
Simplicity is Not Overrated, Just Misunderstood - evo_9
http://uxmovement.com/design-articles/simplicity-is-not-overrated
======
wccrawford
Every time I read an article of simplicity in products, they seem to miss
something:

Every user wants different features.

That's why products get to be so complex. Each individual user only wants a
few features, but they're different than his neighbor's wants. Since it's
inefficient to design a device for 1 person, they're designed to incorporate
as many features as possible to capture as much of the market as possible.

For instance, I only ever use 1 setting on my toaster. It's slightly to the
right of '2', IIRC. (It's an analog dial.) There are some buttons that I don't
even remember what they do. You could sell me a toaster that only toasted on
that setting and I'd be really, really happy.

I doubt anyone else uses this exact setting. By making it an analog dial,
they've managed to catch many more people. But some people don't just want to
make toast. Some want to thaw bread that's been frozen, or other things that I
haven't considered. There are special buttons on the toaster for these things.

The designer of my toaster has done a pretty good job of keeping the
complicated functionality away from my toasting process. It's not simple, or
I'd remember all of it.

My microwave, on the other hand, managed to complicate things. If I have to
use 50% power, it's a weird combination of button presses, in the correct
order, to make it happen. It's also different on every microwave I've ever
owned. This is really annoying and could have been made simpler, I'm sure.

If I had designed the microwave, I'd have the user enter the numbers for
power, then hit the 'power level' button. Then enter the numbers for time and
hit the 'time' button. Then hit 'start'. Power level would be optional, but
time would not be. This arrangement works well because we're used to entering
information and then hitting a button to make it stick. (Alternatively,
hitting the button first, then the numbers, could also work, but seemed less
intuitive.)

