« Why they don't upgrade (and what to do about it) | Main | Help! Need a web developer/designer to fix this blog »

Ease-of-use should not mean neuter-the-software

Is our heart in the right place but our execution flawed when we neuter a product in the name of newbie-friendliness? In the push to make programs "so simple even your [mom/kid/dog] could use it", there are a lot of dumb products out there. Or rather, dumbed-down products. It's like we're throwing the power baby out with the poor UI bathwater. But if we want passionate users, ease-of-use should NOT be the Big Design Goal. Good usability is the enabler for what we (users) really want--more superpowers.

We want to do things. Cooler things. Advanced things. More creative things. We don't want to be better at using the tool, we want to be better at doing whatever it is the tool supports! Usually when we talk about this it's-not-about-being-better-at-the-tool thing, we're coming from the perspective of what and how we teach our users. This post, however, is about the software, product, web site, service, itself.

Take a look at this chart, and ask yourself how you'd describe the two boxes with question marks. We know the bottom right quadrant is awesome, and in the top left, there be dragons. But what of the top right? What of the bottom left? Think about it for a moment before you continue (or before you, as most of you will do, skip to the next graphic ; )


It's great that so many are putting the "user" back in "user interface", but using a brain-dead-simple tool does NOT necessarily mean an "I Rule!" experience. Maybe we need to spend more time thinking about providing superpowers and a little less time on simplifying. The last thing we want is to build the Tic-Tac-Toe equivalent of software, when the user ultimately wants to play Chess. (Note: I said "when" the user wants to play Chess. Sometimes the ultra-beginner-only product is exactly what's needed, and might be extremely successful, but it does mean that users will outgrow it before they ever become passionate. This post is about the products that do NOT want to be newbie-only.)

Without challenge, there can be no growth and no flow state. And wherever you find real passion, you always find challenges. Alan Kay once said something like, "We do a great job of helping people practice being beginners. We help them get really good at being beginners. What we need are ways to help people start at an intermediate level so they can start doing something rewarding right away."

Of course usability is absolutely crucial, and it's a prereq for pretty much everything. A UI that gets in the way of the thing the user is trying to do is a deal-killer (or at least a flow-killer). But there's a difference between "Good UI" and "Ease-of-use"! If I'm doing something complex, by choice, then focusing on making it easier might not be the right move. Assuming the power is there, the main goal should be to keep the UI the hell out of the way of what I'm trying to do. You may not have made it technically an easier product to use, but you've made it a product that supports more time in flow, doing the thing I want to do (which is NOT "use the software", but rather "edit video" or "write a letter" or "mix audio").

Perhaps I need a qualifier for the word "easy", because while the thing I'm doing with the tool may be quite difficult, it's true that I want the how-I-communicate-with-the-program to be as easy as possible. I do want it to be extremely easy to figure out how to tell the software what to do, but I do NOT want the software to pat me on the head and say, "don't worry your little head... I'll take care of it all for you with this nicey-wicey wizard and this fuzzy-wuzzy dialog box and all the helpful things I can do for you like capitalize words (since you're too stupid and lazy to do it yourself)" . And I do NOT want the software to simply strip out all the functionality that's too complex to simplify. So I guess there's at least two different forms of easy: easy-as-in-natural-usability and easy-as-in-dumbed-down.


But what about Featuritis?

"Featuritis" comes from adding horizontal (broad) capabilities, rather than adding vertical (deep) capabilities. Rather than add 25 new ways to do the same shallow things, add 5 new advanced capabilities. I don't want to do more things, I want to be more advanced.

Photoshop, for example, would be adding horizontal features if they added new painting tools, or yet more ways to configure your tool bars, etc. But adding new capability to their color correction and RAW tools, for example, would be adding vertical features. One leads to featuritis, the other leads to more powerful users.

Featuritis is not so much about feature quantity... it's about feature shallowness. By all means, please give me more features. But they must be the right features, and to figure out "right", we have to know our users, we have to narrow down the domain in which they use our products (e.g. is Photoshop about photography or digital painting?) and make some assumptions about their goals, motivation, and background.

1) Adding power through different products or product editions

When we add features, they should be the next natural things an advanced user wants to do, but the new superpowers don't necessarily need to be in the same product... Apple provides a dumbed-down (but still wonderful) free music making tool in Garageband. It's extremely easy to get started (which is great), and ridiculously simple to use, but even a non-musician who really gets into Garageband starts to bump into Garageband's limitations pretty quickly. And as if by magic, Apple's non-free product Logic Express just coincidentally happens to have the features you find yourself wanting after you've started to max out Garageband. (And the same thing repeats when you bump into Logic Express limitations, there's always the much more expensive full-featured Logic. Apple uses the same thing 3-tier/first-one-is-free-crack-model with their video editing tools as well).

2) Adding power through user-created extensions

Many excellent, successful products take the approach of, "Sure, we could keep piling more and more features on after listening to all the requests, but each added feature would just annoy everyone except the one person who asked for that particular feature... so instead, we'll let YOU add new features."

