Back to Details

critique

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese
Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
First: Use the frontend-design skill for design principles and anti-patterns.
开展全面的设计评审，评估界面是否真正可用——不仅是技术层面，更是作为一个经过设计的用户体验。要像设计总监一样给出反馈。
第一步：借助frontend-design技能来参考设计原则与反模式。

Design Critique

设计评审

Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
从以下维度评估界面：

1. AI Slop Detection (CRITICAL)

1. AI同质化检测（重中之重）

This is the most important check. Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
Review the design against ALL the DON'T guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
The test: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
这是最重要的检查项。这个界面看起来和2024-2025年其他AI生成的界面一模一样吗？
对照frontend-design技能中所有的「禁止」准则进行评审——这些都是AI生成内容的典型特征。检查是否使用了AI风格调色板、渐变文字、带发光装饰的深色模式、毛玻璃效果、核心指标布局、完全相同的卡片网格、通用字体以及其他所有同质化特征。
测试标准：如果你把这个界面展示给别人并说「这是AI生成的」，他们会立刻相信吗？如果是，那这就是问题所在。

2. Visual Hierarchy

2. 视觉层级

  • Does the eye flow to the most important element first?
  • Is there a clear primary action? Can you spot it in 2 seconds?
  • Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
  • Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
  • 视线是否会首先聚焦到最重要的元素上？
  • 是否有清晰的核心操作？你能在2秒内找到它吗？
  • 尺寸、颜色和位置是否正确传达了元素的重要性？
  • 权重本应不同的元素之间是否存在视觉竞争？

3. Information Architecture

3. 信息架构

  • Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
  • Is related content grouped logically?
  • Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
  • Is the navigation clear and predictable?
  • 结构是否直观？新用户能理解内容的组织方式吗？
  • 相关内容是否按逻辑分组？
  • 是否同时提供了过多选择？（认知过载）
  • 导航是否清晰且可预测？

4. Emotional Resonance

4. 情感共鸣

  • What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
  • Does it match the brand personality?
  • Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
  • Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
  • 这个界面会唤起用户怎样的情绪？这是有意为之的吗？
  • 它是否符合品牌调性？
  • 它是否给人可靠、亲切、高端、有趣等预期的感觉？
  • 目标用户是否会觉得「这是为我设计的」？

5. Discoverability & Affordance

5. 可发现性与易用性

  • Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
  • Would a user know what to do without instructions?
  • Are hover/focus states providing useful feedback?
  • Are there hidden features that should be more visible?
  • 交互元素是否明显可交互？
  • 用户无需说明就能知道该怎么做吗？
  • 悬停/聚焦状态是否提供了有用的反馈？
  • 是否有本该更显眼的隐藏功能？

6. Composition & Balance

6. 布局与平衡

  • Does the layout feel balanced or uncomfortably weighted?
  • Is whitespace used intentionally or just leftover?
  • Is there visual rhythm in spacing and repetition?
  • Does asymmetry feel designed or accidental?
  • 布局是否感觉平衡，还是重心偏移、令人不适？
  • 留白是有意设计的，还是多余的空间？
  • 间距与重复是否形成了视觉韵律？
  • 不对称是刻意设计的，还是偶然形成的？

7. Typography as Communication

7. 作为沟通工具的排版

  • Does the type hierarchy clearly signal what to read first, second, third?
  • Is body text comfortable to read? (line length, spacing, size)
  • Do font choices reinforce the brand/tone?
  • Is there enough contrast between heading levels?
  • 字体层级是否清晰指示了阅读顺序：先读什么、再读什么、最后读什么？
  • 正文文本是否易读？（行宽、间距、字号）
  • 字体选择是否强化了品牌/调性？
  • 不同层级标题之间的对比度是否足够？

8. Color with Purpose

8. 有目的性的色彩运用

  • Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
  • Does the palette feel cohesive?
  • Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
  • Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
  • 色彩是否用于传递信息，而非仅仅装饰？
  • 调色板是否协调统一？
  • 强调色是否将注意力吸引到了正确的元素上？
  • 色盲用户能否正常理解？（不仅是技术上可行，信息传递是否不受影响？）

9. States & Edge Cases

9. 状态与边缘情况

  • Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
  • Loading states: Do they reduce perceived wait time?
  • Error states: Are they helpful and non-blaming?
  • Success states: Do they confirm and guide next steps?
  • 空状态：是否引导用户采取行动，还是仅仅显示「此处无内容」？
  • 加载状态：是否减少了用户的等待感知？
  • 错误状态：是否有帮助且不指责用户？
  • 成功状态：是否确认操作完成并引导下一步？

10. Microcopy & Voice

10. 微文案与语气

  • Is the writing clear and concise?
  • Does it sound like a human (the right human for this brand)?
  • Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
  • Does error copy help users fix the problem?
  • 文案是否清晰简洁？
  • 听起来像真人吗？（符合品牌定位的真人语气）
  • 标签和按钮的表述是否明确无歧义？
  • 错误文案是否能帮助用户解决问题？

Generate Critique Report

生成评审报告

Structure your feedback as a design director would:
按照设计总监的思路组织反馈：

Anti-Patterns Verdict

反模式判定

Start here. Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
从这里开始。通过/不通过：这个界面看起来是AI生成的吗？列出技能中反模式部分提到的具体特征。要直言不讳。

Overall Impression

整体印象

A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
简要的直观感受——哪些地方做得好，哪些不好，以及最核心的改进机会。

What's Working

亮点

Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
突出2-3个做得好的地方。要具体说明为什么这些地方出色。

Priority Issues

优先级问题

The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
For each issue:
  • What: Name the problem clearly
  • Why it matters: How this hurts users or undermines goals
  • Fix: What to do about it (be concrete)
  • Command: Which command to use (
    /polish
    , 
    /distill
    , 
    /bolder
    , 
    /quieter
    , etc.)
3-5个影响最大的设计问题，按重要性排序：
每个问题需包含：
  • 问题点：清晰说明问题
  • 影响：这会如何损害用户体验或违背设计目标
  • 修复方案：具体的解决办法
  • 指令：使用哪个命令（
    /polish
    , 
    /distill
    , 
    /bolder
    , 
    /quieter
    等）

Minor Observations

次要问题

Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
关于较小问题的简短说明，值得后续处理。

Questions to Consider

思考问题

Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
  • "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
  • "Does this need to feel this complex?"
  • "What would a confident version of this look like?"
Remember:
  • Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
  • Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
  • Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
  • Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
  • Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
  • Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
能启发更优解决方案的挑战性问题：
  • 「如果核心操作更突出会怎样？」
  • 「这个界面真的需要这么复杂吗？」
  • 「一个更自信的版本会是什么样子？」
注意：
  • 要直接——模糊的反馈是在浪费所有人的时间
  • 要具体——说「提交按钮」而非「某些元素」
  • 既要指出问题，也要说明对用户的影响
  • 给出具体建议，而非仅仅「考虑探索...」
  • 严格排序优先级——如果所有内容都重要，那就等于没有重点
  • 不要弱化批评——开发者需要诚实的反馈才能交付优秀的设计