Complicating simplicity - Signal vs. Noise (by 37signals)

Complicating simplicity Matt 31 Aug 2006

53 comments Latest by Roy Jacobsen

Gah! Trying to read about the “Simplicity: The Art of Complexity” (er, what?) conference. But the description at the conference site is the exact opposite of simple, clear writing:

An investigation of the essence of simplicity must necessarily get involved with the psychology of human-machine interaction.Why do we display such a strong proclivity to regarding technology as an externally imposed authority, to condemning or venerating it?…If we merely equate simplicity with simplification and reduction, simply let the technology become “invisible”, we not only manifest our inability to even recognize the type and extent of the technological deployment, but we also relinquish the ability to perceive its consequences and side effects. In doing so, we cheat ourselves out of not only our capacity for self-determination but also the possibility of fully utilizing technology’s capabilities.

And that’s just a small excerpt. Other words used on that page to talk about simplicity: inundations, technophobic, realtime-access, polyvalencies, global knowledge networks, externally imposed authority, dispassionate, technological competence, ambient inspiration, technological deployment, framework conditions, free zones, portals, alternative models, and artistic interventions.

I’ve got an idea where the intervention should start.

If you’re going to talk about simplicity, why not do it with words that are actually simple?

53 comments so far (Jump to latest)

Andrew 31 Aug 06

Love the last line of that conference summary: “Don�t be afraid, upgrade to simplicity!”

Right! First insert the CD-ROM, then mount the disk image, then click the File>Install… option, and choose the appropriate simplicity driver.

If you don’t know your driver, simply run the SIMPL.exe program with the -ez switch. (You’ll need administrative access for this step.) Once the driver is installed, reboot while tapping the Ctrl+Shift+5 key combination three times per second. This forces your computer into “4DUMMIES” mode, which will allow you to bypass virus protection that can interfere with simplicity.

You’re almost done upgrading to simplicity!

Tom 31 Aug 06

With such long words, I’d expect to be paying over $1000 for this conference. Suprisingly, its only about $120.

Jeremy 31 Aug 06

Reading the ARS Electronica prose reminds me I have a stack of embarrassing art school papers cluttered with the same kind of dense prose. I always found it hard to get art projects done in those classes, whereas working in the painting studios and darkroom was full or prolific work and play.

Btw, I like that you uncomplicated the post’s original title, “Simplicity is the art of complexity (whatever that means).” There’s nothing like hitting “Post” to sharpen your editorial eye.

Robby Russell 31 Aug 06

Hah.

So even as the writers of advertising- copy are busy ballyhooing the latest results of their company’s purported fixation on user experience and user-centered design, the reality that we, the ones who have actually purchased these applications, are familiar with is, sadly, a different one.

Daniel 31 Aug 06

I think what’s important to realize here is that it’s not just the words. I hate that notion of $0.50 words, or people saying, “nice SAT word there.” Colorful language has it’s place.

But look at the sentence structure of that excerpt. It’s jam-packed with extra clauses. You have to re-evaluate the meaning of the sentence every few words.

That’s complex.

W.B. McNamara 31 Aug 06

And the classic, from Strunk & White:

“Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.”

Luis 31 Aug 06

Man, I hear a lot of people spewing out that crap in the line of work I do. It’s as if they feel that much more important and qualified to do the jobs they do.

Coudal 31 Aug 06

Sort of related. In college I wrote a long essay about some art history topic that I have since forgotten. It was a real thumbsucker but it earned me a good grade. At home, I showed it to my father, a newpaper man. He read it carefully while I stood there and then set it down and said, “Jim, at this rate you’re going to be out of commas before you turn 25. Then what are you going to do?”

You know on second thought - I really hope they were being ironic with this. Because they could’ve gotten the point accross in one small paragraph.

Ken Rossi : CivilNetizen.com 31 Aug 06

Wow. I started to doze off just from the excerpt. I understand that there are many beautiful words in the english language, however, I don’t think it should be a necessity to use them all in one book.

