Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Norman & Spolsky - Simplicity is Out

Posted by Zonk on Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:31 AM
from the knobs-and-buttons-for-the-weee dept.
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by mwilliamson (672411) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:33AM (#17208296) Homepage Journal
    Time for the classic battle to resume. ;-)
  • ROTFLMAO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:35AM (#17208332)
    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.
    • 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 [yahoo.com]'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 [google.com]'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.
        • by Uncle_Al (115529) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @02:51PM (#17211656)
          I think you completely missed the point.

          No, I think, sadly you did.

          They are suggesting that Google works so well and is so incredibly simple from the end users perspective, because of how much complexity went into the back end.

          Don Norman is actually suggesting that Googles front page is so simple because, in the end, it is a one-trick-pony. He describes the hard work needed if you actually want to do something besides searching for a query.

          Best summarized by this quote [jnd.org]:

          Is Google simple? No. Google is deceptive. It hides all the complexity by simply showing one search box on the main page. The main difference, is that if you want to do anything else, the other search engines let you do it from their home pages, whereas Google makes you search through other, much more complex pages.
        • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Tuesday December 12 2006, @02:12PM (#17211080) Homepage Journal
          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.
  • by tverbeek (457094) * on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:36AM (#17208342) Homepage
    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.
    • by Chosen Reject (842143) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:42AM (#17208506)
      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.
    • by tacocat (527354) <tallison1@twmi.rr . c om> on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:53AM (#17208742)

      It's cyclic?

      When you make something that works. You start to play with it to make it do more. It's complex. Then it fails. Then you make it simple.

      These are opposing forces to make it complex to better address the niche market potential and improve the customer experience. All the general marketing and sales initiatives to make things better and new and improved.

      Contrary to this is the force to simplify things in order for you to concentrate on other issues. This is not a force that is recognized or embraced by the marketing and sales thinking in business.

      If you make something that is basic and effecive. Say a round ball. Then marketing will start asking people why they didn't purchase a round ball. Based on the feedback they start applying modifiers and options to the round ball. Before you know it you have colors, textures, handles, AM/FM radio... Some of which is useful (colors and textures) and some of which is a detraction from the original design (AM/FM radio balls break when you treat them as a ball).

      All of this is also the pressure of product convergence. First there was the cell phone and now it's a cell phone, gamestation, television, ipod, PIM and more more more every week.

  • Really... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Andrew Kismet (955764) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:37AM (#17208372)
    From the designer's point of view, complexity is all the rage - but do the customers WANT that complexity? Sorry to cite and overused example, but one word for you: iPod! It's simple, clean, and works. It has a complex control that's simple to use (clickwheel). And I may as well cite this, even though it's mettle is untested as of yet: Wii! Simple with a complex control, again.

    Perhaps the best compromise is a complex design with a simple UI...?
    • Re:Really... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:45AM (#17208548) Journal
      Another, probably more controversial example is MSPaint. I consider it to be model of good software. Before you snicker, consider how well it achieves its function. Its extremely easy to use. I can see where everything is. It handles 95% of the photo editing (cropping, relocating, resizing, flipping, adding text) that I need. What it lacks in features, it makes up for in ease of use.

      Perhaps the best compromise is a complex design with a simple UI...?

      Complexity isn't a problem if it's hidden from the user. For example, if you improve a car engine's efficiency. In software, you can (fortunately) add more features without adding complexity. It's called "advanced options" or "advanced mode". The more adept user will know how to get to it, and it doesn't intimidate new users.
    • Re:Really... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:45AM (#17208556)
      Perhaps the best compromise is a complex design with a simple UI...?

      Since TFA mentions cars, I'll mention things like VW's Direct Shift Gearbox. Basically all the advantages of a stick shift (it *is* a manual gearbox) with auto-like shifting smoothness since shifts are done by releasing one clutch while engaging the other one. A simple interface, too - 2 pedals.

      If anything, cars are getting *simpler* to drive. Automatics are available on more models (unfortunately, I *like* manual cars). No more manual chokes or carburetors. It's the auxilliary features that are getting more complicated, but driving itself is getting easier.

      -b.

  • Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neuro.slug (628600) <neuro__@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]> on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:38AM (#17208410)
    If simplicity is out, why is the iPod doing so well? One wheel, four buttons, clean white box. Sure, it's not the only reason, but it does look ever approachable. Why do you think that, in the age of a camera-mp3-omg-do-fucking-everything mobile phones, Motorola is developing a bare-bones cell phone [slashdot.org]?

