
Screw simplicity. - sahillavingia
http://sahillavingia.com/blog/2011/01/03/screw-simplicity/
======
maxklein
A stick is a simple tool. It's also a very useful and versatile tool that can
be used in complex ways. Complicated in software would be like taking a stick,
then adding an options panel, then putting a spade at one end, then a rake at
the other, and 10 status indicators running the middle.

~~~
jcromartie
I think the UNIX philosophy goes a long way here. FP is also close to this.
But it's not so simple... har har har.

Certain UNIX tools are fairly stick-like in their _basic_ usage. Things like
cat, grep, sed, sort, cut, paste, tee, less... they are all at least
immediately useful with a basic command even if they have huge sets of
options.

The UNIX grep vs. Windows Grep (see
<http://www.wingrep.com/resources/images/mainwindow1.png>) is a great
illustration, because the basic use case of grep is as simple as possible
(`grep foo' for instance, operating on stdin). With the complex Windows Grep
you get the whole UI (and more, with things like wizards and prompts) all the
time, no matter what you need. You could never learn anything more about UNIX
grep than `grep foo' and it would never get in your way, but with Windows Grep
and other complex apps you get everything all of the time.

But, in the end, UNIX grep and Windows Grep can both basically do the same
things.

------
icco
I would argue that KISS is actually a utilitarian choice. I have always
interpreted KISS as how do I go from idea to product in the simplest manner,
and keep both development, and the users interaction with the product simple.

If you look at new twitter, it is actually simpler than the old one, because
now every tweet displayed only has one initial option, click to open, instead
of the five per tweet that were displayed. They are giving us the user less
initial options.

Also, you're site is pretty simple, and I would like to say that is a good
thing, because all the user can do is read, they can't even attack you in a
nice comments section. ;)

------
TheBiv
The point is that Twitter started out with simplicity. My guess is if they
started with their current design then there would be far less adoption
because of the steep learning curve.

------
TomOfTTB
His logic doesn't quite track for me. Take the Twitter example. He uses that
as an example of why you shouldn't focus on simplicity because it makes
twitter busier with inline media. But to me that's an example of simplicity
because it makes sharing media much simpler.

Any new feature is going to add some complexity. The point of a K.I.S.S.
philosophy is trying to lessen that complexity as much as possible and that's
example what Twitter did.

------
DavidMcG
The argument that there is a tradeoff between simple/useful is something I
don't agree with. An app or website can and should still remain simple to use
whilst having many features if the UI is designed well. Simplicity should
always be the end goal but this should not be at the expense of features!!
There seems to be a certain mindset where people believe that minimal, or
simple interface design is the 'easy' option. It is not, it's often the
opposite. Good design ensures an end result always feels AND looks simple to
use for the end user. The features added to a service should never be
considered, or be resolved in a way where they could be described as
'clutter', as you label it. I'd consider that a fail if I looked at a new
feature that way. If the features are implemented well by a good UX/UI
designer, the products perceived 'simplicity' will not be compromised, in fact
it would probably be enhanced if it were providing added flexibility.

------
revorad
"Sometimes I think a pretty good business model would be to copy the
applications that 37signals makes, but make them more complex. More features,
more promises—generally, just more complicated."

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/08/19.html>

------
executive
Says the guy with a simple website.

------
zaidf
Before anything you should define what constitutes simplicity for the purposes
of _your post_.

 _New Twitter is much more complicated than the old one._

You are confusing simplicity in the user experience with simplicity in the
back-end. I'd argue the new Twitter is _simpler_. But its back-end is more
complicated.

Great front-end simplicity often requires a lot of back-end complexity.

------
chanux
It's just a new wave. Saying what we used to believe are wrong.

