金蝶k3灾难性故障
photo :Ben Margolin
照片：Ben Margolin
It’s a familiar story: After years of the same musty, old site design, trumpets sound, angels sing and a glorious, new, cutting-edge redesign is unveiled by proud site owners.
这是一个熟悉的故事：经过多年相同的发霉，旧的场地设计，喇叭声，天使的歌唱以及自豪的场地所有者揭露了光荣的，新的，尖端的重新设计。
However, instead of grateful, joyous cheers, the criticism starts to pour in. Perhaps it’s dumbfounded silence at first, before gradually building to angry tirades.
但是，批评声并没有激起欢乐的欢呼声，反而开始大量涌入。也许起初它是沉默寡言的，后来逐渐形成愤怒的气氛。
Of course, the relative success of a site redesign is often largely subjective – a glance at our wardrobes or music collections tells us that tastes differ, and what one person adores might be hated by others.
当然，网站重新设计的相对成功通常在很大程度上是主观的-看一看我们的衣橱或音乐收藏就可以看出口味不同，一个人所崇拜的东西可能会被其他人讨厌。
However, even allowing for this subjectivity, history is already littered with epic site redesign failures. Web design is still in its infancy, but it isn’t hard to compile a Top 100, if not Top 1,000 site redesign failures, and the criteria for these are anything but subjective.
但是，即使考虑到这种主观性，历史上也已经出现了史诗般的站点重新设计失败。 Web设计仍处于起步阶段，但要编译前100名(甚至不是前1000名)网站重新设计失败并不难，而且这些标准只是主观的。
Using metrics such as plummeting traffic or dramatically decreased conversions, it becomes clear that – even if many insist they like the new design – if users leave the site, the redesign is a failure. Of course, few humans to flaunt their disasters, so the real data describing these failures is frequently kept confidential, making it more difficult to learn from their mistakes.
使用流量骤降或转化次数大幅减少等指标，很明显，即使许多人坚持认为他们喜欢新设计，但如果用户离开站点，则重新设计是失败的。 当然，很少有人为灾难做准备，因此描述这些故障的真实数据经常被保密，这使得从错误中学习变得更加困难。
Instead, we need to make do with publicly accessible signals, such as clear functional failures, or broken features, or public traffic ranking service such as Alexa or Comscore. None of this is precise but for grand failures even these indirect indicators show unambiguously that the idea to redesign wasn’t the brightest one.
取而代之的是，我们需要处理可公开访问的信号，例如明显的功能故障或功能损坏，或者公共流量排名服务，例如Alexa或Comscore。 这些都不是精确的，但对于重大失败，即使这些间接指标也明确表明，重新设计的想法并不是最聪明的想法。
While none of us are immune to failure, sometimes the mistakes made that led to other sites’ disasters are easy to avoid. Better to learn from others’ bruises than to get your own.
尽管我们每个人都无法幸免，但有时容易避免导致其他站点灾难的错误。 从别人的挫伤中学习总比得到自己的好。
If there is anything good about redesign failures – be it your own, or other’s – it’s a rare opportunity to learn. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of learning materials in this area. Today I picked 3 classic disasters to review in more depth.
如果重新设计失败有什么好处(无论是您自己的还是他人的)，这都是难得的学习机会。 不幸的是，在这方面并不缺乏学习材料。 今天，我选择了3种经典灾难进行更深入的回顾。
I suspect one of the most well known redesign failures of all time is the redesign of Digg, the popular social bookmarking site. In 2010, after years of reigning as the most highly-trafficked social bookmarking site, Digg decided it was time for a change.
我怀疑有史以来最著名的重新设计失败之一是流行的社交书签网站Digg的重新设计。 在多年一直是人口最多的社交书签网站之后，Digg决定是时候进行改变了。
In 2010, Facebook and Twitter were all the rage. Understandably, Digg decided to re-focus its service with a stronger emphasis on social networking than social bookmarking. They wanted to make it easier to share content with your friends and to follow what they have shared.
2010年，Facebook和Twitter风靡一时。 可以理解的是，Digg决定将服务重点重新放在社交网络上，而不是社交书签 。 他们想使与您的朋友 共享内容以及关注他们共享的内容变得更加容易。
Instead of having one centralized ‘link stockmarket’ where the opinions of a small cabal of elite power-users outranked everybody else, the Digg redesign was designed to redistributed voting power so users were far more influenced by what their friends had shared.
Digg重新设计的目的不是重新分配一个集中的“链接股票市场”，在一小撮精英电力用户的意见之上，其他所有人都没有，而是重新分配了投票权，因此用户受其朋友分享的内容的影响更大。
This sounds like a noble concept, and a logical approach to breaking the monopoly of a small group of users that had ‘gamed the system’, right?
