September 7th, 2009

The Difference Between Being Simple and Being Simplistic

Welcome to Gauravonomics Blog! Subscribe to my feed now and you'll never miss a single post!

There’s a difference between being simple and being simplistic, and I’m surprised how many smart people don’t see it.

If I am designing an user interface for a community website, I would want it to be simple and intuitive, even minimalistic. A simple user interface makes the website accessible to the user, pulls her into the community, without overwhelming her with unnecessary details.

However, the same community website might have some power users, including moderators and admins. If I haven’t thought through the full range of functionality these power users need, I would end up designing a simplistic workflow, that will prevent them from performing their role in a simple manner, and eventually drive them away from the community.

Here’s my point: end users, power users and designers occupy different points on the simplicity-complexity continuum. The interface for end users needs to be as simple as possible. The workflow for power users needs to be both simple and comprehensive. The thought process for the designer needs to be anything but simplistic.

I have found it useful to start by identifying one core idea, and then adding layers to it. I am most happy with my thinking when I have been able to identify one core idea and added at least three layers to it. This approach is fundamentally different from a simplistic ten-point checklist.

I have also found it useful to start by identifying who I am talking to. When I am speaking to students, in my university class, I use a lot of simple screenshots and almost no complicated frameworks. When I am speaking to practitioners, in conferences and client meetings, I start with simple screenshots and tie them together with a comprehensive, and sometimes complicated, framework.

I have also realized that I have little patience with people who are reluctant to think through complicated problems, and use simplicity as an excuse for operating at the surface. If you are a client, or a co-worker, and the only thing you can come up with in a discussion is “it’s too complicated for me”, we should probably not be working together.

So, again, being simple is different from being simplistic, which means that comprehensive, even complicated, design thinking is often essential for enabling simple user experiences.

What do you think?

Posted via email from gauravonomics’s posterous

If you liked this post, you should check out some other posts like this:

September 7th, 2009 | Posted in Default | Tagged with , , , |

  • "End users, power users and designers occupy different points on the simplicity-complexity continuum" - really nicely put. As I work more with end-users and non-experts my goal is to express complex ideas simply, to make them accessible without losing value, which is quite difficult. So a phrase like the one above, which succinctly and clearly encapsulates a larger idea, really appeals to me.
  • This is a debate that I am going through too. I think that with the software that we are building, we must consider adding the features only if it doesn’t add to the complexity. We want the software not to be afflicted with “featuritis”

    But, as you point out, users occupy different positions on the simplicity-complexity continuum.

    But I'll prefer simplicity of use over complexity of use. Technology's role is to make it simple and keep the complex part in the background. Telephones, Cars, Mobiles are simple to use and there's a lot of complexity inside that we don't need to understand.
  • @Ranjan: Exactly. The user interface needs to be simple, but the design process often needs to be comprehensive, even complicated, in order to enable that simplicity.
blog comments powered by Disqus