Norman & Spolsky - Simplicity is Out 381
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."
KDE vs Gnome (Score:4, Funny)
Re:KDE vs Gnome (Score:5, Funny)
ROTFLMAO (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop already...the laughter is painful.
Sadly, they weren't joking. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can see the difference even more clearly when you remove the text [kvetan.net]. Yahoo doesn't look too bad compared to Lycos and Exite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
They are also suggesting that Microsoft and Yahoo's sites are so incredibly mind numbingly complicated because their back end systems are so simple.
It actually makes a good deal of sense. I wouldn't apply it as a general rule of thumb, but there is definitely truth in there.
Re:Sadly, they weren't joking. (Score:5, Informative)
No, I think, sadly you did.
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]:Re:Sadly, they weren't joking. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sadly, they weren't joking. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody argued that googles search interface is bad(It's hard to beat it actually). It's just that that's all there is.
I remember the proverb:"If all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Devotees of simplicity will bring up 37signals and the Apple iPod as anecdotal proof that Simple Sells. I would argue that in both these cases, success is a result of a combination of things: building an audience, evangelism, clean and spare design, emotional appeal, aesthetics, fast response time, direct and instant user feedback, program models which correspond to the user model resulting in high usability, and putting the user in control, all of which are fe
Re:ROTFLMAO (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're using the term "simplicity" to refer to a product in which the user model corresponds closely to the program model, so the product is easy to use, fine, more power to ya. If you're using the term "simplicity" to refer to a product with a spare, clean visual appearance, so the term is nothing more than an aesthetic description much in the same way you might describe Ralph Lauren clothes as "Southampton WASP," fine, more power to ya. Minimalist aesthetics are quite hip these days. But if you think simplicity means "not very many features" or "does one thing and does it well," then I applaud your integrity but you can't go that far with a product that deliberately leaves features out.
In sum - if you're one of the vast majority of people who associate "simplicity" with "ease of use" or "clean interface" than I have nothing to say and this article was a complete waste of your time. If you're some weirdo who thinks number of features is inherently inversely proportional to quality of product, then maybe this article is for you. Because we all know there are so many people out there who are just pacing the floor at nights trying to figure out a way to make a word-processor with fewer letters.
Really there's one good point in this entire article: even if 80% of your users only use 20% of the features, it's probably not the same 20%. So you can't cut 80% of the features and have a good product. And this is supposed to mean simplicity is out? First of all, only an idiot thinks simplicity is equivalent to fewer features. And even such an idiot would still have a point: Even if the area of overlap isn't 100%, you could (possibly) still cut your features to 40%, to 50% or to 60%. I'd say reducing features by 60 - 40% is significant.
I mean really, the point of his article was to tell us that if your program does less stuff that people want it do, they might like it less?
Genius. Sheer genius.
-stormin
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, it can still be made simpler, and he's completely missing the point of "does one thing and does it well".
Consider: Both gzip and bzip2 do one thing, and do it well. Yet, by combining these with tools like dd, cp, tar, nc, ntfsclone, or less, I can create all kinds of features. Consider: tar h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And from the other article:
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. Why aren't many of these just linked together? Why isn't Google a unified application? Why are there so many odd, apparently free-standing services?
This reminds
Re:ROTFLMAO (Score:4, Interesting)
Don Norman is a very well known cognitive scientist, and well known figure in the field of HCI. His book "The Design of Everyday Things" is probably on the reading list of every HCI course there is. For more details, check out wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
I do not share your view in this matter. Both linked articles of Don Norman have, imho, merrit.
Lets start with the one about Google:
The piece reads like Mr. Norman has heard people say "OMG!!!11!1! GOOGLE IS SO SIMPLE!!!1!!!!11!!eleven" so often, that he could not stand it anymore. Actually, he says so in the fifth sentence.
His point is not that the search engine part of google is hard to use. He admits that is very nice and clean and easy to use. His real point is this:that's because you can only do one thing from their home page: search.
My condensed version of that essay: "Simplicity" (meaning lack of features, or having hidden the features) and "Ease of Use" are not to be confused.
