Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Is the dichotomy between simplicity and detail necessarily there, though, Dave? I mean, the iPod is simple, but so are other mp3 players; one of the iPod's strengths appears to be attention to detail. Perhaps you mean detailing? Or something else? (I think I know what you're trying to get at, but detail seems like the wrong word and I'm also lacking a better one.)

I think people enjoy elegance, which is sometimes a simple way of representing something complex, and sometimes a complex way of representing something complex, but rarely a complex way of representing something simple.

Looking at computing, overall, I bet most people suffer the scarcity of simple ways of representing complex things--where "representing" probably also has to encompass usability and findability (e.g., a folder tree is a simple way of organizing complex information, but it's not necessarily the most usable way or the best way to find things).

But, while engineers may obssessively pursue elegance, artists are freer to obsessively pursue either elegance, or intentional inelegance, or both (even at the same time).

In fact, I'd suggest that any work of engineering created with the goal of intentional inelegance is probably better thought of as a work of art!

Luis, I think it's a real confusion built into the notion of the simple, and which makes the simple not nearly as useful as a design principle as it at first seems. If it's an Occam's Law for makers, then, I can see its justification: Complex mechanisms are more likely to fail, cost more to make, etc. Aesthetically, though, simplicity gets hairy. The individual columns of the Parthenon have detailing that don't help them do their structural job. But the layout of the Parthenon is quite simple and elegant and regular. Yet the elements of the Gehry MIT building are quite undetailed, but are laid out in a complex and unexpected way. Conclusion: Aesthetically, simplicity isn't always a value. And even when it is, it can be applied at different scales.

This suggests that there isn't the unity of art, science and engineering that Paul suggests. Practical objects tend to do well when simplified, for practical reasons. Aesthetic objects don't always do well when simplified. Simplicity in the two realms has different values, applications and (maybe) meanings.

Jay: Yup. Programs find their own level of complexity. We don't always want simple UIs, for example, and when we do, what we often mean is "doesn't contain bits I don't use or require extra steps." A power user of Photoshop doesn't want simplicity. She just doesn't want bits that get in the way. If that's all that "simplicity" means, then I'm all for it, but the result can be designs that are, by any reasonable judgment, complex.

David,

At the risk of being simplistic, it is my experience that the designer's role involves dealing with and managing inherent complexity so that the usability/legibility/experience/visual impact/tactile nature/livability of the resulting design arrives at a "simplicity of interaction,"
i.e, amenable to the restrictions of human senses.

I would add that many disagree, claiming that artistic instinct trumps pure design in any given hand.

It's a wonderful topic however, one that deserves the continued debate that it engenders.

I've summarized my discussion with Paul Graham on my blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jeffyip/

1. Try changing the clock on a Mercedes.

2. The success of Google is ... simplicity. Check out all the white space at Google.com.

3. The iPod and iTunes are successful because of their simplicity.

Of course, to be successful, you have to have a useful product/service, but simplicity sure helps.