这听起来像是一个崇高的概念，是一种逻辑方法，可以打破一小群“玩过系统”的用户的垄断，对吗？
Unfortunately the shift to content prioritized by your friends list didn’t work simply because most users didn’t have an active, robust friends networks on Digg. By 2010 most people already had well-established social networks delivering them more news than most could read. Why would they need to start another one on Digg?
不幸的是，仅由于大多数用户在Digg上没有活跃而强大的朋友网络，所以按您的朋友列表优先进行的内容转移并没有奏效。 到2010年，大多数人已经拥有了完善的社交网络，可以为他们提供比大多数人更多的新闻。 他们为什么需要在Digg上再启动一个？
This change in core logic led to a drastic drop in viewers as the new logic required users to change their habits. All evidence appears to be that most decided not to. If you want to socialize with your friends, you go to Facebook and Twitter. If you want to bookmark content, or see trending topics, you go to Reddit or Stumbleupon or Slashdot.
核心逻辑的这种变化导致观众急剧下降，因为新逻辑要求用户改变其习惯。 所有证据似乎都是大多数人决定不这样做的。 如果您想与朋友社交，请访问Facebook和Twitter。 如果您想为内容添加书签或查看热门话题，请转到Reddit或Stumbleupon或Slashdot。
Digg’s attempt to offer the best of both worlds (i.e. social networking and social bookmarking) actually turned into offering the best of neither of them.
Digg试图提供两全其美的尝试(即社交网络和社交书签)实际上变成了两全其美。
The discontent was so marked that some reports state that Digg lost over a quarter of its audience over the change. In the first months of its launch, Digg’s traffic dropped 26% in the U.S. and 34% in the U.K.
这种不满情绪如此明显，以至于有些报道指出，迪格因这项改变而失去了四分之一的听众。 在发布的头几个月，Digg在美国的流量下降了26％，在英国下降了34％
For truth’s sake, later Digg managed to at least partially restore its positions. Later redesigns were better received but never able to return Digg to its former glory. Many have argued Digg had been in decline regardless.
出于事实的考虑，后来Digg设法至少部分恢复了自己的职位。 后来的重新设计受到了较好的欢迎，但从未使Digg恢复其昔日的辉煌。 许多人认为Digg一直处于衰落状态。
Although you can’t slate all the blame to the redesign, Digg’s market valuation certainly took a massive hit through the ordeal. In 2008 the site value was valued at around $160 million, but in 2012 it was sold for the whooping amount of half a million. That is some nasty math.
尽管您不能将全部责任归咎于重新设计，但Digg的市场估值无疑在整个折磨中受到了巨大冲击。 在2008年，网站的价值约为1.6亿美元，但在2012年，它以50万美元的天价被出售。 那真是令人讨厌的数学。
At present the homepage of Digg looks like just another blog with intros to articles, the difference being that these articles are on other sites. Digg has lost much of its distinctive look. Traffic data may well be solid, but it has lost much of its rusted on community.
目前，Digg的主页看起来就像是另一个博客的文章简介，不同之处在于这些文章位于其他网站上。 Digg失去了许多与众不同的外观。 流量数据可能固然可靠，但已对社区失去了很多吸引力。
Digg was big but it didn’t have the monopoly on social bookmarking. If you remember, Facebook had one of its major redesign at more or less the same time, which was also met with a huge backlash from its users.
Digg很大，但是在社交书签方面没有垄断地位。 如果您还记得的话，Facebook几乎在同一时间进行了一次重大的重新设计，这也遭到了用户的强烈反对。
However, Digg was never to social bookmarking what Facebook is to social networking. Facebook’s almost-monopoly on social networking saw users continue to use it, even when stating they hated the new design.
但是，Digg从未将社交网络中的Facebook标记为社交书签。 Facebook几乎垄断了社交网络，即使声称自己讨厌新设计，用户仍继续使用它。
The lesson to take from Digg’s failure is that huge changes in business logic can alienated users. The fact that the new redesign was very buggy on launch didn’t help either – first impressions count. Even the clear improvements that the redesign introduced, such as streamlined link posting, were not enough to staunch the bleeding.
从Digg的失败中可以吸取的教训是，业务逻辑的巨大变化会疏远用户。 新的重新设计在发布时非常容易出错，这一事实也无济于事-第一印象很重要。 即使重新设计引入了明显的改进(例如简化的链接发布)，也不足以解决问题。
It’s interesting to speculate about what might have happened if Digg didn’t redesign. My personal opinion is that it would have been a slower death. The smell of a system being gamed was becoming more and more obvious to regular users.
