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."

Comments

ROTFLMAO

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:ROTFLMAO

[theStorminMormon]

If you think that's bad - check this out (FTA):

Devotees of simplicity will bring up 37signals and the Apple iPod as anecdotal proof that Simple Sells. I would argue that in both these cases, success is a result of a combination of things: building an audience, evangelism, clean and spare design, emotional appeal, aesthetics, fast response time, direct and instant user feedback, program models which correspond to the user model resulting in high usability, and putting the user in control, all of which are features of one sort, in the sense that they are benefits that customers like and pay for, but none of which can really be described as "simplicity."

That's right: "clean and spare design" can not be described as "simplicity". Gee, Joel, way to finagle the definitions of words to make them mean what you want them to mean.

How does this guy get linked to from Slashdot so often? Is he submitting himself, getting submitted, or having an affair with CmdrTaco? A lot of the articles are good, but this one is pure "look at me" Dvorak-esque flamebait.

Re:ROTFLMAO

[theStorminMormon]

*sigh*

And from the other article:

Is Google simple? No. Google is deceptive. It hides all the complexity by simply showing one search box on the main page. The main difference, is that if you want to do anything else, the other search engines let you do it from their home pages, whereas Google makes you search through other, much more complex pages. Why aren't many of these just linked together? Why isn't Google a unified application? Why are there so many odd, apparently free-standing services?

This reminds of that inane "World of Warcraft is a horrible MMO" article we had a while back. Whenever something gets really popular - iPods, Google, Warcrack - you get the inevitable beacon of intellectual purity who sets up his or her own (usually off-the-wall) criteria/definition and proceeds to roast the most popular thing around. Hilarity (and potentially profit) ensues.

My favorite is the rhetorical questions: "Why are there so many odd, apparently free-standing services?" Maybe because it's simpler, dumbass. Sure, it may take you a bit longer to find a Google offering the first time. But once you find it, it's easy to find in the future. From my mail.google.com page I have convenient links to my docs and spreadsheets, my calender, and the other google offerings I use. As for the map and other options, Google is simply letting you pick your own services ala carte. Again: the set-up may be more complex, but the actual use is simple because you're not saddled with a million and one features you could care less about (which is the reason I ditched my first email account ever at Yahoo!).

But what it really comes down to is this: if you really want to make a serious criticism of X for not being Y, when everyone around you says X is the epitome of Y, then you need to define Y. Since you're using the term in an (apparently) unique way, you have to explain why your way makes more sense/is justified. Failure to define terms you are using in non-standard way reduces a potentially interesting conversation to mere whining and ranting.

-stormin

Re:ROTFLMAO

[guitaristx]

That's right: "clean and spare design" can not be described as "simplicity".

Spolsky listed (and you even quoted!) plenty of other things besides just "clean and spare design" regarding his take on the reasons behind the iPod's success (building an audience, evangelism, emotional appeal, aesthetics, fast response time, direct and instant user feedback, program models which correspond to the user model resulting in high usability, and putting the user in control). 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. It's just that you're not getting brow-beaten to use features you don't care about, and you don't have to learn some sort of new iPod-ish paradigm just to figure out how to pick which song(s) you want to hear.

Seems like lots of people in this thread are confusing "simplicity" with "ease-of-use". A product can be complex, yet still easy to use.

Re:ROTFLMAO

[LWATCDR]

Okay here is a question for you.
How are Yahoo or MSN harder to use than Google?
If I type Yahoo.com I get a lot of stuff on my screen but to use the the search all I do is type the search and hit enter.
Try it. Go to your browser and type yahoo.com and then type Linux

The user keystrokes to do a simple search are the same for both.
Some may not like the extra features on the Yahoo page but I don't see how Google is any easier to use than Yahoo or MSN.
Keystroke for keystroke they are the same. Actually Yahoo.com and MSN.com are both shorter than Google.com so technically they are fewer keystrokes so they are easier than Google.com but not by much.

