“Complexity isn’t the enemy to a chessmaster—without it they’d be playing checkers. But there’s times when we look at the stuff we buy or experience and we swear that the design and engineering weren’t even playing checkers.
They were playing Whack-A-Mole.”
A memorable image from a great article on elegant design by Matthew May. (Via Good Experience)
posted by
ted
on Wednesday, May 27, 2009
·
0 comments
“Flow, as a mental state, is characterized by a distorted sense of time, a lack of self-consciousness, and complete engagement in the task at hand. For designers, it’s exactly the feeling we hope to promote in the people who use our sites.”
Jim Ramsey, in his excellent article in ALA 250
posted by
rick
on Tuesday, Dec 04, 2007
Nice article by Pete Whiting on managing system complexity. Lots of quotables, but my favorite: “You are more likely to be successful tailoring your system to the capabilities of your operators than tailoring the capabilities of your operators to your system.” Amen.
posted by
ted
on Sunday, May 27, 2007
“I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.”
Bjarne Stroustrup, via Brandon Beecroft
posted by
ted
on Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Josh Porter effectively summarizes the conflicting points of view about the trade-offs between simplicity and feature-richness in Simplicity: The Ultimate Sophistication . Then he tries (pretty effectively I think) to argue that “We want simple decisions [in this case simple purchase decisions] as much as simple products.” Packaging and UI that communicates whether it will meet user needs is just as important as ease-of-use. Relates to my earlier quandary about choosing between Remember the Milk and Ta-da List ; apparently I’m not alone in hating to make those trade-offs. (By the way… I ended up going back to Ta-da after all; ease of sharing won out over mobility.)
posted by
ted
on Monday, Apr 09, 2007
A few days ago one of my esteemed colleagues (I haven’t even checked to see which one yet) posted the good ol’ adage “Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.” While I know it can sometimes help us manage scope and deal with the fact that some things are just plain complicated, it can also result in software that sucks.
In my days at Microsoft, I had a program manager who would cite this maddening little phrase at least a couple of times a month. I would run a usability test showing users banging their head on the desk while trying to accomplish a core task, and he would come back with, “Yeah, it’s complicated, but it’s possible.” Great – but if users can’t find a feature, it doesn’t exist. If they can’t figure it out, it’s worse. If they tell their friends… you can forget Version 2.
So, while acknowledging that sometimes it’s difficult to boil complex things down into manageable chunks -
While conceding that there are multi-step processes that can’t be automated or condensed -
While freely admitting that it’s often better to put out the software NOW rather than waiting to perfect it -
While confessing that I have not always practiced what I am about to preach -
Let me unequivocally advocate that “Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be as simple as possible.”
Thanks – now descending my soapbox.
posted by
ted
on Thursday, Sep 14, 2006