The second piece, his column from the upcomming <interactions> [acm.org] is more about the question if we really want "simple" products as much as we say we do. His verdict is that we rather talk about simple products than use them. Arguing that if you would build products as simple as possible, you might very well go out of business. Marketing in their featuritis might for once be correct. His punchline tells all Yes, we want simplicity, but we dont want to give up any of those cool features. Simplicity is highly overrated.
I personally think those two pieces of writing are very well argued. Read them again when you have cooled down a bit. ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Spolsky listed (and you even quoted!) plenty of other things besides just "clean and spare design" regarding his take on the reasons behind the iPod's success (building an audience, evangelism, emotional appeal, aesthetics, fast response time, direct and instant user feedback, program models which correspond to the user model resulting in high usability, and putting the user in control). The iPod is not a simple device. It appea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of those can be a result of simplicity. Simplicity and ease of use have a lot of overlap so I don't think people are confused. Can you honestly say that the ipod isn't simpler from a users perspective than most other mp3 players?
Complexity is Preserved (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wait for it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How are Yahoo or MSN harder to use than Google?
If I type Yahoo.com I get a lot of stuff on my screen but to use the the search all I do is type the search and hit enter.
Try it. Go to your browser and type yahoo.com and then type Linux
The user keystrokes to do a simple search are the same for both.
Some may not like the extra features on the Yahoo page but I don't see how Google is any easier to use than Yahoo or MSN.
Keystroke for keystroke they are the same. Actually Yahoo.c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That explains why I always use google...
what was I thinking....
Actually, Google ain't so simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Swimming against the tide (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Swimming against the tide (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
It gets worse (Score:2)
I just picked up a Motorola L6 - the least weird cellphone I could find. Rather a nice little product, the UI is just annoying rather that absoulutely terribly like an LG.
The big problem -- the manual. OK, want to use the "Voice dialing" feature - fine, then YOU figure out which is the voice dialing button (hint - you can program it to be anything, but nobody's gonna tell you about it). RTFM my shiny me
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Um, there are some serious UI issues with this sentence. Could you please redesign it? Thank you.
Clearly it's better... (Score:4, Funny)
Or, in other words, "This one goes to 11!"
Re:Swimming against the tide (Score:4, Informative)
While, I do agree that Norman is on crack ... the on/off button on the rear view mirror has been around for a while (my "new" car, that I bought used this year, has one). The mirror has an optical sensor and dims the view when someone is tailgating with their huge SUV lights beaming straight into your car.
Older cars have the mechanical switch, which uses two mirrors but: 1) I hate those mechanical things, as I can always see outline in the other mirror. 2) The on/off one works automatically, so when someone isn't beaming a light show into the back of my car I can see everything perfectly. 3) Even when toggled the mechanical ones are often still too bright or too dim (as they basically just have two settings), the auto. one has a lot of range so it's only unusable when someone is right on your tail (and even then you can happily look right at it).
My only complaint is that it automatically comes on whenever the car is turned on (IMO it should remember the setting). But given that it's so much better than the toggle switch, I just leave it on now anyway ... and I might have turned it off and left it off, I can somewhat forgive them. I would seriously consider not buying another car if it didn't have one, it's that nice. However this is one of the simplest things in my car (esp. due to the one by default mode), and if I had to manually tweak a knob or something I would have killed it by now.
I guess I'm old before my time. (Score:2)
Perhaps the glorious Free Market will realize there is a niche where people appreciate austerity, simplicity and durability.
Or perhaps they think that their revenue is driven by the endless upgrade treadmill and we asutere people are not a profitable niche.
Re: (Score:2)
I am completely unimpressed by Blackberries or cellphones with cameras and MP3 players in them. Costs me extra to buy, more complex to use, and I never wanted that function!
I used to say that until I got one of those dojiggers for free once (to develop an application for it). Now I can't imagine going through life without being able to pop open Wikipedia whenever I'm stuck on a boring car trip/tiresomely long subway ride. Mobile SSH is pretty awesome, too.
