
Simplicity Is Highly Overrated - grk
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html
======
edw519
Hmmm...When it comes to simplicity in design, I may be an outlier, but just a
few of my daily struggles...

\- I have to subtract 23 minutes (or add 37 minutes depending on daylight
savings time) from the clock in my car because I lost the manual. What ever
happened to a dial with 2 hands?

\- I have to stand beside the microwave and open the door when the popcorn
stops popping because I have no idea how to get good popcorn any other way.

\- I never put anything in the dishwasher because I have no idea whether it's
clean or dirty. How hard would it be to put a large green/yellow/red light on
the front panel? (I am not the main user.)

\- Why does almost every web page or Windows screen have buttons that do
totally different functions right next to each other in the same color?
(Yesterday, I meant to click on my only unread email and accidently sorted by
Subject Name instead. It took me 5 minutes to realize what I had done.

\- I gave up on our 4 TV remotes (124 total buttons) long ago. If it's on
Channel 6, I'll watch it without sound.

\- What do those other 2 buttons on the garage door opener do? I hit them so
often, some days I wonder if I'll hear dogs barking.

\- Need ice or water from the refrigerator door? Make sure you're in the right
"mode" first. Why not just have 2 openings?

\- Cell phone is ringing. Where is it?!?!? Why can't I just answer the land
line? It's always in the same place.

\- Stereo in living room is unplugged until we need it. I don't know how to
stop the constant light show on the front panel.

Just when was it that things got so complicated that they created more
problems than they solved?

~~~
qeorge
These are valid complaints, but they actually back up the author's point -

You still bought the complex-looking item. That it annoys you now is
irrelevant (in the author's view). He posits that even though you know you
only need 2 buttons for your garage door opener, you'd still buy one with 5
buttons before you bought one with 2.

~~~
edw519
No, I didn't buy any of these things because I wanted to. Consumers don't have
much choice any more. I defy you to go out and find any of these things:

    
    
      - a microwave with a single dial
      - a cell phone that rings on your land line when you're home
      - a garage door opener with one button
      - a dishwasher with a status display
      - a car with an analog clock
      - a TV with an on/off switch and a channel dial
    

OP jumped to an unsubstantiated conclusion when we could have been writing
about the elephant in the room: that functional design, like journalism and
sensible politics, is a lost art.

~~~
gvb

      - a microwave with a single dial
    

Avanti MO7082MB <http://www.google.com/search?q=Avanti+MO7082MB>

    
    
      - a cell phone that rings on your land line when you're home
    

Google Voice
[https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=grandce...](https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=grandcentral&passive=1209600&continue=https://www.google.com/voice&followup=https://www.google.com/voice&ltmpl=open)

    
    
      - a garage door opener with one button
    

Liftmaster 371LM 315MHz Garage Door Remote Transmitter
[http://www.amazon.com/Liftmaster-315MHz-Garage-Remote-
Transm...](http://www.amazon.com/Liftmaster-315MHz-Garage-Remote-
Transmitter/dp/B000CST0L0)

    
    
      - a dishwasher with a status display
    

[http://www.amazon.com/Cobble-Creek-Clean-Dishwasher-
Magnet/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Cobble-Creek-Clean-Dishwasher-
Magnet/dp/B0019APOJW) (Granted, it is an add-on, but you didn't specify it had
to be built in.)

    
    
      - a car with an analog clock
    

Chrysler Town and Country
[http://www.chrysler.com/shared/2010/town_country/gallery/ima...](http://www.chrysler.com/shared/2010/town_country/gallery/images/int/10_c_tc_photo_int_08.jpg)
(Note that the clock not only is analog, it only has _one button_ to set it.
No manuals needed.)

    
    
      - a TV with an on/off switch and a channel dial
    

All the TVs I own have an on/off switch, albeit typically hidden where you
cannot see it (behind or on the side of the screen bezel).

You got me on the dial, however. On the other hand, my TVs also have up/down
channel switches which are a practical solution to having a dial than needs
200 detents.

P.S. I _do_ agree with your summary, but I couldn't resist the challenge. :-)

~~~
BCM43
I have a dishwasher magnet like that, the problem is people forget to change
it often enough that you need to check anyway to be sure.

------
jakevoytko
The author ignores a key component of the problem - "complex" interfaces make
it easy to accomplish your goals.

From the Zen of Python:

    
    
        Simple is better than complex.
        Complex is better than complicated.
        Flat is better than nested.
    