P-daddy 31 Aug 06

At first I thought that excerpt was a joke. Sadly, it ain’t.

I think every college student should be required to study the sokal hoax as an exercise in how to spot bullshit.

Sandy 31 Aug 06

Regular people like us don’t need this crap!
Down with intellectuals!

Gary R boodhoo 31 Aug 06

When we are simple in simplification and decrease and it identifies brevity, the investigation of essence of brevity criticism one venerating it? It stares a technique by the authority which it levies outside, us it is visible and like that penchant…, it is a break and “it is not visible and not to be” it becomes and the technique which it makes it is necessary and must get in psychology of the human-machine interaction.Why involvement Doe, only we the bay know even see clearly our lack of ability which recognizes the shedding of blood and a width of scientific technical arrangement, but we also abandon the ability which perceives it result and a side effect. It does like that to be bitter, we only hazard the bay know a suicide and our accommodating quantity but to be sufficient we use a technical ability, also it cheats from possibility.
——-

when faced with this kind of verbosity, machine translation from English -> Korean -> English usually clears it up for me.

Britt 31 Aug 06

They must have run out of time to write something simpler. Or it’s really a conference about irony.

Jason Liebe 31 Aug 06

Who knew Umberto Ecco was back on the lecture circuit?

It seems some CEO types equate complexity to value, at least the CEO types selling something - like this BS seminar.

I’m writing an application for the food service industry. The company that has the market leading app actually states boldly in their product description that it is “a highly sophisticated software program”. Again, the app is in the food service industry - WHY IS IT HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED !!?? My theory is that it is to support their $3,995 sale price, and several hundred dollar setup fees, and sales men that you have to call to get a demo, and montly fees, etc.

This is just the latest in the hop-on-a-buzzword BS seminars out there. I can’t wait to see the first late-night SEO or “how to make $50,000 per month with your own Web app” informercial sure to be coming soon.

jenn.suz.hoy 31 Aug 06

All that jabber can be summed up to two simple (ha! simple) sentences:

“Simplicity is effective. Be as simple as necessary to get your point across.”

Stephanie 31 Aug 06

Could you please forward this to ALL the published authors of interaction design books? Please? People like, oh, Alan Cooper!

Overwriting should be a crime in this business. It is a serious waste of a developer’s time.

And yes, ‘Bloatocracy’ needs to be pointed at and SHAMED!

Tammy 31 Aug 06

What a hoot! And Sandy, it’s not “down with intellectuals,” it’s “down with intellectuals who can’t really write”!

Joely 31 Aug 06

“Cinderella, she seems so easy
‘It takes one to know one,’ she smiles…”
-Desolation Row

“But the description at the conference site is the exact opposite of simple, clear writing.”

How about this instead? “But their description (link) is opaque.”

Olivier 31 Aug 06

Rule number one:
Don’t utilize “utilize”, use “use”.

CJ 31 Aug 06

art writing is always postmodern-type bullshit.

google for “sokal incident” to see what can happen when a physicist experiments with people who get paid to write this meaningless gunk.

Mark Gallagher 31 Aug 06

Just as there are now many “usability experts” that use lofty titles and often add a lot of process to projects …

… do you think “simplicity experts” are emerging, adding more process ?

I blame 37s for getting this started. ;-)

Caleb Buxton 31 Aug 06

You’re asking why abbreviation is such a long word.

Vocabulary isn’t a sin.

Paul McCann 31 Aug 06

Sorry to be another party pooper, but…

Why should someone writing about simplicity write using simple language? I’m serious: you’re presenting this as if it’s some sort of natural association, but should someone writing about complexity “naturally” use complex language? Or someone writing about poor writing necessarily present a paper written poorly?

