Comments

Why do they make things so complicated when we cry out for simplicity? Qui Bono - for who's benefit? Of those 87 buttons I bet I would use 20 max and be a very happy bunny. I am a proud baby boomer and I will only buy one with over 100 button when it mows the lawn and makes great ommelettes :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 20, 2006 9:22 AM

great point. On another blog I have been debating whther or not Google is innovative. My point was its not so much their R&D budget and the "constrained creativity" they claim to practice, more their empathy to us consumers. They have focused on our constraints - "attention budget" and made search (and driving directions and others) much more efficient.

Attention, budgets, space whatever - the consumer's constrains are a great way to view innovations and design.

Posted by vinnie mirchandani at February 20, 2006 9:34 AM

usability is a key part of great design.

Trevor - I believe that simplicity goes out of the window when stuff is sold on maximising features rather than ease of use. The super geeks who are early adaptors of these products are looking for exactly what you don't want!

Posted by PaulH at February 20, 2006 10:08 AM

Hmmm. Sounds like somebody let the engineers out! This isn't a new problem (unfortunately). 20 years ago I was working with a Japanese company where they insisted on having about 252 features on a phone system. This when we repeatedly told them the target market (low-end, small office key systems) really only wanted, needed, and would pay for about five. But, they wanted those five to be very, very easy to use.

I also don't think "maximizing features" and simplicity have to be mutually exclusive!

Well, nuff for now. This old girl is going back to trying to figure out how to "rewind" my DVD player! ;-)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at February 20, 2006 10:15 AM

buttons=functions
functions=extras
extras=high price

Therefore they (may I say "we"?) say "simple" but made "complicated" in order to get more dollars from the same thing.

On the other hand: sometines making something "simple" is not dificult: is just expensive.

Posted by Francisco Fernández at February 20, 2006 10:21 AM

Hmmm. Poses the question, can 'top of the line'possibly be sold if it doesn't have the features? Don't consumers equate features with quality? I conceptually agree that I need fewer features, but I am not sure that when faced with 100 different DVD players I would actually buy the one that didn't have said features. Maybe they simply need to have 2 remotes, one for the geezers (power, play, stop, skip, menu, enter, number pad) one for the techies (200 buttons, including some useless ones just to make the remote look more complex, thereby impressing the family).

Posted by Bryan at February 20, 2006 10:35 AM

Design is still in. This is just bad design!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 20, 2006 10:37 AM

I see an ad on TV that says, "Only 6 buttons that do these 12 things--the only ones you really do."

That would get my attention.

Posted by Liz Strauss at February 20, 2006 10:50 AM

Shouldn't HDTV remotes serve as a PC (or MAC) mouse? Rather than trying to cram so many buttons on the remote device, wouldn't it be wiser to have easy-to-navigate menus on the screen that can be selected and 'clicked' remotely with the remote unit? Perhaps even a toolbar that can be shown or hidden on the screen? An advertisers dream come true.

This is why I think that the media center concept will get red hot in the not-too-distant future. Incorporating the quality of the HDTV signal with the functionality of the Internet, to include search, etc.

By the way Tom, many HDTV users fail to realize that they aren't actually watching High Definition if the signal isn't fed properly. Also, many broadcasts are still using analog cameras to record events (Winter Olympics), which will fail to provide the true HDTV experience. Ensure that your feed is optimized to exploit the technology.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 20, 2006 11:52 AM

Simplicity in this world is forgotten.

Nowadays Management and Peers belive that if something is more complex is better.

But the hard truth is: minds of people HATE complexity.

And since a Competitive Advantage (WOW! company value)is based on the single activities each person decides and make everyday:

I belive the only companies that will survive will be those that:

1.- Makes the right things (only WOW! things).
2.- Makes them simple (this means WOW! things working FAST!).

Survival is: WOW! Things working FAST.

With best regards from Mexico

Posted by Juan Miguel Robles Vargas at February 20, 2006 11:55 AM

Hey Juan!!! - Greetings my fellow simplicity disciple ... you and I are together!

Simplicity is the Key .... and there was me thinking I was alone :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 20, 2006 12:08 PM

THIS issue of design needs a little perspective. Perhaps TV is useless? Just a thought.

Posted by Tom N at February 20, 2006 1:35 PM

An obvious example of simplicity AND high price: the ipod. One little circular button (on the ipod shuffle). Imagine a TV/DVD remote as elegantly simple.

Posted by AJ Hoge at February 20, 2006 1:54 PM

Recently went through the same scenario: acquired HDTV, DVD, etc., and needed to integrate it into an existing system. The result: 7 remote controls. Just wasn't going to work. Did some research and ended up buying a Harmony Remote from Logitech. Works really well, but the set-up process was complicated. For example, had to work with tech support to add commands to control my iPod through my AV Receiver.

And then it hit me. Complaints about the tower of babel are misplaced. Or lack compassion.

