Simplicity and Less Power do NOT go hand in hand. It all depends on the system in question.
Currently, I'm working on a CMS for the Army. One of the things that will make this system work is selectively removing menu items from people who don't need them. Primarily for major sections, but also inside pages. An example of the first is that Journalists don't need to access the Page Management system. An example of the latter is: A page manager who just manages one page, need not be bothered with the selection apparatus for selecting between multiple pages. So, each user will get exactly what they need and nothing more. And the control of this is also spread out around the system, so the manager of a news team can give a journalist on that team editing privileges, meanwhile, an admin higher up gave that manager those privileges. Additionally, a lot of the simplicity of the system will be created through the complexity of the filtering and prediction systems, along with a robust passive and active rating system. "No matter how wonderful your interface is, the user wants less of it." A system as wide-spread as the one we are re-envisioning would be impossible to create any other way. The user would be overwhelmed with choices they don't need to be bothered with. And the problem with many CMSs is they bother people with those choices, or at the least, they form a culture where having the permissions to do those things is desired. So simplicity is always about loss of features, it is about creating tools that fit the task. If that means more tools, that is fine. Imagine great software like a toolbox. It should have a hammer, a screw driver or two, a ruler, a saw. That'll get most people over 90% of the humps they will face. If they need to patch drywall, it is as easy as going to the local hardware store and learning how. So then there is another tool in the box. Some people will end up with all sorts of power tools and specialized devices. But most people are happy with that little tool box and never need any more. The whole point of having an OS is that you can have many little tools to do all the big jobs, and they should be able to be used in concert in a way that makes sense. Sometimes it works to pack the tools together into one App... most of the time it doesn't and you end up with MS word. Many applications grow far beyond their scope, or at least make the mistake of thinking that their software needs to be all bundled together to be viable. Maybe that makes money, but being able to add to the toolbox when you need a tool to do a job probably makes more sense in the long run. Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35089 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