But I don't have a utility belt. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and their revenue *IS* driven by an endless upgrade treadmill and austere people are not a profitable niche. How many simple, durable phones are they goin
Re: (Score:2)
MySpace seems to encourage bad UI design. Not sure why, it might have to do with the default page layout and the type of n00bs that it attracts. If you want to see a *well-designed* social networking interface, look at LiveJournal. 5 years older and *much* cleaner and less annoying to use.
-b.
Re:Swimming against the tide (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Swimming against the tide (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm on that list; 52 and very boomy. But I still prefer my Marantz 2325 [classic-audio.com] in the bedroom to my Denon surround system in the living room because the 2325 provides a full front panel with control of everything on a knob right there in my face instead of hidden "for my convenience." Is the Marantz more formidable to look at? You bet it is, there are thirty adjustable controls, three sets of jacks, a slew of status indicators, a dial readout and two meters on the panel. The Denon has two knobs and a display; even if you open the sub-bay, most of the functionality isn't directly accessible.
Likewise, my Kia Sportage is full of controls and conveniences, and I simply love that vehicle. I suspect that when that salesman does his due diligence and learns what the mirror button does, he'll be well rewarded. There are no "trivial" things in my sportage; everything has been useful, convenient, and a real relief from the dumbed-down controls of my previous vehicles.
Finally, the software I prefer is powerful, full of features, and doesn't hide them under layers and layers of menus, and furthermore, that's the design approach I take with software I write. The primary reason why is the countless times I've seen customers go "I didn't know that was even there!" with all kinds of software. As far as I am concerned, when an operation is selected, as many of the options as possible, preferably all of them, should be right there for your selection. I know it makes it a lot easier for me to use software, and I know it addresses those folks who wander through software instead of studying it (and those are few and far between.)
Google's got the right idea for its search clients. But then again, come in there without having been there for a while and try to find where to submit URLs as a content provider... that's pretty minimalist and obscured under a few layers of stuff, there's no particular hint on the home page. Reminds me of my Denon. Sounds great, and you can't argue that the volume control and source selection are right there, which is what most people use most. Can you EQ the room or select what kind of inputs a source has? Sure you can. Big time. Better not have arthritis, though... you've got some menu navigation chops to exercise, and like Google, it's not all that obvious. In fact, frankly, its a pain in the butt.
I'm "that guy" who will be more inclined to buy something if the controls are in my face. The more knobs, buttons, meters, displays, and UI elements it has that are connected directly to particular functionality, the happier I am. I don't want my bass control buried under layers of menus, and I don't want my software controls buried, either. So I dunno about that boomer argument. We grew up with complex interfaces. Someone took that idea away from us right about the time the programmable VCR came out, and ever since then, there's been a whole class of people who "can't run stuff." Coincidence? I think not. Just bad design, started by some clown who thought that minimal == better. It doesn't. It just == minimal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bring me your parent's remote control, the amount they paid for it, and a saw.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really... (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps the best compromise is a complex design with a simple UI...?
Re:Really... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true, though I agree with your sentiment. Complexity is a ubiquitous problem in software engineering, and it's fair to say that most techniques of software engineering exist for the purpose of reducing or managing complexity. But don't take my word for it, read back through a couple of decades of IEEE Transactio
Re:Really... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This example should resonate with the Slashdot demographic: would you prefer an oscilloscope that has 4 buttons and knobs or 40?
Would you prefer cat or vim as your text editor.
Would you prefer a mouse with 1 or 3 buttons? (Full disclosure: my mouse has 12)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Really... (Score:4, Funny)
Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I call bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
"We can't sell a barebones phone for more than $30, we gotta add SOMETHING to it???..."
Geez..
eeejit! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's never simple (Score:4, Insightful)
What a crackhead... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a crackhead... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen to that.
Regarding MSN; I guess somebody forgot to tell Mr. Norman about Microsoft's blatant ripoff [live.com] of Google. If Google is doing things so wrong, why is Microsoft copying their look and feel to the letter?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a theory on how it came about: Web designer opens google, "file"->"save page as", has the art department come up with some uglyness to make it slightly different, webdesigner changes the links, and calls it done.