Applying these three principles to user interfaces, the best user interfaces
present lots of features at once, with each button (or small section) of the
interface performing a specific, orthogonal task. Indeed, this is how consumer
electronics are designed. My microwave allows me to select any mode I want,
and manipulate the screen with a keypad in a separate rounded rectangle. The
stereo, AC, wipers and headlight controls all manipulate unique parts of my
car. My washing machine has a different rectangular selection pad for each
"feature" of the wash - temperature? color? size? presoak?.

Flattening an interface helps the learning curve. If you need to set the time
on your microwave, bet on the "time" button. On the other hand, I _still_ need
to ask my girlfriend how to set her iPod to "shuffle," or shut it off, or
reset it when it freezes.

~~~
marknutter
Flat is better than nested only when you're dealing with limited space. You
can put as many buttons on a washing machine as you want, but an iPod needs to
maximize its real-estate. Therefore, nesting becomes the optimal choice, but
it has to be intelligent nesting. Features need to present themselves when it
makes the most sense based on the current context. On your GF's iPod, shuffle
is very easy to access when you're currently listening to a song. Otherwise,
it's hidden away.

------
jrwoodruff
I just disagree with this. I think complexity is laziness on the part of the
designer, the marketing team and the management team that probably demands
their products appear complex.

For instance, the washing machine that needs two buttons but has 20. Two
buttons on a washing machine, if designed well, is a great marketing
opportunity. BUT you would have to design it with a way to SHOW the user all
of the things that the machine is actually doing, like how the prius shows you
what it's doing. Give it a sleek, standout design, and you've got a high-end,
high-dollar washing machine.

Thing is, that means someone has to step outside the box and do something
different than their competitors. Slapping lots of 'features' on a machine is
cheap and gives the sales guys lots of fodder for B.S., no extra training
required.

Look at Apple's products, look at the Toyota Prius. Complex machines that
simplify the tasks they do. And they're selling very well.

Ultimately, design and marketing have to make simple mean more, not less, to
middle America. And someday, probably soon, when every washing machine has 20
knobs and I need to push 10 buttons to toast a piece of bread, simplicity will
be the new selling point.

~~~
Charuru
I love Apple as much as any other programmer, but we have to remember that
they lost the Mac vs PC wars.

There is a still popular perception that Macs are for frivolous hippies and
PCs is what real people use to do real work. Obviously it's different for
programmers and many other people, but we're talking about mainstream
marketing here.

They did great in the mobile segment because of extremely weak competition and
revolutionary new products. If Blackberry had a non-ass touchscreen device out
before the iPhone I doubt Apple's simplicity would've had been effective
counter-marketing.

~~~
kscaldef
_There is a still popular perception that Macs are for frivolous hippies and
PCs is what real people use to do real work._

I'd tend to disagree. That might have been the attitude a decade ago, but
today I think it goes more like "Sure, Macs are nice, but I can't afford one".
At least that's what I hear most frequently from people I know.

------
todayiamme
I agree with the author, but there is one point he seems to have overlooked;
brand. If you create a brand identity consisting of easy to use and, actually,
useful products. Then this issue becomes _your_ selling point. It's all about
perception and designing your products for something as fluid as human
perception is like trying to wrestle with water. Instead, if you hire just the
right PR then you can put that water into a nice, little container.

However, consumer products aside there are some cases where a complex, but not
complicated, solution is better than the simple solution. For example, city
planners have this eternal tendency to build flyovers whenever and wherever
they can, but the flyovers themselves can't handle the increasing loads after
a certain period of time. So, then what?

A more complex, but uncomplicated solution would be to make the traffic lights
respond dynamically at a city wide scale with traffic. If you can figure out
the volume of cars on a given stretch of road vs. other roads you can then use
a routing algorithm to predict the best timing and path to guide the cars.
It's more complex than the flyover, but it's cheaper and the leftover money
can be then put into making better mass transportation in order to cut down
car growth.

Further, you can figure out the volume of traffic by using accelerometers
embedded in the road. Any vibration propagating through a solid medium has
certain characteristics, which can be accurately predicted by studying solid
acoustics. Hence, if you have an array of sensors (they are cheap) you can
track the vibrations down to their respective sources. In this scenario
accuracy is not an issue, a roundabout number should be good enough.

Powering the sensors isn't much of an issue either and we can put wire them to
micro-controllers that crunch some of the data and sends it higher up the
chain.

So, at the end we have an entire city that behaves and responds like an
organism to the traffic flowing in its veins. It will be just beautiful.

The irony is that its inherent complexity ensures that people won't buy it.
After all, who would want to trust solid math?

~~~
ab9
"I agree with the author, but there is one point he seems to have overlooked;
brand."

