject to these same human biases, and so cognitive scientists carefully design experiments so that the biases of the experimenter can have no impact on the results or their interpretation. All these factors are well understood by cognitive scientists, but seldom known or understood by designers and engineers. Here is a case of not knowing what is not known.
为什么设计师必须懂一些科学知识
Why Designers Must Know Some Science
这些年来，科学的方法用来建立规则和评估之用，以免出现夸张而不实的论断。科学并不是真相的本身，也不仅仅是数学的应用。更准确的说，科学的关键是它的过程程序，或者是叫科学的方法，它并不神圣也不涉及复杂的数学。科学方法涉及到对于某个问题的公开提出、研究的手段、发现的过程及结果和最后的解释说明。它允许别人再次做同样的发现过程并得出结论，而且这种重复是必须的。在科学研究中，只有当其它人对同样的研究进行重复并得出同样的结论，这种研究成果才能被接受。此外，经验性的信条非常容易造成研究结论的偏倚，科学家们对此已经有所了解，因此设计出了实验性的方法，目的是为了把这些无意识的偏倚减到最小。
Over the years, the scientific method evolved to create order and evaluation to otherwise exaggerated claims. Science is not a body of facts, not the use of mathematics. Rather, the key to science is its procedures, or what is called the scientific method. The method does not involve white robes and complex mathematics. The scientific method requires public disclosure of the problem, the method of approach, the findings, and then the interpretation. This allows others to repeat the finding: replication is essential. Nothing is accepted in science until others have been able to repeat the work and come to the same conclusion. Moreover, scientists have learned to their dismay that conclusions are readily biased by prior belief, so experimental methods have been devised to minimize these unintentional biases.
当把科学研究涉及到物理和生物世界的时候，就变得困难了。但是，当涉及到人（也就是社会科学的领域）的时候，就变得尤其困难。如今，细微的偏倚无处不在，因此设计出了严谨的统计学上的程序，目的是为了尽可能的把偏倚减到最小。此外，科学家已经明白不能只相信自己的判断，因此在社会科学里有一种叫“双盲”的方法：这种方法应用到设计测试中关键的一点是做研究的人员和被研究的人员都不知道涉及的研究条件是什么。
Science is difficult when applied to the physical and biological world. But when applied to people, the domain of the social sciences, it is especially difficult. Now subtle biases abound, so careful statistical procedures have been devised to minimize them. Moreover, scientists have learned not to trust themselves, so in the social sciences it is sometimes critical to design tests so that neither the person being studied nor the person doing the study know what condition is involved - this is called "double blind."
总的来讲，设计师对这套科学方法非常不在行的。他们喜欢调查一个问题，最后针对调查结果提出一个看上去象那么回事的解决方案，并对外公布结果以期望所有人赞同。比赛也举办了，奖也颁了。但是，有人验证过结论么？有检验一下看看结果是否与他们的结论一致么？有进行比较测试（科学中叫control groups，上文中有详细解释），检验一下他们大多数情况下是否能把数据变化所产生的影响降低到足够小？对于这个问题，设计师会说：有必要么？很明显的，看看不就知道了么？所有这些统计数据是多么的胡扯？
Designers, on the whole, are quite ignorant of all this science stuff. They like to examine a problem, devise what seems to be a solution, and then announce the result for all to acclaim. Contests are held. Prizes are awarded. But wait-- has anyone examined the claims? Tested them to see if they perform as claimed? Tested them against alternatives (what science calls control groups), tested them often enough to minimize the impact of statistical variability? Huh? say the designers: Why, it is obvious - just look - What is all this statistical crap?
