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/
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.
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".
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)