John Maeda: The Master of Simplicity 13 Sep 2006
23 comments Latest by Jason Williams
John Maeda is a graphic designer, visual artist, and computer scientist at the MIT Media Lab. He’s been dubbed “the Master of Simplicity,” is the author of a blog on simplicity, and also has a new book called The Laws of Simplicity. The book outlines ten laws of simplicity over 100 pages (a page count restraint Maeda imposed on himself). It’s full of interesting anecdotes and big picture ideas about simplicity. Below are some excerpts.
(Note: We’ll soon be posting a Fireside Chat with Diego Rodriguez and John.)
Simplicity = being found…
Complexity implies the feeling of being lost; simplicity implies the feeling of being found.
Ship fewer features at a higher cost?…
Imagine a world in which software companies simplified their programs every year by shipping with 10% fewer features at 10% higher cost due to the expense of simplification. For the consumer to get less and pay more seems to contradict sound economic principles…Yet in spite of the logic of demand, “simplicity sells.”
Hiding complexity through deception…
Hiding complexity through ingenious mechanical doors or tiny display screens is an overt form of deception. If the deceit feels less like malevolence, more like magic, then hidden complexitiies become more of a treat than a nuisance.
We can read this sequence of iPod evolutionary steps as “starting simple, then getting complex, and finally becoming over-simple.” What do I mean by “over-simple”? I mean that you can simplify to the point where you simplification has been made obvious. This has the same effect as yelling at someone, “Look dummy, I’m simpler!”
The iPod Shuffle and letting machines choose…
Giving up the option of choice, and letting a machine choose for you, is a radical approach to shrinking the time we might spend otherwise fumbling with the iPod’s scroll-wheel.
Squint to see more…
The best designers in the world all squint when they look at something. They squint to see the forest from the trees — to find the right balance. Squint at the world. You will see more, by seeing less.
Progress bars…
When a graphical display of progress, or a “progress bar,” was shown, the user would perceive that computer completed the task in less time than when no progress bar was shown at all.
Simplicity needs complexity…
Nobody wants to have only simplicity. Without the counterpoint of complexity, we could not recognize simplicity when we see it…Simplicity and complexity need each other.
Return to beginnerdom…
In the martial art of Karate, for instance, the symbol of pride for a black belt is to wear it long enough such that the die fades to white as to symbolize returning to the beginner state.
Urgency and the creative spirit…
In the field of design there is a belief that with more constraints, better solutions are revealed…Urgency and the creative spirit go hand in hand.
When I had once lost all interest in teaching some years ago, I was visiting Weingart in Maine to give a lecture for his then regular summer course. I marveled at Weingart’s ability to give the exact same introductory lecture each year. I thought to myself, “Doesn’t he get bored?” Saying the same thing over and over has no value in my mind. Yet it was on maybe the third visit that I realized that although Weingart was saying the exact same thing, he was saying it simpler each time he said it. Through focusing on the basics of basics, he was able to reduce everything that he knew to the essence of what he wished to convey.
23 comments so far (Jump to latest)
Benjy 13 Sep 06
The fortune cookie from my lunch today kind of relates to this post:
Every excess becomes a vice
Tim 13 Sep 06
Imagine a world in which software companies simplified their programs every year by shipping with 10% fewer features at 10% higher cost due to the expense of simplification.
Is that the best for customers? What happens if your customers depend upon that feature that you removed?
Ideally, you build a simple application to begin with so that you are not forced to support those features you would like to remove for simplicity sake. Unfornuately, not all of us have that luxury.
Chris 13 Sep 06
Ya, I don’t get that 10% fewer features, 10% more cost — maybe it means spending more money to get less features really done well.
Smart guy, but I’m wild about his art.
Chris.
ML 13 Sep 06
Here’s some more context for the 10% quote:
Frank 13 Sep 06
Yet in spite of the logic of demand, �simplicity sells��The undeniable commercial success of the Apple iPod � a device that does less but costs more than other digital music players � is a key supporting example of this trend. Another example is the deceivingly spare interface of the powerful Google search engine�
I believe Tim stated it correctly. The products mentioned (Apple iPod & Google) started out simply. Apple and Google have not reduced the number of features, they have added.
Could you ever imagine purchasing an iPod without all of the features it currently has?