推测一下如果Digg不重新设计可能会发生什么，这很有趣。 我个人认为这将是一个缓慢的死亡。 对于普通用户来说，正在玩的系统的气味越来越明显。
If Digg had remained on this path its relevance would have likely faded over time. With the redesign, its traffic dropped fast and it was a quick death. Though the redesign failed to achieve it’s goals, it’s hard to fault them for trying.
如果Digg继续走这条路，其相关性可能会随着时间的流逝而消失。 经过重新设计，其流量Swift下降，很快就死亡了。 尽管重新设计未能实现其目标，但很难责怪他们尝试。
Perhaps they simply waited too long to begin – a 2007 social Digg may have competed very successfully against an infant Twitter and an adolescent Facebook.
也许他们只是等了太久才开始-2007年的社交Digg可能在与婴儿Twitter和青少年Facebook的竞争中非常成功。
The reasons for Yahoo’s redesign failure are different from the Digg failure. While in the case of Digg there was sound logic behind the redesign – they couldn’t continue to allow their product to be exploited by a small group of power users – the case with Yahoo Mail is different.
Yahoo重新设计失败的原因与Digg失败不同。 在Digg的情况下，重新设计背后有合理的逻辑–他们无法继续允许一小群高级用户使用其产品– Yahoo Mail的情况则不同。
Their service saw two redesigns in less than a year (in December 2012 and in October 2013), each concluding with much fury and teeth-gnashing in the community.
他们的服务在不到一年的时间内(2012年12月和2013年10月)进行了两次重新设计，每个重新设计都引起了社区的愤怒和and牙。
Yahoo Mail’s situation can probably be summarized by the old maxim: If it ain’t (too) broke, don’t fix it.
Yahoo Mail的情况可能可以用旧的格言来概括：如果它没有(太)坏了，就不要修复它。
That’s not to say that the original Yahoo Mail was unimpeachable. However the second redesign is a shining example of how panic can turn a small mess into a complete disaster.
这并不是说原始的Yahoo Mail不可阻挡。 然而，第二次重新设计是一个光辉的例子，说明了恐慌如何将小混乱变成一场彻底的灾难。
Some say that one of the reasons for the redesign of Yahoo Mail was pure ego-boosting. With a new manager appointed just months before the first redesign, it seemed that the driving force for the redesign was an overriding ‘out with the old, in with the new’ policy – and do it as quickly as humanly possible.
有人说，重新设计Yahoo Mail的原因之一是纯粹的自我提升。 在第一次重新设计的几个月前就任命了一位新经理，看来重新设计的推动力是“ 以旧换新，以新政策”压倒一切，并且要尽快完成。
This “The new world starts with ME” approach has been the father of many disasters, so it wasn’t a complete shock when it hit trouble. However, what irritated the millions of loyal Yahoo Mail users was that they believed their favorite mail system was quite good before the first redesign, and they saw no compelling reason for change.
这种“新世界始于我”的方法是许多灾难的源头，因此当遇到麻烦时，这并不是完全的震惊。 但是，激怒了数百万忠实的Yahoo Mail用户的是，他们认为在第一次重新设计之前，他们最喜欢的邮件系统就已经相当不错了，他们没有令人信服的变更理由。
While it’s true that users often object to change of any type – even improvements – this definitely wasn’t the case with the first and second Yahoo Mail redesigns. The redesigns simply flushed much-loved features such as tabs and sort by sender while introducing new features they didn’t like or need (i.e. Flickr integration).
的确，用户经常反对更改任何类型(甚至进行改进)，但第一次和第二次Yahoo Mail重新设计绝对不是这种情况。 重新设计只是简单地刷新了受欢迎的功能(例如标签和按发件人排序)，同时引入了他们不喜欢或不需要的新功能(即Flickr集成)。
While Yahoo! understandably never released data on the number of users who ditched the service following the redesign, it seems likely that the numbers were not insignificant. The very fact that only 25% of loyal Yahoo staff were willing to use their own mail system says a lot about all the nice features of the redesigned version.
而雅虎！ 可以理解，从未重新发布过在重新设计后放弃该服务的用户数量的数据，这似乎并不是微不足道的。 雅虎忠实的员工只有25％愿意使用自己的邮件系统，这一事实说明了重新设计版本的所有出色功能。
Despite all the differences between the failures of the redesigns of Digg and Yahoo Mail, there is one striking similarity – each tried to be what they are not. In the first case Digg tried to become a Facebook clone, while in the second, Yahoo Mail was clearly aping Google Mail.