That's exactly what I was thinking. Users have to learn, through repeated use,
to trust automation. They might take a chance and buy an intelligent sensor-
equipped washing machine, but only if they can control it manually if the
intelligence turns out to suck. This is one reason why they appear to prefer
complex products.

But there's a way around that: get a reputation for really good automation.
(Yes, it's a chicken-and-egg problem, but I'm sure it's doable for consumer
electronics.) Where users are confident that automation will work well, I
predict we'll find that "users prefer complex products" is less true.

------
asciitaxi
I think before the advent of personal computing, a bit of extra complexity was
ok. Life was pretty simple. You had a car, a stereo, a tv with a button for
each channel, a stove/oven, and a calculator. You actually had room in your
mind and time in your weekend to read the manual and figure out your new VCR.
It was fun!

Making complex things was actually expensive to do, so a microwave with lots
of functions cost more than one with a single button that said "heat up my
food". This made it a bit of a status symbol. It was also the start of
everything becoming digital, so it was cool for everything to have lots of
buttons and a fancy readout.

Now we have several TVs, all with several boxes, incorporating our audio
system, and connected to several services. We have smartphones, computers,
tablets, printers and routers. Then there's all the software on and off the
web to figure out, configure, and get working together. And you have to deal
with all that at work, too. It's tough just to stay afloat.

So, the last thing you want is a digital toaster. They can make it look as
complex as they want, but it won't make it look any more expensive. Today
something looks expensive if it is simple, heavy, and looks like it was
handcrafted by a German man. People still lapse into 1980s thinking and make
the association that complicated means better, but that will wear off.

I'm not saying that extra features aren't sometimes important, but features
are so easy to add to things today. You just have to type a few lines of code.
Making someting look complex is easy and inexpensive. Making something complex
look simple takes much for time, effort, money, and talent. Increasingly,
people will pay for that.

~~~
kentnl
I see limited use for a digital toaster, there are some perks you /could/ see
like having personalized settings which somehow just _know_ which person is
using them ( RFID? ) and sets the appropriate toast setting for that person.

Possibly detection on _what_ it is toasting ( ie: hash-browns, muffin-splits )
and "smarter" toasting ( ie: using an optical sensor to measure surface
browning, and using a laser thermometer to measure core temperature ( which is
required for hash browns because they're often still cold in the middle :( )
), but these are all purely practical features and I'd want the toaster still
100% practical with no knowledge of these features.

But I'm guessing these sorts of features are not the ones they implement, and
probably add silly things like an LCD screen with a countdown timer, and a
blingy screensaver, and a robotic toast loader ( ok, on the other side I can
see how that would be useful, I do get annoyed every time the toaster is a
little too eager and throws my toast in the air and into the sink ..... ) ,
and they probably add useless features like bread-decorating toasting with
high powered lasers or something equally stupid.

~~~
jws
Plain old mechanical toaster trivia: The thermostatic element is placed in
such a way that it is receiving reflected energy from the toast. As the bread
dries and the Maillard reaction browns the toast it reflects more energy from
the elements to the thermostat.

Viola! Toast browning detection in one bent piece of metal!

~~~
cturner
Darker things absorbed heat, rather than reflecting it - ? But then raw black
bread will behave differently to raw white. Sounds interesting but I'm
unconvinced.

------
someisaac
This is an old article.When reading this article i thought the author was
right till i saw this article by zedshaw. zedshaw's is very fun to read yet
highly informative.!

<http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/fortune_favors_big_turds.html>

~~~
gacba
My favorite quote in that article:

 _I found an interesting culture full of contradictions and struggling to
combine its past with its future and desperately wanted to learn about them.
Don saw an SUV and thought he knew some shit._

True, considering' Zed's experience (1.5 years as soldier stationed there,
spending lots of time integrating and studying the culture.

~~~
cdavid
OTOH, I have lived for more than 6 years in Japan, which also have a culture
of having things which look complex, and I think the OP is closer to what I
have seen than Zed Shaw on that particular aspect.

I still don't understand why, but Japanese in general _love_ that everything
is written on magazines and advertisements, that UI are mind-blowing complex.
In general, slides with as much stuff crammed into it are well regarded as
well - academic conferences in Japan were scary in that aspect, compared to
more internal ones. That's where Zed has a point I think, that is it is not
that the culture value complexity as much as valuing a lot of data and
information.

If you want to get scared, look into the big EC shops in Japan (e.g. rakuten:
<http://www.rakuten.co.jp/>). I find it almost offensive. The main page also
gives a good feeling of what it is like to be inside the subway in a big
Japanese city during rush hours - you have advertisements in every location
which is not occupied by human flesh.

On a side note, while the snarky comment of Zed Shaw is well, snarky, I would
note than Don Norman used to teach 2 months/year in Korea, so he most likely
did more than buy a SUV from there.

------
zeteo
I think this may have something to do with conspicuous consumption:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption>

Your new toaster might have too many buttons and displays for you to use
effectively, but it will surely impress the heck out of the next visitor. In
fact, it's arguable that conspicuous consumption is the _only_ reason why
you'd buy a $250 toaster with a dozen buttons instead of of a $20 toaster with
a knob.

