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."
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...?
Well said, but it could be said even more simpler: "The salesperson didn't know what it did either."
I think that sums it up nicely. 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. Reminds me of when some young (< 7yrs old) cousins of mine were visiting me in Phoenix from their small town and I convinced them that Phoenix was better because it had more crime. They went and complained to their parents that they wanted more crime in their city. They had no idea what it was, they just wanted to have more of it than the next guy.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
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...
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.
Argh... more to say.
If you're using the term "simplicity" to refer to a product in which the user model corresponds closely to the program model, so the product is easy to use, fine, more power to ya. If you're using the term "simplicity" to refer to a product with a spare, clean visual appearance, so the term is nothing more than an aesthetic description much in the same way you might describe Ralph Lauren clothes as "Southampton WASP," fine, more power to ya. Minimalist aesthetics are quite hip these days. 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.
In sum - if you're one of the vast majority of people who associate "simplicity" with "ease of use" or "clean interface" than I have nothing to say and this article was a complete waste of your time. If you're some weirdo who thinks number of features is inherently inversely proportional to quality of product, then maybe this article is for you. Because we all know there are so many people out there who are just pacing the floor at nights trying to figure out a way to make a word-processor with fewer letters.
Really there's one good point in this entire article: even if 80% of your users only use 20% of the features, it's probably not the same 20%. So you can't cut 80% of the features and have a good product. And this is supposed to mean simplicity is out? First of all, only an idiot thinks simplicity is equivalent to fewer features. And even such an idiot would still have a point: Even if the area of overlap isn't 100%, you could (possibly) still cut your features to 40%, to 50% or to 60%. I'd say reducing features by 60 - 40% is significant.
I mean really, the point of his article was to tell us that if your program does less stuff that people want it do, they might like it less?
Genius. Sheer genius.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
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.
Wow. I'll admit, that was the first time I've looked at the "live.com" search.
Just a theory on how it came about: Web designer opens google, "file"->"save page as", has the art department come up with some uglyness to make it slightly different, webdesigner changes the links, and calls it done.
You can see the difference even more clearly when you remove the text. Yahoo doesn't look too bad compared to Lycos and Exite.
And in a previous life worked as an Apple fellow - he's responsible for many of the design principals embodied in the Mac's OS.
It isn't simpler, and this is why people use gmail and google, and their other services are not as popular. Joel is right, Google's simplicity only applies for searching. If you want to use their other services you have to already know where they are, or look through a large group of them. Your very "it may be harder to find..." comment basically acknowledges and ignores the matter at the same time. Which doesn't mean that Yahoo is a perfect model of what it should be like, but it does explain why Yahoo's other services get used.
I think by and large Google intends for the toolbar to be the 'portal' that Joel is looking for.
Don Norman is a very well known cognitive scientist, and well known figure in the field of HCI. His book "The Design of Everyday Things" is probably on the reading list of every HCI course there is. For more details, check out wikipedia
I do not share your view in this matter. Both linked articles of Don Norman have, imho, merrit.
Lets start with the one about Google:
The piece reads like Mr. Norman has heard people say "OMG!!!11!1! GOOGLE IS SO SIMPLE!!!1!!!!11!!eleven" so often, that he could not stand it anymore. Actually, he says so in the fifth sentence.
His point is not that the search engine part of google is hard to use. He admits that is very nice and clean and easy to use. His real point is this:that's because you can only do one thing from their home page: search.
My condensed version of that essay: "Simplicity" (meaning lack of features, or having hidden the features) and "Ease of Use" are not to be confused.
The second piece, his column from the upcomming <interactions> is more about the question if we really want "simple" products as much as we say we do. His verdict is that we rather talk about simple products than use them. Arguing that if you would build products as simple as possible, you might very well go out of business. Marketing in their featuritis might for once be correct. His punchline tells all Yes, we want simplicity, but we dont want to give up any of those cool features. Simplicity is highly overrated.
I personally think those two pieces of writing are very well argued. Read them again when you have cooled down a bit. ;-)