Slashdot Mirror
Norman & Spolsky - Simplicity is Out
guanxi writes ""As simple as possible, and no simpler", you might have heard a few time, or KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). No more! The new hot trend is complexity: '[I]f you think simplicity means ... "does one thing and does it well," then I applaud your integrity but you can't go that far' says Joel Spolsky. 'Why are Yahoo! and MSN such complex-looking places? Because their systems are easier to use [than Google]' explains Donald Norman, who also also tells us that Simplicity Is Highly Overrated. Are they trying to make a subtler point, are they just consultants making a splash, or complexity the Next Big Thing in design?" From the 'highly overrated' article: "After touring the store my two friendly guides and I stopped outside to where two new automobiles were on display: two brand new Korean SUVs. Complexity again. I'm old enough to remember when a steering wheel was just a steering wheel, the rear view mirror just a mirror. These steering wheels were also complex control structures with multiple buttons and controls including two sets of loudness controls, one for music and one for the telephone (and I'm not even mentioning the multiple stalks on the steering column). The rear view mirror had two controls, one to illuminate the compass the other simply labeled "mirror," which lit a small red light when depressed. A rear view mirror with an on-off switch? The salesperson didn't know what it did either."
Time for the classic battle to resume. ;-)
Why are Yahoo! and MSN such complex-looking places? Because their systems are easier to use [than Google]
Please stop already...the laughter is painful.
They have a point, in that there is a population that doesn't mind complexity (aka "clutter"). Just look at a typical 16-year-old's bedroom, or a college student's MySpace page. But nearly everyone I know over 40 tends to prefer "simple". "Just give me a cell phone that makes phone calls," they say. My parents would pay double for a TV remote with half as many buttons.
But if these "experts" think clutter is the Next Big Thing, I have some demographics to share: the adolescent/young adult cohort that routinely thrives on oodles and knobs and buttons is entering a shrinking phase, and that overpopulated cohort known as the Boomers are all on the high side of 40.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The button on the mirror was probably the auto-dimming feature.
From the designer's point of view, complexity is all the rage - but do the customers WANT that complexity? Sorry to cite and overused example, but one word for you: iPod! It's simple, clean, and works. It has a complex control that's simple to use (clickwheel). And I may as well cite this, even though it's mettle is untested as of yet: Wii! Simple with a complex control, again.
Perhaps the best compromise is a complex design with a simple UI...?
If simplicity is out, why is the iPod doing so well? One wheel, four buttons, clean white box. Sure, it's not the only reason, but it does look ever approachable. Why do you think that, in the age of a camera-mp3-omg-do-fucking-everything mobile phones, Motorola is developing a bare-bones cell phone?
I call bullshit.
KISS isn't necessarily referring to the user interface, which is all TFA is on about
Complexity scales badly. Flexibility is usually the first casualty of war.
Task Mangler
MSN and Yahoo are easier to use than google? Huh? He goes on and on about how all of yahoo's options are right out there in the open - which is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM. Too many options is overwhelming and confusing. Plus, he makes ridiculous factually incorrect bullshit statements, like implying yahoo's front page is customizable, while google's isn't. This is just some jackass trolling for page hits by taking up the contrary view.
In this article, Joel on software claims that simplicity is overrated, that users want more features, and the single thing his company does to drive more sales is to release a new version of an existing product with more features. What's notable is that a week earlier, he wrote this well-circulated post lambasting Microsoft for having too much choice in the shutdown menu in Vista, and advocated for a simple, one-button shutdown solution.
how much are you willing to bet the clocks in those SUVs were flashing 12:00... and if you wanted to change the language for the displays you'd have to wade through several pages of badly translated manuals... my new CD player I installed the other month in my car has language options for the display... I kid you not... the bloody thing defaults to German... It took me a day to find out how to change that...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
You can work out what the customer wants, and provide it. Or you can not bother to find out and just put in every tick-box item you have heard of hoping you've covered all possibilities.
My DVD player remote has 83 buttons. I use about 10 of them.
The matrix is a piece of software I discovered on thedailywtf.
Its nightmare inducing
liqbase
Outside of wanting cell phones that are not delicate mini-computers, I'd say people are rarely clamoring for things that "do one thing well". Simplicity IS being "easy to use" (and learn). When most people ask for a simple design, this is what they mean--not one that is so basic that it only does one thing. People love using many features and learning to customize. They just don't want this to be an obstacle in actually using the product as intended.
Or could they be talking out of their asses?
Is it just possible complexity won't benefit some situations? That simplicity is prefered by some users?
These and more questions, Captain Obvious will be along soon to answer...
Seriously, different situations demand different responses. Any claim that one approach is 'always bestest' shouldn't be taken too seriously.
"They have a point, in that there is a population that doesn't mind complexity (aka "clutter"). "
But complexity doesn't imply lack of organization. Those people who have cluttered rooms have a form of organization underneath. Also complexity gives one the feeling of being in control, even if those buttons and knobs really don't do anything useful.
I vote for the second one.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Simplicity is still better. Norman basically makes the case that, from a marketing perspective, simplicity does not sell. People perceive a complex UI as being more powerful and capable. This makes market pressure favor the complex UI.
However, that doesn't mean it's better. It means maybe you'll sell more, but it doesn't mean the device will work better or people will use more of the features. If you care about the user experience after the sale, simplicity still wins. If all you care about is separating the man from his money, slather on the complexity.
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
Clearly simplicity is out and ocmplexity is in. That explains perfectly why nobody uses google, and it certainly hasn't become so common place that it has been "verbed" in the english language. I bow before the amazing intellect of these people. /sarcasm
although to be fair there is something very "truthy" about what the are saying...
I am completely unimpressed by Blackberries or cellphones with cameras and MP3 players in them. Costs me extra to buy, more complex to use, and I never wanted that function!
Perhaps the glorious Free Market will realize there is a niche where people appreciate austerity, simplicity and durability.
Or perhaps they think that their revenue is driven by the endless upgrade treadmill and we asutere people are not a profitable niche.
Blar.
'Why are Yahoo! and MSN such complex-looking places? Because their systems are easier to use [than Google]'
In what way are Yahoo or MSN easier to use? All a search engine needs is an input field where you enter your search phrase, and a button "search", which then presents a list of results. Everything else is just fancy bullshit. Anybody remembers how Altavista went from search engine to portal? Hardly anybody used it anymore shortly after they did that switch, because it starting sucking.
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
The folks who make those inspiring posters put it best:
If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem
Complex>Simple
Yahoo>Google
Zune>iPod
The referenced articles>This post
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
Complex systems are build out of, guess what, simple pieces. Complexity breeds mistakes which are *not* a good thing. It also makes interafecs harder to use. I like the whole "Type it in the box and hit the button" thing google have going. It's very nice, clear and easy. The other services they offer arn't all bunched up on the front page since they have no need to be (really, if people want to use other google services they can click on the "more" link to get to them).
As a software developer I don't want to be making things far harder than they need to be by introducing complexity into my work and as a user I don't want all of my options shoved into the exact same place because it makes everything harder to use.
A good system will use simple pieces to make something bigger *and* keep it well organised for the user to use effectively. IMHO the KISS principle is still a darn good one and I think I'll stick with it until someone gives me a better reason to change.
Silly rabbit
It's sad but true. Your typical mass-market consumer will almost always buy the item with more bells-and-whistles over the item that is actually the better product, especially if it's cheaper. Consumers tend to care more about flash and glitter, whereas professionals tend to care more about getting a job done right. Just compare equivalent products in the consumer and professional categories. Which has more knobs and buttons? It varies by industry, but in most cases the pro-grade products are much, much simpler.
Some people like their stuff simple, some people like it more complex. Some people like simple stuff that you can then drill down on so they can decide if it's simple or complex. What design is all about is meeting a demand in a way that the people buying it will like. Forget simple/complex - remember people!
Either someone forgot to thange the copyright message, or this is from 2004.
I think it is from 2004, because it describe search.msn.com as it was before they made it simple.
We like complex stuff.
Complex stuff is sometimes too complicated.
Simple stuff is easy.
Draw your own conclusions.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
Simplicity is good. I love my wall switches, up is on, down is off (unless it's one of the three ways, then it's just a toggle away from the opposite state). But we also have some apparent wall switches with a POT built in. Still simple, still nice, still easy to figure out how to use. Of course now you have to know a little more about lighting and bulbs to ensure in you energy savings you don't put in a generic fluorescent -- they won't dim (there are some made to do just that).
Now consider some of our sexiest light switches... I hate them... they have a touch sensitive surface that turns them off and on... nothing intuitive about them, just flat bronze colored metal surface in the middle of the wall plate. Hmmmm, the lights aren't bright. Yeah, turns out if you touch and maintain touch, the lights will brighten and or dim depending on which way they're currently "pointed". These switches people don't even bother trying to use (guests). Also, it's a real guessing game on the endpoint of full bright or full dim.