~~~
Psyonic
I wouldn't buy a $250 toaster either, but if it actually lasts more than 6
months, that'd be one reason.

~~~
zeteo
I'm not sure what the standard warranty is on toasters, but for this $17 model
you can buy a 2-year warranty for an additional $6 (total: $23 for 2 years of
guaranteed toasting):

[http://www.amazon.com/Proctor-Silex-22605-2-Slice-
Toaster/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Proctor-Silex-22605-2-Slice-
Toaster/dp/B00064W93G/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1283537162&sr=8-3)

Also, I would think that fewer parts = longer time between failures.

------
weego
I disagree to a point, I think you need to appreciate that the term simple is
not at all simple in itself and is totally relative to the observer.

For example, my parents bought all the gadgets and gizmos a kid could ever
want, and I though growing up with them and pressing and getting myself out of
awkward situations (like trying to figure out what "change language" would be
in mandarin after changing the languate on the DVD player just to see what
would happen) I would consider something like a Sky box, a pre-amp or a DVD
player simple no matter what the interface (tactile and digital) looked like a
simple tool to use.

My parents, who bought all these things and used them a little are
consistently lost whenever they have to replace their digital radio, or DVD
player. All the functions are the same, but the experience is different, and
for them that means everything is different and unknown. Their understanding
of simple is from way before we even had our fist microwave.

Simplicity is not a myth, it's just not a constant. This is pretty much
addressed, but not argued, explicitly in the article: the measure if simple
you use for your product must be appropriate to your target demographic and
not the definition of the engineering team or a think-tank.

It is possible for simple to not be simple.

------
njharman
> Haven’t you ever compared two products side by side, comparing the features
> of each, preferring the one that did more? Why shame on you, you are
> behaving, well, behaving like a normal person.

i'ma geek I like complex programmable stuff. But this is still BS. I buy the
$19.99 toaster oven cause after a year or two they're all nasty inside and
It's nice to chuck it an buy new one. $20/yr is worth it to have toasty
things. $250 is not.

If I made $200k I'd proly buy the $250 toaster and never use it cause I ate
out all the time.

I recently was absolutely shocked shopping for vacuums. they went from $60 to
over $500. WTF! The $200+ ones were filled with retarded, do nothing
"features". I went to thrift store and bought a $30 one.

My points are 2

1) purchasing decisions have many more factors than simplity or complex.

2) the biggest factor is manipulating the buyers psychology, simple/complex is
a symptom of that. Apple has made it a cool/hip lifestyle choice to own
"sealed", low-featured, slick and overpriced electronics. Complex == status
for Koreans. Do nothing technical sounding features == I don't know what? but
something to convince people to pay $500 for $200 vacuum. Monster Cables.

------
drblast
Uggh. I have a microwave that must be designed by the Koreans in this article.

If I want to heat something up for thirty seconds, I have to wade through four
menus and sub-menus:

Express cook (ha ha)-> 30 seconds-> OK-> Start

People who designed consumer microwaves have obviously never used one. I have
NEVER cooked anything in the microwave that should have involved more than a
single button press. If the cooking is going to take fewer than 30 seconds,
I'm not going to need a timer; it's not like I'm going to go walk the dog with
the rest of my time.

I never want to type in an amount of time and then have the microwave not
begin cooking until I hit a Start button. I always want full power. I don't
want to adjust the fan speed. Nobody has tried to cook actual meals in the
microwave since 1985 so I don't need a chicken-pot-pie setting. I don't want
the keys to beep loudly when I press them and I don't want the microwave to
beep loudly when it's done because I don't want the kids to wake up.

I'd pay more for the lack of "features."

~~~
randallsquared
Wow. Every microwave I've used in years has had a "add 30 seconds" button that
works regardless of whether it's adding to an existing countdown or starting
for 30 seconds from zero.

However, it also doesn't take long for me to learn the microwave settings for
my preferred popcorn brand/type for a new microwave: the one built-in at my
apartment requires 2:40, and the new one at my work 2:30. I usually put those
in directly rather than hitting "add 30 seconds" five times.

