Features and Simplicity
Don Norman recently posted that simplicity is overrated. He noted that how features (and the related complexity) still win over simplicity in the market “…simplicity is a myth whose time has past, if it ever existed. Make it simple and people won’t buy. Given a choice, they will take the item that does more. Features win over simplicity, even when people realize that it is accompanied by more complexity.”
Norman’s skepticism draws interesting responses. Joel Spolsky, a well-known software engineer, argued that simplicity and number of features are not related. Simplicity does not necessarily means “not very many features” or “does one thing and does it well.” It could simply means aesthetic, clean visual appearance of the product. Simplicity is about making product usable or easy to use. It is about thinking users who will use the product. The success of the product does not depend on simplicity but rather “…a result of a combination of things: building an audience, evangelism, clean and spare design, emotional appeal, aesthetics, fast response time, direct and instant user feedback, program models which correspond to the user model resulting in high usability, and putting the user in control, all of which are features of one sort, in the sense that they are benefits that customers like and pay for, but none of which can really be described as “simplicity.” Therefore, attributing product success simply based on features ignoring the role of simplicity is not appropriate.
A comment made by a reader in Guardian blog added the need to consider type and maturity of the product in relation with new features added. Customers are likely making their decision based on features particularly for new and unfamiliar products. This is not something irrational, features convey benefits and economically people have the tendency of maximizing their gains. The problem though, they do not have “sufficient information or experience to understand their choices” - as a result, they often experience regret and disappointment.
At the heart of the issue is what I believe simplicity as minimizing effort. When Norman observed people choosing feature-rich products, I believe they are minimizing their decision making effort based on visible factors available. Unless people have personal experience using a product, external factors such as branding, feature-list, advertisement, product reviews and testimonials are some of the factors that influence this simplistic decision making. Simple and usable products that fail in the market are likely caused by their failure differentiating, communicating and justifying their values in the market. The problem is not the product but about the product; hence, the challenge is managing the perceived value of the products. When people start using products, deeper level of simplicity is essential - this is where design, usability and human factors create lasting experience that will hopefully have positive impact on subsequent decision. A good design plays important role in confirming and ensuring people that they have make a good choice which will eventually simplify their future decision. Hence, the challenge here is to put into practice all of those design and user-centric theory and principles.
Last year, I made my decision of buying Sony Ericsson K750 simply because it has all features that a handphone could have (radio, bluetooth, infrared, camera, mp3 player, and many more). I don’t use all those features (they just give me a good feeling that my handphone is powerful). As I start using it, I realize how usable and friendly it is (shortcuts, responsive recently called and messaged contacts, immediate camera mode upon opening the lens cover). The simplicity of deciding and using creates a good experience, which I feel will have definite impact on my future purchase.