Don Norman: simple is not the answer

Simple is not the answer

 

Author: Don Norman

Translator: Ark K] [n g of a r k

 

 

[Statement]

Translated from Don Norman

On its personal website

The article "Simplicity is not the answer

", Translated and published with the consent of the original author. Original URL: http://jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_not_the_answer.html

This article is translated from Don Norman

'S Post"

Simplicity is not the answer

"On his web site

, Under the permission of the author. Original Post URL: http://jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_not_the_answer.html

 

 

 

Everyone wants simplicity. Our expectations are the same when we consider cell phones, mechanical tools, and car gauge panels, or when we shop for products. "Why cannot our technology products be as useful as the door opener in my garage ?" Someone asked in a related article, "There is a button, either to open the door or to close the door. How simple and elegant !"

 

This is expected to come from ordinary people in life, newspaper commentators, and professionals. Since the expectation is so clear and the demand is so urgent, Why cannot the product achieve this?

 

Because everyone is not focused-simplicity is not the final goal. We do not want to give up the powerful functions and flexibility brought about by technology. The garage door opener may be simple, but it can't do much. If my mobile phone has only one button, the mobile phone is simple, ...... Er ...... I can't do anything except switch the phone. The piano has 88 keys and 3 pedals. Can we say that the piano is complicated? Should we simplify it? Of course, it is unlikely that all the keys will be used in the music. The reason why the call is simple is that the focus is not grasped.

 

Marketing experts will say that they will know what they actually buy in the store. what people really want is functionality. Indeed. My previous article
This issue has been discussed in
Interactions, March/April 2007 ).

 

This leads to an obvious conflict. With the increase of functions, the desire for products will also increase, while the simplicity is also reduced. As a result, you have purchased a wide range of products and are eager for simplicity. In this way, functional complexity and simplicity seem to form a sharp opposition. Is that true? This is true, as measured by convention.

 

We do want products with many features, but we also hope that the products are not so confusing and not so frustrating to use. Look, it's not a simple question, it's a question about whether the product is easy to understand. The entire debate on products was put into the wrong framework (simplicity. The amount of features is not the same as the actual capacity. Simplicity and availability are not the same thing. Simplicity is not the answer to all questions.

 

 

There is a potential assumption:

 

Features => capabilities)

 

Simplicity => usability of use)

 

These two formulas reflect a simple idea: everyone wants to be as powerful as possible, so they want more functions. Everyone wants to make the product easier to use, so they want the product to be simple.

 

Unfortunately, this idea is wrong, because the relationship chain is reversed. Let me say:

 

Sunny day ==> no rain

 

So can we just say that the weather is Sunny because it won't rain? Of course not. The arrow specifies the derivation relationship from left to right, but does not describe the relationship from right to left-we cannot deduce the situation from the right. Therefore, more powerful capabilities do not necessarily require more features. high usability does not necessarily require high simplicity.

 

From this I can conclude that the debate on functionality and simplicity is misleading. We can be eager for more powerful capabilities and higher usability, but we don't need to equate it with more functionality and simplicity. What people want is something that is easy to understand.

 

The world is complex, so what we do is also complicated. But that doesn't mean that we have to live in an uninterrupted discouraged environment. That's not the case. Human-centered design is designed to reduce complexity, it turns complicated tools into easy-to-use tools, easy-to-understand tools, useful tools, and easy-to-use tools.

 

 

Save with Design

 

We don't have to worry about the huge challenge of turning complexity into easy-to-use, because good design can help us do this. What everyone wants is more functions that give more capabilities to the product, but they hate the resulting complexity. Is this really a contradiction? Not necessarily. Complexity is controllable.

 

The real problem is how to make it easy to understand. Once we realize this, we will be half done. Good design can save us. So how can we grasp the complexity issue? We need to follow some simple design principles. Imagine what is needed to transform a bunch of messy and unintelligible functions into an orderly and easy-to-understand experience? It requires modularity, good ing relationships, and a conceptual model ). There are many other important design principles, but these three can already be explained.

 

Modularization means dividing an activity into smaller but more controllable modules. Well-designed printers, scanners, photocopiers, and fax machines are examples of this. functions are grouped and illustrated, and each function is relatively simple. HP invented the general control mechanism (Q control), so that all functions have the same operation usage, so as long as you learn to use any function, you will learn to use all the functions.

 

A good ing relationship ensures an easy-to-understand relationship between actions and results.

 

Of course, the most important thing is to provide a conceptual model that is easy to understand and organically integrated, so that users can understand what to do, what happened, and what results to expect. To achieve this, you have to enable the product to continuously provide meaningful feedback to users, and even make the entire feedback process comfortable-you can see Apple's product.

 

Emotional design is the key for users to enjoy the use of products. The most important element is the user's sense of control over the products. This sense of control is especially important when you encounter problems. The key is to understand that errors may occur between users and products when designing products. Therefore, make sure that users can understand what happened and how to handle them.

 

The key is not the comparison between append functions and simplicity, or between functionality and availability. The real problem lies in design: it enables the design to accomplish the desired task, while maintaining a high degree of understanding, a good sense of control, and a sense of accomplishment in use.

 

 

[Statement]

Translated from Don Norman

On its personal website

The article "Simplicity is not the answer

", Translated and published with the consent of the original author. Original URL: http://jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_not_the_answer.html

This article is translated from Don Norman

'S Post"

Simplicity is not the answer

"On his web site

, Under the permission of the author. Original Post URL: http://jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_not_the_answer.html

 

This work
Use the attribution-non‑cial-NoDerivs 2.5 China mainland license agreement for knowledge sharing
.