The complexity of simplicity

Software users are a fickle bunch. Make software too complex, and they hate it. Make software too simple, and they hate it. Guy Kawasaki posted a question earlier asking what people thought of Goowy, a Web desktop in the crowd that includes Pageflakes, NetVibes, Protopage, and a host of others.

The question itself was pretty mundane ("I’d like to know what people think of something I’ve found"), but the comments that resulted were pretty interesting.

Goowy’s obviously trying to be simple for somebody to pick up and use, which is what everyone wants, right? Apparently not. 61% of the people who responded gave Goowy a thumbs down, and most of the comments revolved around the basic idea that people weren’t "WOWed" by it. Here are some samples:

"Definitely "me-too" in all retrospect but the name is catchy and there is a definite need. However, it isn’t something I would personally use." – John Nguyen
"On the downside these ajax desktops just don’t provide a large enough variety of QUALITY applications for me." – Charlie Key
"This web-based GUI has some major limitations which are not compensated by any kick-ass feature." – Sander
"I see nothing unique, nothing new. Software world is full of this same old stuff." – Michael Taylor
"I have to agreed with everyone here…this is an old idea with a new User Interface. I don’t see any WOW factors here!" – Creative One
"Don’t see anything here that I can’t do better with Google and/or Backpack." – Phil

However, everybody is quick to admit that it’s easy to use. And it’s a very nice, friendly user interface, very slick, done in Flash and nice and colorful. My mom could use it, and it would probably be pretty useful to her, too.

If So on the one hand it’s easy to use, but on the other it doesn’t have enough features. What to do?

I’m going to call this Apple Syndrome. Apple makes good software that’s easy to use, Apple is successful, everybody loves Apple, and everybody wants to be Apple. And what makes Apple software and hardware so great? It’s not because it’s simple, it’s because it’s easy to use. The two often get confused. Although simple is usually always easy to use, easy to use is not always simple. There’s a difference between lacking features and presenting an interface that is easy to use.

Entire companies have been built around this mistake. And I’m sure they’re successful, but when users mature past the point of the their simple software they are STUCK, and start to need the features the software doesn’t have. They have to find a more mature software package to meet their needs. This isn’t good for the software company, and it’s certainly not good for the user.

Feature-rich software doesn’t have to look like a miasma of toolbars. It can be clean, easy to pick up and use, and should adapt with the user as he matures in his use of the software. The features that a user needs to perform the task he’s doing should exist, even if they’re not shown the first time a user opens the application. The fact that somebody can pick up an iPod and start using it without reading a manual is great, but there are tons of things that I didn’t know about mine until I read the manual. (I can add a song to the "On the Go" playlist by clicking and holding when it’s selected, podcasts and audiobooks save your spot, etc.)

Features are necessary for good software, so is a good interface. I’ve often wondered why there isn’t a position in software companies called "User Interface Artist" or something like that. One of the best books about writing a good software experience that I’ve ever read is Designing Interfaces : Patterns for Effective Interaction Design, but I’ve never seen a programmer recommend it. However, the user interface is JUST as important as the service oriented architecture that sits behind it, if not more so, because a terrible user interface will never get used. Open source software is plagued by user interfaces that only programmers can use.

Bad Interface + Feature rich = Shelfware

Good interface + Few features = A nice demo

Good interface + Feature rich = Good software

Share and Enjoy:

http://www.goowy.com alex

Jason,

Thanks so much for your support. You get very clearly what our original intent was for goowy – that is a simple, elegant environment that regular people can use for managing their personal communications and sharing.

We are going to continue to go deaper in relevant functionality but continue to manage the experience so that it is still simple to use and valuable.

Thanks so much for your support.

- Alex
http://www.ishtot.com Paul C.

One other piece that's missing: context.

You can have great user interfaces and features, but unless you have a reason to use those features, no one will jump on-board.

Goowy, Foldera and their ilk are simple and offer a lot to people, but only the early adopters will be there. Beyond that, there has to be a context, a reason, to want to use it. Using it just to use it (early adopters) is not sufficient for the masses.

And saying that it simplifies life, manages communication, etc. is not going to work either. It has to be something that they *need* to do a specific task or the only place where they can do "X" with "Y".
http://profile.typekey.com/jasonkolb/ jasonkolb

Paul,

Couldn't agree more. There's no real compelling reason to use these systems yet. I tried to use them as RSS aggregators, but there are lots of performance issues to be worked out, in the end I came back to fat clients. I can think of a few uses based on wiring Microformats together, but I don't see any of these systems anywhere close to that level of sophistication yet.

Jason
Jenifer Tidwell

Thanks for the book mention! And by the way, indirect evidence indicates that it is selling well among programmers. (Tradeshows and the like.)

Nice post.
Terry Leach

I would not trust the Guy Kawasaki answered survey, because the survey could have been answered by the techie types. The real question is who is the audience/market for web desktop applications not where the apllication s are to simple.