The ACM is joining a growing number of publications touting simplicity as the next best thing. We get it, simplicity is the new black. And we’ve already signed up for the Simplicity 2006 conference.
If I’m being sarcastic, it’s because this article reads like a fluff piece from the back page of an airline magazine. You know, those articles that have no value, but help pass the time or pretend you’re busy to avoid conversation with the person next to you.
In the sake of simplicity the article says nothing about context, explains none of the tradeoffs and challanges, and talks in absolutes. Not to mention being self contradictory (see here), and not always well received (see here, and here).
But in spite of its obvious flaws, the article does raise good points that bear repeating. My favorites, with context added:
1) More features isn’t better, it’s worse.
Here’s a shocker. People care about what’s important to them, and what’s important for them is not necessarily more features, but the right combination of features. Forget more vs less features, focus on the right set of features. Including …
4) Style matters.
Style, fashion, sex appeal are features. If you don’t believe me, ask the people around you. They want, they pay for and they brag about these features. They’re not always the most important, but they do rank on the priority list.
5) Only features that provide a good user experience will be used.
Wrong. Like any absolute this one will lead you down the wrong path. Only features that get you what you want will be used. If it’s changing a flat tire on my car, damn the user experience, I’ll do it anyway. I’ll either struggle with the jack, or call AAA. Both of them have lousy user experience.
If I’m listening to my favorite music, the MP3 player with the better user experience wins. I’m just not going to put all that effort into something that takes the fun out of music, or is too complicated to operate while driving.
Simplicity is about features that matters. It’s deciding which features are critical and deserve the attention of a good user experience, and which features can tolerate less refinement.
6) Any feature that requires learning will only be adopted by a small fraction of users.
And your point is? Sometimes that few users make or break a product. Sometimes those few users come at the expense of users that want simpler/cheaper. Think context and what matters, before deciding what to cut off.
10) Less is difficult, that’s why less is more.
I’d say some of the time less is more difficult. Unfortunately, all too often “some of the time” has the most impact on the product/service, when the 20% of complexity takes over 80% of the user experience. You see, the Patero principle works both ways.
Here’s the deal. A long feature list has visibility, it’s easy to measure, it looks great in an Excel sheet. There’s measurable progress, there’s velocity, and most businesses thrives on measuring. That’s what the 20th century was all about.
Simplicity on the other hand, involves a lot of energy spent on editing out features. You spend the same amount of time delivering less features, measuring less visible progress. You deliver more value. But that value is measured after the fact, not when you’re in the board room doing the planning, or managing the team.
And that’s ok, because every business that is based on feature velocity, is creating growth opportunities for businesses based on user value.
Yip
Assaf