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."
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/
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
"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.
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 - $370 for parts and labor.
When the handle falls off, I can call JC Whitney and order replacement handles and install them myself in 10 minutes.
Simple is good. Geezer indeed.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The iPod is not a simple device. It appears simple because it was designed to be easy-to-use; however, its complexities are evident from just a quick test drive.
Apple has a saying inside their development organization "Complexity is Preserved".
What this means is that given any task, it's always the same level of complexity. All you can do is shift around where the complexity is. Apple would like to think it's the best game in town for taking the complexity off of the user and putting it into its computer code.
If it's not blindingly obvious to everybody, it takes more work on the developer's part to make something that's easy to use. 'Exposing the implementation' is easy.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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!"