You see, it's really difficult for one remote controller to handle multiple products from multiple manufacturers. We want multiple products, we like diversity. And we want simplicity. Excellent design. Perfect user interface.

Well, there's a cost to that. And provides a business opportunity for companies like Logitech.

Posted by Bill Berry at February 20, 2006 4:03 PM

Why, Oh why would a single mfg produce a DVD player and an amplifier with two remotes and 10/s of buttons and still require some steps be carried out directly on the device? I've got them now.

Why do manufacturers insist on ignoring that they are interacting with human beings? (I drive one of the 'safest' cars on the planet with the same incompetence interacting with the human being it is so designed to protect.)

Posted by Neil Arthur at February 20, 2006 5:06 PM

If you TV manufacturers are listening, please think about this: On the TV set itself, what ever happened to the volume knob and channel selection dial? Why do you insist on using tiny buttons that all look alike and are so hard to read? People like me could actually adjust the volume without turning on the room lights and finding our reading glasses, and we wouldn't have to press the Channel-Up 100 times. Duh!

/Garry Booker, Tulsa, OK

Posted by Garry Booker at February 20, 2006 11:06 PM

I visited Japan last year - with all the impressions of hi-tech and techno-savvy nation. I was correct about the first part but while I was checking out my Japanese colleague's "deadly" cell-phone he told me - I quote him - "My grandfather buy me this ... he think it is rubbish"

Posted by Shankar Ramachandran at February 20, 2006 11:27 PM

I agree with PaulH. Usability and design go hand-in-hand and early adopters are often looking for more functionality than the mainstream. As Tom writes in The Project 50, one of the most difficult challenges of a project is taking it mainstream.

Posted by Troy Worman at February 21, 2006 12:33 AM

All this talk about features seems to overlook one thing: what are the benefits? Francisco and others make the point that unused features mean there's a lot of additional cost engineered in. I'd prefer to see something with the key functions made easily accessible but the power-user stuff on a seperate control or in a flip-up pad or on the reverse side.

And it still wazzes me off that they make these darned remotes so they're on different operating frequencies or whatever... it's worse that the old video format wars. Why not stick to one standard - maybe even make 'em upgradeable - so we can buy one device we love and then they wouldn't even need to supply a new remote with every new device?

Posted by Mark JF at February 21, 2006 3:47 AM

When I was a kid my parents had a remote control with NO buttons--me! "Get up and change the channel." "Get up and turn the TV down while your mother is on the phone." If I wasn't home, they used the alternate remote--my brother.

Posted by Mike at February 21, 2006 8:33 AM

While I'll readily admit that from a sales perspective, catering for the 'boomers-geezers with the $$$' is a clever idea, I also think that it is the single most limiting decision in business.

If we could never challenge anybody to learn new things, break old habits, or - at the very least - accept that documentation exists (no, I'm not saying 'read the entire manual').

TV - or digital media in general - is very much cutting edge at the moment. New standards and new technology is pushing evolution forward at a very high pace. If you want to be an early adopter, then you have to accept that conceptual design and implementations are in early stages.

At the same time, human evolution is at a high pace as well. Eye-to-hand coordination skills of 12 year-old kids exceed those of trained fighter pilots. As you mention yourself, your 8 y-o niece had no problems figuring it out.

All-in-all, it's a balance. While your business can benefit from catering for the 'geezers', it can also suffer in the longer term if it has to slow down evolution.
After all, we have to be ready to cater for the 'boomers-geezers' of tomorrow as well!

Posted by Lars Olufsen at February 21, 2006 8:42 AM

And then there is the matter of the RESEARCH time it takes to decide on a new product - be it HDTV, new car, new house, etc.

Tom - there is a "master control" handheld device that joins the 3 remotes - that may rule the new locale - but I'm unfamiliar with it. I have a simple smallish new HDTV w/out DVD as yet - the nerve of me to be able to do without.

Posted by Sean at February 21, 2006 12:09 PM

Well said, Lars. There's a balance to be met somewhere in there. It does seem, however, that we sometimes devolve with design - perpetuating the same frustrations with usability as we have always. Nobody, not even kids today, wants 87 buttons on a remote. Evolve to suit everybody with eye-tracking advances or voice recognition or something that goes beyond the tedium of button pushing.

The FBI will have a tough time tracking our young people, as their fingerprints will be all but gone by the time they are 18.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 21, 2006 12:30 PM

Lars has a point, but remember: there's a fine line between making something complicated because it has a lot to offer that can't be expressed any other way, vs. not thinking through whether it needs to be as complicated as it is and, if not, modifying it.

Reminds me of a product that I once revised the manual for. System setup required a 200-key keyboard and a 200-page manual; the average user needed 10 keys and about 3 pages of instructions. Guess how the engineers put together the first edition of the manual. And guess what the users, who were factory workers with a high-school education, thought of it ("doorstop" is putting it politely).

(Who was it that said, "I wrote you a long letter because I didn't have time to write you a short one"?)

Posted by Paula at February 21, 2006 6:14 PM

I am reminded of a Steve Jobs quote on design..."Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works" - WOW!