Oh, and we have some light switches that are rockers with dimmers builtin. Press and hold top or bottom to dim up or down. But, to set the bright, or dim, there's a slider on the right you move with a mysterious array of green LEDs to "indicate" what you're setting.
Then there's the dimmer rocker with an ON/OFF rocker at the bottom... yes, you can only dim and bright with the main rocker, the small rocker at the bottom is the on and off.
And, we have two light switches whose rocker panels flip open to reveal a programmable timer underneath.
I know and care enough to basically turn the lights on and off in our house. I vote for simplicity.
(I haven't even begun to describe the myriad other "simple" devices... phones, cordless phones... Most things that used to be simple everyday activities are doable only by those in our household "in the know". It's all learnable, it shouldn't have to be.)
Finally someone can expain why Apple has enjoyed so much success lately: people like complexity!
Wow.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I'm just as susceptible to gadgetry marketing as most people, but I still value simplicity in some things. Good old boring Filson Tin Cloth beats any of the overhyped synthetics, no matter how many laminated layers of petrochemicals they figure out how to laminate together.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
I suspect the latter is the much more common type of user. Part of my job is designing user interfaces (though I am by no means an expert), and this is a constant point of discussion. How to make it functional without making it unuseable.
Actually, just give pople what they want.
The car is different because it has physical controls in a limited area, most of the reactions are immediate response, and using one does not include the other.
In a computer UI, there is little immediate feedback, and, it is often not realized where to do what. Also, there are a multitude of options, and navigating them is an adventure in itself.
Ultimately, everyone wants simplicity. But where things are understood, people remain calm and learn it quickly; what looks complex to the untrained eye is actually very simple. If it takes a steep learning curve to understand it, it will forever remain complex, and people simply will learn to ignore that which is not used.
Have you read my journal today?
After touring the store my two friendly guides and I stopped outside to where two new automobiles were on display: two brand new Korean SUVs. Complexity again.
And just more things to break. Honestly. The more crap you shove into a compact space the higher chance something's going to break, fail and cost hundreds in repairs.
It's the automatic window conundrum. On the one hand, automatic windows are convenient, simple, free your hands and make life easier. On the other hand, when they break, what you do is severely limited by the position of the window. If it's stuck in the 'up' position, good luck going through cash toll roads or drive thrus. Stuck down? Hope you don't go to the car wash.
I have manual windows. I wouldn't trade em at all. (I do wish I had automatic doors though; at least those can be used manually...for now)
All this means is cars have reached a point where advancement has peaked and now they have to justify the new ones you buy every three years with gadgets and gizmos and ribbons you'll never actually use but somehow it makes you feel better.
Maybe the auto industry is a good parallel to the software industry...
Apple is making a big splash out of making computing devices that have an interface that is relatively simple to use. This article tries to claim that people want complexity in their machines, but what it said to me was that companies want complexity to justify driving the price of their items up. That's just a marketing trick, and sure you might find it on crummy garbage for sale at Wal-Mart but if you look at high end electronics equipment, its always been fairly simple looking, rather than full of gimmicky buttons and dials.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
To say that simplicity or complexity on daily objects are mostly a matter of fashion and that complexity is "in" is, ironically, an oversimplification of the matter. Simplicity is good as long as it gets the job done. The one critique we have nowadays with it is that there is little choice of customizability or the possibility to do more complex things.
However, we do not like (or want) complexity by default. Check out the iPod. It's all ABOUT the "grandma factor"; being able to grab it, select the songs, and just grooving. The place where it falls flat on its face is that it's impossible to go beyond that, which is why more technically inclined users have opted for player with more features and clutters.
It is mostly impossible to design an object that is easy to use and yet is incredibly powerful by default. It will depend on the nature of the object and its features of course, but compromises are inevitable. And while I do agree that the whole mentality of "let's have on big button" is detrimental, the opposite extreme is too as long as the added complexity gives little in return.
An example of bad complexity: the sidebar in Konqueror. Absolutely useless 99% of the time. A perfect example where simplification would relieve us of clutter. Example of vital complexity: The cockpit of a 747.
KISS vs. TMTOWTDI should be all about having a full understanding of the use cases of the tool you're about to make and minimizing the number of compromises you have to make in your design, and knowing when to discard features to create a more appealing product for a smaller audience. It's about knowing that, while the perfect product for everyone doesn't exist,excellent products do.
Cosas de un sysadmin argentin: http://aosinski.phpnet.us/
It's important to not confuse functionality with complexity. While it's true that adding more features tends to make something more complicated, it's usually the features that appeal to people, more than the mess they have to negotiate to get to those features. Ideally you add more functionality while still maintaining simplicity. But it's certainly possible to offer features that have such value to a person that they'll endure a complex process to get it done.
A well made consumer product will often follow one of two paths: Either it will have a laser like focus on a limited feature set, and make them very simple; or it will have designed into it a gradual learning curve to access the complexity.
All other things being equal, I have a hard time believing that a more complicated option would win over a simpler one in the mass market. Most people don't prefer things to be harder than they need to be.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Complexity again. I'm old enough to remember when a steering wheel was just a steering wheel, the rear view mirror just a mirror.
Maybe I'm betraying the fact that I don't work on the interface side much, or maybe this guy is off target. My understanding of the phrase "as simple as possible and no simpler" in the context of software is that it is usually used in reference to the complexity of the code, not the user interface. Specifically I think of it in reference to making unit tests pass. You write a test that fails, then you write the smallest amount of code that could work, then (assuming the test goes green), you write another test. Kent Beck did a nice demo of this in a lecture I attended where he wrote a bowling scoring system - first we designed it by talking through the design, then he wrote it test-first. The result was vastly simpler than the design diagram.
Or, said differently, I've always seen it as, "If 20 lines of clear brute force will solve the problem well, don't use a genetic algorithm."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
While all the competing search website were filled with features, Google used (and is still using) a very simple webpage and they killed the competition..
So the 'features sell' credo is a bit oversimplistic, it depends very much on the situation.
Well, these two esteemed gentlemen appear to have rediscovered human nature. Congratulations.
Of course when people pay a lot of money for something, they want it to appear complex. How else are they going to impress their neighbors? That doesn't necessarily mean they want it to *be* complex to use. By the same token, if they didn't buy it as a status symbol, they want it to be simple and reliable.
Anytime you mix ego with money, you're going to see this soft of disconnect between what people say they want and what they actually spend their money on. Also, everyone is going to have their own particular set of requirements for maximum ego fulfillment. So I gues what these guys are trying to say is that consumer electronics manufacturers have much in common with the fashion industry these days.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
The button the mirror was a garage door opener.
Saying (in essence) that yahoo and msn are better than Google is plain absurdity. Why do you think Google PWNs the market for searching? Simple. Type, press enter. Repeat. Repeat.
For yahoo, I have to click on the text box to put in a search. I have to a web search for the search box.
Google: Front and center. Clean. Simple. Uncluttered.
PLUS wicked fast page loads even @ low bandwidth (or myspace-blocked school tunnels). Try loading yahoo at peak times on a dialup connection that sadly gets 24kbps.
That's a disappointing article from Joel, he's usually more observant than that. I'd expect him to be able to make the distinction between "simplicity of an application" and "simplicity of an interface". You can have a feature-rich application which has an extremely simple interface.
My Mac laptop has a simple interface that both me and my wife enjoy. However, it is perfectly as functional as my linux desktop, who is much more complex.
An iPod's interface is simple; the device itself is complex. Same with gmail.
Both authors make the mistake of equating "ease of use" with "lack of features".
"'[I]f you think simplicity means ... "does one thing and does it well," then I applaud your integrity but you can't go that far' says Joel Spolsky. "
Well, doing one thing really well. There is complexity in simplicity; believe it or not. Have you ever looked at the man page for ifconfig, ls, awk, vi? Vi may look simple but there is a whole lot more than meets the eye. I guess it depends on your point of view.
I thought it was sarcasm at first, too; then I realized they were serious. It's a little hard to take the article seriously after that.
Let's just look at their home pages: Yahoo's, which has no less than 12 panes, including one that's just a graphical advertisement -- oh, yeah, there's a search box around there somewhere, too; Google's, which is a logo and a search box. (Google's also manages to convey to me that today must be Edvard Munch's birthday.)
If Yahoo is the answer to 'ease of use,' somebody is asking the wrong question.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They've got it backwards. Those complex steering wheels are attempts at simplicity, just from the other direction: simplicity for the driver.
Put all these things on the steering wheel so they don't have to grope for them on the dashboard. From an interface perspective it has some logic to it (though I've seen some downright TERRIBLE attempts to implement this).
These guys are apparently equating a steering wheel (which is a piece of a larger 'application') with the application itself. A car is already a ridiculously complicated application, especially with all the plugins. It's about time they made some attempt at sorting all the plugins and cleaning up the toolbar...