    I call bullshit.
  • It's never simple (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Centurix (249778) <(mrjolly) (at) (optusnet.com.au)> on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:39AM (#17208424) Homepage
    Complexity scales badly. Flexibility is usually the first casualty of war.
  • by MustardMan (52102) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:39AM (#17208428)
    MSN and Yahoo are easier to use than google? Huh? He goes on and on about how all of yahoo's options are right out there in the open - which is the ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM. Too many options is overwhelming and confusing. Plus, he makes ridiculous factually incorrect bullshit statements, like implying yahoo's front page is customizable, while google's isn't. This is just some jackass trolling for page hits by taking up the contrary view.
  • by GGardner (97375) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:40AM (#17208442)

    In this article [joelonsoftware.com], 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 [joelonsoftware.com] lambasting Microsoft for having too much choice in the shutdown menu in Vista, and advocated for a simple, one-button shutdown solution.

  • by fractalus (322043) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:43AM (#17208516) Homepage
    Simplicity is still better. Norman basically makes the case that, from a marketing perspective, simplicity does not sell. People perceive a complex UI as being more powerful and capable. This makes market pressure favor the complex UI.

    However, that doesn't mean it's better. It means maybe you'll sell more, but it doesn't mean the device will work better or people will use more of the features. If you care about the user experience after the sale, simplicity still wins. If all you care about is separating the man from his money, slather on the complexity.
  • by vmxeo (173325) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:44AM (#17208542) Homepage Journal

    Complex>Simple

    Yahoo>Google

    Zune>iPod

    The referenced articles>This post

  • by Volante3192 (953645) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:48AM (#17208626)
    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.

    And just more things to break. Honestly. The more crap you shove into a compact space the higher chance something's going to break, fail and cost hundreds in repairs.

    It's the automatic window conundrum. On the one hand, automatic windows are convenient, simple, free your hands and make life easier. On the other hand, when they break, what you do is severely limited by the position of the window. If it's stuck in the 'up' position, good luck going through cash toll roads or drive thrus. Stuck down? Hope you don't go to the car wash.

    I have manual windows. I wouldn't trade em at all. (I do wish I had automatic doors though; at least those can be used manually...for now)

    All this means is cars have reached a point where advancement has peaked and now they have to justify the new ones you buy every three years with gadgets and gizmos and ribbons you'll never actually use but somehow it makes you feel better.

    Maybe the auto industry is a good parallel to the software industry...
    • by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @12:01PM (#17208886)
      And just more things to break. Honestly. The more crap you shove into a compact space the higher chance something's going to break, fail and cost hundreds in repairs.

      Cheers! What we need is a modern equivalent of the Volvo 240. Rugged, simple without being cheap, and capable of carrying the kitchen sink, too. The closest thing on the market is probably the Subaru Legacy Outback series. If only they sold it with a hybrid powertrain or diesel engine and it made over 45 mpg, I'd buy on in a second. And, no, hybrid drivetrains don't have to be more complicated than "normal" powertrains - if you look at the Prius, it has only a single (planetary) gearset for the transmission and no clutch or automatic clutchpacks to wear out.

      I have manual windows. I wouldn't trade em at all. (I do wish I had automatic doors though; at least those can be used manually...for now)

      The doors that automatically lock at over 5 mph and then don't unlock until you manually unlock them really annoy the living shit out of me. I can understand the motivation - fear of lawsuits if someone carjacks you at a stop, but please provide an easy way to turn this misfeature off!

      -b.

  • by bockelboy (824282) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:50AM (#17208680)
    That's a disappointing article from Joel, he's usually more observant than that. I'd expect him to be able to make the distinction between "simplicity of an application" and "simplicity of an interface". You can have a feature-rich application which has an extremely simple interface.

    My Mac laptop has a simple interface that both me and my wife enjoy. However, it is perfectly as functional as my linux desktop, who is much more complex.

    An iPod's interface is simple; the device itself is complex. Same with gmail.

    Both authors make the mistake of equating "ease of use" with "lack of features".
  • Silly developers! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brennanw (5761) on Tuesday December 12 2006, @11:53AM (#17208732) Homepage
    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...)