Gary R Boodhoo 13 Sep 06
Is that the best for customers? What happens if your customers depend upon that feature that you removed?
The unspoken assumption you are making Tim, is that each customer is identical and uses the software in question for similar purposes. There may be a grain of truth to that, but if I consider my usage of MS Office, I realize I’ve used it for many years in a number of different ways - based entirely upon the context of my working environment and having nothing to do with the feature set.
And its not just productivity apps. I’ve used Photoshop, Maya, After Effects, etc. for extremely different purposes over the years. Generally speaking, having little to do with the actual feature set, and everything to do with collaboration.
Yet, I do see your point. There are in fact certain features of my day to day apps that I consider part of the core functionality. A layer-less Photoshop is basically useless to me - yet I used it for years productively before layers were introduced. How much of this is legacy and how much of this is habit I wonder?
Frank 13 Sep 06
@ Gary R Boodhoo
I believe Tim’s concern is that yes, most people only use 10% of the functionality of most applications … however, everyone uses a different 10% - which prevents a company from ever being able to remove a feature once it’s added.
People have this unspoken assumption that when they upgraded to the next version of an app, that all the functionality of the previous version will be present.
Gary R Boodhoo 13 Sep 06
@ Frank
Yeah, it does seem true for most application design. Once a feature is added, it doesn’t go away. Still, there remain interesting exceptions to this tendency.
Windows home networking config for example is generally simpler and yet more comprehensive than it was in the Win95/Win3.1 era. Which isn’t to say the process doesn’t break! Just that when it does, it feels like 1999 all over again.
I have been extremely impressed by advanced panorama software such as Stitcher & Autopan. Stitcher in particular has significantly minimized the feature set over 5 versions and the output is better and more controllable than ever.
Still, I do realize these are edge cases.
nursegirl 13 Sep 06
Could you ever imagine purchasing an iPod without all of the features it currently has?
Ever heard of the ipod shuffle? “Let’s remove the screen and the ability to choose the song. People will love it!”
When I saw the shuffle, I thought that it would never work.
But it has, ridiculously well. Apple got it in a way that I sure didn’t. Simple sells. People often want less choices. To be honest, I only turn my ipod off shuffle when I’m listening to podcasts.
I think what Apple does well, is that they pay attention to how people are actually using their products, and then make their products suit. You can remove features, once you’re listening to your customers, watching closely, and really trying to understand what’s going on and why.
Anonymous Coward 13 Sep 06
Apple sold 10,000,000 iPod shuffles so far. Simple and less work people.
Arpan 14 Sep 06
Imagine a world in which software companies simplified their programs every year by shipping with 10% fewer features at 10% higher cost due to the expense of simplification.
I don’t think that he is saying that you should remove 10% of the features that are in the program.
What he is saying is instead of adding a bunch of features every version, add only a few features, spending more time on each one, making sure that each one is needed and is done well.
Example: the iPod, started out as a very basic and very functional music player.
Later added color screen, and ability to view photos.
Later added ability to play videos. But these new features did not make is any more difficult to use the basic function, ie, playing music did not become any more difficult.
On the other hand, many companies have had fully functional video players on the market, but none have become very popular because of the complexity.
l0b0 14 Sep 06
Simplicity sells, but only if you’re trying to do something simple. The iPod should let you play music. Google should search the web. OpenOffice.org Writer is a different ballgame. Take away data tables, macros, font selection, or basically any other functionality, and there’s a group of people who can’t use it for their needs. It’s all about getting the right amount of complexity.
Taking this into account, however, it’s baffling to see how popular modern mobile phones are. Absolutely tons of unnecessary complexity (games, camera, browser, radio) for little/no percievable gain (Allright, I’m generalizing. The Nokia 6510 radio was brilliant). I can’t wait for the iPhone (or something such), where
Darren Stuart 14 Sep 06
I can see the point in 10% less.
don’t companies already do this type of thing for more consumer aimed products of so-called pro products. I am thinking of element versions etc
Soni Pitts 14 Sep 06
Re: 10% simpler - I can definitely see value in a software system that ships only the simplified core program, but lets you add functionality that you need as plug-ins, like Firefox browser.