While the quoted sample is dense (and expressed rather badly) it also presents ideas a lot more complex than the simple-minded summary someone posted above. Had the conference been pitched as some sort of paean to simplicity then perhaps it would be prudent for the author to practise what they preach, but the quoted paragraph looks much more like a precis of Heidegger’s “Question Concerning Technology” —an essay which warns against the celebration of transparency in technology. And pretending that language is a neutral conductor of ideas, and that anything that can be said can be said simply is just not going to cut it in those circles!

With a more “down to earth” voice.

We need to look at the basics of how we think and feel about using machines in order to be able to get at the root of simplicity. Why do so many people so frequently see technology as being forced on us by “The Man”? Why do so many people say no to technology? Why do so many people love technology? If simplicity is only about less in-your-face technology then why don’t we just make invisible computers? Well if we did that then we wouldn’t be able to see all the computers around us — and you can’t really react to things you can’t see can you? Who knows what the invisible computers would do! If we did that then we would have a hard time avoiding being taken over by invisible computers — and at the same time we wouldn’t get a chance to really use computers anymore.

Jesus Domingo 31 Aug 06

Kinda reminds me of Dilbert’s Mission and Vission machine hehe.

Ryan Allen 01 Sep 06

That’s very funny. :)

CJ: The Skocal Incidient is apparently a hoax: http://skepdic.com/sokal.html

tw 01 Sep 06

Don’t get me wrong - I love the simplicity movement.

Here comes the “BUT”: Sometimes it is getting religious, dogmatic and sounds like Steven Colbert in his ironic crusade against anything but gut-knowledge and “intuitive” insight.

a) There is academic style, which is likely to seem complex at first glance and often requires work. - It is okay to demand simplicity from the instructions on how to use an ATM machine. “I don’t get it (at first glance) so it must be broken” would be valid criticism in that case. Yet it won’t work as approach for each and every information in the world. Yet sometimes the simplicity movement sounds like Homer Simpson: “If something is hard to do, it is not worth doing.”

Which leads me to:

b) Maybe this article wasn’t intented for everyone. Maybe the text’s structure is working as a filter, an entry test. And guess what: If you don’t get and/or are not willing to work yourself your way into its meaning, that means you didn’t pass. (Is the anger about this article maybe actually the anger about the humiliation of not having past? ;-))

I sure believe that artificial complexity often is a tool of obfuscation for some speaker’s incompetence.

On the other hand over-simplification leads to millions of people accepting Bush’s doctrine of “You are either with us (i.e. him, Rummy and Dick)’ or with the terrorists”.

Sometimes situations really are complex and their descriptions have to reflect that. There is a reason human language is what the linguists call “productive”. It is able to cover the complex functional constellations thitherto undescribed adequately.

Mathew Patterson 01 Sep 06

The quoted excerpt is difficult to read in itself;
The fact that the topic happens to be ‘simplicity’ is an added irony.

There are times when we need to use specific vocabulary, but that is no reason for akward sentence structure.

Dean 01 Sep 06

My favorite album review? J.D. Considine’s review of the “GTR” band’s self titled disc.

It simply read “SHT”.

Sean Cribbs 01 Sep 06

Recently, I was trying to explain to a non-technical friend how software design, with the help of people like 37s, is (or should be) driving toward simplicity. His response was that in doing so, one would make the software more complex because it has to hide more from the user. “Huh?” was my response. Fewer features and a simpler interface means less code and LESS complexity, not more. I think many people still have the impression a-la-1990s that every piece of software must accomplish something that is beyond comprehension.

The same issue goes for writing; why try to impress your reader with flowery vocabulary if it doesn’t clearly convey your meaning? Yes, use an uncommon word if it has the precise meaning you want, but hone your sentence structure so that you can be understood.

Perhaps a better goal (or substitute word) is elegance, which conveys efficiency, clarity, maturity and aesthetic beauty. Mature software doesn’t have to be complex, but it most definitely should be elegant, as should mature writing. I’m reminded of Zed Shaw’s discussion of “masters” vs. “experts”.

Sandy 01 Sep 06

Long words should be banned.
Everything should sound down to earth.
If I have to work to understand a sentance, its obviously WRONG, and the author should be SHAMED!

