John Mendenhall — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:35:21 GMT

I don’t think it’s a matter of the semantics of what we mean by simplicity. Robert’s point seems clear; “Applying user research methods to guide design decisions will assist in the appropriate balance and placement of simplicity in the product, and the exposure of complexity to the end user.”

Simplicity/Complexity is an attribute that is best determined empirically. An evaluation of context/activity/tasks/goals should inform the distribution of functions represented in the user interface.

Research may indicate that, If the context is selling DVR’s, perhaps aesthetics, or maybe, the reptilian brain may account for shoppers’ initial reactions to the user interface. Ideally, the designer will seek, through iterative testing, an interface that appeals to shoppers’ desire for a technologically sophisticated looking interface while maximizing the usability of the DVR (see Thompson’s comments above).

Likewise, If the context is the control room of a nuclear power plant, then research may show that the novel event is a critical variable to consider in the design of the interface. In this case, the designer will seek, again through iterative testing, displays and controls that allow the operators to recognize and diagnose novel events.

P.S. I think Robert meant Fitt’s List, which can guide function allocation decisions.

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by John Mendenhall