IBM once had an Expert System tool called TIRS, and when users wanted to do more, rather than continuing to add to their API, they opened up the system so that you could embed your own C functions in a rule. Allowing plug-ins, extensions, macros, third-party modules, etc. is (sometimes) a great way to add far more vertical/deep power than you could ever come up with when YOU are both the developer and, well, the decider of what should be there.

3) Adding power through "advanced modes"

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know that this is controversial, and I have virtually no credibility in developing a product with different user modes, but... it can work.

4) Adding power through a willingness to sacrifice newbies

We can't be all things to all people. The cliche of "catering to the lowest common denominator" is one we all consider negative, yet we still do it. It can be a form of greediness! If we can only do one thing well, then we have to choose carefully. And if can't find a clear way to add advanced capability while hiding the complexity from the newbie, then some of us must choose to leave the newbies to someone else. (Yes, there are a million implicit qualifiers, conditions, disclaimers, exceptions, etc.)

Being the one who nails it for the newbies is a very successful strategy for a lot of products and services. But again, once those newbies leave the nest, they have to look elsewhere. And the better we are at inspiring enthusiasm and loyalty in beginners, the more they want to continue with us ("I trusted you this far, and you really came through... now help me get to the next level").

5) Adding power by truly knowing (and not underestimating) your users

Recently someone showed me a very early alpha of a start-up web app he's working on. The target audience is "regular people" (i.e. not programmers or other hard-core geeks). I was horrified when he showed me what amounted to a command-line style of input. Command-line?! But then he reminded me that most people who aren't right in front of their computers write things down. Most adults are not just comfortable but experts at writing on paper. When I write someone's phone number on a piece of paper, I don't have a separate little piece of paper for [first name] [last name] [area code] [phone] [cellphone] and on and on. I just write the damn thing down as a string of characters. So... why not allow (or even encourage) users to simply type things in rather than forcing them to go through complex wizards and dialog boxes.

This particular example is fraught with UI landmines including the problem of users needing to memorize the exact order and syntax they have to type things in. And yes, that could render the whole thing virtually unusable. But if the software had some very intelligent, clever parsing and could just look at the text and figure it out (or at least make a high-probability smart guess), then you've got a way to enable a ton of power without having to add endless dialog boxes and windows and choices and other get-in-the-way features.

The point is, that while it looked DRASTICALLY counter-intuitive to me to have "regular users" essentially work in a command-line interface (fortunately it looked and felt like a simple text edit window as opposed to, say, a DOS prompt), when the guy showing it to me framed it as, "Writing things as text is the most natural thing there is" I felt my brain shift a little. And then I began to consider all the software that babies us, insults us, and ultimately gets in our way... something Jason talked about when he delivered Opening Remarks at SXSW (classic example: "I can capitalize words mySELF thank you very much...").

[Here's a podcast/mp3 recording of the talk. Incidentally, I am the scared s***less lucky one delivering the Opening Remarks for the next SXSW Interactive in March. I'm hoping Jason will give me some tips; he gave a wonderful talk]

So... as always, now it's your turn. This is a tricky topic, and everyone has something to add to the story. Are too many of us dumbing down our products? What are other ways we can help our beginners without leaving them stuck in that lower left quadrant? Remember, an "I Rule!" doesn't come from success... it comes from doing something challenging.

Posted by Kathy on September 25, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ease-of-use should not mean neuter-the-software:

» Creating Passionate Users from ~/Blog
Ive been very busy lately both with getting our services ready for launch and the program Im currently in, so I havent had much time to blog; but I wanted to write a short post once again praising Kathy Sierras blog. If you ... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 26, 2006 8:39:06 PM

» Creating Passionate Users on empowering users from HMK's Spurious Thoughts
Creating Passionate Users: Ease-of-use should not mean neuter-the-software... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 27, 2006 12:43:09 PM

» Superpowers from David Rodgers
A post on Kathy Sierras blog mentions giving users superpowers. Its an interesting metaphor, especially considering that at one point, having a computer counted as a superpower. ... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 8, 2006 10:49:28 AM

» Web Developpement frameworks from Everything and the Mobile Software Universe...
In this blog we talk a lot about developpement frameworks in the mobile space, which are close to traditional framework (like GNOME, Qt, Windows, MacOS, even Java in less extent), but newcomers are popping from the web space. I&#... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 16, 2006 4:24:20 AM

» Who's paying for this again? from Kelly White
Heres an interesting write-up . In a nutshell, ease-of-use should not neuter the software. Sure, [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 24, 2006 11:12:00 PM

» Don't make your products too simple from Compete on Usability
Many people equate usability with simplicity. Their premise is, If we just make it look simpler, people will use it more. Simplicity is the current trend in Web interfaces, going back to the Google homepage and forward to Web 2.0 [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 23, 2007 12:45:19 PM


I'd like to note that sometimes you can have a very easy and very simple tool, but with lots of use cases. In that case I think you should keep the tool simple, but make sure that the documentation gets more "power".
To give a simple example. A ball is a very simple toy. Yet it is stilly very flexible. You can play soccer with it, you can play volley, basket, dodge,.. In this case you don't want to make the ball some high-tech masterpiece full of features. You might add a nice little book that describes a whole bunch of fun games you can play with it.

