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

KDE vs Gnome

[mwilliamson]

Time for the classic battle to resume. ;-)

Re:KDE vs Gnome

[MrHanky]

That's Komplexity vs gnome-eazel-nonproperties.

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]

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

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

[rsilvergun]

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.

I use the Elbonian font software. It works great, unless you need consonants for some reason.

Re:ROTFLMAO

[MECC]

Why are Yahoo! and MSN such complex-looking places? Because their systems are easier to use [than Google]

That explains why I always use google...

what was I thinking....

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

[StarvingSE]

Use a low bandwidth connection such as a dialup and tell me which you'd rather search at? Not everyone has mega broadband connections. Even on my broadband connection google comes up quicker. All I want to do is search, why do I have to be blasted with news and ads I don't want?

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.

Re:ROTFLMAO

[Uncle_Al]

No, I don't [know who Don Norman is]. I noticed some other books on his blog that looked interesting, but I'm writing based specifically on this article. Not on prior achievements.

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

In any case, it's a poorly thought-out article regardless of his intentions.

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. ;-)

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

[Chosen Reject]

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.

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.

Re:Swimming against the tide

[Nevyn]

"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?

While, I do agree that Norman is on crack ... the on/off button on the rear view mirror has been around for a while (my "new" car, that I bought used this year, has one). The mirror has an optical sensor and dims the view when someone is tailgating with their huge SUV lights beaming straight into your car.

Older cars have the mechanical switch, which uses two mirrors but: 1) I hate those mechanical things, as I can always see outline in the other mirror. 2) The on/off one works automatically, so when someone isn't beaming a light show into the back of my car I can see everything perfectly. 3) Even when toggled the mechanical ones are often still too bright or too dim (as they basically just have two settings), the auto. one has a lot of range so it's only unusable when someone is right on your tail (and even then you can happily look right at it).

My only complaint is that it automatically comes on whenever the car is turned on (IMO it should remember the setting). But given that it's so much better than the toggle switch, I just leave it on now anyway ... and I might have turned it off and left it off, I can somewhat forgive them. I would seriously consider not buying another car if it didn't have one, it's that nice. However this is one of the simplest things in my car (esp. due to the one by default mode), and if I had to manually tweak a knob or something I would have killed it by now.

Re:Swimming against the tide

[caluml]

My parents would pay double for a TV remote with half as many buttons.

Bring me your parent's remote control, the amount they paid for it, and a saw.

Re:Swimming against the tide

[LO0G]

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.

Really...

[Andrew Kismet]

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...?

Re:Really...

[UbuntuDupe]

Another, probably more controversial example is MSPaint. I consider it to be model of good software. Before you snicker, consider how well it achieves its function. Its extremely easy to use. I can see where everything is. It handles 95% of the photo editing (cropping, relocating, resizing, flipping, adding text) that I need. What it lacks in features, it makes up for in ease of use.

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

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. It's called "advanced options" or "advanced mode". The more adept user will know how to get to it, and it doesn't intimidate new users.

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...

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:Really...

[91degrees]

Well, I want a device with a single button that knows what I want to do when I prress it every single time.

Re:Really...

[megaditto]

Get a shotgun.

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: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).

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?

Re:What a crackhead...

[fotbr]

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.

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.

yes clearly...

[Harin_Teb]

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...

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.

Consultants

[EL_mal0]

are they just consultants making a splash, or complexity the Next Big Thing in design?

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

So... to summarize...

[vmxeo]

Complex>Simple

Yahoo>Google

Zune>iPod

The referenced articles>This post

Simplicity is not dying, it's being killed off

[Volante3192]

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...

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)?

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.

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:Clocks and VCRs...

[Cro Magnon]

I don't see a problem. Just take a German class.

Sadly, they weren't joking.

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Sadly, they weren't joking.

[mrogers]

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.

You can see the difference even more clearly when you remove the text. Yahoo doesn't look too bad compared to Lycos and Exite.

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:Sadly, they weren't joking.

[Uncle_Al]

I think you completely missed the point.

No, I think, sadly you did.

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.

Don Norman is actually suggesting that Googles front page is so simple because, in the end, it is a one-trick-pony. He describes the hard work needed if you actually want to do something besides searching for a query.

Best summarized by this quote:

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.

Re:Sadly, they weren't joking.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Or maybe google knows that:

1. Most people are here to search
2. If you want something else, then ask google for it! mail + I'm feeling lucky goes to gmail, and a street address gives links to google maps
3. Clutter hides all those links - much better to have a 'simple' interface to them.

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!"

Silly developers!

[brennanw]

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...)

I love "experts"

[vadim_t]

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.

Clearly it's better...

[Kadin2048]

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!"

Rear View Mirror

[Ken Hall]

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.

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.

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:It gets worse

[Moofie]

"Rather a nice little product, the UI is just annoying rather that absoulutely terribly like an LG."

Um, there are some serious UI issues with this sentence. Could you please redesign it? Thank you.

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.

I'm Confused

[Thabenksta]

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.

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

Pure Slashdot.

[shaneh0]

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.