Zoro 01 Sep 06

@Sandy: You must hate Shakespeare. Or Wittgenstein. And Hawking of course. Surely you didn’t grasp all they said whithin your first attempt. - You did? Well, Master Sandy, let me humbly sit at your feet and learn.

Or maybe not.

(I hope your comment was meant to be somewhat ironic, it’s sometimes hard to tell.)

Yes, I hate Shakespere.
“Where for art thou blah blah”
Why not be SIMPLE and say “Juliet, where are you? You look nice!”

vintagefan 01 Sep 06

Ah this sounds exactly like some of the lectures I used to get in design school. I always knew they were more interested in hearing their own voices than getting actually through to us, the old fartbags.
nice post.

manuel 01 Sep 06

Matt said:
> If you�re going to talk about simplicity, why not
> do it with words that are actually simple

Sean said:
> Fewer features and a simpler interface means less code

I can be wrong here, but my experience tells me that making things simple to the end user is actually hard. There’s complexity and depth involved in conceiving and implementing it.

And I have to agree with “tw” on oversimplification. Things are not always binary. Language is full of nuances, some people can handle them. I do agree that if you can’t say it in a way that’s easily understood then you don’t really know what you’re talking about. But you don’t always have to write for dummies.

As in the old “KISS” principle, you’re making it “simple”, not “stupid”.

random8r 02 Sep 06

Actually the problem with these guys is not complexity, nor complicatedness - it’s CONFUSION. They have a great deal of confusing sentence structure: The words are *fine* - it’s how they’re using them that really isn’t.

This site is a *prime* example of Art Wankerism. My best friend basically stopped being an artist because of it.

It’s like when studying novels in English (as a subject) at school - our teacher would encourage us to “read into” things. The trouble with doing that is that there’s almost no limit to where you can “imagine” the writer was intending to go.

Things in art simply are the way they are. It’s a subjective medium.

Reading the text on that site just reminds me of using windows.

J. Eric 03 Sep 06

The writing is horrible. It would be horrible in any context.

Writing does not need to be simple. But it does need to be clear, concise, graceful, and elegant. The writing on that site is none of those things.

Joshua Kaufman 04 Sep 06

If you�re going to talk about simplicity, why not do it with words that are actually simple?

As Paul McCann and others have already stated, that argument implies a sort of natural association between the style and the topic of writing. And to be blunt, that’s a very ignorant perspective. What - just because the topic of the conference is simplicity, we’re all supposed to communicate at a fifth grade reading level?

Mathew Patterson 04 Sep 06

What - just because the topic of the conference is simplicity, we�re all supposed to communicate at a fifth grade reading level?

No, but we should all communicate our messages as clearly as we can. Use language and grammar only as ‘complex’ as necessary to make your point.

Mark 05 Sep 06

�Where for art thou blah blah�
Why not be SIMPLE and say �Juliet, where are you? You look nice!�

Actually, the “simplified” version would be “Why are you Juliet?”

Jonathan Belisle 07 Sep 06

ARS Electronica has produced an amazing CD of Modern Performers.

You should look at it. I understand that their theories are too intellectual….but they deliver the goods at their festival.

Really.

Jonathan

Jonathan B�lisle 07 Sep 06

Daniel Higginbotham 07 Sep 06

Some of the simplest, most expressive writing I’ve seen comes from John Steinbeck. In East of Eden:

Maybe the difference between the two boys can best be described in this way. If Aron came upon an anthill in a little clearing in the brush, he would lie on his stomach and watch the complications of ant life�he would see some of them bringing food in the ant roads and others carrying the white eggs. He would see how two members of the hill on meeting put their antennas together and talked. For hours he would lie absorbed in the economy of the ground.

If, on the other hand, Cal came upon the same anthill, he would kick it to pieces and watch while the frantic ants took care of their disaster. Aron was content to be part of this world, but Cal must change it.