Re:ROTFLMAO

[theStorminMormon]

The iPod is not a simple device.

Hogswash. Look, as long as you use "simple" in a general manner, it's going to include "easy-to-use" and "clean and spare design" and all that jazz. Most people can figure out an iPod quickly (compared to another MP3 player) and this means it is simple to use. Surely simplicity of use is a type of simplicity?

Your point is that it is not simple to design. That's totally fair. We can now state that the iPod is both simple and complex. That's because we don't have good definitions.

Seems like lots of people in this thread are confusing "simplicity" with "ease-of-use". A product can be complex, yet still easy to use.

This is the kind of foolishness I'm talking about. Are people "confusing" simplicity with ease-of-use or are the terms actually related? Depends on what you want to prove, doesn't it? If you want to say "the iPod is simple" then you can point out that in common English calling a device "simple" indicates it's probably easy to use. If you want to say "the iPod is complex" you can fall back on any number of alternative definitions or paradigms.

All of this proves one thing: this conversation has NOTHING to do with the iPod. It's just a bunch of people sitting around saying "simple means this" no "simple means that". It's become an argument about semantics instead of an argument about the nature of the iPod or any other product and that, more than anything else, is why I consider this to be such a badly-written article.

-stormin

Re:ROTFLMAO

[jaydonnell]

"aesthetics, fast response time, direct and instant user feedback, program models which correspond to the user model"

All of those can be a result of simplicity. Simplicity and ease of use have a lot of overlap so I don't think people are confused. Can you honestly say that the ipod isn't simpler from a users perspective than most other mp3 players?

Re:ROTFLMAO

[SanityInAnarchy]

But if you think simplicity means "not very many features" or "does one thing and does it well," then I applaud your integrity but you can't go that far with a product that deliberately leaves features out.

And yet, it can still be made simpler, and he's completely missing the point of "does one thing and does it well".

Consider: Both gzip and bzip2 do one thing, and do it well. Yet, by combining these with tools like dd, cp, tar, nc, ntfsclone, or less, I can create all kinds of features. Consider: tar has support for gzip and bzip2, but it does it by calling the gzip and bzip2 programs, and it's the exception.

This guy would rather have every single commandline utility link against zlib.

Now, that doesn't prevent you from making a big, bloaty app, and still having it be "simple". You just have to make individual features of that app combine in the way that gzip and tar combine. A simple example is word processing -- notice how there's a bold, italic, and underline button, but no bolditalic button. If you want bolditalic, you click the bold button, then the italic button. If someone wanted to spend a lot of effort on design, they could probably make a very simple word processor, with most of the functionality organized such that it feels like you're using AbiWord or TextEdit, but it's actually more powerful than OpenOffice.

And he misses the point with Google. Consider that most of the features on Yahoo's homepage are available through Google's services, they just don't clutter up the homepage.

Given all of this, your point:

even if 80% of your users only use 20% of the features, it's probably not the same 20%.

only applies if, as you say:

only an idiot thinks simplicity is equivalent to fewer features.

And you could even have "fewer features" and yet have it be more powerful. LISP is one of the most powerful languages we have, and it also has incredibly simple syntax and builtin stuff. If you need a missing feature, you implement it yourself, naturally -- as naturally as I implement a bolditalic button by clicking the bold and italic buttons.

Swimming against the tide

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:Swimming against the tide

[tacocat]

It's cyclic?

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.

These are opposing forces to make it complex to better address the niche market potential and improve the customer experience. All the general marketing and sales initiatives to make things better and new and improved.

Contrary to this is the force to simplify things in order for you to concentrate on other issues. This is not a force that is recognized or embraced by the marketing and sales thinking in business.

If you make something that is basic and effecive. Say a round ball. Then marketing will start asking people why they didn't purchase a round ball. Based on the feedback they start applying modifiers and options to the round ball. Before you know it you have colors, textures, handles, AM/FM radio... Some of which is useful (colors and textures) and some of which is a detraction from the original design (AM/FM radio balls break when you treat them as a ball).