Posted by: Jan | Sep 25, 2006 5:58:31 PM

Great article, good to see something different from the usual (Make everything as simple and easy to use as possible.)

The idea of making things advanced/powerful and not too newbie-friendly would be a good one for MMORPGs (multiplayer roleplaying games) as people are, by choice, looking for a challenge over there.

But for traditional, desktop/web based software, making things simple is the way to go. Like Jason from 37signals says, "You always have more people not using your software than people already using it", so sacrificing the simplicity just to give more advanced features to the power users and sacrificing the newbies is not a very good investment. Besides, we have to keep in mind that introducing these features probably means more development effort as well compared to the easy-to-use/simple stuff. Although capitalizing words is sometimes annoying and an interruption.

May be if you gave us actual examples of software which is 'too easy' then we'll figure this out better, as right now it just sounds like a urban tale to me :)

Posted by: Ali | Sep 25, 2006 7:31:28 PM

Kathy, the article is just terrific. I was thinking along the same lines.

May be Jason is advocating 'simple is beautiful', but Einstein said 'Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler' which

I like more.

37signal's voice was much needed in a time when feature creep was killing lots of software. But people take the 'simple' side

way too literally. Many apps are created so simple that their authors just can't charge any money. Once the initial excitement

of the release of the next web 2.0 app is gone, people go to the next 'simple' app.

What is the number one graphics app for professionals? Adobe Photoshop.
What is the number one graphics app for home use, yet powerful? Adobe Photoshop Elements.
What is the number one graphics app for very very beginners? Whatever software came with your PC or your camera.

People will invest time to learn to use a product, if it is rewarding them with 'kick-ass' results.

Posted by: Boris Yankov | Sep 25, 2006 8:30:38 PM

I don't know much about the history of Photoshop, but my gut feeling says a major factor of its success could be that it was the only option for people who need to graphic designing in the early days of the internet. By the time other players appeared in the market, people didn't want to convert to them.

Lets take my product for an example. I'm building a simple web 2.0 app which lets you track your time, and later shows you reports based on how you spend your time. (See my website for more info about this). Sticking to the principal of keeping things simple, there are going to be just 2 or 3 items in my menu. "My Day, Reports, and Categories."

I can add a ton of bloat, such as project management, employee time tracking, calenders, bla bla bla.. but I don't think any one would ever use them. And there's already many products in the market with all these features. But I want to stick to doing only one thing: tracking/managing your personal time. So thats just what I'm going to do and people will appreciate it.

IMO, you can't make your software too simple to use. That's just a paradox. Can anyone give any example of something that failed/isn't that successful because its "too easy to use?"

Posted by: Ali | Sep 26, 2006 12:43:42 AM

This very much resonates with our line of thinking when we built TagLoops and the web movies Authoring tool. We wanted something that would be powerful and versatile and at the same time tried hard to keep it simple in its use (not simple in the things it can do).
So here's a piece of online software that your mum cannot use: http://www.tagloops.com
In cases like this it is essential to provide documentation and help. We do this on our wiki pages.
One user commented (when stuck somewhere) that "he figured out what to do when he read the documentation; but who reads documentation on web apps?"

So I guess there is a whole trend for toy apps on the web, made for casual users that will never value them enough to pay for. As the notion of web apps mature we should be moving away from that.

Posted by: Harry | Sep 26, 2006 1:50:23 AM

Have you ever seen the episode of the Simpsons where Homer finds out he has an older half-brother? Herb is the enormously successful owner of a car manufacturing company. In order to create the ideal car for the average Joe, he gets Homer to design the car of his dreams. Homer is the target audience, so how could it fail? Featuritis. That's how. The final product is a hideous mishmash of every feature imaginable and the price tag ($82K if I remember rightly) puts it beyond the reach of even the wealthiest American. In total contravention of copyright, I keep a picture of that car on my desk to remind me to design learning products (substitute the name of your own product) that will do the job, engage the user, appeal to the eye and be affordable. You can't have everything in one product, and you shouldn't want to!

See the entry on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vehicles_in_The_Simpsons#The_Homer

Posted by: karyn_romeis | Sep 26, 2006 2:50:43 AM

A restricted set of features is just as much of a flow breaker as a poorly constructed user interface.

I guess the thing that I look for in a great product is that whenever I think "I wonder if I can do _this_", the answer is always "yes"

There are two points to that - the first (obviously) is that the feature set has to be broad enough that it covers all bases. The second, more subtle, point is that the user shouldn't need to be aware of the more powerful features until they need them. They should be there but shouldn't get in your way.

Posted by: omni | Sep 26, 2006 3:54:18 AM

I want to focus on your idea of "user modes". This I have seen attempted but never really successfully.

