Simplicity Is Highly Overrated

Hmmm...When it comes to simplicity in design, I may be an outlier, but just a few of my daily struggles...<p>- I have to subtract 23 minutes (or add 37 minutes depending on daylight savings time) from the clock in my car because I lost the manual. What ever happened to a dial with 2 hands?<p>- I have to stand beside the microwave and open the door when the popcorn stops popping because I have no idea how to get good popcorn any other way.<p>- I never put anything in the dishwasher because I have no idea whether it's clean or dirty. How hard would it be to put a large green/yellow/red light on the front panel? (I am not the main user.)<p>- Why does almost every web page or Windows screen have buttons that do totally different functions right next to each other in the same color? (Yesterday, I meant to click on my only unread email and accidently sorted by Subject Name instead. It took me 5 minutes to realize what I had done.<p>- I gave up on our 4 TV remotes (124 total buttons) long ago. If it's on Channel 6, I'll watch it without sound.<p>- What do those other 2 buttons on the garage door opener do? I hit them so often, some days I wonder if I'll hear dogs barking.<p>- Need ice or water from the refrigerator door? Make sure you're in the right "mode" first. Why not just have 2 openings?<p>- Cell phone is ringing. Where is it?!?!? Why can't I just answer the land line? It's always in the same place.<p>- Stereo in living room is unplugged until we need it. I don't know how to stop the constant light show on the front panel.<p>Just when was it that things got so complicated that they created more problems than they solved?

The author ignores a key component of the problem - "complex" interfaces make it easy to accomplish your goals.<p>From the Zen of Python:<p><pre><code> Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Flat is better than nested. </code></pre> Applying these three principles to user interfaces, the best user interfaces present lots of features at once, with each button (or small section) of the interface performing a specific, orthogonal task. Indeed, this is how consumer electronics are designed. My microwave allows me to select any mode I want, and manipulate the screen with a keypad in a separate rounded rectangle. The stereo, AC, wipers and headlight controls all manipulate unique parts of my car. My washing machine has a different rectangular selection pad for each "feature" of the wash - temperature? color? size? presoak?.<p>Flattening an interface helps the learning curve. If you need to set the time on your microwave, bet on the "time" button. On the other hand, I <i>still</i> need to ask my girlfriend how to set her iPod to "shuffle," or shut it off, or reset it when it freezes.

I just disagree with this. I think complexity is laziness on the part of the designer, the marketing team and the management team that probably demands their products appear complex.<p>For instance, the washing machine that needs two buttons but has 20. Two buttons on a washing machine, if designed well, is a great marketing opportunity. BUT you would have to design it with a way to SHOW the user all of the things that the machine is actually doing, like how the prius shows you what it's doing. Give it a sleek, standout design, and you've got a high-end, high-dollar washing machine.<p>Thing is, that means someone has to step outside the box and do something different than their competitors. Slapping lots of 'features' on a machine is cheap and gives the sales guys lots of fodder for B.S., no extra training required.<p>Look at Apple's products, look at the Toyota Prius. Complex machines that simplify the tasks they do. And they're selling very well.<p>Ultimately, design and marketing have to make simple mean more, not less, to middle America. And someday, probably soon, when every washing machine has 20 knobs and I need to push 10 buttons to toast a piece of bread, simplicity will be the new selling point.

I agree with the author, but there is one point he seems to have overlooked; brand. If you create a brand identity consisting of easy to use and, actually, useful products. Then this issue becomes <i>your</i> selling point. It's all about perception and designing your products for something as fluid as human perception is like trying to wrestle with water. Instead, if you hire just the right PR then you can put that water into a nice, little container.<p>However, consumer products aside there are some cases where a complex, but not complicated, solution is better than the simple solution. For example, city planners have this eternal tendency to build flyovers whenever and wherever they can, but the flyovers themselves can't handle the increasing loads after a certain period of time. So, then what?<p>A more complex, but uncomplicated solution would be to make the traffic lights respond dynamically at a city wide scale with traffic. If you can figure out the volume of cars on a given stretch of road vs. other roads you can then use a routing algorithm to predict the best timing and path to guide the cars. It's more complex than the flyover, but it's cheaper and the leftover money can be then put into making better mass transportation in order to cut down car growth.<p>Further, you can figure out the volume of traffic by using accelerometers embedded in the road. Any vibration propagating through a solid medium has certain characteristics, which can be accurately predicted by studying solid acoustics. Hence, if you have an array of sensors (they are cheap) you can track the vibrations down to their respective sources. In this scenario accuracy is not an issue, a roundabout number should be good enough.<p>Powering the sensors isn't much of an issue either and we can put wire them to micro-controllers that crunch some of the data and sends it higher up the chain.<p>So, at the end we have an entire city that behaves and responds like an organism to the traffic flowing in its veins. It will be just beautiful.<p>The irony is that its inherent complexity ensures that people won't buy it. After all, who would want to trust solid math?