(that sound you hear -- that desperate, helpless screaming -- comes from a metaphor being carried too far...)
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
It's really neat how this week Joel says that "simplicity is overrated", while a couple weeks he was writing on how there are too many options in the shutdown menu, and how the average user shouldn't have to give a damn about the difference between shutdown, suspend and hibernate.
Of course, it's a complex problem. Take said shutdown screen. Apparently there are now laptops that will first suspend to RAM, then transition to hibernate. On the surface that's nice and simple. But if you think of it, that means the laptop is using the hard disk - a delicate and sensitive component that doesn't like in the slightest being thrown into a car's seat while it's spinning. Now while it's stopped it can deal with that very well. This is the sort of the thing that ADDS complexity: With such a mechanism I now have to consider whether the computer is writing or going to write to disk now, and whether my handling of it is safe or not, while previously choosing the wrong option from the menu would only result in a few extra seconds of wasted time.
I just picked up a Motorola L6 - the least weird cellphone I could find. Rather a nice little product, the UI is just annoying rather that absoulutely terribly like an LG.
The big problem -- the manual. OK, want to use the "Voice dialing" feature - fine, then YOU figure out which is the voice dialing button (hint - you can program it to be anything, but nobody's gonna tell you about it). RTFM my shiny metal ass....
I think you're essentially correct. Now that electronics are fairly modular, you can slap in a GPS module with very little knowledge of how to create a functional GPS system. Same for an mp3 player. Same for a mirror button. Just slap a few switches or buttons and an LCD on the outside and you're golden.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This is a stupid idea. Yahoo and MSN look like a tornado of crap, and have a million things per page. No one person uses all of those million things, so why should they all be on one page?
So everyone wants complex things that they have no idea what it does? That makes a lot of sense. Sounds more like companies are just shoving things into stuff in the hopes people will say "I don't know what all they do but it has more buttons than that other one" and then buy it.
Or, in other words, "This one goes to 11!"
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Perhaps one of the switches activates the electrochromic rear view mirror dimmer?i ng/kia-sportage-87.html
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driv
First off...
The rear view mirror had two controls, one to illuminate the compass the other simply labeled "mirror," which lit a small red light when depressed.
Sounds like the mirror has a night mode on it, which you can turn off if you wish. (This keeps the cars behind you from being too bright in your mirror. Older mirrors usually had two surfaces that you could choose between by tilting the mirror. Fancy new mirrors can dim automatically).
Next...
Simple or complex depends on your user, and whether that user is an expert. When ever we use something at first we don't want to be bombarded with lots of options. It's too much to learn at once. However, if we are very familar with the equipment, it's better to have all the options at our fingertips. Most of us are very familar with cars, and all these buttons have been added gradually. Therefore we are OK with it. A new driver might not feel the same way.
One of my examples at work is with a type of microscope that has become more computerized with time. The old interfaces had more than 20 dials and buttons on it. The new ones are run by computers with a couple of buttons. (Of course, many of those buttons open other buttons. So, it's not really simpler, it's just that the a lot of the complication is buried). New systems are much easier to use at first. However, an expert will be able to work at lot faster on the old system, since all those controls are at his/her fingertips.
I used to have a Cadillac with a switch on the mirror...there were 3 modes: Normal, Auto-Dim 1, Auto-Dim 2. The Auto-Dim settings were like the tab you flip at night so that it's tinted so car headlights behind you don't blind you. The two modes varied how sensitive it was / how dark the tint was.
Unpleasantries.
(for when it's bloody cold)
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
just because the sales-person doesn't know their product doesn't mean it isn't useful. the rearview mirror? you don't *have* to use those buttons, if they bother you. the mirror functions just fine without them, as a mirror. the second button? it turns off the auto-night-contrast feature. you know those old rearview mirrors? they have that lever on the back for night driving? that new mirror does that automatically, but, if you don't want the contrast dimmed, press the button, and, you're at full reflection. so, if you want to ignore the buttons, you get more functionality automatically, but control over those features if you care/when you need it. but then again, i get the impression the author probably didn't know his old-fashioned "simple" mirror had a lever on the back, and i doubt he knew what it was good for either....
As a recent Mac convert this is one big difference between the design philosophies at Apple and MS. For example in iTunes wwhen you want to rip a CD it doesn't ask you what encoding and bitrate to use, it just does it. If you want to alter those settings, go to the options dialog. iPhoto takes a similar approach to importing photos. iTunes also assumes automatic synching with an iPod so you just don't need to select which songs to transfer, etc. If you want to manualy manage synching you got to the options and switch it on.
A typical windows program would throw up all the possible options every time, at the point at which you invoke the action - more powerful? Yes. More confusing and unintuitive to most consumers? Also yes. (Sure, there are exceptions to every rule.)
Google seems to take an apple-like approach. All the bells and whistles are there in advanced search and the specialist search tools such as Google Scholar, but most people don't want or need those, so they're hidden away behind a simple interface.
The different approaches to this will appeal to different classes of users. Photoshop users on a Mac wouldn't want all the powerful tools hidden away, they want them to be accessible. Perhaps innovations such as the Ribbons in Office 12 (yes, I know I'm asking for it using that word for a MS product - bring it on!) will help bridge the gap in the power versus usability stakes.
iPod is Easy to use but it was not simple to create.
Wii Remote is exiting easy to use but is fair complex.
Google interface is easy to use (search box isn't it?) but it not simple to build a good search engine.
Linux is not simple, but it is easy to share.
-- Giovanni Daitan Giorgi http://gioorgi.com http://www.siforge.org
I have admit I am not a fan of Joel S. All too often he seems to pass his personal tastes for the 'tried and true'. But maybe this is his right; JOS is a blog, after all.
I would not dismiss Donald Norman that easily. He is a true guru. The local Apple & Google fandom seemed pretty upset over upsetting their idols. But they simply confuse minimalistic aesthetics for simplicity of use.
In DOET (aka POET) book by Norman, there is an example with light switches. And another one with a bus console. These are worth considering when you weight your tastes agains the simplicity of use.
It is relatively easy to come out with a design that will appeal to tastes of many. It is probably also easy to design something easy to use. To combine the two - well, this is why some designers are paid so much. And, I would risk, so many a design disaster came from a failed effort to combine the two...
-m-
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
This is just some jackass trolling for page hits by taking up the contrary view. ;-)
No he isn't!
http://www.bitworksmusic.com/
BitWorksMusic.com -- odd tunes for odd times
Koreans are idiots.
>I'm old enough to remember when a steering wheel was just a steering wheel...
I bring you the steering wheel of the 1958 Edsel, which featured the Teletouch shifting system, available starting in 1956. And we all know how well the Edsel did.
TOO much simplicity bad. But there's a reason we like hierarchical storage, menu systems, and information organization in general: the more options, the longer it takes to find what you're looking for.
These two writers desperately need to read "The Paradox Of Choice" by Barry Schwartz. He argues persuasively that more choice leads to more frustration and more long-term dissatisfaction with the choices that have been made.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
I mean .. he's head of some tiny software firm in NYC with one shitty product that is outperformed by any number of FOSS alternatives, right? His "hot" new "copilot" software was developed by some interns?
.. does this guy have some killer history or something? Am I missing out on the historical context or what? I just don't understand why everyone thinks Joel On Software is some kind of expert on anything other than some tiny little NYC Microsoft shop with a fucking BUG TRACKER as pretty much their only product.
Seriously
Who cares what he thinks? He enjoys no special success, his products aren't that great. Who cares?
This is what Spolsky himself, not long ago, argued here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.htm l
Now, the Vista shutdown menu is a very amusing example. So, perhaps the finer point is that complexity can be good, but redundancy isn't(?) Or should we accommodate every single method in which a user might possibly try to execute a task?
Don't confuse "what is on the market" with "what is best".
For example, nearly every A/V component ships with its own remote control loaded with a dizzying array of buttons. But I don't think anyone would say that's an optimal solution for consumers.
Mobile phones are also loaded with features but the phone companies are finding that very few people actually use many of the features.
Just because there are loads of complex products out on the market doesn't mean complexity is the hot new thing.
"Complex" and "simple" are at two ends of a spectrum. Call 1 simple and 10 complex.
"Not Simple" does not resolve to "10". It resolves to the range 2-10.
Nobody's advocating gratuitous complexity. This needs to be understand as pushback against people claiming that radical simplicity is what is desirable, even necessary, even if that means costing features. The pushback is pointing out that 3 or 4 can be a fine place for software to live, especially if you use the empirical evidence of what people actually buy and get excited about, as Joel does. That may not seem a theoretically clean basis for arguing, but it certain is empirical.
People understanding this as "advocating complexity" are falling prey to a black-and-white view of the world, where "not simple" == "complex". It's not that, ahem, simple.
John Dorvack made sweet love to a half monkey, half donkey thus conceiving Norman & Spolsky.