A few years back I was leading a project to develop a trading system for portfolio managers. We realized that there was a tremendous diversity in the tech-savvy gene in the user community. My lead developer came to an approach to adding "power-user" features (think depth). Each of these features had to be "enabled" in order for the user to see the menu option/toolbar button. They were implemented such that they did not change the basic flow (that the simple case users had learned and mastered) but allowed the power users (more adventurous feature seeking - macro writing gear heads) to totally kick ass!

We built a user preferences capability where features could be turned on, but did not alter the initial delivery state. We also offered power users "top secret" training sessions (power users love to feel special) and only offered these training to users who gave us suggestions for new features...

We eventually gave the power users the ability to alter the basic flow and configure the UI to a great degree. Interestingly, we earned a ton of respect from our user community, but not from senior management (think project sponsors). Oh well, the risks of development for captive audience in the enterprise space. Very different from shrink-wrap space.

Thanks again Kathy for your excellent and inspirational writing.

Posted by: Rich Stone | Sep 26, 2006 6:31:04 AM

The two question mark boxes in the lower-left and upper right can be explained quite succinctly by yet another Alan Kay quote: "Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible." The lower left box is where simple thing are done simply. The upper right box is where advanced users can use their knowledge of the software to do complex things.

Most applications will need both of those boxes. Simple things that a newbie would need should be close at hand and intuitive. More advanced thing can be tucked away in a third nested menu of a right-click, or wrapped in a wizard that prompts for and verifies 17 parameters before it lets you begin.

Deciding on the complexity of a feature before trying to add it is important. Incomplete requirements can be a ticking time bomb here. "Print a report" would seem to be a straight-forward task, until you dig deeper with questions like "Who is the report for" and "What will they do with it?"

Also be careful about including too much functionality in a single feature. A multi-step process might be multi-step because the steps can be done in a different order to accomplish a different goal. Watch for features that can be broken down this way, and allow the user to assemble the steps in the order they desire, like Legos. I call these "open-ended" features, and I have been surprised by my own users combining features in ways I did not foresee. Kathy's ball example illustrates this well.

Posted by: Kiaser Zohsay | Sep 26, 2006 8:11:25 AM

My real-life example. About 3 years ago I bought a video camera (new baby and all). I have tried several times to figure out the maze of how to get it off the tape and onto the computer in a format that pleases me. I assume the tools I am using will do the job well enough, I just don't understand the jargon or the process. I have tried google searches but no where can I find a simple explanation of the hows and WHYs of each step. Frustration sets in.(Unfortunately I use a PC and not a MAC). It seems to me that if someone could just explain the proces in simple terms I could manage the UI.

As a result I have quit using the expensive video camera and just take video clips on my digital camera...

Posted by: Lee White | Sep 26, 2006 8:38:29 AM

One of the things we need to consider is that the technology that we create is a reflection of the environment that it was created in. Yes, your information architecture is culture.

If people are not appreciated and treated in a pedantic manner, is it any surprise that the products they create have the same worldview (remember Bob). If they are ignored and reshuffled along with the changing of the wind then it will be difficult for them to build things that stand out and are valuable over the long term (see Windows in general).

My $0.02,


Posted by: Morgan Goeller | Sep 26, 2006 9:09:42 AM

Knowing your user is so important. When I got to my current job they were finishing up a release for a specific customer. The software team spent weeks getting some editing functions for meteorological reports working. Each field had a box with limit checking.

When I polled the actual weather observers here they wanted to have one field with the full message so they could just edit the message. This is way simpler for them; it would be way more difficult for someone who wasn't a trained observer. In trying to make it simpler for them, we had made it more difficult, time consuming and annoying.

Posted by: Julie | Sep 26, 2006 10:24:06 AM

MAYA Design has built an entire business on the concept of "taming complexity" rather than eliminating it. They have a quad chart similar to yours on their website:


Posted by: Mike | Sep 26, 2006 1:34:21 PM

Google Calendar uses a simple text input box with an intelligent parser for quick entry of appointments. I'm not sure how clever you can get with the input since I usually go to the more advanced screen when I have repeating items, but it shows some of the possibilities and it works well for one-off items ("Meet Chris at 10am on Friday").

Posted by: Andrew J | Sep 26, 2006 4:46:04 PM

I usually love your posts, Kathy, but this one had me grinding my teeth a little.

Not all of us usability specialists are looking to dumb down the world! Julie has it absolutely right: KNOW YOUR USERS! Some interfaces do have to be designed to suit the Department of the Bleedingly Obvious. Others can be more complex depending on the skill levels of the target audience and frequency of use.

If you only use it once a year for a very complex task (say, online tax returns), then it has to be ridiculously simple. Lots of "nicey-wicey wizards and fuzzy-wuzzy dialog boxes". If you use it all day, every day for very complex tasks, then the interface can be, and should be, simpler.

I think you're using a bit of a broad brush on this one. As any good consultant knows, the answer is 'It depends'. Understand what your users are trying to do and their context of use and you'll understand how the interface needs to be put together.

