Simplicity Is Highly Overrated

Norman & Nielsen 구룹의 D.A Norman 아저씨가 재미있는 컬럼을 쓰셨네요..
상품에서의 심플이라는 개념이 너무 과대평가 받고 있다는 것입니다.
심플에 대한 의미를 설명하면서 한국 상품에 대한 얘기가 나옵니다. 지난 2006년도 디자인학회때 발표하러 오시면서 한국의 상점들을 둘러보신것 같습니다. 한국의 토스터기와 자동차 운전대, 자동차 거울을 예로 들면서 상품의 심플과 기능성에 대한 이야기를 하고 계시는데. 일반적으로 한국 상품은 매우 복잡하게 만들어졌다고 합니다. 외국에서 20$하는 토스터기가 한국에서는 많은 기능과 컨트롤러를 포함하여 250$하고, 자동차 운전대에는 오디오를 컨트롤하는 기능, 핸드폰 받는 기능들이 각종 버튼과 디스플이를 더하면서 상품에 존재 한다는 것을 매우 놀라워 하는 군요. 이와 더불어 Simens의 세탁기 얘기도 하고 있는데 Simens의 세탁기는 심플하게 만들고자, 버튼의 개수를 줄이고 기능을 자동화 하여 제공하고 있다는 점입니다. 위 두가지의 예를 설명하면서 이 컬럼에서 중요하게 시사하는 점은..심플하게 만들겠다고 기능을 줄이는 것, 또는 기능을 자동화 해서 1개 혹은 2개의 버튼만 제공하는것, 이런 상품은 구매자들이 구매를 하지 않는다 라는 것입니다. 마케팅 원칙에도 있듯이, 구매 결정은 상품이 갖고 있는 기능 리스트에 영향을 끼친다는 것이죠. 그러면서 한국의 상품들은 아주 잘 팔릴것이라 얘기하고 있습니다.

결국, 심플이란 버튼의 개수를 줄이거나, 상품의 기능을 줄이는 것(기능의 개수 줄이기, 자동화)이 아니라는 것입니다. 하지만 한국에서는 아직도 기능을 슬림하게 만드는 것이 심플이라 생각하는 사람이 적지 않죠..기능을 뺀다는 것, 결국 상품의 유용성이 부족해진다는 것이 겠죠..
삼성 TV와 LG TV 중 어느것이 좋아요..했을때 제 주의 사람들은 대부분 LG TV를 선호합니다.
왜 LG가 좋은데?? 기능이 많으니까~~ㅎㅎ

결국 상품에서의 심플은 감성적으로 접근하라는 얘기겠죠?

http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html

Column written for Interactions. © CACM, 2007. This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. It may be redistributed for non-commercial use only, provided this paragraph is included.

Comment: This is one of the most misunderstood of all my columns. So after you finish, read the “Addendum” before you Slashdot or otherwise flame me. Then, if you still disagree, go right ahead and object. I don’t mind criticism. I don’t mind being wrong -- that's how I learn. But it is painful to be misunderstood.

“Why can’t products be simpler?” cries the reviewer in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the local newspaper. “We want simplicity” cry the people befuddled by all the features of their latest whatever. Do they really mean it? No.

But when it came time for the journalists to review the simple products they had gathered together, they complained that they lacked what they considered to be “critical” features. So, what do people mean when they ask for simplicity? One-button operation, of course, but with all of their favorite features.

I recently toured a department store in South Korea. Visiting department stores and the local markets is one of my favorite pastimes whenever I visit a country new to me, the better to get to know the local culture. Foods differ, clothes differ, and in the past, appliances differed: appliances, kitchen utensils, gardening tools, and shop tools.

I found the traditional “white goods” most interesting: Refrigerators and washing machines. The store obviously had the Korean companies LG and Samsung, but also GE, Braun, and Philips. The Korean products seemed more complex than the non-Korean ones, even though the specifications and prices were essentially identical. “Why?” I asked my two guides, both of whom were usability professionals. “Because Koreans like things to look complex,” they responded. It is a symbol: it shows their status.