All of this is also the pressure of product convergence. First there was the cell phone and now it's a cell phone, gamestation, television, ipod, PIM and more more more every week.

Re:Swimming against the tide

[fyngyrz]

...and that overpopulated cohort known as the Boomers are all on the high side of 40.

I'm on that list; 52 and very boomy. But I still prefer my Marantz 2325 in the bedroom to my Denon surround system in the living room because the 2325 provides a full front panel with control of everything on a knob right there in my face instead of hidden "for my convenience." Is the Marantz more formidable to look at? You bet it is, there are thirty adjustable controls, three sets of jacks, a slew of status indicators, a dial readout and two meters on the panel. The Denon has two knobs and a display; even if you open the sub-bay, most of the functionality isn't directly accessible.

Likewise, my Kia Sportage is full of controls and conveniences, and I simply love that vehicle. I suspect that when that salesman does his due diligence and learns what the mirror button does, he'll be well rewarded. There are no "trivial" things in my sportage; everything has been useful, convenient, and a real relief from the dumbed-down controls of my previous vehicles.

Finally, the software I prefer is powerful, full of features, and doesn't hide them under layers and layers of menus, and furthermore, that's the design approach I take with software I write. The primary reason why is the countless times I've seen customers go "I didn't know that was even there!" with all kinds of software. As far as I am concerned, when an operation is selected, as many of the options as possible, preferably all of them, should be right there for your selection. I know it makes it a lot easier for me to use software, and I know it addresses those folks who wander through software instead of studying it (and those are few and far between.)

Google's got the right idea for its search clients. But then again, come in there without having been there for a while and try to find where to submit URLs as a content provider... that's pretty minimalist and obscured under a few layers of stuff, there's no particular hint on the home page. Reminds me of my Denon. Sounds great, and you can't argue that the volume control and source selection are right there, which is what most people use most. Can you EQ the room or select what kind of inputs a source has? Sure you can. Big time. Better not have arthritis, though... you've got some menu navigation chops to exercise, and like Google, it's not all that obvious. In fact, frankly, its a pain in the butt.

I'm "that guy" who will be more inclined to buy something if the controls are in my face. The more knobs, buttons, meters, displays, and UI elements it has that are connected directly to particular functionality, the happier I am. I don't want my bass control buried under layers of menus, and I don't want my software controls buried, either. So I dunno about that boomer argument. We grew up with complex interfaces. Someone took that idea away from us right about the time the programmable VCR came out, and ever since then, there's been a whole class of people who "can't run stuff." Coincidence? I think not. Just bad design, started by some clown who thought that minimal == better. It doesn't. It just == minimal.

Bullshit

[neuro.slug]

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.

eeejit!

[Fallus Shempus]

KISS isn't necessarily referring to the user interface, which is all TFA is on about

It's never simple

[Centurix]

Complexity scales badly. Flexibility is usually the first casualty of war.

What a crackhead...

[MustardMan]

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.

Re:What a crackhead...

[spellraiser]

Amen to that.

Regarding MSN; I guess somebody forgot to tell Mr. Norman about Microsoft's blatant ripoff of Google. If Google is doing things so wrong, why is Microsoft copying their look and feel to the letter?

What about the Vista shutdown interface, Joel?

[GGardner]

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.

Re:What about the Vista shutdown interface, Joel?

[thisIsNotMyName]

I see a big difference between the two examples you have provided here. The second (Vista shutdown) is an example of what Steve Yegge has called "unnecessary complexity." While it is, technically, a feature, Joel's point was that it will only cause confusion in 99% of the users who come across that menu, and provide very little value to the users that do understand it.

In regards to Joel's point, I'll let him speak for himself

. . .If you think simplicity means "not very many features" or "does one thing and does it well," then I applaud your integrity but you can't go that far with a product that deliberately leaves features out.

