Other Software > Developer's Corner

Web Debate: Give Us Simplicity So We Can Ignore You

(1/4) > >>

mouser:
Nice summary of (and links to) some recent contrarian debates about simplicity in user interface design by Don Norman.

It’s cruel, really – companies are told over and over that “we want simple CMS.”  Yet, when this is built, no one buys it because it doesn’t have enough features.  Not only do they not buy it, they actively disdain it and are perhaps even a little insulted by its arrogance in thinking something that simple could handle their sophisticated needs.  (Even if it could.)

As a bonus to all this, Norman got into a streetfight with the guys over at 37signals about this.  They, of course, believe in ruthlessly stripping away features.  They took exception, and Norman proceeds to eviscerate them (rightly or wrongly)..

--- End quote ---


http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/7131

steeladept:
It seems to me that the happy medium here would be to provide all the features of a full featureset, but make them ALL able to be turned on or off (maybe only at installation, but still). 

Armando:
It seems to me that the happy medium here would be to provide all the features of a full featureset, but make them ALL able to be turned on or off (maybe only at installation, but still). 
-steeladept (October 10, 2010, 01:26 PM)
--- End quote ---

I completely agree. Plus Advanced /Simple modes, or something like that. But then, the simple mode must be slick and working for most situations, otherwise it doesn't work and advanced/intermediary becomes the de facto modes. This happens in many applications where "simple mode" becomes "stupid mode".

apankrat:
Heh, this hits right at home. I've been denied a listing for my program on one of the download sites, because it did not have "enough features".

On Windows people actually do expect complex UI. If it's simple, they feel cheated. Likewise the website cannot be clean, it must have at least two feature lists, preferably a dozen items long, set in 7px font with half of words in bold and one third - in italic. That is obviously a true sign of the program that has so much to offer it is just bursting on the seams... That's the state of the affairs that leads to very specific if unfortunate expectations.

Keeping it simple is a major uphill battle. Ideal situation is where 37 signals are - they have the momentum, people come to them for the simplicity because they know that it actually works. That last part is what takes an effort - trying to convince average users that "less is more" and that they don't really need to 100s of configuration options to get the job done. Windows users that is, of course. On the Mac the situation is very different.

Armando:
Keeping it simple is a major uphill battle.
-apankrat (October 18, 2010, 01:19 PM)
--- End quote ---

Agreed, and for almost everything (in life...). Trying to keep things as simple as possible AND both functional and relatively flexible is the hardest thing.

That said, for software I usually don't mind "large" amount of features/parameters. If it's well implemented and "that complexity" can be managed with "relative simplicity". Of course this needs to be proportional to the results obtained with the software. Sometimes it's not...

So in the end I'm looking at the feature list.... not so much at the amount of features, but if the features I need are there, well implemented and easy to use. Sometimes I'll want many things integrated in one package, other times I won't mind splitting the features into several little software if those can play well together -- however, this is often a problem and it adds even more complexity than using only one more complex software.


Anyway, I guess I'm just stating the obvious...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page