Of course they have a point and not!
I'm not working in the design sector but common sense tells me that there are many aspects to a good design and function of the object designed is one. And if simpliciy in design puts restrictions on essential functions it's bad. If proliferation of features blurres the essential function it's bad too.
Another aspect is the level of proficiency of the intended user. A proficient user can make use of much more complex interfaces than an unexperienced user. Another aspect which is connected with proficiency is frequency of use. Another aspect is attitude of the user to the object and ... and ... and ...
In my experience stupid trends are the problem and that holds true for the simplicity trend as well as a complexity trend. Because they distract the designer from thinking about the concrete case.
Maybe the only trend I would ascribe to is Keep It Appropriate!.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
Why are Linux and BSD such complex-looking OS's? Because their systems are easier to use [than Microsoft]
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
As an engineer I always felt that simple and elegant solution is a paragon of correctness. It's our Holy Grail.
However working for major cellular telephony company in IT department I learned that with its immense complexity of all mobile network infrastructure (switches, HLRs, INs, etc.) and all the variety of IT systems interconnected it is not possible to design something which is truly simple. Yet the company as a whole is able to translate this incomprehensible mesh into services that are usually easy to use and seem simple and elegant to customer. And this is what successful enterprises do - i.e. like Google - they provide in simple form something that internally is unbelievably complex. Nobody wants this complexity to surface to end-user level, yet nobody will ever be able to make underlying technology much simpler.
-- "In theory, theory is the same as practice, but not in practice."
simpliciy is wrong? That doesnt reflect the popularity of having simply google as a startup page as most people have.. Trying to say complex things making idiot standpoints ... well i say priceless.
Remember KISS got us up to the moon, got us the U2 blackbird.
How many computers we need these times to launch a rocket..
Ehm well KISS is the way to go.
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
clearly never heard the maxim about how simple code containing subtle bugs you can find, and complex code containing glaring bugs you can't.
"complexity the Next Big Thing in design" -- Apple have already done that: an iPod is both extremely complex and extremely simple in design. Add sleekness and you get a "cool" gadget. As for the MSN and Yahoo web sites, maybe they are "complex" but I think they defy what is known as "reader's expectations".
You hit it on the head. Different people/demographics want different things. Different situations call for different things. When I use my toaster I just want it with a heat setting and that's it. I want my tools in the garage to be vast and as multi-function as possible. Some people are the complete opposite. Humans have great similarities, but the differences are so great we can't be lumped for things like this. Me and my mom want two different things in a search engine. I love google because it's simple and I'm not distracted. She likes to be distracted with news, weather, cartoons, etc, etc. We are two different people. If the world was really that unified in wants/needs, either google or yahoo wouldn't exist. But somehow they co-exist. Why? Because we are so vastly different!!
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
...never heard of heated mirrors?
Automatic mirror. Goes dark when headlights shine into it. My Honda has one, except the little light is green. Not complicated, and lots better than having to flip that switch up and down while you're driving in a rural area.
HAHAHAHA!
Another interface quandry - the TiVo UI vs. a cablebox UI.
Oh the Motorola box I have, to navigate requires using the Menu button, the 4 direction arrows, the select key, and the exit button. Nevermind that to get to the menu often requires decoding little icons that show up on the "mini menu" that are a blur on anything but an HDTV.
On my TiVo, I hit TiVo, and get dumped to a single column list, where I use up/down to choose, and left-right to backwards and forwards (with the triangles at the end implying that forward/back work, or I cah use select to pick the item, too.
Once we get to the settings page, to back out requires oddball combinations of "Back", "Select" (!), or "Menu", at seemingly random times and screens. It's not obvious that if you hit "Select", that your setting changes will NOT be saved. And if you hit the wrong button, too bad, find the menu again and navigate there
On TiVo, the same forward/back/up/down analogy applies as the rest of the interface - want to back out? Hit left. Want to go forward? Select/Right. Want to choose from the list? Up/Down on all visible choices (or triangles to show there are more options). What do you know, Page Up/Page Down work too, when scrolling lists! (Not necessarily a given on the cablebox).
Honestly, the cablebox DVR functionality seems very secondary to the whole cablebox business, while TiVo makes it the primary focus - everything is centered around it. Just another tacked on feature. (The cablebox was a mess in UI before, now it's even worse). Honestly, VCRs are easier to program than the cablebox (and they often do that with cheap microprocessors and character generators, unlike the powerful CPUs and graphics present on a cablebox).
If only my cable provider (Shaw) supported CableCARD - I would be so all over a TiVo series 3. I have 3 TVs, two with the HDTV PVRs, but I've personally refused to get one - TV shouldn't be so complicated as those boxes make it. No big deal, I stick with the old extended cable programming anyhow (though Discovery HD would be nice to watch from time to time). My HD programming can come from next-gen DVDs, regular DVDs, and BitTorrent.
no need for a comment
While I can't speak towards designing a user interface, I must say that in all my design (primarily mechanical systems), KISS is the method, tried and true. If anyone tells you any different, THEY'RE SELLING SOMETHING. From my point of view as a user, I haven't regularly used yahoo or msn for ages. I can get information I need through Google's interface much faster, primarily because it is so simple.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
Bzzt. Wrong.
Marketing can be an exercise in identifying value, but it can also be an exercise creating value out of nothing.
This is important for commodities like toasters and operating systems that are hard for the consumer to differentiate between. Yes, there are properties that are very important to the consumer, such as durability and consistent performance. But the user has no way to discriminate between products on how they perform at the time of purchase.
Here's the point: the things that have the greatest value for the consumer often have little value at all to the producer; none at all if the consumer cannot use them effectively in a purchase decision.
This is what drives product complexity. In the absence of relevant consumer information, you have a race between producers to the bottom price. If you aren't the lowest cost producer, you're screwed. So, how do you sell a $29.99 toaster against another $29.99 toaster from a more efficient manufacturer? Simple. You get your head out of those engineering books and you start studying consumer behavior.
What you as a consumer really want to know is which toaster will toast quickly and consistently over the course of many years. But you have no way of telling this in the store unless you're some kind of appliance fanatic who frequents alt.appliances.toasters religiously. In fact for all you know you're buying a sheet metal box that doesn't do anything at all but clash with your kitchen decor. So you look at features. Toaster B has a feature that Toaster A does not; maybe it costs $39.99 but there is a $10 mail in rebate. Whoa! It looks like you are getting more value with B. However, it turns out that in six months Toaster B will burn your toast on one side and leave the other side ice cold. Toaster A generates perfect toast in half the time, and will continue doing so for your great-grandchildren, even though it ** gasp ** doesn't have an LCD readout.
To the writer's way of thinking, B is a better value than A. With all due respect, that's a load of bull hockey.
Now, take something that is costly enough that it's worth doing some research on. Something whose peculiarities you spend a lot of time dealing with, not just a few seconds to curse it on those morning you'd really like a piece of toast. Take cars.
Simplicity, all things being equal, means reliability. Simplicity is NOT being simplistic. It's having a good reason for any details or refinements. Simplicty = reliabilty & usability & value.
Yet it's undeniable that some people still buy cars the same way they buy toasters. Which accounts for many of the car models on the road, which are overcomplicated, unreliable, inefficient and overpriced. You could argue this shows that consumers actually value complexity over the cumulative effects of safety, reliability, usability and value. I'd argue that this shows that some people make bad purchases.
The car market is segmented into people who buy cars like toasters, people who make purely emotional purchase decisions that are even less rational, and people who look for value and reliability. There are models that cater to each segment. Looking for value and reliabilty means you are looking for simplicity; but simplicity doesn't mean unrefined. The Honda Accord is popular.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm glad to see most people here agree that simple is better.
Take the obvious example of Firefox it's a simple browser that has exploded in popularity. You can make it as complex as you want with extensions but that's not why it's so popular, it's the simple clean design, it functions well for what it is and nothing more.
Ok so because the new model cars have 10,000 buttons on the steering wheel that makes it an example of why complexity is better because its selling? How about all of the studies about distracted drivers being as bad if not worse than drunk drivers? Just because you can hype up the market about stuff and get things to sell does not mean its a better product. Cigarettes sell quite well, they also kill you. Alcohol does the same. I mean there are tons of other examples of products that sell well that are still bad. What people want, what people need, and what is good for people are all fairly different things. I have seen things talk about "Users spend more time at sites because complexity is good", or maybe its because the only email account they have is yahoo because its free and they are technically uninclined and it takes them 20 minutes to figure out how to get what they need.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Simplicity and elegance is the goal/key to anything good. Period.
What does nature/evolution/god strive for whenever it creates anything? Not complexity. Not obfuscation. Not useless bolted on bullshit from marketing. It creates simplicity, succinctness, and a swift elegant execution of a given task.
Properly designed software and hardware is an evolutionary process wherein a single item/program/work is designed for a given environment.