I also use the microwave for thawing beef, at significantly less than full
power. I use it to heat frozen pot pies, since they come out at least as well
as in the oven, and it's 13:30 instead of 45 minutes in the oven. But 7:30 of
that is at half power.

I want to go back to my room and watch my show until the microwave beeps to
let me know it's done. It's never occurred to me that I might want to mute or
quiet it.

I guess microwave manufacturers make devices for me, and not you. :/

~~~
drblast
I guess so. I'm not really opposed to features; they're cheap and they add
value for some people.

My beef is that the most common operation (heating something up quickly)
should be really simple to do. I thought this was a fundamental idea in UI
design, but it's broken on appliances everywhere.

Here's how it should work: numbers 1-10 represent commonly used cook times.
15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 120 seconds...I hit one of those and the microwaves
waits two seconds and then goes.

If I hit multiple numbers in rapid succession, I can enter an exact time.

The only other buttons on there should allow the functions you want too. A
power level button, add 30 seconds, and the more advanced scheduling option
that lets you set multiple times and power levels.

All options, which are almost always set-and-forget, should be accessible
through a single button. My car does this well; I can change what I want
displayed on the dashboard and what color it's in using two buttons. It's not
a quick interface, but I only have to use it when I change the car battery,
which is hardly ever.

------
bjnortier_hn
"And the truth is, simplicity does not sell".

BS.

Some people prefer simplicity, some prefer complexity. I'm not sure where the
median is, it might be on either side. Preference can be a function of many
things, including culture.

You can make money from either. Just know your customer.

~~~
wccrawford
I agree. Simplicity sells, but only when needs are met.

I only ever use 1 heat setting on my toaster. All the others are useless. If
you sold me a toaster that only heated on that setting, I'd be perfectly
happy. But how many other people are happy with my taste in toast? The product
simply would not sell well enough.

It's the same with all the other products listed. Sure, maybe a few 'features'
are unused, but without extensive market testing, you can't know which ones
they are.

Digg recently removed some features... Apparently they were useful features to
the community, and there were a lot of complaints about that. (Among other
things.)

Facebook recently added some features... These features didn't have enough
features on them, and there was a revolt. Facebook would have been fine
without more features, or by adding enough new features, but they stopped
somewhere in-between and paid for it.

------
doki_pen
The whole article seems to be more of a style argument then a complexity
argument. It presents the false dichotomy that things that are simple to
operate, must have less controls. There is no reason why you can't have all
the controls _and_ a button that does everything very simply. First page of
the manual should say, use the "auto" button, if that doesn't work for you,
keep reading.

We've also been trained to want a manual override switch. When I think of
simplicity in UI, I think of Apple. I remember when Apple stopped putting
eject buttons on their Mac disk drives. A also remember constantly having to
find a paper clip when the machine refused to eject the disc(often).

Secondly, there are always special cases where you need some extra control.
It's hard to believe that the manufacturers software has accounted for
everything. When I find a "bug" it's very frustrating to not be able to
manually override the behavior.

Another case for complexity is if some sensor breaks, the appliance becomes
useless. I remember shopping for a car in the early 90s (with my parents), and
wanting manual windows because everyone I knew with electric windows had
broken motors with windows that didn't work anymore. The situation is
drastically improved now, but then, manual ruled. Sooner or later your
"automatic" appliance won't work the way it did when it was first purchased.
Having manual controls should extend the life of the appliance.

------
10ren
So he has a marketing message: "we purchase on features", and we "equate
apparent [...] complexity with power'. His solution is spot on: give the
appearance of power (for purchase), but make it actually simple-to-use (for
use.)

He also mentions users' "favorite features" (it's well known that we don't
like having to change our behaviour, even for the better); and "“critical”
features" (sometimes they aren't actually necessary; and sometimes, as Joel
says, "everyone uses a different 20%" - Linus has also said this). An example
of the latter, and as people have said here, is when really do need to
customize a default behaviour.

Love Joel's linked comment on bootstrapping: _So you sell "simple" as if it
were this wonderful thing, when, coincidentally, it's the only thing you have
the resources to produce._
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/12/09.html>

------
symkat
I suppose a counter-argument to this would be... anything Apple makes? Their
non-computer products generally have fewer buttons on them than comparable
phones/mp3 players.

The MiFi that was just being raved about earlier today also only has an on/off
button.

