Archive for January, 2007

a ‘useable’ definition of usability/simplification from Jakob

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

I like Jakob:  In 2003, he wrote that his mission included:

“…to defend humans from overly complex technology.” [1]

This is useful. 

— 

1.  Alertbox #200, Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, September 29, 2003, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030929.html

simplicity is adding polish and design not dumbing down

Thursday, January 18th, 2007

Another definition of ’simplicity’ as seen in the Backspin opinion page of Mark Gibbs at Network World:

“When I use the word simplicity I don’t mean dumbing down, I mean adding polish and applying serious design effort to make the software or hardware not just usable but actually a pleasure to use.” [1]

Mark also observes that we regularly encounter many complex products.  Why? 

He notes that the amount of complexity and detail in products and problem solving is overwhelming.  Once overwhelmed, we take shortcuts (we don’t read doc, test, or fully understand before proceeding) and then make mistakes.  We are not likely to see products improve because users are not likely to complain about the complexity (we are likely just too exhausted to complain). 

1. Outrage and lust, by Mark Gibbs, Backspin, Network World, 01/12/2007, http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/011507-backspin.html

simple is fashionable for 2007

Tuesday, January 9th, 2007

It seems that “simple” products may be what consumers will want in 2007.  CNet News.com quotes Ed Zander, Motorola CEO:

Mobile communication, said Zander, “is coming down to cool experiences and simple things.”” [1]

I wonder if one comes first: cool or simple?  (Chicken or Egg?)

Do people use simple products and then declare them cool, or do people use cool products and then declare them cool? 

The answer could be both: “both”. 

a.) Some people, after finding a product simple to use, will then declare it cool and recommend it to other people. 

b.) Those other people, before using the product, and based upon either hearing of the ‘cool’ endorsement or observing a ‘cool’ factor of the product such as its appearance / design / product feature list, will be motivated to use the product, figure it out, and then deem it simple.

So, instead of COOL/SIMPLE being a ‘Chicken or Egg?’ thing, maybe they’re more of a ‘Peanut Butter and Chocolate Together’ thing – two ingredients of one product.

One more observation.  Can you substitute these words into Ed’s quote?

Cool = Fashionable/Fun
Simple = Useful

— 

1.  Motorola’s mission? Make everything mobile, By Erica Ogg, Staff Writer, CNET News.com, Published: January 8, 2007, 3:48 PM PST, http://news.com.com/Motorolas+mission+Make+everything+mobile/2100-1033-6148323.html

simplexity (add this buzzword to your dictionary)

Monday, January 8th, 2007

An item in today’s Boston Globe: Monday, Jan 8, 2007 Business section, p.D2 reports that in Marketing Daily, Robbie Blinkoff calls a new trend SIMPLEXITY — giving a product or service a ”veneer of simplicity” to mask its underlying, complex technology so that people will be able to use it. 

In other words: Appear to be easy, you do not need to take out features (complexity) but rather take away the appearance of complexity so that users enjoy using your product.