First, the initial design is created that does one thing well and robustly. This design is aimed at a certain type of user. A simple paint program is not and should not be the same thing as GIMP or Photoshop. They aren't the same program, nor the same goal.
Second, over time, additional features that make the unit work are added and those that aren't used are removed.
Third, every single item, bit, part, or line of code is examined for superfluousness. If this test fails, it is redesigned or removed.
Fourth, when it works and works well, DO NOT add additional junk. The work is finished. Just stop. I admit, this is similar to artistry (which good programming is), but an overworked painting is crap. Same with hardware/software.
That being said, the root of much of the crapware that is out there now is hinted at in TFA.
So, basically, this article isn't about software or hardware or simplicity at all. It is about the old, tired, and diseased management bullshit you see in every other firm.
The method goes like this:
This last one is particularly galling to me, as my clients spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on useless software. The owner or manager cannot be persuaded that the last practical evolution in miker$of office was 5.0, the first wysiwyg version. Everything since then has been
Well, Batman. Some of us don't have a utility belt. We cannot carry (and do not want to carry) a separate cell phone, mp3 player and digital camera all at the same time. We also don't want people thinking we are trying to re-start the Macarena craze, when all we are doing is searching our pockets for whatever device we happen to need at the time.
Oh, and their revenue *IS* driven by an endless upgrade treadmill and austere people are not a profitable niche. How many simple, durable phones are they going to be able to sell you in your lifetime? 30? 10? 5? 1?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Perhaps when buying a product for your home, it might be true that complexity seems attractive. But when you are developing a device or software interface for use in industry or the workplace, I have found time and time again that "choice is a bad thing". The fabled device with just one button ("start") that is talked about in the articles is EXACTLY what you strive for when developing an industrial interface for use in the workplace. Technicians and laborers and general folks working day in and day out don't want to be bothered with making a dozen choices each time they perform a basic work function. They want to punch a button, have it do what they expect, and have it work flawlessly every time. I can't tell you how many times I have REMOVED choices from a menu at the demands of my users because they "don't need all these choices".
Hmm, you're looking for something on the internet, don't know where it is, need a simple way to get to it? I know, Google it!
Seriously, are looking for the link to Gmail? Just search for Gmail, it's right at the top! Google Groups? Images? Video? Word processing? Spreadsheets? They're all at the freakin top of the list! It's like complaining that you have to use the iPod's click wheel to access iPod features, instead of having a button for every track.
http://www.mhall119.com
When I buy my Yuppie Short Bus (SUV from Korean translation), I expect to have all the special assistance gadgets.
As a Yuppie, I have a natural aversion for physical work. I need special assistance to help my lazy ass do even the most trivial things. At home in the kitchen, electric everything (can openers, knifes, bottle openers) are essential. In my Square Utility Vehicle I expect the same special treatment. Electric seat movers, electric rear hatch opener, electric passenger door opener.... In fact pressing the button is too much work for my fingers. I need voice activated everything... and cameras everywhere, so I don't need to move by body at all.
Now you must understand my special condition, and see why a Yuppie Short Bus is of such importance, both to showcase my intelligence and to help deal with my condition.
I think Norman spent too much time in Korea. Koreans do seem to like gratuituous complexity -- flashing lights, extra buttons, animated web pages, etc. But to most Americans that looks garish and/or bewildering. It's not that simplicity is out; it's that he's been spending his time in a place where simplicity was never in. This is why only LG has a refrigerator with a built-in television.
But that's a matter of simple aesthetics. When it comes to function, he's right; people do want lots of features and controls (even if they never use any, and they're hidden from view). Case in point: I bought a dishwasher a few years ago. It has a sensor to determine when the dishes are clean, so you can just put it in sensor mode and go. The salesman (definitely an appliance geek) told me that even in the regular and heavy wash modes, it still used the sensor and would shorten or lengthen the wash as appropriate. So, I asked, why not just have the one button? His answer was that they tried that a few years ago, but nobody bought them.
Lots of visible controls: Not simple, good in Korea, not so good in the US
Hidden controls: aesthetically simple, good (in the US).
Few controls: Perceived as low-end, not going to do well in either place.
Just bought simple two-knob microwave owen. Yes, with mechanical timer and "ding!".
Finaly I'm back in control and not intimidated by stupid owen. I have enough other things to programm.
Are these guys serious? How can they say this in the wake of huge, huge increases in usage of autocomplete, drag and drop, tagging, etc. which are all designed to make things easier on the user (especially the first two). Regardless of how well these things accomplish this task, it's absolutely 100% clear that (a) users like these, and (b) developers are willing to spend extra time to implement these complex controls.
So, perhaps the real point is that systems are getting more complex. But if you think that means that UIs should be more complex, I think it's you who won't be going very far (although you'll probably get play on slashdot). Look at google. A very complex system. The interface? A text box and a button.
To put Joel Spolsky's pronouncements on software into perspective, it's instructive to get one of his software products that comes with a source license. After that, you pretty much realize that an 'expert' is whoever announces they're an 'expert' loudest and most frequently.
Stand by for 'Drowning in Complexity: How The Software World Forgot To Keep It Simple' from the same twits in a few year's time.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
"True, but that's because you can only do one thing from their home
page: search."
Ummm...that is because almost everything you're doing from one of
those portal pages can be called a search.
If you want a map at Google, just type the address or location into
the search bar. The top links will be maps of the location. After
all, you're searching for a map.
If you want to check something on Scholar, just type the info into the
search bar. The top links will most likely be answers from Scholar.
After all, you're searching for scholarly information.
You can also do things like basic math, currency conversions, get
dictionary definitions, find books, etc. all from the search box.
The other services you mention give you an array so you have to think
"what tool does what I want", whereas most of the time Google *just
does it*.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/features.html
Google is what simplicity SHOULD be. Not just doing one thing, but
just doing what you want -- whatever you want.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Kathy Sierra blogged about this a few months ago: Ease-of-use should not mean neuter-the-software, and offered a crucial insight: separate the easy/hard and simple/complex pairs into two axes: difficulty and power. She then goes on to note the trivial case that everyone knows: complex things should ideally be easy, and simple things should not be hard. But what about the other two combinations?
She argues that easy-but-simple (maybe "simplistic" is the mot juste here) is overrated. Limited functionality, even if easy-to-use, doesn't go as far as some would think (indeed, Joel argues this is the "20% strategy" that could be used for bootstrapping, but not in general cases). Kathy also says that complex-but-hard is not as bad as it's made out to be, and indeed can be a good thing. Think of awesomely powerful software, whether it's emacs or Final Cut Pro -- is there a way to make that easier to use, or is the scope of what they do (emacs), or the inherent complexity of the material (FCP) such that the only way to make it easier is to reduce features or functionality (ie, to make NotePad or iMovie instead)? It's important to stop mistaking difficulty for the inherent complexity of some problem domains.
Of course MSN and Yahoo are easier to use then Google. It's obvious. That's why, in the wider non-tech world, they've entered the lexicon. You don't hear people talk about "searching" any more, they always "yahoo" it. Or occasionally they'll talk about "em-senn"ing a subject.
You just can't buy public mindshare like that.
#DeleteChrome
Complexity is always a subjective term. When MTV started, the flashing, hyper-cut videos made our parents squirm. Kids have simply adjusted to a faster-paced stimulus. They are learning to navigate busy-busy web pages with ease, while we-of-the-earlier-age have to scan and scan for the stinkin' weather button.
So this is partly generational, and has always existed. So, then, has the backlash: Google's clean input box didn't arise because nobody had thought of it before, but simply because it was the motif they *wanted*: Low-noise, high-power; the soft-spoken strongman.
IMO, it comes down to: Do you want information pushed at you in bulk...the all-in-one portal page, where you may read 5% per hit, or do you want to drive to the pages that have info you like...the topic-focused sites, the subheading news page, etc. I believe most people start busy (or ignorant of choices to remove the clutter) and tire of it, then begin to build/find a page with link the way they like.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/progressive-disclosu re.html
"Progressive Disclosure" summary:
Just show the few most used things, for advanced users it is simple to pass
that area to more complex items "hidden". Like the format used for Google.
So the great Don | Jakob split on design? Like Sunni and Shia, or the reformation and
the pope I expect a huge division in design theology.
Considering that the power windows happen to have the same general mechanism, just driven via cables and a motor instead of a crank and gears, your manual window will have similar failure modes- it's just made with slightly more robust parts in many cases so it's less likely to fail. And, yes, I've had the window regulator in a manual window fail on me, handles popping off, gears stripping out, and things popping out of guide rails. The big thing about power windows is that with no power, there's no rolling up or down of the window. Manual windows don't have this problem...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It's fine when normal people kick around the water cooler and talk about the relative usability of different interfaces. It's entirely different when someone who claims to be a UI professional does it. A professional should know better than to give such a superficial analysis.
