Objective Evaluator - 客观原则评价技能
基于三本经典设计著作的客观评价框架：
- Tony Fadell《Build》 - 止痛药 vs 维生素
- Don Norman《设计心理学》 - 设计的三个层次
- Dieter Rams《设计十诫》 - 红旗警告
Evaluate any product, idea, or design through three complementary lenses:
Evaluate any product, idea, or design through three complementary lenses:
🔧 Tool (Painkiller vs Vitamin)
Based on Tony Fadell - Build
Ask:
- Does it solve a real physical/information pain point?
- If it breaks tomorrow, does the workflow stop?
- Is it a painkiller (essential) or vitamin (nice-to-have)?
Scoring:
- ✅ Tool - Solves real pain, workflow depends on it
- ⚠️ Edge Tool - Painkiller for some, vitamin for others
- ❌ Not a Tool - No real pain point addressed
🎨 Toy (Three Levels of Design)
Based on Don Norman - Design of Everyday Things
Evaluate across three levels:
| Level | Question | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Visceral | Does it bring immediate pleasure/aesthetic satisfaction? | First impression, visual appeal, emotional response |
| Behavioral | Is the affordance natural? Does it work as expected? | Usability, feedback, control, error prevention |
| Reflective | Does it create long-term attachment/identity? | Personal meaning, self-image, long-term satisfaction |
Scoring:
- ✅ Strong Toy - Delivers on 2+ levels effectively
- ⚠️ Weak Toy - Delivers on 1 level only
- ❌ Not a Toy - No emotional or experiential value
🚩 Trash (Red Flags)
Based on Dieter Rams - Ten Principles of Good Design
Check for these deal-breakers:
| Red Flag | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Physics Violation | Violates physical laws or logical impossibility | Perpetual motion, impossible chemistry |
| Marketing Fiction | Creates pseudo-demand through manipulation | "You need this" when you don't |
| Dishonest Design | Deceives users about function or origin | Fake buttons, hidden costs, dark patterns |
| Planned Obsolescence | Designed to fail unnecessarily | Non-replaceable batteries, software locks |
Scoring:
- 🚩 Trash - Any red flag present
- ⚠️ Yellow Flag - Borderline marketing stretch
- ✅ Clean - No red flags
📊 Final Verdict
Synthesize into clear classification:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ TOOL + Strong Toy + Clean → KEEP ✅ │
│ TOY (only) + Clean → MAYBE ⚠️ │
│ Any + Trash flag → REJECT 🚮 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
🎯 Usage Pattern
When evaluating something:
- Run the three audits independently
- Note tensions (e.g., strong Tool but weak Toy = industrial equipment)
- Identify user segments (Tool for pros, Toy for consumers)
- Deliver verdict with nuance about who it's for
💡 Key Insights to Surface
- Business model cleverness - How do they make money vs what they sell?
- Identity play - Are they selling functionality or self-image?
- Marketing vs Reality - Where does the story diverge from truth?
- Segment dependency - Different answers for different users
Example Output Format
## [Product Name] - T3 Audit
### 🔧 Tool Assessment
| Question | Answer |
|----------|--------|
| Real pain point? | ✅ Yes - ... |
| Workflow critical? | ⚠️ Partial - ... |
**Verdict:** Edge Tool (pros yes, casual users no)
### 🎨 Toy Assessment
| Level | Score | Notes |
|-------|-------|-------|
| Visceral | ✅ | Beautiful industrial design |
| Behavioral | ⚠️ | Learning curve exists |
| Reflective | ✅ | "Pro user" identity |
**Verdict:** Strong Toy
### 🚩 Trash Check
- Physics violation? ❌ No
- Marketing fiction? ⚠️ Yellow flag - ...
- Dishonest design? ❌ No
### 📊 Final Verdict
**Segment-dependent:** TOOL for professionals, TOY for enthusiasts