I noticed that these comments by Don Norman are generating quite a bit of chatter, particularly this exchange:
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.
People are seizing upon the “simplicity is a myth whose time has past” part of the quote. Here is where I feel that ‘simplicity’ is not well defined. Is it ‘simplicity’ in that it something is easy to use? Or is it ‘simplicity’ in that it doesn’t have a huge number of functions and options to fret over? I would argue that most people are looking for the former. Perhaps this reflects the popularity of the iPod?
In a well designed product, regardless of how complex it is, it should be easy to use (and consistent in it’s use for that matter). This reminds me of Guy Kawasaki’s discussion of ‘deep products’ in his book, Rules For Revolutionaries.
I also fully acknowledge the ‘gadget-ism’ aspect of the consumer experience. I also believe that this leads to an ultimately empty (or at least disappointing) product experience if the buyer ever cares to re-evaluate their purchase. Yes, people will go out and spend $2000USD on a digital SLR that they ultimately use as if it were a $200USD point and shoot camera — ‘but it has more pixels and more twirly knobs!’. The same with sports cars, SUVs, coffee makers, high tech clothing and any number of other things. Go ahead, spend $1000USD on a technical jacket that could take you to the top of Mt. Everest, despite the fact that it will see nothing more challenging than walking around the block to Starbucks. What is really needed is a means to stay warm and dry. What is really desired is to align with the latest trends regardless the practicality or cost.
This same effect can be seen in software as well. I know of a large number of people who rushed out and bought the full version of Photoshop at around $600USD and use a handful of features that they could have gotten for free with software like Picasa or Gimp. Ditto for folks who ‘gotta have’ the latest version of Office because of ‘all the new features’ — features that will never be used by a buyer who rarely ventures any further into the product than perhaps using a table to format some text.
In the end, well designed, easy to use products are going to win out — if you define ‘win’ as having a long and useful life. Overly complex, feature rich products will tend to lose favor because of the frustration with all of the choices (or a mere acknowledgment that they were purchased for the wrong reasons). Ask yourself if Don Norman’s comments are focused on consumerism or usability — methinks more of the former and less of the latter.
technorati tags: usability, simplicity, ideas, consumerism
I wholeheartedly agree.