Norman is right in one thing: complex stuff sells well. But that has nothing to do with complex stuff being better, it has to do with psychology and economics. But, then, Norman wouldn't understand those.
Now and again, people who crave spotlights say things just to be heard.
Simplicity was only ever in with an aesthetic elite (more power to them) with pockets deep enough to pay for less-is-more goods. The great mass of humanity have always had to settle for embellished crap.
I'd try a different translation.
"Marketeers are a bit thick and they can't sell a product unless it has loads of bells and whistles to point to. Unable to be honest they fiddle surveys to say the public want more complexity, to give them something to do."
Most people I've ever met want simplier devices, less thought required, but still able to do everything they want. In short they want a servant that you tell "Jeeves, do that". Complexity isn't sexy - just work well is sexy.
Not 100% true, BTW. Older BMW's had the other side of the motor shaft from the window mechanism under a plastic plug in the door panel. The end of the shaft had a hex head on it. If the window failed, you popped the plug with a coin and used the car's tire wrench (included in the toolkit) to roll the window up.
-b.
Wow, that's pretty neat.
... that page ought to have a warning sign on it, it hurts my brain just to look at for too long.)
(Take a look at Excite's
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Any time someone in sales says "but customers want it ..." I am skeptical. Try buying something _without_ a heavily touted feature. Try climbing off the 'upgrade, upgrade' merry-go-round in software. Before the iPod came the original Palm, which was a use-out-of-the-box (well, aside from Graffiti) device with 4 basic functions. It became very popular. The Blackberry is where it is because it's simple to use for its 2 primary functions, email and phone. When I learned HTML, still the mainstay of the web, I really only had to learn about 8 different types of tag. Mass contribution to the web caught on when it became a matter of typing in a box and hitting submit.
That said, complexity depends on the user. Experts - and wanna-be-experts - love and need complexity. Experts because their expertise lets them chunk and parse information so what to the non-expert is complex really is quite simple to them. Complexity lets them use the system to its fullest. Non-experts because it may be for show, because it's also part of the challenge and the learning. You can't get to be expert without embracing complexity. But people who are neither expert nor want to be need simplicity. It's safer, as a whole lot of adverse experience with overcomplex interfaces and systems has shown. And isn't enough that the interface is simple, the underlying system also has to be no more complex than it needs to be, to avoid systems failures due to unanticipated interactions. Medicine's full of examples of this, a number of them fatal.
In the immortal words of Montgomery Scott, "The fancier the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
Recently the power window in my Grand Caravan failed. I took it to the shop to have it repaired. A sensor needed to be replaced - $370 for parts and labor.
When the handle falls off, I can call JC Whitney and order replacement handles and install them myself in 10 minutes.
Simple is good. Geezer indeed.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Maybe this is why I hate my Korean phone so much.
There's a strong trend towards user simplicity in industrial equipment. (This allows hiring cheaper employees.) Compare a newspaper printing press from 1950 with one today. Older presses had dozens of knobs at each printing cylinder to tweak ink flow across the width of the web, based on the black/white ratio of that part of the sheet. That's all automated now.
Operating a steam locomotive was, and is, incredibly complicated. Even the guy shoveling coal has to plan ahead several miles. If there's a hill coming up, the fireman needs to put more coal in the firebox about five minutes before the hill, adjust the dampers and blowers to bring the fire up, and have the steam pressure nearing, but not exceeding, the pressure at which the safety valve will dump steam, just as you hit the base of the hill. Otherwise, you're likely to run out of steam part way up the hill and stall. (Yes, that's where that phrase comes from.) That's just operating; startup is a complex job that takes hours.
Heavy construction equipment has become much simpler to operate as microprocessors have been introduced. There's an amusing history of Caterpillar equipment which has the startup instructions for each Caterpillar model from the earliest ones. The early machines required elaborate start up procedures; for the most recent ones, it's turn on, wait for the ready light, and go. The military tries hard for that simplicity. (As we were reminded when I was in aerospace, "Always remember the guy who has to use this. It's going to be too hot or too cold, it may be dark or raining, and someone may be shooting at you.")
The most complex consumer appliance interface I've seen dates from the 1970s. This is a German washing machine which is fully user-programmable, using metal punched cards which advance slowly through the timer. There are pre-punched cards for the usual cycles, and if you really want to, you can create your own customized wash cycles. A dead-end product.
In the 1950s, there were even some appliances with knobs that didn't do anything. Excessive user complexity is a fad which appears now and then. It goes away rapidly.
I have the feeling that the current OMG-Hidef-GPRS-MP3-Widescreen-Wifi-Flashdisk-Megap ixel craze in electronics will fly apart by the end of 2007 and old school products will come back into vogue.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
If a manual window fails, the failure mode is more likely to be survivable.
Driving up 219 towards the Great Lakes in a total white-out, without enough gas or warm clothing to survive waiting out the storm, and the driver's side power window suddenly failed... and since it was UP at the time, it immediately dropped all the way to the bottom of the door and smashed into a million little cubies.
Thank God for Duct Tape!!!
But the magic is that Google can put all of this in an interface so that people who don't know (and who largely don't care) that the features are there don't have to deal with them.
Where MSN and Yahoo trump Google isn't in complexity. It's in visual clutter.
http://www.google.com/ig
'nuf said.
So, what do people mean when they ask for simplicity? One-button operation, of course, but with all of their favorite features.
Actually, no, i don't think simplicity is one-button operation. It's having a control do one very simple thing. My camera has a separate button for its manual focus and macro functions because it's simpler to use that way rather than have a single button sometimes mean manual focus and sometimes mean macro.
Interesting... It's something of a shame that they don't do that with all of the cars that have power windows.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Neither of these articles say that "simplicity is out" or complexity is the next big thing. They just say that reducing features in the name of simplicity is not necessarily a good thing.
The iPod is not a simple device. It appears simple because it was designed to be easy-to-use; however, its complexities are evident from just a quick test drive.
Apple has a saying inside their development organization "Complexity is Preserved".
What this means is that given any task, it's always the same level of complexity. All you can do is shift around where the complexity is. Apple would like to think it's the best game in town for taking the complexity off of the user and putting it into its computer code.
If it's not blindingly obvious to everybody, it takes more work on the developer's part to make something that's easy to use. 'Exposing the implementation' is easy.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I've got a brand-new washing machine, and the interface is actually quite nice. On one side, it's got a power button, a door button (it's a front-loader, so if you want to interrupt the cycle, it needs to drain the water before opening the door), the start button, and buttons for a couple of special features. On the other side, there's a button to select the profile, and a bunch of buttons to select smaller aspects of the profile. (So you select "normal" or "delicate" or "silk" or "sanitize", and then you can set the water temperature and the spin cycle speed and such, limited to the range that makes sense for the profile.) In the middle, there's a display that shows exactly what it's going to do: water temperature, spin speed, etc. It also has a display of the time remaining (which is an estimate initially; it depends on how much laundry you put in, which it detects automaticly when it fills, and updates the display accordingly.) The little displays show you the absolute settings of parameters you care about (the temperature display is the actual temperature, not the temperature relative to the profile; if you're on sanitize, it's always somewhere at the top, and delicate always puts it near the bottom, so you see things in terms that match the care instructions on clothes).
I think Donald Norman would actually like it a lot. All of the controls directly affect visible state, and they're labelled in an obvious fashion. All of the buttons that do things you don't want to do are clearly not the button you're looking for. The buttons you care about for configuration are in order by significance. If all your laundry is the same, you just put it in and press start. If you have two kinds, you select the appropriate profiles. If you want to do something slightly differently, you can change that independantly.
It's got a lot of features, but it's still simple in the sense that you can easily ignore all the buttons for features you're not using, just like you ignore the part of the washing machine that isn't the control panel. It does a good job of hiding the complexity, because you have only a small set of options that you have to consider at any given time, and you can interpret each display without considering any of the other displays. It's also got bullet-point features that don't impact the interface at all (after the spin cycle, it rotates the drum half a turn in the opposite direction to loosen the clothes; there's no control for this).
Substitute maintain for use and your statement moves from funny to true. .1 (.3->.4 IIRC) and did nothing to retain backwards compatibility. Hint - keep a Linux Live CD around - they work just as good for Windows recovery as they do for Linux.
I've swapped out 3 motherboards and a dozen other components in my Linux box (the HD is the only part less than 3rd hand), and gone from RH7.0 to FC6, and the system still runs - despite the power going out in the middle of the upgrade from FC4 -> FC5. After the upgrade from FC5->FC6 the system is a bit quirky (rpm -a says I have 2-3 packages of almost everything installed), but it still works and I have access to all my data on both local & shared drives. I'll be doing a fresh install this weekend (because it's less work than cleaning up the system), but even then, I'm not worried about the data on the drive being lost.
