The interactive systems we design .....

最近想要和同好一起翻譯原文書，剛好看到這段話讓我特別有感觸，主要原因還是在於看到學生許多的設計作業都只滿足於機能上的基本需求，卻無暇兼顧其他層次的設計元素.......就手癢先試翻了一下中文如下

The interactive systems we design have implicit as well as
explicit meanings.A design may communicate its purpose clearly,
so that it’s obvious what it is and what we should do with it. But
its qualities, its aesthetic qualities particularly, speak to people in a
different way. Consciously or not, people read meanings into
artifacts. A chapel speaks a different architectural language than a
supermarket, and everybody can read the difference. In a
drugstore we can usually distinguish a medicine bottle from a
perfume bottle even if we can’t read the label.Artists and designers
are trained to use the language of implicit meanings to add a rich
communicative element over and above direct functional
communication. If we only design the function of something, not
what it also communicates, we risk our design being
misinterpreted. Worse, we waste an opportunity to enhance
everyday life.

我們設計的互動系統除了不僅擁有自身明示的意義，也同時擁有暗示的意義。一個設計應該能夠清晰地傳達自身的目的性，並讓人們可以清楚了解它的用途並且正常地使用。但是這個互動系統的品質、尤其是美學上的品質，同時也會向人們訴說不同的意義。

我們經常下意識地閱讀人造物的各種意義。例如任何一人都能輕易地判斷一個小禮拜堂所使用的建築語彙，和街角的便利超市是完全不同的。或是在藥局裡，即使我們無法讀懂瓶罐上所貼的標籤文字，但我們仍可輕易分辨藥瓶與香水瓶。

而接受過專業訓練的藝術家與設計師，他們能在直接機能性的溝通上附加具有足夠暗示意義的溝通元素。若我們只是設計一個物件的機能，而且忽略它同時必須傳達的意義，那我們便是冒著自己的設計被人曲解的風險。而且更糟的是我們浪費了改善日常生活的契機。