But while at the store, I marveled at the advance complexities of all appliances, especially ones that once upon a time were quite simple: for example, toasters, refrigerators, and coffee makers, all of which had multiple control dials, multiple LCD displays, and a complexity that defied description.

Once upon a time, a toaster had one knob to control how much the bread was to be toasted and that was all. A simple lever lowered the bread and started the operation. Toasters cost around $20. But in the Korean store, I found a German toaster for 250,000 Korean Won (about $250). It had complex controls, a motor to lower the untoasted bread and to lift it when finished, and an LCD panel with many cryptic icons, graphs, and numbers. Simplicity?

After touring the store my two friendly guides and I stopped outside to where two new automobiles were on display: two brand new Korean SUVs. Complexity again. I’m old enough to remember when a steering wheel was just a steering wheel, the rear view mirror just a mirror. These steering wheels were also complex control structures with multiple buttons and controls including two sets of loudness controls, one for music and one for the telephone (and I’m not even mentioning the multiple stalks on the steering column). The rear view mirror had two controls, one to illuminate the compass the other simply labeled “mirror,” which lit a small red light when depressed. A rear view mirror with an on-off switch? The salesperson didn't know what it did either.

Why such expensive toasters? Why all the buttons and controls on steering wheels and rear-view mirrors? Because they appear to add features that people want to have. They make a difference at the time of sale, which is when it matters most.

Why is this? Why do we deliberately build things that confuse the people who use them?

Answer: Because the people want the features. Because simplicity is a myth whose time has past, if it ever existed.

Make it simple and people won’t buy. Given a choice, they will take the item that does more. Features win over simplicity, even when people realize that it is accompanied by more complexity. You do it too, I bet. Haven’t you ever compared two products side by side, comparing the features of each, preferring the one that did more? Why shame on you, you are behaving, well, behaving like a normal person.

The complex expensive toaster? I bet it sells well.

What really puzzles me, though, is that when a manufacturer figures out how to automate an otherwise mysterious operation, I would expect the resulting device to be simpler. Nope. Here is an example.

Siemens recently released a washing machine that, to quote their website, “is equipped with smart sensors that recognize how much laundry is in the drum, what kind of textiles the laundry load comprises, and if it is heavily or lightly soiled. Users only have to choose one of two program settings: hot and colored wash, or easy-to-clean fabrics. The machine takes care of the rest.”

Hurrah, I said, now the entire wash can be automatic, so there need be only two controls: one to chose between “hot and colored wash” and “easy-to-clean fabrics,” the other to start the machine. Nope, this washer had even more controls and buttons than the non-automatic one. “Why even more controls? I asked my contact at Siemens, “when you could make this machines with only one or two?”.

“Are you one of those people who wants to give up control, who thinks less is better?” asked this usability expert. “Don’t you want to be in control?”

Strange answer. Why the automation if it isn’t to be trusted? And, yes, actually I am one of those bizarre people who think that less is better.

It appears that marketing won the day. And I suspect marketing was right. Would you pay more money for a washing machine with less controls? In the abstract, maybe. At the store? Probably not.

Notice the question: “pay more money for a washing machine with less controls.” An early reviewer of this paper flagged the sentence as an error: “Didn’t you mean ‘less money’?” the reviewer asked? That question makes my point precisely. If a company spent more money to design and build an appliance that worked so well, so automatically, that all it needed was an on-off switch, people would reject it. “This simple looking thing costs more?” They would complain. “What is that company thinking of? I’ll buy the cheaper one with all those extra features – after all, it’s better, right? And I save money.”

Marketing rules – as it should, for a company that ignores marketing is a company soon out of business. Marketing experts know that purchase decisions are influenced by feature lists, even if the buyers realize they will probably never use most of the features. Even if the features confuse more than they help.

Yes, we want simplicity, but we don’t want to give up any of those cool features. Simplicity is highly overrated.

Don Norman wears many hats, including co-founder of the Nielsen Norman group, Professor at Northwestern University, and author, his latest book being Emotional Design. He lives at www.jnd.org.