Although it would be annoying to have to root through all the features if Firefox came with every widget and plugin available, there’s no predicting who will need or want which. But instead of simply adding them all in, as MS tends to do, the user-chooser option works amazingly well, and while the core app is remarkably streamlined as initially delivered, it is easily customized for the specific user’s functionality needs.
clifyt 14 Sep 06
I keep seeing the idea of less and less features, but that is not simplicity.
This is the thing that burns me up with the folks that follow 37’s manta…simplify simplify simplify. It may not be the approach 37 takes, but its the attitude they put out.
Honestly, I occasionally have more trouble using the software because it has been parred down to nothing than I would if there might be two ways of getting to the same thing.
I’m been a software developer for near 15 years…in the last 10 of these, I’ve studied more psychology than I have been about keeping up with the technologies (because the logic stays the same no matter what language or platform you are using…i.e., I admire RoR but won’t use it because its not going to help my users any more than say ASP or PHP or even Perl, gawd forbid…or even straight C++ programming).
The one thing I’ve learned that I have to take into account each and every day is that there are different types of learners and do-ers. What may work for one person, may not make any sense to someone else. Compromising between the two is just going to lead to a compromised solution. Finding seperate ways to make the application work for each *IS* simplicity. Finding ways to make it work where both can do the same thing without confusing the person that isn’t represented in one area is simplicity.
Taking away features or deciding not to include a feature in the first place is not simplicity in any way. In fact, this leads to fragile workflows that are unintuative and adds to the overall complexity. It is a lazy attitude and only leads to half the solution.
I do,however, like the quote: “simplicity implies the feeling of being found.” And that is how it should be — we need a way to find these solutions so that the user never knew they were following ‘the wrong path’.
sammy 14 Sep 06
Could you ever imagine purchasing an iPod without all of the features it currently has?
The iPod Shuffle aside completely: of course I could imagine purchasing an iPod without all the features they have currently. After all, I did.
I have a 3rd generation iPod. It has a monochrome display, 40 gigs of storage, and syncs my contacts from the OS X Address Book in addition to my music. I also occasionally use it to transport large files (though not often).
Since then, no feature which has been added to the iPod - clickwheel, increase capacity, color display, album artwork, photos, videos, downloadable games, that thing the Nano has with Nike sneakers - has been compelling enough for me to even briefly consider upgrading.
And in a sense, that’s bad news for Apple, since it means they haven’t yet gotten more of my cash. The gap between what I have now and what it would take me to shell out for an upgrade is wider than the current iPod can bridge. But I’m sure it will happen eventually.
anil bawa cavia 15 Sep 06
This notion of returning to a ‘beginner state’ is important in zen practice. In Zazen, ‘beginner mind’ is an important principle.
It’s interesting because it seems a lot of minimal art and design principles take their inspiration from zen philosophy.
Chris 15 Sep 06
A good example of the ‘10% less features for 10% more money’ idea is my new favorite software: Sketchup. This software costs $495 for an unlimited license, yet ostensibly does less than 3D software of comparable cost. Why? Because it’s incredibly easy to use, powerful and has a well-defined feature set that the creators have focused on keeping simple. Of course it can’t do sophisticated rendering and animation like other 3D software, but it never claims to.
Scott Meade 17 Sep 06
My theory is that simplicity is a positive user experience because there are parts of our brain that _enjoy_ retrieving useful information (such as how do I turn off my iPod?-hold down pause key) from memory and executing on that information. This activity is much more enjoyable than sorting through rows of buttons, reading each, until the symbol on the button matches the symbol in your head for “off”.
The law that I keep coming back to from the book is “Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful”. Apple does this sometimes well and sometimes not. A single-button mouse works for me. But why can’t my MacBook Pro have a “delete” vs. backspace key (I know about fn-delete - but still)?!!!
Scott Meade 17 Sep 06
…why can’t my MacBook Pro have a “delete” _AND_ a “backspace” key…
Jason Williams 10 Oct 06
Simplicity seems to be the new way to differentiate products in this day in age. Features are all well and good, but if they are hard to use then what’s the point. I’d like to invite all of you to further discuss simplicity in a forum sponsored by Philips called LiveSimplicity. This forum aims to gather consumer insights in order to bring simplicity to our complex lives.
Check it out at www.livesimplicity.net