Simple and yes even simplicity is right up there with intuitive on words to describe the quality of something that lead to long drawn out threads without a lot of practical gibblets in there.
Why? B/c both terms are about mental models. What is "simple" is a personal reaction to the system one is working on. For some a CLI is very simple and powerful at the same time. I.e. Ubiquity is great. The problem with the word simple is that its opposite is really complex, but we aren't in the game of removing complexity and in fact the ways we achieve good designs are actually through really complex methods. I see Maeda's book as less a call to simple design ala "minimalism" as someone pointed out, but really a call to designers to just think more deeply about the designs they put out there. We all have a tendency to put our egos in our designs, and this often leads to "too much" which CAN lead to confusion. But a great designer does tear away at their designs. But again, I think it is a mistake to say that simple is a goal. Whenever this comes up with my clients, I often counter them with, "but the processes we are interfacing with are quite complex". In my current application this has meant reducing the GUI, but adding guidance, and at that only in certain areas. There are some tasks whose business processes are so complex that if you are engaged in them, then reduction would cause so much inefficiency that the software would be getting in the way. On the remote side of things. Yes a single button can have multiple purposes, but as Jef Raskin (RIP) has so cleanly explained, mode changes based on context are complex mental structures that many users struggle with. I think that Jef's world is not the world of 8 years from now, as mode shifting is becoming 2nd nature to so many and is really the great advantage of computational digital interfaces, but I do believe for now, on a mainstream consumer device, putting too many modal interfaces is not a great idea. A tangential thought. In graphic design, reduction often translates to increasing white space, instead of using graphical elements. In IxD whe don't talk about our version of negative space very often, if ever. How do we reduce interactions themselves for the sake of achieving better interactions without loss of any meaning, efficiency, etc. for the purpose of a greater aesthetic whole -- hopefully even improvement). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