Posted by: Theresa Cunnington | Sep 28, 2006 7:22:33 PM

Nice post, thanks again :-)

Yes, the majority of users don't use my/your software, so starting to use it shall be easy. But a simple-simple apps will never be used IMHO. Usually, I first want to get done something (=hard constraints) and then look for software to help me. Often enough, I have to try a bunch of programs as most turn out to be "too dumb", even for a rather simple task, or forcing me to fiddle too much instead of just getting things done. Both is a no-no, both keeps me (newbie) from ever using the software.

Example: Will I use a feed reader that is so "easy to use" that I cannot override display options? Hell, no, dark grey on black background is not readable, so I NEED to change it! (but don't force me to do a whole style sheet) And if a feed is invalid, tell me (reading is not too difficult for me) and for god's sake display that ONE SINGLE character in a wrong way -- but don't refuse completely to load the feed at all! You're a feed reader, so read it!

A program has to meet a need with all common requirements, elsewise it will never be used, independend of how easy to use it is. What in turn means, (@Ali) you can make your software too simple/limited/dumb to use -- think of the feed readers or MS Windows Paint. This (@Jan) does not eliminate simple tools - I love those "tiny apps", but they have to be good at the task I need them for (eg time snapper, unstoppable copier, MS snipping tool).

Moreover, I personally like to get hints of what MORE I could do even in "dumb mode". Always hiding the advanced features is bad, as I never learn "Woh, I can also do THIS? Cool! Just what I need so often!". But showing all features at once is confusing as it's overwhelming and not prioritized. I love programs that show me medium doses of new stuff -- related to what I already use -- but without breaking my tasks.

Example: Servant Salamander (a norton commander clone) offers a narrow set of icons (top) and functions (bottom), so newbies keep relaxed & have overview (so the downside of 4. is IMHO not applying). Still, the cool features are shown in the menus (top), in the bottom when modifier keys are pressed (=only a limited number at once), and on right-clicking status infos - related features stand next to each other, so while using what I already know (eg invert selection), I may have a look and discover new stuff (eg go to next selected name) but I'm not forced to interrupt my flow. This way, I learned a lot of really advanced stuff, so I perform common file managing tasks with Salamander so efficient that people ask me "whoa, that unimposing app is able to do so great?? What's it's name? I wanna give it a try!". And as a passionate user I offer them assistence and mail them the URL and "enjoy" :-) So: Give Salamander a try. It might save you several hours a week. And be an inspiration.

Posted by: Georg | Sep 29, 2006 3:05:57 PM

I totally agree. I was just thinking about this the other day. Some of the interfaces these days make me feel like I'm working with Duplo instead of Lego Technics.

Posted by: Jens | Sep 29, 2006 5:02:10 PM

Excellent comments you guys, as always! I wanted to clear something up that I was a little vague on, and it was comments from Ali and Theresa who made me realize it... Theresa, the reason I said "ease-of-use" police and not "usability police" in the picture is precisely because I think that it is true usability pros who appreciate the difference between software that stays out of your way because of good design vs. software that isn't in your way because there's so little to get in the way OF.

So, when I say, "ease-of-use police" I really do mean people who probably are not usability/UI professionals and have the right attitude (make it easier for users) coupled with the wrong implementation (keep the functionality really simple).

The rare and special people who can give us advanced capability while making the software still be easy are the folks who should be paid a TON ; )

So let me make the distinction again between the two different kinds of easy, Ali, because I completely agree that no software failed because it was too easy, but you have to qualify the word "easy" as in "the tool itself was easy to use". Any product could indeed fail for being too easy if you define "easy" as "easy because it doesn't do much." Tic tac toe is a failure (as a game one plays beyond the age of 7) because it IS too easy. But a chess application should be ridiculously easy. I should be thinking about my next move, NOT how to tell the software what my next move is. Thinking about the move should NOT be easy, using the tool to do it SHOULD be.

I hope that helps make my intentions a little more clear. I really love this discussion and what y'all have added to it (Karyn, love the Simpson's example!), and the real-world examples you've mentioned here.

I'm sure we'll continue this in other posts very soon...

And switching contexts... if you haven't heard back from me yet on your comment on the "Help with the blog" post, you will. I'm still catching up on previous things, but getting close now. Thanks for being so patient with me.

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Sep 29, 2006 5:37:33 PM

*Ahem* I said it way back here:

After years of being the sole ranting loony to say, "make it worth using first, then make it easy to use!", it's good to see *one* other person gets it. Now how do we convert the remaining 6.2 billion?

Posted by: Penguin Pete | Sep 29, 2006 8:52:47 PM

This actually reminds of something I learned in marketing: Segmentation. Different sets of users have different needs and a software must make it seem that it can cater to all of those needs by segmenting users to their proficiency.

What I mean is aplications should be easier to introduce, but has enough room for casual users to move up to power users.

Posted by: Regnard Kreisler C. Raquedan | Sep 30, 2006 1:42:32 AM


I don't disagree with any of your theoretical points. However I'm just not convinced this theory is in any way relevant to the real world. I simply do not encounter products that remove or choose not to implement deep functionality in the name of ease of use. Perhaps if you named more names, it would help; but I think that products with this flaw are extremely rare.

