
Simplicity Is Not the Answer - nreece
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_not_the_answer.html
======
qjz
I've read the article a few times, and I'm still not sure what point the
author is trying to make. However, this quote from the article appears to
neatly contradict the title (if that faithfully represents his premise):

    
    
      How do we manage complexity? We use a number of simple design rules.
    

Perhaps simplicity _is_ the answer.

~~~
mfukar
I haven't decided yet, but I think he's trying to say that we're confusing
_simplicity_ with _usability_.

I don't agree with that. One look at the iPod and I'm convinced.

~~~
Qz
Which iPod? My old 3G was a usability nightmare.

~~~
mfukar
I haven't used that, sadly. First one I bought was the _nano_.

------
Wilduck
I can't help but notice that the graph in this article seems to have an
obvious equilibrium point. I think it best describes the issue. There is a
balance between capability and usability that maximizes desireablity.

And, if you can shift the capability line to the up-left, or the usability
line to the up-right, you end up with a more desirable product. It's all about
doing more with fewer features.

------
chuckfouts
This article is based on the premise that people correlate the number of
features of a product to the simplicity of using the product. This isn't an
accurate premise. A better description of the problem would be that features
get added to products without much thought for how it integrates with
usability. "The Design of Everyday Things" is a good book that addresses where
and why design goes wrong. <http://amzn.to/17Wew>

~~~
zb
I'm sorry, did you just say that Donald Norman doesn't know what he's talking
about and then recommend that he go read _his own book_ to find out why?

~~~
chuckfouts
No need to be sorry as you're absolutely correct.

------
torrenegra
Simplicity is subjective. Any given interface may feel simple to some users
while complex to others. The objective of interface design shouldn't be to
make things "simple" for the sake of it. The objective of interface design
should be to allow the highest number of users to achieve the goals they have,
while keeping in mind how frequently they want to achieve that goal.
Iconography, for example, works pretty weel for frequent tasks, but it may
fail when the user is only doing a given task once in a blue moon. When in
doubt, and in the spirit of pursuing objectiveness, split A/B testing works
pretty well.

------
thecombjelly
Simplicity is the goal. This doesn't mean that you lose features, it means
that things must be designed. You can have lots of features and lots of
simplicity, it just isn't easy.

------
damoncali
A better article on the same topic:

[http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/0...](http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/09/easeofuse_shoun.html)

------
rokhayakebe
_If my cellphone only had one button it certainly would be simple, but, umm,
all I could do would be to turn it on or off._

Not really. It could be voice enabled. Press the key, Say New Number, Say
Name, Say Digits, Say Save. Press the key, Say Call XYZ.

~~~
DrJokepu
Actually my phone only has one button and it is still one of the most capable
phones ever made. In fact, I'm writing this on my phone with a single button.

~~~
st0p
but it probably has a touch screen, making it possible to display lot of
buttons at the same time.

one physical button != one button

