Continuous Learning

The Simplicity vs. Complexity debate rages on, because the topic strikes a nerve for many usability and design experts with the following question:

Does simplicity sell?

This question, having coming from a leading practitioner, Don Norman, hits a bit too close to home for comfort. Design experts have been preaching the value of simplicity, user friendliness, and elegance for ages. If it does not sell as well as simply adding features, are experts still adding value?

Reading through some of the responses it is clear that most people believe the simplicity definition offered by Don or Joel Spolsky either as incorrect or incomplete. Few people equate Simplicity as lack of features. Instead, many choose to elevate the meaning of simplicity to “making complex look simple”, or “better user experience”. Below are some of the points that I’ve picked up:

• Striving for simplicity is less important than adding features - Don
• Simplicity in the sense of lacking features is useless - Don, Joel Spolsky
• Simplicity means better user experience - Joshua Kauffman, Mark Hurst, Scott Berkun
• Simplicity is HARD and COMPLEX to achieve - Nick Bradbury, Luke Wroblewski, Michael Zuschlag
• Many offers tutorial on how to balance complexity with simplicity, John Maeda, Nick, Luke, and others

So - who is right?

I think many responses did not address Don’s assertion that simplicity does not sell, many instead are focused on providing their own definition of simplicity. That makes me wonder under what situation does simplicity sell and not. This article is an attempt to verify Don’s assertion as well as my pondering.

Definitions

First, as many have noted, simplicity is vague. You can define it to mean anything you want, and if we look from that perspective, many experts are right, because they all mean different things when they say simplicity. What it comes down to is that they all are arguing their own definitions and talk over each other.

However, if we define simplicity with a different meaning from Don’s original question, then we are probably not answering his question on whether simplicity sells. In Don’s addendum, he specifically clears up the point on whether he means “lack of feature” or “appearing lacking feature” with simplicity:

The answer is the latter: people are not willing to pay for a system that looks simpler because it looks less capable.

To that, talking about how simplicity is complex or better user experience does not address the point:

If your system is just as capable but it appears simpler (through great design and simplification), then people will choose the solution that appears more complex.

This claim is counter intuitive to all of the teachings on great designs, and counters all of the complaints we hear on the difficulty of using current-day technologies. And this is why we are unable to reconcile Don’s viewpoint with our understandings. While Don is offering an anecdotal example and his personal viewpoint, given his knowledge on the topic, we cannot dismiss him lightly on the claim, and we should attempt to understand under what situations his observation is valid.

Scenarios

In order to do so, we must appraise the scenarios.

First, we know that there are people complaining about technologies being difficult to use.

Second, we also know that more features lead to more sales.

Are both the same scenario? Are they talking about the same group of users? The same product? At the same stage of adoption lifecycle?

The first scenario arises from people who value simplicity over product features, for a couple of reasons:

1. The product is already very complex in order to learn and use effectively
2. The users just want to get something done quickly without having to invest the effort to learn the product

The second scenario arises from people who value features over simplicity for different set of reasons:

1. The product has is good, but is lacking some other essential features
2. These people need these features to do things and that affect their buying decisions

Technology Adoption Lifecycle

In terms of Technology Adoption Lifecycle, people in the first scenario are the Conservatives and Laggards, and people in the second scenario are Early Adopters and Pragmatists. Also, a product usually does very little in the beginning, and pick up more feature throughout the lifecycle, and can be considered complex once the product is mature.

And when we layout the lifecycle along with the demands for either features or simplicity, we can clearly see the relationships between the product and the users, and why they ask for features or simplicity.

In the beginning of the lifecycle, Early Adopters buy your things because they are new, so they mostly care about what your product can do, but does not care a lot about how much it can do. But in order for you to attract Pragmatists to cross the chasm, you need to add more features Pragmatists need. Pragmatists buy your product because they need to do things, and they need to do more. They can use your product, and they are willing to pay for it.

So you oblige and add more functionalities. More features mean more complexity. People would continue to appreciate more features, but at some point they would start to value some simplifications, although at this time simplicity is not the selling point yet.

As soon as your product starts to attract Conservatives, the value of simplicity would go up. They do not really need your product, but they buy it because others do. While they can derive value from your product, they will not utilize your product fully. Your product at this time would also have built up sufficient complexity to have a noticeable learning curve, and people will definitely ask for simplicity.

But one group wanting simplicity most is Laggards. They are not even your customers. They use what others buy, and they have no patience to learn anything. They might want to do one thing, but they want others to do it for them. They WILL definitely complain about complexity.

Conclusions

With this framework, we can see Don is correct that simplicity does not sell, under the situation that the product is still early in its lifecycle. At this time, people value features over simplicity. But as soon as the product becomes mature, customers will value simplicity more because your product has now become complex, and the new customers will not learn to use your product effectively.

So if you want to make business sense, then in the beginning you need to focus on adding more features over simplicity. And after you add enough features, you need to make sure to simplify your product. But pay no attention to the laggards, because it DOES NOT pay.

Laggards DO NOT even buy your products. These are the stereotypical grandpas and grandmas trying to use computers to send emails. I always get a kick out of it when people say “It needs to be so simple that your grandpa can use it”. First, if it is so simple that they can use it, it just won’t do much. But most importantly is that even if it can be that simple, these grandpas still won’t use it - they are really not the customers of technologies.

Let me close out with an example. Apple is well known for their prowess in simplicity designs, and they are considered wildly successful today with category killers such as iPod and iTunes. But back in the 90’s, they are not so admired and often receive mixed reviews.

On one hand, people love Macs because it is incredibly simple.

On the other hand, few people buy Macs, because you can do more with PC. While Mac lovers would argue you can do just as much on a Mac as on a PC, but in most purchasers’ mind, you can do more with a PC than with a Mac, not to mention the price.

Remember, Apple was only able to corner 5% of the personal computer market, even as PC market is still growing by leaps and bounds before 2000.

from Jeremy Reimer

Simplicity just does not pay too early.