What about the Vista shutdown interface, Joel? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Clocks and VCRs... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Design? (Score:2)
My DVD player remote has 83 buttons. I use about 10 of them.
Does one thing well? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For my landline, I still use a 2500 phone [bradley.edu] that's about 25 years old. It's a bit more advanced than in the picture since it has redial, hold, and flash buttons, but it's not complicated. However it *is* rugged (dropped it off a table a few times with no ill effects), sounds better than most "modern" phones, and is easy
My vote. (Score:2)
I vote for the second one.
Differing requirements: marketing vs. users (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But like you said, the user experience after the sale might not go so well if this toothbrush is too complicated (or worse, the money spent adding all those features is money that wasn't available to make the product high quality and/or
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go a step further and say that you could potentially even make an argument for simplicity if all you care about is the bottom line -- even if features drive sales.
Why? Because features add complexity, and complexity drives up costs in at least two ways:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The complexity sells argument doesnt seem to hold water. From my experience people are intimidated by all the silly buttons and features they are paying for but will never use.
Re:Marketing led requirements (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd try a different translation.
"Marketeers are a bit thick and they can't sell a product unless it has loads of bells and whistles to point to. Unable to be honest they fiddle surveys to say the public want more complexity, to give them something to do."
Most people I've ever met want simplier devices, less thought required, but still able to do everything they want. In short they want a servant that you tell "Jeeves, do that". Complexity isn't sexy - just work well is sexy.
yes clearly... (Score:2, Funny)
although to be fair there is something very "truthy" about what the are saying...
Stop taking bad drugs, please (Score:3, Insightful)
In what way are Yahoo or MSN easier to use? All a search engine needs is an input field where you enter your search phrase, and a button "search", which then presents a list of results. Everything else is just fancy bullshit. Anybody remembers how Altavista went from search engine to portal? Hardly anybody used it anymore shortly after they did that switch, because it starting sucking.
Re: (Score:2)
Consultants (Score:3, Funny)
The folks who make those inspiring posters [demotivators.com] put it best:
If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem
So... to summarize... (Score:4, Funny)
Complex>Simple
Yahoo>Google
Zune>iPod
The referenced articles>This post
IMHO: they're trying to make a big splash (Score:2)
As a software developer I don't want t
Consumers Want Features (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a professional photographer and I tend to use pro level cameras, but it happens that I was comped one of the Sonys with a kit lens. The camera itself was a big piece of crap (the lens was worse) but it does have some novel features that make it look good on paper c
Old (2004?) (Score:2)
I think it is from 2004, because it describe search.msn.com as it was before they made it simple.
KISS version of article summary (Score:2)
Complex stuff is sometimes too complicated.
Simple stuff is easy.
Draw your own conclusions.
simplicity, intuition. (Score:2)
Simplicity is good. I love my wall switches, up is on, down is off (unless it's one of the three ways, then it's just a toggle away from the opposite state). But we also have some apparent wall switches with a POT built in. Still simple, still nice, still easy to figure out how to use. Of course now you have to know a little more about lighting and bulbs to ensure in you energy savings you don't put in a generic fluorescent -- they won't dim (there are some made to do just that).
Now consider some of ou
Finally Apple's recent success is expained! (Score:2)
Wow.
Of Course Marketing Wins (Score:2)
I'm just as susceptible to gadgetry marketing as most people, but I still value simplicity in some things. Good old boring Fil
As usual, it is a matter of perception (Score:2)
I suspect the latter is the much more common type of user. Part of my job is designing user interfaces (though I am by no means an expert), and this
Simplicity is not dying, it's being killed off (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Simplicity is not dying, it's being killed off (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
When the handle breaks it's cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
When the handle falls off, I can call JC Whitney and order replacement handles and install them myself in 10 minutes.
Simple is good. Geezer indeed.
functionality vs. complexity (Score:2)
A well made consumer product will often follow
UI Design or Code Design? (Score:2)
Maybe I'm betraying the fact that I don't work on the interface side much, or maybe this guy is off target. My understanding of the phrase "as simple as possible and no simpler" in the context of software is that it is usually used in reference to the complexity of the code, not the user interface. Specifically I think of it in reference to making unit tests pass. You write a test
Re: (Score:2)
Google is a good counter-example (Score:2)
So the 'features sell' credo is a bit oversimplistic, it depends very much on the situation.
