The answer reports the dragon-design task in plain, direct sentences ('I had never designed anything for young children before') and ends with a simple stated lesson, typical of solid but modest Band 6.5 language.这段回答用简单直接的句子（'我以前从没为小孩子设计过任何东西'）讲述了设计任务，并以一个简单陈述的道理收尾，语言扎实但比较朴素，是典型的Band 6.5水平。
The time I needed to use my imagination was last year, when my studio was designing a mobile app for children who are learning to read. I was asked to create a dragon character who guides the child through the story.
I needed imagination because I had never designed anything for young children before. Most of my work is for adults, with simple colours and clean lines. For this app, I had to imagine how a six-year-old sees the world, what makes them laugh, and what might frighten them instead. A dragon can look friendly or scary, and the line between the two is very thin.
It was quite difficult at first. I drew maybe twenty versions of the dragon, and most of them looked wrong somehow, too serious or too strange. My colleague Phương, who has a small son, gave me feedback after showing the drawings to him, which helped a lot.
In the end, it became easier once I stopped thinking like a designer and just tried to remember what I liked as a child myself, like cartoons on TV in Hue. The final dragon was round, orange, and a little clumsy, and the client loved it. It taught me that imagination is not only for artists, it is something you can practise.
查看中文翻译
我需要发挥想象力的那次,是去年我们工作室在设计一款帮助儿童学习阅读的手机应用时。当时我被安排设计一个引导孩子读故事的龙形角色。
我之所以需要想象力,是因为我以前从没为小孩子设计过东西。我平时的工作大多面向成年人,颜色简单、线条干净。而这次做这个应用,我必须想象六岁孩子眼中的世界,想象什么会让他们发笑,什么反而会吓到他们。龙这种形象既可以显得友善,也可能显得可怕,两者之间的界限其实很微妙。
一开始确实挺难的。我大概画了二十个版本的龙,大多数看起来都不太对劲,要么太严肃,要么太奇怪。我的同事 Phương 有个小儿子,她把这些图给儿子看过之后给了我反馈,帮了我很大的忙。
最后,当我不再用设计师的思维去想,而是努力回忆自己小时候在顺化看电视卡通片时喜欢什么,事情就变得容易多了。最终定下来的龙是圆滚滚的、橙色的,还有点笨拙,客户非常喜欢。这件事让我明白,想象力不只是艺术家才有的东西,它是可以练习出来的。
215 词 · 约 2 分钟
为什么是这个分数
- LR“I had never designed anything for young children before” — "I had never designed anything for young children before" states the challenge in the plainest possible terms — common verbs, no attempt to characterise what was actually hard about it (the unfamiliar audience, the shift in visual language). That bare factual statement, accurate but undeveloped, is the Band 6.5 profile: the fact is established, but the vocabulary doesn't yet do the work of explaining why it mattered.“I had never designed anything for young children before”用最朴素的措辞陈述了这个挑战——常见动词,完全没有尝试刻画到底难在哪里(不熟悉的受众、视觉语言上的转变)。这种赤裸裸的事实陈述,准确但未加展开,正是 Band 6.5 的特征:事实立住了,但词汇还没有承担起解释这件事为什么重要的功能。
- GRA“A dragon can look friendly or scary, and the line between the two is very thin.” — "A dragon can look friendly or scary, and the line between the two is very thin" is two ideas joined by a single coordinating "and", with one modest descriptive clause tacked on at the end — no subordination, no relative clause doing extra work. That's accurate, correctly punctuated Band 6.5 grammar, but it's coordination rather than the embedding a 7.0 answer would more likely use, for instance turning "the line... is very thin" into a clause modifying "dragon" directly.“A dragon can look friendly or scary, and the line between the two is very thin”是用一个并列连词“and”连接起来的两个意思,末尾再挂上一个朴素的描述性分句——没有从属结构,也没有关系从句在多做什么工作。这是准确、标点正确的 Band 6.5 语法,但属于并列而非 Band 7.0 答案更可能使用的嵌套,比如把“the line... is very thin”改写成直接修饰“dragon”的从句。
- FC“It taught me that imagination is not only for artists, it is something you can practise.” — The closing sentence delivers the lesson through the flat formula "it taught me that X", stating the takeaway directly without connecting it back to a specific moment from the story, such as the twenty dragon sketches or Phương's son's reaction. That direct, unembellished wrap-up is a typical Band 6.5 move — the lesson is clear, but it isn't earned through detail the way a higher-band closing would tie it back to a particular image from the story.结尾这句话用“it taught me that X”这个平淡的套路来交代收获,直接说出结论,却没有把它和故事里任何具体的时刻——比如那二十张龙的草图,或者 Phương 儿子的反应——联系起来。这种直接、不加修饰的收束是 Band 6.5 的典型做法——道理讲清楚了,但没有通过细节把它“挣”回来,不像更高分段的结尾会把它系回故事中的某个具体画面。