Posted by K.Sriram at February 21, 2006 11:54 PM

"While I'll readily admit that from a sales perspective, catering for the 'boomers-geezers with the $$$' is a clever idea, I also think that it is the single most limiting decision in business."

WELL, THERE ARE ABOUT 100+ MILLION OF US, WE HAVE ALL THE MONEY, AND WE'LL BE AROUND FOR ABOUT THE NEXT 25 YEARS. SOME "LIMITING FACTOR"??

MORE IMPORTANT, AGE 8 OR 88 THE CONTROLLERS I HAVE ARE, SIMPLY, POORLY DESIGNED.

Posted by tom peters at February 22, 2006 1:25 AM

I know a lot of you folks out there don't like the HBR but there's an interesting article this month entitled, "Defeating Feature Fatigue." In a nutshell, they say that buying decisions are usually driven by perceived capability and that's seen in obvious features like 87 buttons. However, user satisfaction with the purchase is driven by its usability so all of a sudden the 87 buttons have become a drawback and in some cases a hindrance as it will result in people returning the product because they simply can't make it work.

Unfortunately / unsurprisingly the article doesn't mention a great deal about design but (hurrah!) there is a bit. And it does have one nice bit of advice: "Design products that do one thing very well." Amen.

Posted by Mark JF at February 22, 2006 4:11 AM

Yes, Tom ... a limiting factor.

The 'boomers-geezers' might "have all the money", and they might "be around for another 25 years", but they're not necessarily the ones that has all the money for the next 25 years. And some companies have ambitions in longer terms.

I'm not saying that the design is good - not at all. This is not an attempt at glorifying poor design! What I AM saying, is that sometimes you have to disregard some concerns to cater for others. It's a balance.

In the technology and media business, you're either at the front or you're effectively a dinosaur. All but extinct.

If you want to produce HDTV-sets, then you have to get the functionality out there at a competetive price and preferably before anybody else. If you don't, then you're not selling anything.

How many 4:3 format CRT-based TV-sets are sold today because of 'ease of use'? Compare that to how many TV-sets are sold because of 'new features'.

I'm not saying that useablity and design should be discarded. Just that it is a balance, and you chose to be on the cutting edge, investing in immature technology.

The solution? Add mature technology yourself!

Buy a programmable touch-screen controller, and get YOUR 'mass customized' controller, built EXACTLY to your preference!

It's either that solution, or accepting that you can't get the HDTV-features you want until 6-8-12 months later.

But really - I'm sure the choice is yours. Sit on your hands for 12 months, and I'll bet you that better design is out there with the same feature-set.

It's a balance.

Posted by Lars Olufsen at February 22, 2006 4:38 AM

To further Lars' point. Many of the Boomers-Geezers out there with cash at hand will be using it to buy 'stuff' for their grandchildren, who definitely want the latest and greatest and who don't mind using all of the buttons to get the better quality. There might be a portion of boomers-geezers who still want to upgrade their own arsenal of gadetry, but there will be an equal number who will content themselves with what they have already amassed, spending money instead on travel and gifts for the grandchildren who they are visiting. I know when my Dad retired, he stopped trying to get more stuff and used his time to play more tennis and travel. I put a cordless phone in the house when he was on a holiday, because he always harped on about the unnecessity of it when he was at home. He ended up liking the cordless, but still grumbled a bit whenever I asked how it was working for him.

generic viagra pills

I'd say that today's retirees are a bit more technologically advanced than dear old Dad, but it wouldn't surprise me if many of them still would rather play golf and tennis than buy more 'stuff' - at least for them.

All that said, Note to designers, engineers and programmers: Please make it easier for all of us! There are plenty of 30 and 40 somethings out here that want it simplified too! purchase generic viagra on line without a prescription

Posted by Tom O'Leary at February 22, 2006 2:03 PM

Well said Tom O' - simplicity is not something that is needed when people hit a certain age!

I keep thinking of teachers who almost literally sent me to sleep all those centuries ago at school with their boring way of communicating complicated stuff that in reality one or two people in the class really grasped. 98% of the population didn't 'get it'- and we carry that on into adult life. I wrote something called ‘Professional Speak - Guaranteed Protection’ - happy to share it just let me know - trevor.simplicity@gmail.com

If only teachers would use stories to get the message over then our adult life would not perhaps be spent trying to invent complexity for things that are simple!

I look forward to the day when training portfolio of teachers has an MST - Masters in Story Telling as part of their basic qualification requirements! ... Dream on Trevor :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 24, 2006 3:11 AM

OK Tom you need the Kameleon Universal Remote. This IS design! Works with just about everything and if it doesn't, a call to them and they send information to the device over the phone. Simple. Best money we ever spent and no more fishing through remotes. See it here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009X5Y54/sr=8-1/qid=1141064829/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8759369-4216810?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Enjoy!

Posted by Caryl Felicetta at February 27, 2006 1:34 PM