I think before the advent of personal computing, a bit of extra complexity was ok. Life was pretty simple. You had a car, a stereo, a tv with a button for each channel, a stove/oven, and a calculator. You actually had room in your mind and time in your weekend to read the manual and figure out your new VCR. It was fun!<p>Making complex things was actually expensive to do, so a microwave with lots of functions cost more than one with a single button that said "heat up my food". This made it a bit of a status symbol. It was also the start of everything becoming digital, so it was cool for everything to have lots of buttons and a fancy readout.<p>Now we have several TVs, all with several boxes, incorporating our audio system, and connected to several services. We have smartphones, computers, tablets, printers and routers. Then there's all the software on and off the web to figure out, configure, and get working together. And you have to deal with all that at work, too. It's tough just to stay afloat.<p>So, the last thing you want is a digital toaster. They can make it look as complex as they want, but it won't make it look any more expensive. Today something looks expensive if it is simple, heavy, and looks like it was handcrafted by a German man. People still lapse into 1980s thinking and make the association that complicated means better, but that will wear off.<p>I'm not saying that extra features aren't sometimes important, but features are so easy to add to things today. You just have to type a few lines of code. Making someting look complex is easy and inexpensive. Making something complex look simple takes much for time, effort, money, and talent. Increasingly, people will pay for that.

This is an old article.When reading this article i thought the author was right till i saw this article by zedshaw. zedshaw's is very fun to read yet highly informative.!<p><a href="http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/fortune_favors_big_turds.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/fortune_favors_big_turds.html</a>

I think this may have something to do with conspicuous consumption:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption</a><p>Your new toaster might have too many buttons and displays for you to use effectively, but it will surely impress the heck out of the next visitor. In fact, it's arguable that conspicuous consumption is the _only_ reason why you'd buy a $250 toaster with a dozen buttons instead of of a $20 toaster with a knob.

I disagree to a point, I think you need to appreciate that the term simple is not at all simple in itself and is totally relative to the observer.<p>For example, my parents bought all the gadgets and gizmos a kid could ever want, and I though growing up with them and pressing and getting myself out of awkward situations (like trying to figure out what "change language" would be in mandarin after changing the languate on the DVD player just to see what would happen) I would consider something like a Sky box, a pre-amp or a DVD player simple no matter what the interface (tactile and digital) looked like a simple tool to use.<p>My parents, who bought all these things and used them a little are consistently lost whenever they have to replace their digital radio, or DVD player. All the functions are the same, but the experience is different, and for them that means everything is different and unknown. Their understanding of simple is from way before we even had our fist microwave.<p>Simplicity is not a myth, it's just not a constant. This is pretty much addressed, but not argued, explicitly in the article: the measure if simple you use for your product must be appropriate to your target demographic and not the definition of the engineering team or a think-tank.<p>It is possible for simple to not be simple.

&#62; Haven’t you ever compared two products side by side, comparing the features of each, preferring the one that did more? Why shame on you, you are behaving, well, behaving like a normal person.<p>i'ma geek I like complex programmable stuff. But this is still BS. I buy the $19.99 toaster oven cause after a year or two they're all nasty inside and It's nice to chuck it an buy new one. $20/yr is worth it to have toasty things. $250 is not.<p>If I made $200k I'd proly buy the $250 toaster and never use it cause I ate out all the time.<p>I recently was absolutely shocked shopping for vacuums. they went from $60 to over $500. WTF! The $200+ ones were filled with retarded, do nothing "features". I went to thrift store and bought a $30 one.<p>My points are 2<p>1) purchasing decisions have many more factors than simplity or complex.<p>2) the biggest factor is manipulating the buyers psychology, simple/complex is a symptom of that. Apple has made it a cool/hip lifestyle choice to own "sealed", low-featured, slick and overpriced electronics. Complex == status for Koreans. Do nothing technical sounding features == I don't know what? but something to convince people to pay $500 for $200 vacuum. Monster Cables.

Uggh. I have a microwave that must be designed by the Koreans in this article.<p>If I want to heat something up for thirty seconds, I have to wade through four menus and sub-menus:<p>Express cook (ha ha)-&#62; 30 seconds-&#62; OK-&#62; Start<p>People who designed consumer microwaves have obviously never used one. I have NEVER cooked anything in the microwave that should have involved more than a single button press. If the cooking is going to take fewer than 30 seconds, I'm not going to need a timer; it's not like I'm going to go walk the dog with the rest of my time.<p>I never want to type in an amount of time and then have the microwave not begin cooking until I hit a Start button. I always want full power. I don't want to adjust the fan speed. Nobody has tried to cook actual meals in the microwave since 1985 so I don't need a chicken-pot-pie setting. I don't want the keys to beep loudly when I press them and I don't want the microwave to beep loudly when it's done because I don't want the kids to wake up.<p>I'd pay more for the lack of "features."