What I do see are products that run the gamut of the power scale from 1 to 100, but have uniformly atrocious ease-of-use. You're right that ease-of-use is a separate concern from power; but I've simply never heard anyone claim that they have to remove power to improve ease-of-use. I constantly hear programmers claim the reverse: they must remove ease-of-use to provide power. I am afraid this article will be cited to justify that flawed belief. :-(

Posted by: Elliotte Rusty Harold | Sep 30, 2006 7:21:17 AM

Great article followed by some cogent points.

There are many layers to this - if "ease of use" be the problem. Or the design of systems in themselves complex, but need global understanding for "everyone at home" access and useability.

In my world its about the compression of what we call "Pointless Complexity" done by keeping "primary purpose" on the surface. The problem I find with many designs of many systems - the engineers loose sight of Primary purpose by getting "lost in the fog" of secondary functionality and innovation.

As an example exercise - Imagine had I have been at Microsoft as layout director, when they were setting the design parameters for Windows 98, and dictated the age group terms to design to...to be set at between 5 yrs to 105 years old....and not just the "Geek" years (14yrs to 35yrs)

I bet they couldnt do it. I bet the design team would have crumbled under the weight of that one.

A project example like that would take ergonomic science to a stretch. I mean - just think of some of the "Ultra-human" characteristics needed in the design parameters.

There is a design system called "Trinity", if followed with discipline, can make the "ease-of-use" character easier to design even in the most complex of systems.

In any user space there are only EVER three possible actions for the user to consider - Turn left - Turn Right - or step back.

This can divide the most complex systems up into tiny manageable parts, which when converted to a topographical map, shows the creation of "Userspace" rather than "Techy space".

Problem is with technology -- its generally created by the highly technical.