Perhaps those are exceptions, rather than the rule. What makes those
exceptional, though?

~~~
akshayubhat
Apple Mac's aren't a success considering their market share. [Personal
opinions are irrelevant]

Your argument is fallacious: iPod evolved to address the feature issue: so
from a single Classic iPod you now have shuffle, nano and touch. even within
each type say iPod nano there has been considerable change. Check out the
latest nano and the earlier one, adding touchscreen is same as adding
complexity.

It's probably your Apple bias which seems to be at play here.

~~~
Terretta
> _Apple Mac's aren't a success considering their market share._

Some companies prefer market share. Some companies prefer profit.

Your definition of success is your personal opinion, which you admit is
irrelevant.

"While Apple only commands 7 percent of overall revenues in the PC market, its
products account for 35 percent of the operating profits. None of the other
manufacturers—which includes such giants as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and
Lenovo—comes even close to matching Apple’s five-to-one ratio between revenue
and profit share."

[http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-
vs-o...](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating-
profit-share-of-top-pc-vendors-2010-3)

~~~
akshayubhat

         Your definition of success is your personal opinion, which you admit is irrelevant.

If you have read the article,you will realize the criteria used is market
share or selling more than your competitors.

The method used in the info graphic mentioned in your article does not
differentiates between profits from different divisions within Apple or even
HP and Dell.

BI is an Apple fanboi site, so no wonder, it dishes out nonsense, to quote
from a recent article "how apple is beginning to destroy Googles core search
business "[http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-apple-is-
beginning-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-apple-is-beginning-to-
destroy-googles-core-search-business-2010-9)

    
    
         The App Store is replacing the web search engine for mobile device users, at least for some searches. This should scare Google, because search is its core business, and it's being supplanted.
    

Anyway this thread is now being flooded by Apple iFanboi's, thus no point in
making logical arguments.

~~~
todayiamme
>>>Anyway this thread is now being flooded by Apple iFanboi's, thus no point
in making logical arguments.<<<

Look it's of no use whatsoever being a rude asshole over here i.e. HN. You
called me an idiot not too long ago (see:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1651363> ), and it appears that you like
to insult people willy nilly if they don't conform to the mold of your
expectations. That isn't the point of HN.

The sad bit is that you're missing out on the things that make HN beautiful;
having your beliefs questioned and learning new things from amazing people.
So, open up your mind a bit and you might love what you see. :)

Take care.

------
jacquesm
I think it is possible to have a complicated product that is made easy to use
and has extra features that get 'exposed' over time for your power users to
find, preferably _just_ when they need them the first time.

Complexity per-se has nothing to do with it, (over) complex problems fail just
as fast as overly simplified products.

The trick is to match what your application is offering to the user in such a
way that the context determines what face the application puts on it's
capabilities.

Mobile phones fail spectacularly in this respect, often used features are
stacked 6 down in unnavigable menu trees, never used (but commercially
interesting stuff for the carriers) sits near the top.

There are many examples like that.

But there are (fortunately) also examples to the contrary.

~~~
riffraff
this was my first thought too (and there are plenty of washing machines with a
couple of buttons and the rest hidden behind a panel to prove it, I thought).

But this is also addressed in the article, in the addendum part:

""" One person truly misunderstood because he advocated hiding the extra
controls, thus preserving the apparent simplicity. Sorry: it is the apparent
complexity that drives the sale. """

~~~
jacquesm
> Sorry: it is the apparent complexity that drives the sale.

Maybe that holds true for some applications, but for the most part (in my
experience at least) 'hiding' is not synonymous with 'having the right stuff
at the right time'.

To make your application appear complex is just going to increase the barrier
to entry.

I'm fairly sure the _only_ reason I'm in business and have been for a long
time is because the first contact with our application is as simple as you
could possibly make it.

That it can do a lot of other stuff is assumed until needed. People sometimes
send support mail about very advanced features indicating that the 'power
users' are definitely able to find their way. But for 99% of the audience the
first level is all they'll ever get to and they're happy there.

If you sell a luxury car, apparently it has to have buttons.

But when you look at those buttons on a 10 year old car you'll see which ones
are the ones that got used (because they wore!). As a rules, it's the same
buttons that you'll find on a Lada.

But cars are 'conspicuous consumption' for some, so they are not to be
compared with a web-app.

Something like 'mint' has enormous functionality but they've made it
relatively (as easy as you can make it I guess) easy to get on board because
of this exposure trick.

Good software uses context. Over-complex design does _not_ drive sales unless
you're trying to send all your competitors down a dead end street.

Microsoft word, that pinnacle of design, is only where it is today because of
lock-in, if not for that (users emailing each other word documents) and some
pretty ruthless marketing it wouldn't stand a chance.