Compare that to 'upgrading' from 2K to XP. Had to start with a complete wipe, and then XP didn't recognize the partitioning of the 2nd harddrive - heck it didn't recognize the existance of the drive until I went in and mucked around in the registry. In the end, I had to dump the data to the Linux box, reformat, & reload - 45G of music & graphics work on 2 partitions --- all because MS incrimented their NTFS by
In 4 years of running Linux, I've never had a problem I couldn't figure out how to solve (sometimes the solution was more work than it was worth), with Windows, half the solutions I find are "we don't know why, but reinstall fixes this"
Perhaps Microsoft is trying to kick-start a trend to make it fashionable to use complex software. It would sure be a whole lot easier than re-designing windows and office to have a simpler user interface. The bonus is of course that it will only boost the appeal of Linux! (well, there are more things you can configure) Perhaps more relevant than this unhelpful article would be Jakob Neilsen's recent post on Progressive Disclosure
Ross Kendall Web Consultant and Developer (UK) - Drupal and Open Source Solutions
1) there is a difference between "feature rich" and "simple interface", google has many features (showtimes, weather, maps) but they are all accessible through the google search box
2) hypothesis: these complicated devices with 150+ features are not about "ease of use" or utility. TFA says it all when it talks about the switch whose function not even the salesperson knows-- any switch whose function you don't know is by definition "unusable". these complicated devices are status symbols ("look at me, I can afford a toaster with 175 blinking dials!")
a) I think the nonsense about the 250 toaster is almost as bad as 0.002 cents=0.002 dollars. It assumes that the existence of said toaster is a validation of the argument, simply by saying 'i bet it sells well'. Does he own one? Does anyone he knows? And do people buying this toaster because it has more complexity speak to its quality design compared to say another toaster that allows the user the same level of control in a simpler way? My answer is that the existence of a complex thing to solve a problem does not relegate the simpler objects to obscelesence. And since he brought up cars:
b) Automatic transmissions. Fuel Injection. Anti-Lock breaks. Power Steering. Power Windows. Keyless entry. Do any of those concepts sound like they have made the interface to driving more complex? No. What they have done is taken the interface of driving, and cars and made improvements that maintained the concept of how driving works. Even though you may no longer have direct control of the mechanical, the interface is almost identical. Does standard transmission still exist (and infact is quite popular). Yes. It is more efficient and cheaper. And in 'performance' vehicles, even those interfaces are actually just as indirect as the automatic transmission.
c) Useability involves the relationship between the interface and the expected functionality in the context of the intended user. If the user expects certain things to happen in a certain way and they do, and the user can do all the things they expect they should be able to do, then the user does not really notice the interface. If on the other hand, the effect of a user action is either unpredictable or counter-intuitive, then we see a learning-curve, or mistakes. Side-effects that are unclear, business logic that is obscure, all tend to create unuseable systems. Sometimes this alone creates the requirement for an interface that is not ideal. Is it intuitive that the computer's interface is a desktop? At this point, yes. Is that thing you are looking at REALLY a window? Nope. Is there any other context in which an object shaped like a bar of soap is used to select, draw, point, or do anything besides erase?
d) QWERTY was designed to prevent jams in early typewriters. How does that relate to even the IBM Typewriter (with the ball) not to mention computers? It doesn't. But if you change the keyboard layout, people will consider that too difficult. What is simple is often what is familiar.
I now get into my rental car, drive it to the lot exit, and realize I have no idea how to open the window to check out with the guard.
Is the control by my left hand or my right? Is it on the door, or built into the console? Disguised as a cup holder? Maybe it is on the steering wheel? On the Dashboard? They wouldn't put it on the floor, would they? Maybe it is built in to the seat... Let me see if it is a voice control: "OPEN the @#%$$ WINDOW, YOU PIECE OF $%#$@@!!!"
Oh hell, maybe if I just hold the contract up to the closed window the guard will wave me out.
(God help me if I have to fill the tank before I return the car. Hiding the fuel door release seems to be a particular joy to several car makers)
Yeah, simplicity is overrated. NOT.
I envy their jobs ... They just mumble some meaningless observation on computers, make it controversial, even stupid. Then their articles get posted on Slashdot and Voila! Web traffic. Profit. Jobs don't get easier than that.
That's because, provided your earlier version worked at all then users don't have to pay anything until you release a new version! So f***ing obvious, Joel!
See everyone later, I'm moving to the nearest cave where I can choose between eating dirt and blind fish.
Calling complex interfaces that people purchase desirable, in many cases, is just ignoring the peepee envy aspect of it all.
Oh, and calling the success of the iPOD anectdotal is rather dismissive don't you think? Might as well dismiss Tivo, timex radial watches, slippers, and possibly McD's. Next time I go through the drive through, I want no less than a 103 questionare on how I want my so-called burger. Complexity does not add to the human experience, it mearly distracts us from it.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
then use google to google google :)
;)
Now you have at least 2 pages of services that still easier to use and faster than msn/yahoo page o' junk. Save this link and you only need one button to get to most services now.
His comments are fine...EXCEPT...
More than half the time i go to google to search. I don't want to see a bunch of junk and i sure don't want to wait for a bunch of video clips and ads to load on MSN.
Oh well, guess i am just simple. I have a phone that just makes phone calls, a printer to print stuff, a fax to fax stuff, a copier to copy, and a camera to take pictures. They all do their job well.
*ok, so i shouldn't mention the stereo system with 166 buttons and 47 knobs i guess
Wasn't Joel just complaining about how complex Vista's power button is, because it gives you too many choices?
I don't get this guy.
These dudes are stuck back in the day where you're product had to be marketable to everyone. Different strokes people.
There's nothing wrong with anything - Phillip J. Fry
Don Norman argues that Google isn't simple at all. Sure, searching with it is, but Google does way more than search - and if you're not looking to search, you're going to have difficulty finding things. It's all argued here: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/the_truth_about.html
"Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
"Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
I love that the GP couldn't actually defend himself. Instead, it took some other moron with mod points.
Not that I mind: The whole thing made my point for me.
I'd get a light switch like that
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I don't carry a camera with me everywhere...why would I want to? Why do you want to? Don't you know cellphone cameras take shit pictures?
I generally don't walk arround in places where I want my hearing obscured by music...and my car has a stereo with line-in and I put my MP3 player in my bag to bring into the office where I plug it into speakers.
I don't want a phone with me at all times either. I don't feel the need to be always available, and I lived 20 years of my life before small cellphones became available...and I don't need one now.
So you are appoligizing for corporations who create shit quality low-feature phones because they want you to quickly upgrade to a more expensive feature-rich phone?
I hope you work for these guys at least....or they pay you to shill for their business model!
Blar.
Simplicity does not have to mean a lack of features. One object that constantly annoys me with unnecessary complexity is my Comcast cable box. Suppose that the show I'm watching is ending and I want to change to something else. I hit "Guide", scroll through the listings, highlight what I want to see, and hit "OK". Because that show hasn't started yet (it's scheduled for 8:00 and it's only 7:58 right now), the box brings up a menu of choices including "Set a reminder", "Mark channel as favorite", and who knows what else. But "Change to this channel now" is not an option. So instead I have to remember the channel number, hit "Exit", and type "68". Oops, I mean "068" because the box won't accept just two digits.
Shouldn't something as common as changing channels be an easier task than that? It's fine that the box offers reminders and such, but why does it have to tell me about all those options every time I do a common activity?
I believe Google handles searches right. They could have had twenty entry boxes on the main page, each with a different button next to it: "Search for movie", "Search for map", "Search for medication". But instead they have one box and *they* figure out whether your search is likely to be in one of those areas and then offer you a specialized entry in the results page.
I practice simplicity myself in the writing of computer code and the design of games. My random number generator is easy to use -- just declare MTRand r; and it seeds itself from /dev/urandom or time(). You can choose to seed it yourself, but it will go ahead and do what's generally wise in the likely event that you don't need to think about such things. And for my interactive Starcraft maps (authored as TheNevermind) I strive for simplicity in instructions, labels, and mechanisms. I believe the maps are better this way because they are easy to learn but offer great depth upon replay.
It's actually very challenging to design things that look simple. It takes a lot of thought about how they will be used and how different bits of logic might interact. Don't mistake simplicity for lack of richness. I have often been surpised at how complex behavior emerges in my Starcraft maps -- I may not have foreseen the circumstances that the map encounters, but it produces interesting and appropriate actions because the basic parts were designed well.
It's also incorrect to think that a tool with simple controls is not good for complex tasks. Mathematically it's known that all logic operations can be performed with a combination of NAND gates. Likewise, a tool that can do simple operations well can be just as powerful yet easier to use than another tool with a large set of complex operations.
AlpineR
Mod me offtopic if you must, but... I read the summary, then read the tags: wrong, no, design, idiot. Ah... I'm suddenly in love with tagging.
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
This is going to be fun.