I think the general point is that features should be useful, necessary and not confusing. Simply adding as many features as you can think of does not lead to a successful software product. The same goes for removing features.

Differing requirements: marketing vs. users

[fractalus]

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.

Re:Differing requirements: marketing vs. users

[cowscows]

I think they're looking at it at a very superficial, impulse level. If I'm wandering through the mall, and all of a sudden decide I want an electronic toothbrush, I might take the one that has more feature bullet-points on the box, especially if price is pretty much the same.

But like you said, the user experience after the sale might not go so well if this toothbrush is too complicated (or worse, the money spent adding all those features is money that wasn't available to make the product high quality and/or durable). Then all of a sudden I have a negative opinion of that brand, and word of mouth advertising won't be friendly towards it.

Now, I don't think that the electronic toothbrush market is driven by hype as much as say, mp3 players, but the internet makes it really easy for people to find reviews written by normal people, so word-of-mouth is an issue worth being concerned about.

Re:Differing requirements: marketing vs. users

[gad_zuki!]

Maybe. Maybe not. The best selling SUV in america is the Jeep Liberty. Its interior is dead simple. The best selling mp3 player is the ipod. Best selling truck is the ford 150. Even simpler console.

The complexity sells argument doesnt seem to hold water. From my experience people are intimidated by all the silly buttons and features they are paying for but will never use.

Stop taking bad drugs, please

[quigonn]

'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.

Re:Stop taking bad drugs, please

[Mr. Slippery]

In what way are Yahoo or MSN easier to use? All a search engine needs...

His point, if you were to RTFA, is that neither Yahoo nor MSN nor Google is just a search engine; each is a website with many available functions. You have to dig around more on Google to find maps, news, and other services that are more readily apparant on Yahoo. (Can't speak to MSN, don't use 'em.)

I used Google for searches, Yahoo for news and driving directions.

Re:Really...

[b0s0z0ku]

Perhaps the best compromise is a complex design with a simple UI...?

Since TFA mentions cars, I'll mention things like VW's Direct Shift Gearbox. Basically all the advantages of a stick shift (it *is* a manual gearbox) with auto-like shifting smoothness since shifts are done by releasing one clutch while engaging the other one. A simple interface, too - 2 pedals.

If anything, cars are getting *simpler* to drive. Automatics are available on more models (unfortunately, I *like* manual cars). No more manual chokes or carburetors. It's the auxilliary features that are getting more complicated, but driving itself is getting easier.

-b.

Re:Really...

[nickmclean]

Design in enough simple systems and you get a huge mess of complexity. That's how cars work. A single overly complicated system is what crashes your plane...

Define Simplicity...

[bockelboy]

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".

Re:Really...

[megaditto]

Thinking people like complexity.

This example should resonate with the Slashdot demographic: would you prefer an oscilloscope that has 4 buttons and knobs or 40?
Would you prefer cat or vim as your text editor.
Would you prefer a mouse with 1 or 3 buttons? (Full disclosure: my mouse has 12)

Re:Simplicity is not dying, it's being killed off

[b0s0z0ku]

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.

Cheers! What we need is a modern equivalent of the Volvo 240. Rugged, simple without being cheap, and capable of carrying the kitchen sink, too. The closest thing on the market is probably the Subaru Legacy Outback series. If only they sold it with a hybrid powertrain or diesel engine and it made over 45 mpg, I'd buy on in a second. And, no, hybrid drivetrains don't have to be more complicated than "normal" powertrains - if you look at the Prius, it has only a single (planetary) gearset for the transmission and no clutch or automatic clutchpacks to wear out.

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)

The doors that automatically lock at over 5 mph and then don't unlock until you manually unlock them really annoy the living shit out of me. I can understand the motivation - fear of lawsuits if someone carjacks you at a stop, but please provide an easy way to turn this misfeature off!

-b.

Re:Simplicity is not dying, it's being killed off

[oldhack]

"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)"

Geeze, you must be a geezer. How is auto window failing (motor died) different from manual window failing (handle fell off)?

