Hopper Analytical - Simplicity

Idea Engines

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:07:03 -0400

In a long anticipated move, idea submit & rate engines are finally catching some meme-like popularity. They're certainly easy to build. In a follow-up post, I will tear them to bits for the flaws they introduce and the assumptions we make around their utility.

They do poke at some interesting aspects of Collective Problem Solving. Here are three:

* IdeaStorm

* My Starbucks Idea

* Ubuntu Brainstorm

How to do nothing with nobody, all alone by yourself

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:06:26 -0500

This is either the ultimate DIY book or the ultimate anti-DIY book. If for nothing else, this author should get props for the book title: How to do nothing with nobody, all alone by yourself

ShareBoard 1.2.1

Sun, 25 Dec 2005 16:58:43 -0500

ShareBoard is a software experiment I began in multi-level collaboration. The software is a simple utility I wrote as a Konfabulator widget that allows a work team member to post a short message to be displayed simultaneously on all workteam computer desktops. The goal is to enable a creative group to collaborate and contribute simultaneously on (at least) three fronts:
1. Submit content to be shared
2. Submit feature requests as part of an integrated request forum
3. Submit code candidates as part of an integrated opensource project for the widget itself.

The primary goal of the project is to see how an overtly simple tool may inspire contributions on different fronts. After collecting initial feedback, I was inspired to make comments on complexity.

Stay tuned for version updates and more commentary from our learnings.

Simplicity Engages

Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:09:26 -0500

In a prior post, I mentioned that simple objects are more engaging, but how exactly does simplicity do this? A better understanding of the specifics behind simplicity for engagement will allow designers to not concentrate on delivering less to reduce confusion or providing a seamless facade to hide complexity. Instead, a focus on how simplicity works will perhaps create objects that beckon, communicate, and ultimately engage more successfully. So why exactly might simplicity engage?

A Core Purpose is Beautiful - objects that communicate their core message well tempt us to stare and hold. A core purpose communicated well is strong in its identity, increasing our desire to affiliate and see beauty in its essence.

Options paralyze - McDonalds got this right with order-by-picture. Point and shoot decision-making keeps us from having to think, which we hate to do.

Complexity is intimidating - While we love to learn, we hate to look stupid doing it.

Familiarity is our default - Creatures of habit return to the same brands. Familiarity is safe and comfortable. Object features and concepts that leverage recognizable elements break down initial acceptance barriers.

What we don't understand is initially rejected
- New ideas and opinions are perceived wrong until proven right. New things can be dismissed offhand even by the most open-minded.

Noise begs a pattern - Too much noise and it's, well, noise. Instinctually, we want to understand a pattern if we see one. Like a basic but inscrutable widget from yesteryear, our curiosity is immediately stimulated and we yearn to understand what this thing does.

Compelled to Complicate

Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:07:14 -0400

There is a bit of a paradox in the successful design of engaging objects. Make them simple, and they are easy to understand and approach: graspable (quite literally). But put a simple object in the hands of a creative person and bang! - the object yearns to become complex. Our heads fill with thoughts like "how else could I use this?", "What more can I do with this?", "What seems to be missing that will make this whole?" We often seem compelled to accessorize the simple.

Take software (no really, take it). Somewhere along the line between initial concept and version 7.0, most software becomes impossibly feature rich and unwieldy. Creators appear almost required to add endless (and mostly unused) features. The paradox lies in the fact that in their aim to please, developers add "missing" bits that somehow make the software less engaging, not more. Perhaps we should take Nicholas Negroponte's suggestion and "...pay programmers to remove code from sofware instead of writing new code. Then software might be a whole lot better."

For an object to engage us, it must be simple enough to hook us with its core message. The primary colors of Play Doh say "sculpt me" while the familiarity of a paperback says "read me." The problem may lie in what we then do in our desire to discover. Perhaps we should realize that these explorations in morphing Play Doh and critiquing books is but the first stage of constructive play – its place is to interact with the world, self-educate, engage, and lead us to a new place where we eventually (perhaps) then feel compelled to simplify.