"And the truth is, simplicity does not sell".<p>BS.<p>Some people prefer simplicity, some prefer complexity. I'm not sure where the median is, it might be on either side. Preference can be a function of many things, including culture.<p>You can make money from either. Just know your customer.

The whole article seems to be more of a style argument then a complexity argument. It presents the false dichotomy that things that are simple to operate, must have less controls. There is no reason why you can't have all the controls <i>and</i> a button that does everything very simply. First page of the manual should say, use the "auto" button, if that doesn't work for you, keep reading.<p>We've also been trained to want a manual override switch. When I think of simplicity in UI, I think of Apple. I remember when Apple stopped putting eject buttons on their Mac disk drives. A also remember constantly having to find a paper clip when the machine refused to eject the disc(often).<p>Secondly, there are always special cases where you need some extra control. It's hard to believe that the manufacturers software has accounted for everything. When I find a "bug" it's very frustrating to not be able to manually override the behavior.<p>Another case for complexity is if some sensor breaks, the appliance becomes useless. I remember shopping for a car in the early 90s (with my parents), and wanting manual windows because everyone I knew with electric windows had broken motors with windows that didn't work anymore. The situation is drastically improved now, but then, manual ruled. Sooner or later your "automatic" appliance won't work the way it did when it was first purchased. Having manual controls should extend the life of the appliance.

So he has a marketing message: "we purchase on features", and we "equate apparent [...] complexity with power'. His solution is spot on: give the appearance of power (for purchase), but make it actually simple-to-use (for use.)<p>He also mentions users' "favorite features" (it's well known that we don't like having to change our behaviour, even for the better); and "“critical” features" (sometimes they aren't actually necessary; and sometimes, as Joel says, "everyone uses a different 20%" - Linus has also said this). An example of the latter, and as people have said here, is when really do need to customize a default behaviour.<p>Love Joel's linked comment on bootstrapping: <i>So you sell "simple" as if it were this wonderful thing, when, coincidentally, it's the only thing you have the resources to produce.</i> <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/12/09.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/12/09.html</a>

I suppose a counter-argument to this would be... anything Apple makes? Their non-computer products generally have fewer buttons on them than comparable phones/mp3 players.<p>The MiFi that was just being raved about earlier today also only has an on/off button.<p>Perhaps those are exceptions, rather than the rule. What makes those exceptional, though?

I think it is possible to have a complicated product that is made easy to use and has extra features that get 'exposed' over time for your power users to find, preferably <i>just</i> when they need them the first time.<p>Complexity per-se has nothing to do with it, (over) complex problems fail just as fast as overly simplified products.<p>The trick is to match what your application is offering to the user in such a way that the context determines what face the application puts on it's capabilities.<p>Mobile phones fail spectacularly in this respect, often used features are stacked 6 down in unnavigable menu trees, never used (but commercially interesting stuff for the carriers) sits near the top.<p>There are many examples like that.<p>But there are (fortunately) also examples to the contrary.

I think people want products that are simple to use, not just simple. There's a big difference.<p>There are many products that have a lot of features, but employ concepts like progressive disclosure to make them easier for a wide range of people to use.

Back when a food company was coming out with cake mixes, it discovered that cooks felt bad about just adding water &#38; stirring. They redid the recipe so that it was necessary to add an egg, and everyone was happier.

Reminds me of the good ol' Larry Wall quote "Easy things should be easy, and hard things should be possible."

I'm going to argue about something else: clarity. As a consumer I look objects whose use is clear to me, and prefer to buy from brands with reputations for quality.<p>My Capresso kettle has only one button. I fill it to two cups, the minimum, boil the water and make my tea. Now, what if I wanted green tea instead of black? They say that green tea ought to be brewed at 200°F for best taste. Do I have <i>less</i> control because it has one button? No, I have the same amount of control as before: I just have less automation. So to get my ~200°F I pour the water into my mug, wait 30-60 seconds and add my tea bag.<p>But really, do features sell to all consumers equally well, or just to the inattentive or uneducated?<p>My dishwasher has only 8 settings, 4 of which are the type of wash. Nothing is unclear in the design. If I've got a light load I press "Light". If I don't want it to do a heated dry I press "Heated Dry" to turn it off. The design and intended use of the dishwasher is <i>clear</i>.<p>I'll be the first to admit that I like a little too much automation. But really, is the $250 toaster worth it? I don't find myself needing the features, and I would not buy such a thing unless tricked into it.