But I don't have a utility belt.

[camperdave]

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?

Norman is confused, and has no idea what Google is

[chill]

"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.

Joel is a pundit

[Anonymous Coward]

Now and again, people who crave spotlights say things just to be heard.

Re:Really...

[starfishsystems]

Complexity isn't a problem if it's hidden from the user. For example, if you improve a car engine's efficiency. In software, you can (fortunately) add more features without adding complexity.

Not true, though I agree with your sentiment. Complexity is a ubiquitous problem in software engineering, and it's fair to say that most techniques of software engineering exist for the purpose of reducing or managing complexity. But don't take my word for it, read back through a couple of decades of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering for examples of issues and proposed solutions. I also don't want to suggest that the problem is unique to software, though Fred Brooks has pointed out that software is necessarily the extreme case. In fact it's a general engineering problem.

It's nice when needless complexity can be hidden from the user. Internal combustion engines used to have a manual spark advance. Now it's done automatically, at some additional cost in engineering complexity, of course, but the design has been sufficiently refined over the years so that the extra complexity is minimal.

And this points to an important observation about design: minimizing complexity is hard work. So why do the work? Because when you compare two functionally equivalent artifacts, the simpler one is easier to produce, easier to maintain, and less prone to failure or behavior out of spec.

Gordon bell was quite right when he said, "The cheapest, fastest, and most reliable components of a computer system are those that aren't there." And this is particularly true of security, because we're interested in assuring not only what the system does but also what it does not do.

Re:Marketing led requirements

[sane?]

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.

When the handle breaks it's cheap

[anomaly]

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.

Re:Really...

[businessnerd]

I think a cars transmission is perfect for illustrating the two different kinds of complexity/simplicity. The first being technical complexity with a simple interface. An automatic (the normal kind) is very complex behind the curtain. There are all kinds of moving parts and gizmos that decide what gear so on. In front of the curtain, where the transmission interacts with the user, it couldn't be simpler. Want to go forward? Put it in drive. No need to operate a clutch, only one shift is necessary in the beginning, and the layout of the "gears" is in a straight line (no up-down-left-right like a manual). Then we can look at the technical simplicity with a complex interface. This is the manual transmission. There is not much going on behind the curtain. You have maybe 5 gears, a clutch, and a shifter. The shifter chooses the gear and the clutch allows the transition to each of those gears. On the frontend, it's fairly complex for the uninitiated, so think of it as "Advanced Users Only". It takes some coordination to shift smoothly and it takes some knowledge for proper gear selection, but because of all of the control being at the user end, one can make those simple mechanical parts do many complex things (i.e. optimize amount of power for type of driving, start car with a dead battery/faulty starter, stop car without brakes, do wicked burnouts without destroying the transmission).

Complexity is Preserved

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:Sadly, they weren't joking.

[GeckoX]

I think you completely missed the point.

They are suggesting that Google works so well and is so incredibly simple from the end users perspective, because of how much complexity went into the back end.

They are also suggesting that Microsoft and Yahoo's sites are so incredibly mind numbingly complicated because their back end systems are so simple.

It actually makes a good deal of sense. I wouldn't apply it as a general rule of thumb, but there is definitely truth in there.

Re:Simplicity is not dying, it's being killed off

[Moofie]

"what you do is severely limited by the position of the window"

So what do you do when your manual window fails? The same thing as people with automatic windows: Repair it.

Actually, Google ain't so simple

[brainstyle]

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

Re:Sadly, they weren't joking.

[Uncle_Al]

Hmmm...

1. Maybe people mostly search because it is such a hassle to do anything else
2. Sorry, I entered some street addresses and it didn't work. And now?
3. some "clutter" is better than having to click 5 links to go to where you want to

Nobody argued that googles search interface is bad(It's hard to beat it actually). It's just that that's all there is.

I remember the proverb:"If all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail!"