Posted by: Ergonaut | Dec 29, 2006 6:53:40 PM


Posted by: uiho | May 20, 2007 7:37:14 AM

ariel rebel -
ariel rebels -
auroras world -
auroras worlds -
avenue blue -
avenue blues -
bare bree -
bare brees -
bft girl -
bft girls -
big blowjob chick -
big blowjob chicks -
brookes bedroom -
brookes bedrooms -
busty brandy taylor -
busty brandy taylors -
busty gia -
busty gias -
busty jamie -
busty jamies -
cash apartment -
cash apartments -
club audra mitchell -
club audra mitchells -
courtney scorner -
courtney scorners -
crimson teen -
crimson teens -
cute girl feet -
cute girls feet -
darling denise -
darling denises -
dasha markova -
dasha markovas -
dominique seden -
dominique sedens -
exclusive tgirl -
exclusive tgirls -
faiths xxx -
faith xxx -
felicity fey -
felicity feys -
footjob fanatic -
footjob fanatics -
get dirty with juliet -
get dirty with juliets -
18 inches of pain -
40 inch plus -
8th street latinas -
all reality pass -
all sites access -
all star porn girls -
ass parade -
ass plundering -
ball honeys -
bangbros network -
bang my hot wife -
bare foot bad girls -
barefoot maniacs -
big ass adventure -
big cock teen addiction -
big league facials -
big mouthfuls -
big naturals -
big tit patrol -
big tits round asses -
bj sandwich -
boys first time -
boys first time -
brandi belle -
brutal blowjobs -
bus stop whores -
busty adventures -
cam crush -
captain stabbin -
casting couch teens -
coeds need cash -
college teens book bang -
cum fiesta -
cum girls -
cum swap sluts -
dangerous dongs -
dildo brutality -
euro sex parties -
extreme asses -
extreme naturals -
first time auditions -
from ass to mouth -
fuck the babysitter -
gape her ass -
giants black meat white treat -
girls that gush -
gooey holes -
horny spanish flies -
in the vip -
i spy cameltoe -
knee high sox -
lesbian teen hunter -
lick that ass -
me fuck you long time -
mega cock cravers -
mike in brazil -
mikes apartment -
milf hunter -
milf lessons -
milf next door -
monsters of cock -
mr big dicks hot chicks -
mr cameltoe -
mr chews asian beaver -
panties and fannies -
papi -
phat booty hunter -
pimp my black teen -
pink eye surprise -
please bang my wife -
plug her holes -
public invasion -
pump that ass -
real big hooters -
reality pass plus -
road side pickups -
round and brown -
see her squirt -
semen slurpers -
sexy round asses -
shemale ambush -
smoking foxes -
street blowjobs -
swallow this bitch -
taylor bow -
team squirt -
teen slut bus -
teeny bopper club -
the best latinas -
the big swallow -
tinys black adventures -
tokyo pickups -
tranny surprise -
tug jobs -
vip crew -
virtual chicks -
we live together -
wild porn pass -
wrong side of town -
xxx proposal -
harmoney finn -
harmony finn -
harmony finns -
hdn cash -
in bed with ashley -
in bed with ashleys -
in bed with eva -
in bed with evas -
in bed with faith -
in bed with faiths -
innocent eve -
innocent eves -
ivy summer -
ivy summers -
i want u -
i want you -
jenni -
jennis -
jerk babe -
jerk babes -
josie model -
josie models -
just evelyn lory -
just evelyn lorys -
just silvia siant -
just silvia siants -
katie fey -
katie feys -
kiss me karla -
kiss me karlas -
kristina fey -
kristina feys -
kylie teen -
kylie teens -
lanie -
lanies -
lesbian x video -
lesbian x videos -
lezb teen -
lezb teens -
lindsey marshal -
lindsey marshals -
luna cam -
lunas cam -
lunas cams -
melissa christine -
melissa christines -
monica 18 -
monica eighteen -
monica n mya -
monicas 18 -
monicas and myas -
mya 19 -
mya nineteen -
myas 19 -
my pov bj -
my pov bjs -
my pov blowjob -
nasty god cash -
nasty gods cash -
natalie 18 -
natalie eighteen -
natalies 18 -
naughty allie -
naughty allies -
naughty bank -
naughty banks -
naughty julie -
naughty julies -
nn ashley -
nn ashleys -
nn emily -
nn emilys -
nw teen beauties -
nw teen beauty -
nw teens beauties -
one stop porno shop -
one stop porno shops -
pancho dog -
pancho dogs -
panty fruit -
panty fruits -
piper fawn -
piper fawns -
porn wipe -
porn wipes -
pussy apartment -
pussy apartments -
red city nude -
red city nudes -
samantha model -
samantha models -
scarlet peach -
scarlet peaches -
sexy jelena jensen -
shayla model -
shayla models -
smoking video -
smoking videos -
splashing hole -
splashing holes -
spunky dollar -
spunky dollars -
staci -
stacis -
sterling cash -
stormy friday -
stormy fridays -
sweet stephanie -
sweet stephanies -
sw teens video -
sw teen video -
sw teen videos -
tabatha fey -
tabatha feys -
tara 19 -
tara nineteen -
taras 19 -
teen foot club -
teen foot clubs -
teens travels -
teen travel -
teen travels -
teen x world -
teen x worlds -
tiny kitty -
tiny kittys -
true tere -
true teres -
vicki model -
vicki models -
want boob -
want boobs -
wb girl -
wb girls -
wild tart -
wild tarts -
xgirl online -
xgirls online -
zoey and friend -
zoey and friends -
zoey model -
zoey models -
zoey n friends -
99 bb -
alca porn -
alca porno -
all next door -
all next doors -
all wam -
all wams -
amys world -
amys worlds -
amy world -
angels with dildos -
angel with dildo -
beautiful bri -
beautiful bris -
beautiful brooke -
beautiful brookes -
be the bitch -
be the bitches -
big cock next door -
big cock next doors -
big cocks next door -
bi maxx -
bi maxxx -
blowjob next door -
blowjob next doors -
blowjobs next door -
busty tramp -
busty tramps -
carli teen -
carli teens -
cash titan -
cash titans -
cfnm exposed -
cfnm idol -
cfnm idols -
cherry pussies -
cherry pussy -
city style creation -
city style creations -
city style girl -
city style girls -
cum on her face -
cum on her faces -
cum on jug -
cum on jugs -
cyber skank -
cyber skanks -
danyalicious -
disco flittchen -
disco flittchens -
drunk sex orgies -
drunk sex orgy -
durty cash -
durty girl -
durty girls -
durtys cash -
ebony next door -
