Think about the apps you use — the best are usually the ones that provide a lot of power and functionality with a relatively simple user interface. It’s a obvious point, but many most apps get things wrong.
Google is a great example: the UI is about as simple as you can get, but there’s a lot of power behind the UI. Also, I think Apple generally does a good job: many of the UI functions in OS X are much simpler than their Windows counterparts, but are equally powerful. (My favorite examples: the wireless connection manager, and backup/restore).
Unfortunately, bad examples abound. My virus scanning software provides endless UI chatter about downloading the latest updates, doing scans, and providing me with countless updates about what it is doing and has already done. It’s as if the software has low self-esteem, and needs to constantly remind that it is working for me. Why can’t it just lurk in the background, “do the right thing”, and involve me only when it really needs to?
I think most developers either (a) don’t care about interaction design, and/or (b) fall into the trap of believing that “value” is driven by “visible features”. That is, the more stuff the user can see, the more the software must be worth.
But I’m encouraged, because I think the software business has matured to the point where design matters. In the early days, users were appreciative of functionality, in any form. Now, functionality abounds, and users demand it in the simplest, most usable form.
Great article. I agree with the basic premise.
However, I think the Google Search example is a bit misleading. Few software products have the luxury of being able to have such a simple interface to a very powerful underlying technology. Sure, Google does a lot of work based on a simple search query — but some of the advanced features have a much steeper learning curve. There are few Command Line Interfaces that have a great value to visible-features ratio.
It would interesting to try and think of other software examples where the value of the product for its users far exceeds the “visible features”.
By the way, I liked that you labeled your need “simple power” (and not just simple). I think too many product developers focus a lot on simplicity — to the *detriment* of the users because the product lacks sufficient richness and power. It’s easy to create power. It’s harder to create simplicity. It’s much, much harder to create “simple power”.
Dharmesh: thanks for your comments.
I agree that Google is an extreme example, that’s hard for many software designers to replicate. However, for *entrepreneurs* looking for new opportunities, it’s a great model to strive for. If you can pull it off, it’s the closest thing to magic there is.
My current favorite “practical” example is Time Machine in Leopard. Getting it running was pretty much (a) plug in a USB drive, and (b) answer “yes” to the dialog box question asking “use this drive as your Time Machine backup”.