Are you suggesting that HIDDEN FUNCTIONALITY is more usable than OVERT FUNCTIONALITY? Your idea that all you have to do is type in the search box for something that *you might not even know google does* is simple is really a joke.
Once again, look at Apple. They're very fond of putting the little "grippers" on the corner of a window to let you know you can resize it. This is about making OVERT FUNCTIONALITY.
For that matter, look at the GUI. Your premise is that it's easier to type an open-ender into a box than it is to click from a predefiend set of options. That's akin to saying that a command prompt is more simple than a desktop. In fact, that's EXACTLY what you're saying.
Further, it's like saying that an essay question is easier than a multiple choice. Find me one student that will agree with that and I'll give them a gold star.
Users don't just divine what Google does. If a user is going to the page and wants a map, how do you assume that they just know to search for it?
You either are so desperate to support a poorly-thought claim, or you actually believe that typing an open ender is easer than selecting an item from a list of options. I'm not sure which would is worse.
Yeah, my girlfriend uses that so I'm vaguely aware that it exists ... I still can't find anything that loads as quickly as my current homepage, though.
Good old "about:blank".
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
... or the dynamic duo of Norman and Spolsky cannot manage to communicate the importance of making things no more complicated than they absolutely need to be.
Given the ever-increasing level of complexity in everyday life, if they REALLY THINK that simplicity is over-rated, then they really are idiots.
There is a sweet spot in the design of things that strikes an optimal compromise between functionality and simplicity. Packing a bunch of unrelated functionality into a device, whether that device is hardware or software, always moves one further away from that sweet spot.
I dub this: the xkcd attack. (http://xkcd.com/c178.html)
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
You point actually serves to defend TFA rather than to refute it. Most users have no idea you can do anything like that with Google, and indeed some of it was news to me. None of it is visible on the front page and there's no hint these things are possible. How could something possibly be easy to use if you don't even know you can use it?
the "safety in numbers straw-man" claim. The vast majority of people would agree with me. ..Seriously, though: claiming something like the "vast majority..." is just idiotic. There is obviously no way you actually know what the vast majority of people think about anything. So why say it? The only reason is to add weight to what you're saying. You can avoid defending your point by dressing it up as a common, well known fact. It's a common technique here at Slashdot, but that doesn't make it any better.
If you're going to claim the vast majority of anything, you better have polling number from a random sample, margin of error, confidence levels, supplied demo multipliers, and, when possible, a linear regression analysis of the data.
Otherwise, stick to speaking for yourself.
Most of what Google does is search. And most of it can be accessed, surprisingly enough, through the search box (and, except for a few features, without any special tags), except for account-centered activities. Of course, for those, you need to create a Google account first, and if you've done that, you probably are also using a Google Customized Homepage from which the personal account functions you actually use can easily be made directly available.
Want a map? Type the address in the search box. Want travel information (like airline flight status)? Type the request in the search box. Movie listings? Type "movie:" followed by a zip code, title, plot detail, whatever, in the search box. What definitions? Use either "define" or "define:" with what you want defined, in the search box. Currency conversions? search box. Do some arbitrary arithmetic calculations? Search box. Want news? Just use the search box, if there are news results, you'll get them the top few at the top of the search results with a link to get all the news results. Books? Same thing.
When you make something that works. You start to play with it to make it do more. It's complex. Then it fails. Then you make it simple.
This is a well-known effect in software engineering called the second-system effect. It's not just because you start wanting the product to do more, but wanting it to do everything. The seminal software-engineering work The Mythical Man-Month grew directly out of the author's experience of SSE on the OS/360 project a second-system) at IBM.
The answer to SSE is often (though not always) a ground-up reengineering (the real answer, of course, is to have a controlled specification and implementation process in place so you don't go overboard in the first place). It could be argued that every major OS revision produced at Microsoft since DOS 5.0 and NT 3.51 has been a "second system" in comparison to that which it was intended to replace.
-- Old Man Kensey
Presenting options but not too many options.
Which is what I said when I acknowledged that you certainly couldn't let the users browse a list of 20k words to find their definitions.
But the idea that Yahoo has some huge usability inferiority to Google I think is false. On my broadband connection, the pages load nearly at the same time. Very minute difference. The presence of options on Yahoos page does not preclude me from keeping it simple. I can do the same thing that Google lets me do (at no disadvantage) plus I can do more. This is better.
I think the sparse google page made more sense during the dial-up days, but those are largely gone. The vast majority of people have broadband now (you like that?).
If you take the graphical ads off Yahoo.com, that page is more usable than Google.
I mean, if Google added DMOZ-ish directory below their current search box, would that somehow diminish the value of said box?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." Basically, you can simplify a UI to a point. After that, things get more complex to use them better.
Those who argue for and against simplicity are missing this valuable point: It's about utility, not complexity.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Some years ago, I went shopping for a new microwave oven.
I started looking at the units, all of which were plugged in, and rejected several with one glance or a coupla tentative pokes at the keyboard. Finally, a watching salesman could no longer stand it.
"Here, let me show you how that works," he said.
"No! You are missing the point," I said. "You aren't coming home with me. If I cannot figure out how this works in 10 seconds of looking at the control panel, it doesn't belong in my kitchen. I don't want to spend 45 seconds figuring out how to do a 30 second warmup or 1 minute reading a manual to boil water in 1 minute 30 seconds. I might be willing to study for 5 or 10 minutes to cook a meal for 1 hour or do a 45 minute gradual thaw-out."
I went home that day with a microwave that I used for years. It allowed me to do the simple things very easily, with no refernece to a manual or scratching of my head. It was capable of the most complicated things (cooking a roast, thawing a whole chicken without cooking half of it) and I could see that and see how to set it up by the very design of the keypad and display as I went through the prliminary steps in the store.
That is is simplicity of design. It is (or should be) the topic of discussion. All else is bullshit.
Look, I use Google everyday for search. I don't use Yahoo, ever, for search. Why? Because, when I wanna search, I wanna search. Yahoo's page is a mass of distractions; moving ads, flashy icons, color highlights that beg to be looked at, etc. Even though Yahoo's search feature is prominent, the top thing on the page and focus even comes up in the search type box, the entire page is a distraction. Good for Yahoo, maybe, bad for me and my searches.
When I do feel like being distracted, Yahoo is the least of my choices. I tend to pick the flavor of my distractions according to my mood and Google makes it easy to find a site with the particular flavor I want. So I don't even use Yahoo for the very thing its main page has been specifically designed for.
Now, given:
1. that Google is immensely more popular than Yahoo these days
2. by the nature of the page, I suspect that someone very similar in worldview to Norman and Spolsky designed Yahoo's main page
3. the people mentioned in 2 above probably got gobsa money to make Yahoo's main page
Then:
1. It ain't working right (or Yahoo would be more popular than Google)
2. Norman and Spolsky are fulla shit!
3. maybe Yahoo should ask for their money back
Complexity vs simplicity is a pointless argument. It depends entirely on the job you're trying to do.
For example I use my laptop as among other things a DVD player, a music player, a flight simulator, a chess partner and coach, a portable library, and a games machine. If it were simple and single purpose I'd never buy it or lug it around.
On the other hand I have a phone. I send text messages, make phonecalls and do some scheduling. I'd like a more flexible schedular, and I do occassionally use the camera. (I'd use the games but the buttons are too small). I tend to use my phone as a single purpose device and sometimes the menu is clunky and gets in the way. I like more features but if I had a phone that did what it was suppose to well, I could live without the games and other crapola. Why on earth in 2006 do I have a calendar on my phone that doesn't allow me to schedule things on the weekend, or pick specific dates for things to happen? Why can't I tell it I'm on holiday.
The bottom line is that a device should be simple to use if you're happy to accept the defaults and easy to customise and find options if you need to do something more complicated. As for complexity behind the scenes and away from the UI that's an engineering problem that's solved by breaking down the complexity into units, each of which should build into more complex units and which you should be able to treat as a black box. Eg. A video processing chip might be complex to create and require a chip fab but when it's used in a phone, the engineers should be able to think of it as a single unit, just like the end user thinks of their phone as a single unit instead of having to think too much about how the phone works.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I don't think he is insightful or interesting personally, but I have to say that a lot of people apparently do like his writing. This could be because most tech / programming blogs are so terse to read. Also he did start his "blog" before blogging got big, so he might get first starter's advantage. Also, I don't think his product achievements matters much. Bottom line is that people read it because they think he writes well with interesting topics.
Simplicity lies in abstraction. Human being is said to be but an animal with highly abstract thinking.
Lesson learned:
There is a market for big-ticket items that look complex.
- OR -
People like devices that are easy-to-use; yet have lots of features... ... if they can figure them out!
No, I will not work for your startup
No one else will read this but the author above, so I just wanted to say thanks for writing such a perfect response to this misleading post. "Simplicity is out, complexity is in" is such a huge loaded statement that it can't possibly be correct in any way...
"!"