尽管Digg和Yahoo Mail的重新设计失败之间存在种种差异，但还是有一个惊人的相似之处–每种都试图做到并非如此。 在第一种情况下，Digg试图成为Facebook的克隆，而在第二种情况下，Yahoo Mail显然正在模仿Google Mail。
To be fair, attempting to imitate an industry leader can work sometimes. Kiddicraft was making plastic bricks 10 years before Lego, but who remembers that now?
公平地说，尝试模仿行业领导者有时可以奏效。 Kiddicraft在制造乐高玩具10年之前就制造了塑料砖，但是现在谁还记得呢？
But when you have a long-established community of users who are with you because you are NOT Facebook and Gmail, respectively, imitation takes you nowhere.
但是，当您有一个由来已久的用户社区时，因为您分别不是 Facebook和Gmail，那么模仿就无济于事。
Add to this that both Digg and Yahoo Mail launched their new sites in a such poor condition it almost appeared the sites hadn’t been tested at all internally. Users couldn’t login, mail didn’t load, key functionalities were broken or outright missing.
除此之外，Digg和Yahoo Mail都在如此糟糕的条件下启动了他们的新站点，几乎似乎这些站点都未经内部测试。 用户无法登录，邮件未加载，关键功能被破坏或完全丢失。
For me, the failure of Yahoo Mail is much bigger than Digg’s redesign disaster that has generously been reviewed on various sites. Probably Yahoo Mail’s epic failure didn’t draw that much attention from the media simply because for many readers and writers Yahoo Mail died years before these very unfortunate redesigns.
对我而言，Yahoo Mail的失败要比Digg的重新设计灾难大得多，后者在各个站点上都进行了慷慨的审查。 雅虎邮件(Yahoo Mail)史诗般的失败可能并没有引起媒体的太多关注，仅仅是因为对于许多读者和作家而言，雅虎邮件(Yahoo Mail)在这些不幸的重新设计之前就已经死亡了。
While it’s true Yahoo Mail is a shadow of its past glory, it still has hundreds of millions of rusted-on users who can get very vocal when people start moving the furniture.
尽管Yahoo Mail确实是过去辉煌的影子，但它仍然有数以千计的受困用户，当人们开始移动家具时，他们会发出很大的声音。
What can we take from Yahoo!’s pain?
我们可以从Yahoo!的痛苦中得到什么？
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. 如果没有损坏，请不要修复。 Don’t imitate the leaders – be true to who you are because this is why your users like you. 不要模仿领导者-忠于自己，因为这就是用户喜欢您的原因。Compared to the first two redesign disasters, the redesign misfortunes of Target.com are simply nothing to worry about but compared to what a perfect site must be, there is a lot to be desired. In all fairness, there are many sites that have escaped any real criticism that look much worse than Target.com.
与前两次重新设计灾难相比， Target.com的重新设计灾难简直无后顾之忧，但是与完美网站必须具备的条件相比，还有很多事情要做。 平心而论，有很多网站都没有遭受任何真正的批评，这些批评看上去比Target.com差很多。
However, Target is a popular brand and a big targ… – you know what I mean – and as such draws a big spotlight.
但是，塔吉特(Target)是一个受欢迎的品牌，也是一个庞大的品牌……–您知道我的意思–因此吸引了众多关注。
The latest redesign disaster of Target.com is another case of a site that forgot to be who they were. One of the signature features of the Target brand is its minimalism. Whitespace, red circles – this is what people love it for.
Target.com的最新重新设计灾难是网站遗忘了他们的身份的另一例。 Target品牌的标志性特征之一是其极简主义。 空白，红色圆圈–这就是人们喜欢它的原因。
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/64011-Dont-Follow-Target-com-when-Redesigning-your-Ecommerce-Site
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/64011-Dont-Follow-Target-com-when-Redesigning-your-Ecommerce-Site
Here is the older Target look. It was introduced in 2011 and yes, this redesign was also considered a big failure at the time.
这是较旧的Target外观。 它于2011年推出，是的，在当时，这种重新设计也被认为是一个重大失败 。
However, when the latest version was launched in 2013, even the critics of the 2011 version started to love it. This is a risky recipe for success – if your users hate your new design, launch something even worse, and they’ll realize how blessed they were.
但是，当最新版本于2013年发布时，甚至2011年版本的批评者也开始喜欢它。 这是成功的冒险秘诀–如果您的用户讨厌您的新设计，推出更糟糕的产品，他们就会意识到自己的幸福。
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/64011-Dont-Follow-Target-com-when-Redesigning-your-Ecommerce-Site
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/64011-Dont-Follow-Target-com-when-Redesigning-your-Ecommerce-Site
The 2011 version might have had its glitches, but it remained true to the distinctive feature of Target design – minimalism. There was sufficient air in the design and it loaded in good time.