Cultural issue, not Technological (Score:2)
Of course when people pay a lot of money for something, they want it to appear complex. How else are they going to impress their neighbors? That doesn't necessarily mean they want it to *be* complex to use. By the same token, if they didn't buy it as a status symbol, they want it to be simple and reliable.
Anytime you mix ego with money, you're going to see this soft of disconnect between what people say they wan
Define Simplicity... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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...)
Re: (Score:2)
Far better to put those functions on a pod of buttons directly behind the steering wheel. It doesn't move when you turn the wheel, and you don't need "clockspring" wiring that breaks if you look at it wrong. Also, frontal airbags (airbombs?) have become required (or at least extremely common) in USA cars. If you have your hand in front of the steering wheel rather than on it, and the bags go off, you're li
I love "experts" (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it's a complex problem. Take said shutdown screen. Apparently there are now laptops that will first suspend to RAM, then transition to hibernate. On the surface that's nice and simple. But if you think of it, that means the laptop is using the hard disk - a delicate and sensitive component that doesn't like in the slightest being thrown into a car's seat while it's spinning. Now while it's stopped it can deal with that very well. This is the sort of the thing that ADDS complexity: With such a mechanism I now have to consider whether the computer is writing or going to write to disk now, and whether my handling of it is safe or not, while previously choosing the wrong option from the menu would only result in a few extra seconds of wasted time.
Simple or complex: is user an expert? (Score:2)
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.
Sounds like the mirror has a night mode on it, which you can turn off if you wish. (This keeps the cars behind you from being too bright in your mirror. Older mirrors usually had two surfaces that you could choose between by tilting the mirror. Fancy new mirrors can dim automatically).
Next...
Simple or complex depends on your user, and whether that
Mirror (Score:2)
My guess: Mirror heater / demister (Score:2)
I call shenanigans (Score:2)
I bring you the steering wheel [istockphoto.com] of the 1958 Edsel, which featured the Teletouch [wikipedia.org] shifting system, available starting in 1956. And we all know how well the Edsel did.
TOO much simplicity bad. But there's a reason we like hierarchical storage, menu systems, and information organization in general: the more options, the longer it takes to find what you're looking for.
These two writers desperately need to read "The Paradox Of Choice
Confusing (Score:2)
For example, nearly every A/V component ships with its own remote control loaded with a dizzying array of buttons. But I don't think anyone would say that's an optimal solution for consumers.
Mobile phones are also loaded with features but the phone companies are finding that very few people actually use many of the features.
Just because there are loads of complex products out on the market doesn't mean complexity is the hot new thing.
Beware, logical fallacy in play (Score:2)
"Not Simple" does not resolve to "10". It resolves to the range 2-10.
Nobody's advocating gratuitous complexity. This needs to be understand as pushback against people claiming that radical simplicity is what is desirable, even necessary, even if that means costing features. The pushback is pointing out that 3 or 4 can be a fine place for software to live, especially if you use the empirical evidence of what people actually
OMG IT FINALLY HAPPENED (Score:2)
Rear View Mirror (Score:3, Interesting)
Norman is confused, and has no idea what Google is (Score:4, Insightful)
page: search."
Ummm...that is because almost everything you're doing from one of
those portal pages can be called a search.
If you want a map at Google, just type the address or location into
the search bar. The top links will be maps of the location. After
all, you're searching for a map.
If you want to check something on Scholar, just type the info into the
search bar. The top links will most likely be answers from Scholar.
After all, you're searching for scholarly information.
You can also do things like basic math, currency conversions, get
dictionary definitions, find books, etc. all from the search box.
The other services you mention give you an array so you have to think
"what tool does what I want", whereas most of the time Google *just
does it*.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/features.html [google.com]
Google is what simplicity SHOULD be. Not just doing one thing, but
just doing what you want -- whatever you want.