"The translator presses" each interaction designer should have a pursuit simple heart--lightsome operation, simple flow, clean interface. When it comes to complexity, it is inevitable to think of its opposite--simplicity. The so-called simple, is to remove unnecessary interference, let the user direct target.
One of the tasks of UX is to simplify complex processes. In the meantime, tangle a button's placement, size, color, or to study the "temper" of various user groups. It's easy to complicate simplicity. But to make it simple and simple, this is creativity.
In function, reduce the complexity by evaluating the deletion of unnecessary functions and hiding the features that cannot be removed. Visually, by reducing visual interference, reusing components to reduce sensory complexity.
To sum up, leaving the complexity to yourself will simply return the user.
Turn over the bottom of the foreign language translation, dig out a translation to share to everyone.
Excellent products focus on simplicity rather than complex features. Problems should be solved by simple solutions, once and for all. The perfect solution is so simple and transparent that you may even forget it was designed.
However, the elegance of the small design is not accidental. They are the result of a difficult decision. UX designers play a key role in the design, designing, and testing phases of a project to reduce the complexity of the project.
Why should you reduce the complexity of the scope
Excessive design and complex products usually originate from the idea that "the more the better". To increase the overall value of the product by increasing the functional characteristics outside of the requirement. In essence, the continuous increase in product functionality makes people feel that the product can give users more flexibility to choose. Similarly, reducing the functionality of a product means restricting your users.
If we equate scope and complexity with flexibility, the subject of this article will change, because in fact there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between complexity and scope. Each new feature brings additional anticipation. To put it bluntly, the widening scope means that there are more opportunities to screw up the product.
In the early stages, unnecessary, complex functions will make the product development more difficult, to the future version of additional burden. Because at the beginning of the project, the user interface has established constraints. We have come to the idea of our original design through iterative iterations in the future. Therefore, it is essential to tightly surround early functions. Another way to try to solve problems more quickly means that the risk of reaching the original design decision is increasing.
Reduce the complexity of the technology, elegant small features can help you clarify the product proposition, simplifying the user experience. Any functionality that is not conducive to helping users solve problems should be considered a cause of distraction and unnecessary barriers that can damage your product's value.
Define the scope correctly
Defining a range is not easy. Different users will have different needs. This is a gray area that deletes features that may cause your product value and income to fall.
In addition, simplified design reduces complexity, but it does not always work, and sometimes it can even bring huge obstacles to users. A good example of this is financial software, where the user interface is often designed around the complex functions of "financial management" itself.
However, it is a complete excuse to design a complex user interface and user experience simply because of a complex task. We need to control the number of real needs to design the solution. Remove complexity while retaining power and control, so you can get a good solution.
The scope of prevention spread
Once your initial range (or the level of complexity you can tolerate) has been defined, the best solution is to solve one function at a time. Each iteration revolves around the most critical and easy to understand problem and resolves it.
In this way, additional functions often make users feel a simple natural extension, which is a simple way to kill two birds with one stone. Although sometimes seemingly low-cost additional functional design, there are hidden costs.
Unnecessary functionality can distract developers and designers. They are not focused on optimizing product details or other things that can help users. They also play down the core goals and key features of your product.
Get a clear idea of what new features you need to add and what it means to develop them. Classify functions as useful and easy to use, extract them, and make sure that they are really the necessary needs by repeatedly weighing them up. In the end, you have to accept the gray zone, and the functionality you remove will lead to a decline in expectations and revenue.
Why should you reduce the complexity of internal design
Complexity, cannot simply be expressed as a function spread. It may still exist in a very small and viable product, the interaction is too complex, and the way it behaves is unconventional.
While the functionality is tightly limited to a graceful, minimal function, we need to think about the complexity of the functionality itself. This may lead to complex internal functions the most appropriate remedy is to add an additional feature.
Here's an example. In a recent project, when a user insists on an automatic save button feature at a specific location on a page, the Save button has more interaction with its users, and its results are more intuitive (as confirmed after the test).
The expansion of the minimum feasible product range adds complexity, offsetting the complexity of system technology and user interface design reduction.
Therefore, the minimal feature set does not necessarily translate into a simplified user interface. Cumbersome interaction or poorly designed user experiences can be easily offset by the benefits of removing unnecessary functionality. Similarly, it sometimes needs to expand the scope of the system to reduce the complexity of some of the internal functional design.
Complexity management of internal design
Managing the "Complexity of internal design" relies on a paradox. This sentence applies to the complexity of any particular single function. However, the meaning of "internal" complexity is not limited to a single function. Managing the complexity of internal design requires that we evaluate the solution at two levels. It is only through analysis of the key solutions that we can effectively judge whether any single function can be as simplistic or as important as possible.
Check a feature set and decide which features are safe to retire without compromising the product's core objectives. Simplification is a double-edged sword, the "smallest feasible product" inherent in the simple concept and mentality, will drive us cleaner, more convenient, more elegant implementation of the design. However, the simplification process often blinds us, compromising the compromise of a simple and functional solution as a whole.
Broadly, it may actually lead us to add a feature here or there, to make it easier to use.
Take the above automatic save function as an example: the right insight into the behavior of a single function is a complex matter. Adding a feature reduces the chance that the feature is misunderstood or misused. In addition, however, it will also ensure that instances of counter-intuitive behavior will not be used as a precedent for how to perceive a broader solution.
This is a paradox: you can have one of the most elegant and concise feature sets, but if you do not follow the overall, flexible principles, you will not achieve a simple function. A single simple function can be a trend.
The core difficulty of our discussion of complexity and user interface is that complexity is easily mistaken. This is a qualitative concept. Therefore, it is important that we avoid subjectivity in our discussions. We have to realize that complexity can only be reduced to a point where the design may lose its integrity and influence.
It's not that all design methods are more or less complex. We are talking about the experience of the system, not a quantitative analysis of complexity. Ultimately, determining the overall user experience impact scope and internal design complexity requires a reference context understanding.
As a result, many of the complexities and simplistic discussions revolve around whether complexity is an additional attribute. Maybe there's nothing wrong with it, but you should have a clear understanding of your product. Software should have its own deep-rooted personality.
This article compiled from: Ali mother ued, the original link.