I think the author makes a valid point, but it's important not to confuse feature-rich and complex. A customer's purchase decision may be driven by the abundance of features, but the review they post later that week will be driven by the experience using your product.<p>Highlight features to sell, but keep those features well-organized and intuitive to create a positive experience after the sale.

I am a big fan of simplicity, but I recently realized that I was going too far. It is hard to make money by just concentrating on simplicity. Most cash-cows are really complex beasts. See Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Oracle. If the emphasis of your product is simplicity, chances are you have to compete with free software. Joel had a presentation on this: there are dozens of simple bug trackers out there, lots of them are free, but still only a few companies make big money in the field, and their products are not the simplest ones. I still value simplicity, it is just risky if that is the main value proposition of a product.<p>Also there is simplicity on the user's side and there is simplicity on the engineering side. Sometimes it implies incredibly complex and hard engineering work to enable simplicity on the user's side. Although UX is the king, I've realized that sometimes you have to make compromises even in UX to keep the underlying technology not extremely complex.

I certainly agree with article that complex looking appliances subconsciously make us think that the said appliance is more powerful and has more features. I also agree that this would be a selling point to many people. OTH I also know many people (i would say less technical inclined people), that see a complex looking appliance and think "omg i will never figure out how to use that. It probably does all sorts of advanced stuff, but all I want do is make toast".<p>Now, whether you can convince these people that they also should pay more for their simple looking appliance, or even convince them that the simple looking one can actually do all that 'advanced stuff' as well, is another question. I would guess it depends on how sleek and high-quality you manage to make it look. There is a thin line between "looks simple because it probably is very cheap and basic" and "looks simple but also seems to be high quality and professional"

Apple, Apple, Apple.<p>They went from being a computer company struggling to survive to one of the world's largest and most profitable consumer electronics companies based on an obsession with simplicity and elegance.<p>Simplicity is hard, but get it right and the world will beat a path to your door.

A good way to think about it is via Occam's Razor: Which states that "Multiplicity should not be posited without necessity"<p>Thus the pioneering products in any new segment are simple, however as time passes new "necessities" emerge, which means the product "must" be modified to fit those needs. This also assumes a well regulated market with rational buyers (no fanboi's).<p>Note that this does not means that Simplicity should always be favored or The simplest solution is usually the correct answer, even if there is a single legitimate need which a simple solution cannot address, then the solution must be made complex to address that need effectively.<p>Evolution of Personal Computer or any non monopoly product is a good example.

I would argue that it is a good thing for people to be able to take apart and fiddle with the things they buy. The ability to do this had diminished as goods have become increasingly complicated and automated.<p>The real solution is to offer simple as a feature. Have a default mode which makes everything really easy, and a "complicated" mode which allows people to change everything.<p>By breaking things up into two usability modes, most people get the benefits of simplicity, while the ones that care get the benefit of control.

Simple: A product which will be understood in the long term.<p>Try to use a very simple product and then switch to a complex one, you'll hate the complex one.<p>Complex: A product which will attract the buyer on the paper. When you compare features it'll be always on the top.<p>So if there is a product with WOM involved simple will won in the long term otherwise end user will choose features over simplicity as they don't know whether it's stupidly simple of awesomely simple.

The problem with complexity as a feature is that it becomes a positive feedback loop. Marketers will always try to one-up the competition and this will ultimately lead to a backlash against complexity. edit: I'm too tired to make a strong case for why this will happen, however as a user who recently switched to Win7, I can assure you it will.

Augh. A colleague had a Civic type-R (2008 model). Man, this dashboard was unfathomable. I risked my life driving this and trying to switch radio station! Not only this dashboard has more buttons than a spaceship console, but most buttons carry different modal functions at different times! Atrocious and unusable.

If we were to consider any coffee shop chain - the complexity in some of the coffee that is displayed is extremely apparent.<p>We can go from £1.50 for an espresso all the way up to £3.60 for something that may resemble a coffee but probably only costs a few pence more to produce!

This is mainly a cultural difference between East and West.<p>I would say that Western people tend to define a successful product as something that's simple, functional, and easy to use.<p>In other cultures, the feature list defines whether a product is successful. The more the better.

"The complex expensive toaster? I bet it sells well."<p>His whole argument basically comes down to this comment. Instead of guessing whether complexity sells well, he should continue his research and find out for sure.

Functionality&#62;Simplicity but they aren't entirely opposed.

This seems to be another case of people not knowing what their needs are.

And nobody's buying iPads.