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.

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.

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:KDE vs Gnome

[MrHanky]

That's Komplexity vs gnome-eazel-nonproperties.

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.

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...)

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.