ebony next doors -
ero maxx -
ero maxxx -
fick feten -
fick fetens -
final bang -
final bangs -
fuck next door -
fuck next doors -
fully clothed pissing -
fully clothed sex -
girls voyeur next door -
girl voyeur next door -
girl voyeur next doors -
guru of porn -
guy go crazy -
guys go crazy -
horny erotic slut -
horny erotic sluts -
hot mom next door -
hot mom next doors -
hot moms next door -
hot rikki -
hot rikkis -
hot virgin next door -
hot virgins next door -
house of pantyhose -
house of pantyhoses -
inky private stash -
inkys private stash -
inkys private stashs -
i wear brace -
i wear braces -
jackasses of porn -
jackass of porn -
jerk that cock bitch -
jerk that cock bitches -
jessica fetish -
jessicas fetish -
kandis club house -
kandis club houses -
la stripper -
la strippers -
lesbian hangout -
lesbian hangouts -
lezzies lair -
lezzies lairs -
lil britney -
lil britneys -
long dong dollar -
long dong dollars -
mad sex parties -
mad sex party -
masturbating neighbour -
masturbating neighbours -
maxx and more -
maxx n more -
maxxx and more -
micha teen -
micha teens -
midnight lurker -
midnight lurkers -
milk it cash -
milk it girl -
milk it girls -
milk it model -
milk it models -
milks it cash -
my fetish -
my fetishes -
pantyhose candy -
pantyhose candys -
parties hardcore -
party hardcore -
party hardcores -
pierced hoe -
pierced hoes -
porn with star -
porn with stars -
pryvid gold -
pryvid golds -
pussy vacation -
pussy vacations -
real pantyhose teen -
real pantyhose teens -
satan cash -
satan galleries -
satan gallery -
satans cash -
school girl pink -
school girls pink -
security cam sex -
security cams sex -
severe penetration -
severe penetrations -
sex prank -
sex pranks -
shemale next door -
shemales next door -
shemales next doors -
she need pussy -
she needs pussies -
she needs pussy -
slap that butt -
slap that butts -
sleep invasion -
sleep invasions -
slut invasion -
slut invasions -
sluts invasion -
slutty porn -
spunk access -
spunk bunnies -
spunk bunny -
spunks access -
squirting mext door -
squirting next doors -
squirt next door -
suck it you whore -
suck it you whores -
teen babe slut -
teen babe sluts -
teen tease cash -
teen teases cash -
the hoes we choked -
throat fuck next door -
throat fuck next doors -
touch of crystal -
touch of crystals -
toy stuffer -
toy stuffers -
trailer trash whore -
trailer trash whores -
tyrannized -
ultimate sex pass -
ultimate sex passes -
virgin college coed -
virgin college coeds -
voyeur intrusion -
voyeur intrusions -
xxx panty sniff -
xxx panty sniffs -
xxx pierced -
702 daisy -
702 daisys -
adult gold vault -
adult gold vaults -
all ashlee -
all ashlees -
anal daughter -
anal daughters -
asian erotic -
asian erotics -
asses terdam -
ass terdam -
ass terdams -
banging hard -
banging hards -
blowjob hunter -
blowjob hunters -
blowjobs hunters -
boobs station -
boob station -
boob stations -
boy fun collection -
boy fun collections -
boys fun collection -
campus boob -
campus boobs -
casey cam -
caseys cam -
caseys cams -
cedez play -
cedez plays -
cedez playz -
club young -
club youngs -
college town cutie -
college town cuties -
country cutie -
country cuties -
crazy porn blooper -
crazy porn bloopers -
cum jar -
cum jars -
cute lisa -
cute lisas -
cutie pie teen -
cutie pie teens -
digital peaches -
digital peachz -
ding dong black -
ding dong blacks -
emilys world -
emilys worlds -
emily world -
exotic kiss -
exotic kisses -
florai -
florais -
footjob lover -
footjob lovers -
fruit cash -
fruity babe -
fruity babes -
fruity cash -
fruity file -
fruity files -
fruity lesbian -
fruity lesbians -
fruity toy -
fruity toys -
ga ga gay -
ga ga gays -
girl 2 schoolgirl -
girlie bank -
girlie banks -
girlies bank -
girls to schoolgirls -
girl to schoolgirl -
hailee jordan -
hailee jordans -
handjob girls -
handjob girlz -
homegrown sweetheart -
homegrown sweethearts -
hometown teenie -
hometown teenies -
huge fuck -
huge fucks -
innocent virgin -
innocent virgins -
interracial galore -
interracial galores -
jacys xxx -
jacy xxx -
janet play -
janet plays -
karup ha -
karup hometown amateurs -
karup private collection -
karups ha -
karups hometown amateur -
karups hometown amateurs -
karups pc -
karups private collection -
karups private collections -
kathoey -
kathoeys -
lainey moore -
lainey moores -
land of man -
land of men -
lesbian dreamland -
lesbian dreamlands -
massive cock -
massive cocks -
massive cock video -
massive cock videos -
miami voyeur -
miami voyeurs -
mission dollar -
mission dollars -
molly meadow -
molly meadows -
mondo rossi -
mondo rossis -
monster gay cock -
monster gay cocks -
naomi models -
niomi model -
nylon dollar -
nylon dollars -
parker panties -
parkers panties -
parkers panty -
peaches 18 -
peachez 18 -
peachez eighteen -
pissing in action -
pissing in actions -
real thai pussies -
real thai pussy -
rich cash -
richs cash -
sex overdose -
sex overdoses -
sexy teen ella -
sexy teen ellas -
sexy teens ella -
sick hardcore -
sick hardcores -
sierra love -
sierra loves -
sindys with us -
sindy with us -
single gay male -
single gay males -
solo czech babe -
solo czech babes -
stocking angels -
stockings angel -
stockings angels -
strictly babe -
strictly babes -
sublime ass -
sublime asses -
sublime milf -
sublime milfs -
suki model -
suki models -
tickle horror -
tickle horrors -
tit fucked slut -
tit fucked sluts -
tits fucked sluts -
ts cum -
ts cums -
twink overdose -
twink overdoses -
twinks overdose -
vanilla tear -
vanilla tears -
wet lesbian love -
wet lesbian loves -
wet lesbians love -
why be dressed -
woot woot cash -
woot woot cashs -
wow wendy -

Posted by: avwe | Aug 15, 2007 9:40:45 PM

Posted by: akejwtopweu | Aug 15, 2007 9:41:15 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.