Is Simplicity Overrated?

Simplicity Is Highly Overrated

Why such expensive toasters? Why all the buttons and controls on steering wheels and rear-view mirrors? Because they appear to add features that people want to have. They make a difference at the time of sale, which is when it matters most.

Why is this? Why do we deliberately build things that confuse the people who use them?

Answer: Because the people want the features. Because simplicity is a myth whose time has past, if it ever existed.

Make it simple and people won’t buy. Given a choice, they will take the item that does more. Features win over simplicity, even when people realize that it is accompanied by more complexity. You do it too, I bet. 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.

* * *

Don Norman is wrong.

Mr. Norman makes the case that consumers prefer features and choose them over products with fewer features. Added features is good marketing. But is it a better product?

Consider the shovel. It is essentially a blade and a handle. You can have various blades such as a pointed blade, a flat blade, or a broad blade for shoveling snow. The handle can be long or short. It can be made from fiberglass, wood, steel, or some space age polymer. But ultimately, it is a shovel. It will not be enhanced with a GPS navigation system or having Bluetooth capability. It is a goddamn shovel. Its worth is judged ultimately by how well it removes dirt or snow and by how long it will last. The form of the shovel follows its function. Adding more to it is just stupid.

There are ways we can enhance the shovel, but they have nothing to do with function. They have to do with aesthetics. Some punk rocker might want a purple and pink shovel. Someone else might want a dragon emblem on the handle. In the aesthetic realm, there is room for endless variation. Regardless of these flourishes, the function of the shovel is not impeded. Now, back to Don Norman's argument.

A feature of a product either pertains to its function or to its aesthetics. Aesthetics is neutral. But if it concerns function, the added feature must enhance the function. If not, it is extraneous and should be eliminated. Evolution follows this dictum as it eliminates things like legs from snakes. If you don't need it, you don't need it. Get rid of it.

In the realm of software which Norman is addressing specifically, the argument becomes a bit more complicated as software can be modified for specific applications. People want features because they can imagine possible scenarios where that feature might be useful. But these should not be called "features" so much as "options." Car makers learned this a long time ago. Some car buyers want the Sirius satellite radio in their ride. Others like me, don't want Sirius. What Norman is arguing is that putting a winch on a Buick is good marketing. No, it isn't.

People always want to modify and personalize their products because their needs are unique. A shovel can be simple because it performs a basic function. Other things like cars and software need a certain flexibility to fit unique consumer needs. But simplicity still reigns. The needs of a 30-year-old working man are going to be quite different from the needs of a 60-year-old life insurance salesman. This is why GM makes both Chevy Silverado pick ups and Cadillacs. Trying to put both of these products together doesn't make much sense, but I have seen some strange combinations like the Lincoln pick up truck.



The one company that has made simplicity a cornerstone is Apple. Apple makes minimalist inspired products. Generally, they work with few flaws, and they are very elegant in their aesthetics. But Apple does not always get it right such as with their round mouse above. The thing looks beautiful, but users found it very difficult to use. It didn't fit their hands well and became aggravating as it would spin. As aesthetically appealing as it was, it was not fulfilling its function. Recently, Apple made an iPod shuffle without buttons. It has now returned to buttons. The new one looks almost identical to the old one. That product cannot be improved anymore except with increases in storage and battery life. It is perfect.

There are a lot of products like that. Shovels are one. Bicycles are another. The basic geometry of a bicycle has remained the same for a century. Some innovative designer tries wacky new designs, but no one buys those crazy geometry bikes. Those bikes are gimmicks. Likewise, most of the features added to products today are gimmicks. They sell a bit of product in the short term, but they become an embarrassment in the long term. Simplicity endures.

In design, form must follow function. This rule cannot be broken. You can't have a shovel without a handle or a blade. A compass and an alarm clock in the handle might be nifty, but it is stupid and extraneous. Having your name etched in the handle might be useful. But the rule is to keep what is necessary and eliminate what is unnecessary. That is the rule. This is the essence of simplicity. You avoid both the extremes of deficiency and excess. Norman's argument is for excess, and he justifies it because excess sells. Well, simplicity sells, too. But the enduring products are those that have performed well. Frivolous consumers might want frivolous products, but these people are idiots. Trim their credit card limits, and they become very sensible and want enduring value.

Posted in: