Simplicity

Perhaps the true key to good design is simplicity. Simplicity has several different meanings depending on the context of use. However, simplicity generally means removing excess sensory data, removing superfluous information, and reducing information/a message to its essential physical and conceptual form.

When I was an undergraduate, I had to read Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Each sentence was around 5 pages long, and each word seemed to be 15 syllables. The book was around 260 pages. I had no clue what the book was about, but in class the professor somehow managed to reduce the meaning of the book to one (relatively) simple sentence: when opposing ideas are exposed to each other, they tend to merge over time into the same idea, and yet people maintain the illusion that the difference still exists. The book was talking about capitalism and communism. But, I always though it was a powerful insight into the democrat and republican parties as well. I remember thinking at the time, "This book is great (more or less)! But, the design sucks!!!"

Textbooks nowadays seem to be designed with the idea of simplicity in mind. Sometimes I wonder if textbooks are unnecessarily oversimplifying though (read the end of this essay).

Educational psychologists/instructional systems designers tend to focus on the reduction of "cognitive load" through removing irrelevant information, distractions, and difficult (ambiguous, complex...) symbols (see The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning). The goal from this perspective is to remove the burden that excess places on cognitive processing so that the brain can focus on the important and more difficult ideas.

The US government has recommendations for improving public communication through the use of "plain language". Basically they advocate the simplification of government forms, not using jargon or technical terms, and not using complicated grammar. One definition of plain language is:

"Plain English is clear, straightforward expression, using only as many words as are necessary. It is language that avoids obscurity, inflated vocabulary and convoluted sentence construction. It is not baby talk, nor is it a simplified version of the English language. Writers of plain English let their audience concentrate on the message instead of being distracted by complicated language. They make sure that their audience understands the message easily." Professor Robert Eagleson, Australia

In product design, Maeda's The Laws of Simplicity (Simplicity: Design, Technology, Business, Life) offers the following ten laws of achieving simplicity in design:

Law 1 Reduce: The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.
Law 2 Organize: Organization makes a system of many appear fewer.
Law 3 Time: Savings in time feel like simplicity.
Law 4 Learn: Knowledge (experience) makes everything simpler.
Law 5 Differences: Simplicity and complexity (contrast, variety) need each other.
Law 6 Context: What lies in the periphery of simplicity is definitely not peripheral.
Law 7 Emotion: More emotions are better than less.
Law 8 Trust: In simplicity we trust.
Law 9 Failure: Some things can never be made simple.
Law 10 The One: Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful.

Some of these laws make little sense (and seem to have little basis in research) and some of them are incredibly obvious. But as a starting point for dialog on the topic of simplicity, they will have to suffice.

Zipf's Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort (1949) argues that human behavior is governed by a principle of least effort; that people are willing to sacrifice outcome quality if a lower quality outcome is more easily obtainable than a high yielding difficult to obtain outcome. In other words, least effort is an important factor in decision making. People conduct a cost/benefits analysis before doing something, and the action that requires the least effort with the highest possible gain is chosen. If an action that potentially yields higher gain is available, it will not be chosen if it requires more effort. It would seem that if something seems simpler, it would be perceived as requiring less effort and thus will be chosen as a course of action.

In Communication science in relation to the processing of mediated messages, Annie Lang (2000) proposes that the human brain is a limited capacity information processor. First, the brain is only able to attend to a limited number of stimuli. Thus, attention is selective and first focuses on what is easily perceived, what appears relevant, what has been primed, and that which is novel. Second, memory is limited (generally, it is believed that working memory can handle 3 (+ or - 2) bits of info at a time, or 4 chunks). We can extend memory by writing things down or graphically representing them. I sometimes wonder what we gain and what we lose by doing so. Still, it is clear that the brain has some defined limits in relation to attention and memory, and thus meaning generation. Since the brain is limited in what it can simultaneously perceive and remember, there is a limit on the meaning that can be derived from a representation (message or message set). The message designer's goals are thus to:

1) Reduce a design into its simplest form to compensate for limits of brain hardwiring,
2) Direct attention to the most important information,
2) Ensure that information is not distracting, irrelevant, or overly complicated.
3) Attract attention.
4) Facilitate memory.
5) Facilitate meaning making.
6) Test how successful the design has been in meeting 1-5.

Yet, I also believe that learning is primarily a result of effort. Sometimes, designs/messages need to be more complex and ambiguous in order to stimulate mental engagement. People like puzzles. People like solving problems. People are natural born sense makers. The intent is key here in making decisions about message complexity. For messages in which people have to make quick decisions, simplicity is best. For messages that are not so immediate, more complexity and ambiguity are appropriate. Think about going to the art museum. I have marveled at some really complex paintings. I spent about 15 minutes looking at a Picasso painting at MOMA once. (I average about 10 seconds per painting.) On the other hand, the "line on the wall" type art bored me. Of course art is not the same as message design. The intent is completely different (as will be addressed in a future essay).

Take a look at this new search engine: Cuil. Now look at this search engine: Yahoo. Which is the better design? Who would benefit from one design or the other? How would you change either design based on the idea of simplicity/complexity?