期刊没什么用，因为大多数设计师是实践者，几乎不发表文章。即使他们发表了文章，通常来说也是没什么质量。我发现大多数的设计期刊和学术会议的审稿人自身都不懂正确的实验程序和操作。设计类的学术会议尤其糟糕：至今我还没有看到一个设计类学术会议同等的评审流程的严谨程度能令人满意的。那些工程和科学协会主办的设计类学术会议是个例，比如由IEEE、ACM和SIGGRAPH主办的人机交互和计算机图形学的学术会议。这些学术会议比较青睐学者，因此，尽管它们是设计研究员和交互设计领域的研究人员最喜欢的论文发布途径，设计实践者会发现他们的论文经常被拒。设计实践缺少优质的施展才华的地方。
Journals do not help, for most designers are practitioners and seldom publish. And when they do, I find that the reviewers in many of our design journals and conferences are themselves ignorant of appropriate experimental procedures and controls, so even the published work is often of low quality. Design conferences are particularly bad: I have not yet to find a design conference where the rigor of the peer review process is satisfactory. The only exceptions are those run by societies from the engineering and sciences, such as the Computer-Human Interaction and graphics conferences run by the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers or the Computer Science society (IEEE, ACM and the CHI and SIGGRAPH conferences). These conferences, however, favor the researcher, so although they are favorite publication vehicles for design researchers and workers in interaction design, practitioners often find their papers rejected. The practice of design lacks a high quality venue for its efforts.
设计教育必须进行改革
Design Education Must Change
服务设计、交互设计和体验设计都不是设计实物对象，它们对绘画技能、材料知识和生产工艺这些要求极少。对它们来说，它们需要社会学、故事构建、后台操作和交互方面的知识。当然，我们依然需要培养典型的工业设计师：造型、构成、精通材料，这些都需要，而且永远也不会消失。
Service design, interaction design, and experience design are not about the design of physical objects: they require minimal skills in drawing, knowledge of materials, or manufacturing. In their place, they require knowledge of the social sciences, of story construction, of back-stage operations, and of interaction. We still need classically trained industrial designers: the need for styling, for forms, for the intelligent use of materials will never go away.
如今是一个传感器、控制器、电机和显示设备无处不在的世界，重点已经转移到了交互、体验和服务上，专注于组织架构和服务的设计师的数量也变得与实体产品的设计师一样多，我们需要新兴的设计师。这些新兴的设计师必须懂科学与技术，人与社会，还要会运用恰当的方法去验证概念与提案。他们必须学会整合政治问题、商业手段、运作方式和市场营销。设计教育也应该搬离艺术与建筑学院，应该设置在科学与工程学院。这些新兴的设计师能进行跨学科工作，要懂人、商业和技术，还有正确的验证结论的方法。
In today's world of ubiquitous sensors, controllers, motors, and displays, where the emphasis is on interaction, experience, and service, where designers work on organizational structure and services as much as on physical products, we need a new breed of designers. This new breed must know about science and technology, about people and society, about appropriate methods of validation of concepts and proposals. They must incorporate knowledge of political issues and business methods, operations, and marketing. Design education has to move away from schools of art and architecture and move into the schools of science and engineering. We need new kinds of designers, people who can work across disciplines, who understand human beings, business, and technology and the appropriate means of validating claims.
现在的设计师的所受的教育很难满足如今的需求：我们需要一种新的设计教育模式，它要更注重严谨、多科学，更关注社会学、行为学、现代技术和商业。但是，照搬现有这些学科的课程是行不通的：我们需要建立能合理的满足于设计专业独特需求的课程。
Today's designers are poorly trained to meet the today's demands: We need a new form of design education, one with more rigor, more science, and more attention to the social and behavioral sciences, to modern technology, and to business. But we cannot copy the existing courses from those disciplines: we need to establish new ones that are appropriate to the unique requirements of the applied requirements of design.
但是必须注意，不能因为设计教育改革而抹杀了设计原有的另人愉快的精彩部分。设计的艺术性是非常关键的，它能使设计的实物、交互及服务更具亲和力，让人使用起来更加的愉悦。设计师需要懂更多科学与工程知识，但没必要成为科学家或工程师。我们一定不能丢掉设计师的特殊才能，它们能给我们的生活增添乐趣。
But beware: We must not lose the wonderful, delightful components of design. The artistic side of design is critical: to provide objects, interactions and services that delight as well as inform, that are joyful. Designers do need to know more about science and engineering, but without becoming scientists or engineers. We must not lose the special talents of designers to make our lives more pleasurable.
是时候改变了，而我们整个设计界必须要领导这一场变革。
It is time for a change. We, the design community, must lead this change.
翻译者：任好好
校对：主机
No comments:
Post a Comment