Text editing is - as someone quoted here - a solved problem, but it seems that
there still isn't an easy way to get what you want. Possibly there will never
be (because text editing is inherently complex), but that should not
discourage those that seek to enhance the user experience with minimalist
approaches.

To me the apple audio line of products is a great example of how minimal +
gradual exposure is the way to enormous sales, don't forget they weren't the
first company to produce an audio player (or a smartphone either).

~~~
michael_dorfman
_To make your application appear complex is just going to increase the barrier
to entry._

That depends on the customer segment you are targeting.

 _Over-complex design does not drive sales unless you're trying to send all
your competitors down a dead end street._

Or, if you're selling "Enterprise Software". I've had to re-design things to
be less simple, in order to make them more attractive to customers, and had my
staff spend countless hours developing bells and whistles that impressed
purchasing VPs in demos, but then were never used by the actual users.

Some customers will take "more features, and a busier looking interface" over
"a simple, elegant design that actually does everything you need it to" every
time. In my experience, these tend to be the customers who are not users
themselves-- but, they often have the purchasing power over thousands of
users.

~~~
jacquesm
That's kind of the point right? When end users do not drive sales you are
likely right, as your experience indicates. But when end users do drive sales
(and for most of us here that's day to day life) then a clean interface is
key.

B2B is different in this respect than B2C, and conspicuous consumption is
different from both of those still.

------
myoung8
I think people want products that are simple to use, not just simple. There's
a big difference.

There are many products that have a lot of features, but employ concepts like
progressive disclosure to make them easier for a wide range of people to use.

------
balding_n_tired
Back when a food company was coming out with cake mixes, it discovered that
cooks felt bad about just adding water & stirring. They redid the recipe so
that it was necessary to add an egg, and everyone was happier.

~~~
daychilde
I think you're referencing this urban legend:
<http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/cakemix.asp>

~~~
dean
Wow, that has to be the most unconvincing debunking of an urban legend I've
ever seen.

------
jkossen
Reminds me of the good ol' Larry Wall quote "Easy things should be easy, and
hard things should be possible."

------
trebor
I'm going to argue about something else: clarity. As a consumer I look objects
whose use is clear to me, and prefer to buy from brands with reputations for
quality.

My Capresso kettle has only one button. I fill it to two cups, the minimum,
boil the water and make my tea. Now, what if I wanted green tea instead of
black? They say that green tea ought to be brewed at 200°F for best taste. Do
I have _less_ control because it has one button? No, I have the same amount of
control as before: I just have less automation. So to get my ~200°F I pour the
water into my mug, wait 30-60 seconds and add my tea bag.

But really, do features sell to all consumers equally well, or just to the
inattentive or uneducated?

My dishwasher has only 8 settings, 4 of which are the type of wash. Nothing is
unclear in the design. If I've got a light load I press "Light". If I don't
want it to do a heated dry I press "Heated Dry" to turn it off. The design and
intended use of the dishwasher is _clear_.

I'll be the first to admit that I like a little too much automation. But
really, is the $250 toaster worth it? I don't find myself needing the
features, and I would not buy such a thing unless tricked into it.

------
TravisLS
I think the author makes a valid point, but it's important not to confuse
feature-rich and complex. A customer's purchase decision may be driven by the
abundance of features, but the review they post later that week will be driven
by the experience using your product.

Highlight features to sell, but keep those features well-organized and
intuitive to create a positive experience after the sale.

------
nadam
I am a big fan of simplicity, but I recently realized that I was going too
far. It is hard to make money by just concentrating on simplicity. Most cash-
cows are really complex beasts. See Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Adobe
Photoshop, Oracle. If the emphasis of your product is simplicity, chances are
you have to compete with free software. Joel had a presentation on this: there
are dozens of simple bug trackers out there, lots of them are free, but still
only a few companies make big money in the field, and their products are not
the simplest ones. I still value simplicity, it is just risky if that is the
main value proposition of a product.

Also there is simplicity on the user's side and there is simplicity on the
engineering side. Sometimes it implies incredibly complex and hard engineering
work to enable simplicity on the user's side. Although UX is the king, I've
realized that sometimes you have to make compromises even in UX to keep the
underlying technology not extremely complex.

~~~
marknutter
> Most cash-cows are really complex beasts. See Microsoft Windows, Microsoft
> Office, Adobe Photoshop, Oracle

I would argue that these products are cash cows not because they're complex,
but because they were created and marketed at the right time and place. In
fact, I would argue that these products became complex _after_ having become
cash cows, after which adding features was no longer constrained by time or
budget. Microsoft Office is amazingly bloated, for instance. I would argue
that 95% of its users only ever use 5% of the features.