2011年版本可能有小故障，但它仍然忠实于Target设计的独特功能-极简主义。 设计中有足够的空气，并且及时加载。
The new design displays more products on the home page, but it looks cluttered and Target’s minimalist signature is replaced by a densely-packed wall of product. This was the main objection the industry has against the 2013 redesign.
新设计在首页上显示了更多产品，但看起来很杂乱，Target的极简主义特征被密集包装的产品墙取代。 这是业界反对2013年重新设计的主要反对意见。
Ironically, Target received less criticism for bigger functionality faux-pas in their 2011 redesign, when some users couldn’t complete purchases or even locate some product categories.
具有讽刺意味的是，在某些用户无法完成购买甚至无法找到某些产品类别的情况下，Target在其2011年重新设计中对功能更大的人造假皮的批评较少。
Ironically, while the 2013 redesign avoided such dramas – presumably Target learned their lesson on test key functionalities – the criticism they received for simply ‘straying off brand’ was hardly any less venomous.
具有讽刺意味的是，尽管2013年的重新设计避免了此类事件的发生(大概是塔吉特吸取了关于测试关键功能的经验教训)，但他们对“简单地摆脱品牌”的批评却毫不逊色。
Again, compared to many other redesign disasters, the Target’s woes weren’t that drastic. However all that bad publicity might have been avoided if they’d followed a more evolutionary redesign path and introduced change in smaller, staged steps.
再次，与其他许多重新设计的灾难相比，Target的灾难并不那么激烈。 但是，如果他们遵循更进化的重新设计路径并以较小的分阶段的步骤进行更改，则可以避免所有这些不好的宣传。
In fact, after two consecutive redesign disasters, Target may well have chosen the path of gentle evolution. When I checked their site recently I noticed only minor changes in comparison to the design they launched in 2013. For instance, the shadows that attracted really harsh criticism are gone while the menu has returned to the left.
实际上，在连续两次重新设计灾难之后，Target可能已经选择了缓慢发展的道路。 当我最近查看他们的网站时，与他们于2013年推出的设计相比，我发现只有很小的变化。例如，当菜单返回左侧时，那些吸引了严厉批评的阴影消失了。
What saved Target was they had a rock-solid bricks’n’mortar business – all their physical stores. Had they been an online platform only, they may not have been so lucky.
使Target幸免的是，他们经营着一家坚如磐石的实体商店–所有实体店。 如果它们只是一个在线平台，他们可能并不那么幸运。
What can we learn from Target’s angst?
我们可以从Target的焦虑中学到什么？
Don’t sacrifice your long-term values (minimalism in Target’s case) on short-term benefits or trend chasing 不要在短期利益或趋势追逐上牺牲长期价值(在Target的情况下为极简主义) Gradual change can be less painful for users – introduce one at a time, assess the result, and proceed if warranted. 渐进式更改对用户的痛苦不那么大-一次介绍一个，评估结果，并在必要时继续进行。And, yes, it doesn’t hurt to have a huge multinational empire to fall back on.
而且，是的，拥有一个庞大的跨国帝国并没有什么坏处。
The trick to winning Blackjack (or Twenty-one) is knowing when to ‘hit’ – ask for another card – or ‘stand’ – keep the cards you have and hope they are good enough to beat the dealer.
赢得二十一点 (或二十一个)的诀窍是知道何时“击中” –要求另一张牌–“站立” –保留您拥有的卡并希望它们足以打败庄家。
If you are dealt a ’20’, you should ‘stand’. If you have a ’13’, you’re going to want to hit. A ’17’ is harder decision.
如果您得到“ 20”，则应该“站立”。 如果您有'13'，您将要命中。 “ 17”是更困难的决定。
Redesigns can be a similar gamble. Somehow Craigslist has been successful ‘standing’ with the same design since the mid-1990’s – arguably a ’15’ in design terms. Digg ‘hit’ and busted. Yet for a company like MySpace, the game changed so quickly that they were bust before they’d even had time to ask for another card.
重新设计可以是类似的赌博。 自1990年代中期以来，Craigslist以某种方式成功地在相同的设计中获得了“成功”，可以说是15。 迪格“命中”并破产。 但是对于像MySpace这样的公司来说，游戏变化如此之快，以至于他们甚至没有时间要求另一张卡片时就破产了。
It’s a tough game.
这是一场艰难的比赛。
翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/3-painful-site-redesign-disasters/
金蝶k3灾难性故障
相关资源：金蝶KIS专业版安装常见问题解析