Simple design
For as long as I remember, I’ve believed in simple design as a principle in my practice. It feels fundamental to me when I think about good design.
At the same time, I see many successful examples of complex products in the world. So I decided to ask, what value is simple design really providing me and my work?
Is it nostalgia?
I sometimes wonder if simple design is rooted in nostalgia. An example I like to use is:
Imagine yourself in the year 1981. You just purchased a brand new desk calculator. You are excited because you should be able to do any type of paperwork calculations you can imagine on it.
As you start to use it for the first time, it immediately prompts you to update its software. After using it for a few calculations, it asks you to fill out a survey about your experience. One day in the middle of adding up your checkbook, it interrupts you to tell you about a new leather-bound desk calendar the company just released. Sometimes in the middle of a complex calculation, the calculator will lag and crash. You have to restart it often to fix the issue.
I have a feeling that a person in 1981 would think this is a terrible calculator. They purchased the device to perform their calculations, nothing more. Why is it requiring so much more of their attention and effort?
Focus
I think simple design often refers to a focused product. A product that does a specific task can sometimes do that task really well. Products that try to do many things can offer a lot of value, but rarely do all the things well.
Some people prefer to use specific tools for specific tasks. Others prefer a wide variety of features.
I think the benefits of using fewer products are often a major reason complex products are successful. They may not be focused, they might be lower quality as a result, but people can use them for a wide variety of applications.
You can open a can of beans with a Swiss Army Knife — it will get the job done.
Art and subjectivity
Maybe simple design is valuable for intangible reasons. There is an art to simplicity. There is a beauty to simplicity.
A user can see more of the product's intentionality. The creator chose to leave certain features out. They decided what to include. The product likely exudes more vision and personality.
That might be unnoticed by some, but very valuable to others who care about craft. People who value the experience as much as the result.
Ease of use
I think a true benefit of simple design is the effect it has on ease of use. The less things there are to do in a product, the more obvious the things you can do become.
A simple product requires less of a user. That means a user can stay focused on their own needs and use the product in ways they define. They will encounter boundaries which limit them. These limitations could drive some away, but some might be engaged to find new and creative ways of working.
When to abandon simple design
I think the sad news is simple design is ultimately a limiting factor of a product's growth. I think there are many examples of this throughout the course of history (i.e. Ello vs Facebook, Rdio vs Spotify, Simplenote vs Notion, VSCO vs Instagram, Clear vs Things, Peach vs Twitter, etc). At the same time, I think 'simple design' does provide an entry point to successfully define what a product is.
The biggest challenge is continuing to evoke the benefits of simple design in an established product, while allowing a product to evolve and grow to meet its users' needs. That is a balancing act that very few products have ever achieved, but feels like an ideal that successful products should strive for.
Reading this made me reflect on my own approach to simple design. The Computer is arguably not simple design relative to a calculator because it’s many capabilities over a calculator. The iPhone is arguably not simple design because it’s not a focused product, with the intent being to combine multiple products/features into one. I think the “ease of use” point you makes the most sense to me.
Another way maybe to think about simple design is about doing no more and no less than what the product intends to achieve. It doesn’t matter how many features it has, a products “base weight” which can be characterized as number of features, complexity of integration of those features, is at one point irreducible relative to the problems it aims to address. But the more a product “weights” the more “fat” it tends to accumulate. Simple design to me is about the discipline of trimming that fat so the product is irreducible.