People actually want more features and functionality. They also want ease of use, he says, but there is a popular false dichotomy that equates simplicity with ease of use, and features with capability. Norman lays out the following, which he says is an implicit assumption:

* Features ==> Capability
* Simplicity ==> Ease of use

I agree with this:

People actually want more features and functionality. They also want ease of use, he says, but there is a popular false dichotomy that equates simplicity with ease of use, and features with capability. Norman lays out the following, which he says is an implicit assumption:

* Features ==> Capability
* Simplicity ==> Ease of use

Users do want features. Making an application or UI as dumb as it possibly can be doesn’t create an exiting app with a wow factor that makes something sellable.

Make a sexy app that has the features that the users want, break them up into manageable pieces if there are too many.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)

How many functions of you mobile phone are you actually using? I hardly use it for anything, but for placing and receiving calls and text messages.

Besides, this sound strange to me:

Modularization – Break up big, complicated tasks into smaller, more manageable ones.

I mean, do they suggest that instead of pressing only one button, I have to press 5 buttons, simply because the task appears to be too complex? In fact, I don’t think I need to know how the task is performed, I just need the result.

Two quick comments.

my article can be found at:

I take great pride in my power to effect products at Apple. As soon as I joined (under John Sculley), the company went into a major slide downwards. As soon as I left (I was VP of Advanced Technology), Apple went into an immediate recovery to its current heights. Pretty impressive for one person, eh? How can anyone doubt my credentials?

Don Norman
http://www.jnd.org don@jnd.org

If my cellphone only had one button it certainly would be simple, but, umm, all I could do would be to turn it on or off: I wouldn’t be able to make a phone call.

This is so disingenuous that I nearly laughed out loud. I must’ve missed the part where 37signals said that a car had to accelerate, steer and stop using a single control, or a printing press had to have only had one letter available for marking up words.

Arguably, having one button on a cell phone, you could still tap out long SMS’s or dial numbers – how do you think Stephen Hawking holds a conversation? – but it would be tedious, so it actaully be less simple than having, oh, I don’t know, having 0-9 keys and a dial / hang-up button, for example.

The average (non geek / gadget obsessed) client we develop systems for require two things from the products they buy from us:

1) That it is as simple as possible, but no less than required,
2) That it is as sophisticated as possible, but no more than required.

Mr. Norman, you stand in the way of good design, and without your hindrance Microsoft *might* have less of a monopoly than they do today.

There is no bigger success story on the internet than Google – a chain of sites that are both simple to use (when only doing simple things) and extremely capable (when you don’t mind using a more complicated interface).

That is the ultimate goal – offering visitors precisely the level of sophistication they need. Anyone who wants to carry out a simple, straight-forward and commonly-used task should be able to carry it out without any unnecessary distractions or unwanted features getting in the way.

For some sites, there will be a need/demand to offer more advanced features and capabilities. That’s great, and the more you enable people to do on your website, the more likely they are to hang around, to come back another time and to spread the word. But it should never get in the way of the most commonly-done simple tasks.