~~~
Dn_Ab
What I wonder is, what is the coverage of features used by Every User? It
seems unlikely that every user uses the same 5% of features. Thus the question
is, does there exist some set of equivalence classes of feature usage across
Office users that is bijective with the set of Office Features? And if not to
which degree does it fail to be surjective.

This would be a (silly) measure of how much users drive Office's evolution and
how much its just a bunch of people thinking up nonsense to fatten up the
feature list.

------
felxh
I certainly agree with article that complex looking appliances subconsciously
make us think that the said appliance is more powerful and has more features.
I also agree that this would be a selling point to many people. OTH I also
know many people (i would say less technical inclined people), that see a
complex looking appliance and think "omg i will never figure out how to use
that. It probably does all sorts of advanced stuff, but all I want do is make
toast".

Now, whether you can convince these people that they also should pay more for
their simple looking appliance, or even convince them that the simple looking
one can actually do all that 'advanced stuff' as well, is another question. I
would guess it depends on how sleek and high-quality you manage to make it
look. There is a thin line between "looks simple because it probably is very
cheap and basic" and "looks simple but also seems to be high quality and
professional"

------
jdietrich
Apple, Apple, Apple.

They went from being a computer company struggling to survive to one of the
world's largest and most profitable consumer electronics companies based on an
obsession with simplicity and elegance.

Simplicity is hard, but get it right and the world will beat a path to your
door.

------
akshayubhat
A good way to think about it is via Occam's Razor: Which states that
"Multiplicity should not be posited without necessity"

Thus the pioneering products in any new segment are simple, however as time
passes new "necessities" emerge, which means the product "must" be modified to
fit those needs. This also assumes a well regulated market with rational
buyers (no fanboi's).

Note that this does not means that Simplicity should always be favored or The
simplest solution is usually the correct answer, even if there is a single
legitimate need which a simple solution cannot address, then the solution must
be made complex to address that need effectively.

Evolution of Personal Computer or any non monopoly product is a good example.

------
thefool
I would argue that it is a good thing for people to be able to take apart and
fiddle with the things they buy. The ability to do this had diminished as
goods have become increasingly complicated and automated.

The real solution is to offer simple as a feature. Have a default mode which
makes everything really easy, and a "complicated" mode which allows people to
change everything.

By breaking things up into two usability modes, most people get the benefits
of simplicity, while the ones that care get the benefit of control.

------
stackthat
Simple: A product which will be understood in the long term.

Try to use a very simple product and then switch to a complex one, you'll hate
the complex one.

Complex: A product which will attract the buyer on the paper. When you compare
features it'll be always on the top.

So if there is a product with WOM involved simple will won in the long term
otherwise end user will choose features over simplicity as they don't know
whether it's stupidly simple of awesomely simple.

------
Androsynth
The problem with complexity as a feature is that it becomes a positive
feedback loop. Marketers will always try to one-up the competition and this
will ultimately lead to a backlash against complexity. edit: I'm too tired to
make a strong case for why this will happen, however as a user who recently
switched to Win7, I can assure you it will.

------
wazoox
Augh. A colleague had a Civic type-R (2008 model). Man, this dashboard was
unfathomable. I risked my life driving this and trying to switch radio
station! Not only this dashboard has more buttons than a spaceship console,
but most buttons carry different modal functions at different times! Atrocious
and unusable.

------
alexiocowabunga
If we were to consider any coffee shop chain - the complexity in some of the
coffee that is displayed is extremely apparent.

We can go from £1.50 for an espresso all the way up to £3.60 for something
that may resemble a coffee but probably only costs a few pence more to
produce!

------
iamcalledrob
This is mainly a cultural difference between East and West.

I would say that Western people tend to define a successful product as
something that's simple, functional, and easy to use.

In other cultures, the feature list defines whether a product is successful.
The more the better.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Do you have some data to back this up?

One of the primary examples he used was a (German) Siemens washing machine.

Are the dashboards of German-made automobiles significantly less cluttered
than those of Japanese-made?

------
dean
"The complex expensive toaster? I bet it sells well."

His whole argument basically comes down to this comment. Instead of guessing
whether complexity sells well, he should continue his research and find out
for sure.

------
plemer
Functionality>Simplicity but they aren't entirely opposed.

------
tome
This seems to be another case of people not knowing what their needs are.

~~~
TGJ
More like people knowing what their needs are but only being able to buy
products that were built with the engineers needs and not the people.

------
vegai
And nobody's buying iPads.

