{"rowid": 267, "title": "Taming Complexity", "contents": "I\u2019m going to step into my UX trousers for this one. I wouldn\u2019t usually wear them in public, but it\u2019s Christmas, so there\u2019s nothing wrong with looking silly.\n\nAnyway, to business. Wherever I roam, I hear the familiar call for simplicity and the denouncement of complexity. I read often that the simpler something is, the more usable it will be. We understand that simple is hard to achieve, but we push for it nonetheless, convinced it will make what we build easier to use. Simple is better, right?\n\nWell, I\u2019ll try to explore that. Much of what follows will not be revelatory to some but, like all good lessons, I think this serves as a welcome reminder that as we live in a complex world it\u2019s OK to sometimes reflect that complexity in the products we build.\n\nMyths and legends\n\nLess is more, we\u2019ve been told, ever since master of poetic verse Robert Browning used the phrase in 1855. Well, I\u2019ve conducted some research, and it appears he knew nothing of web design. Neither did modernist architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a later pedlar of this worthy yet contradictory notion. Broad is narrow. Tall is short. Eggs are chips. See: anyone can come up with this stuff.\n\nTo paraphrase Einstein, simple doesn\u2019t have to be simpler. In other words, simple doesn\u2019t dictate that we remove the complexity. Complex doesn\u2019t have to be confusing; it can be beautiful and elegant. On the web, complex can be necessary and powerful. A website that simplifies the lives of its users by offering them everything they need in one site or screen is powerful. For some, the greater the density of information, the more useful the site.\n\nIn our decision-making process, principles such as Occam\u2019s razor\u2019s_razor (in a nutshell: simple is better than complex) are useful, but simple is for the user to determine through their initial impression and subsequent engagement. What appears simple to me or you might appear very complex to someone else, based on their own mental model or needs. We can aim to deliver simple, but they\u2019ll be the judge.\n\nAs a designer, developer, content alchemist, user experience discombobulator, or whatever you call yourself, you\u2019re often wrestling with a wealth of material, a huge number of features, and numerous objectives. In many cases, much of that stuff is extraneous, and goes in the dustbin. However, it can be just as likely that there\u2019s a truckload of suggested features and content because it all needs to be there. Don\u2019t be afraid of that weight.\n\nIn the right hands, less can indeed mean more, but it\u2019s just as likely that less can very often lead to, well\u2026 less.\n\nComplexity is powerful\n\nSimple is the ability to offer a powerful experience without overwhelming the audience or inducing information anxiety. Giving them everything they need, without having them ferret off all over a site to get things done, is important.\n\nIt\u2019s useful to ask throughout a site\u2019s lifespan, \u201cdoes the user have everything they need?\u201d It\u2019s so easy to let our designer egos get in the way and chop stuff out, reduce down to only the things we want to see. That benefits us in the short term, but compromises the audience long-term.\n\nThe trick is not to be afraid of complexity in itself, but to avoid creating the perception of complexity. Give a user a flight simulator and they\u2019ll crash the plane or jump out. Give them everything they need and more, but make it feel simple, and you\u2019re building a relationship, empowering people.\n\nThis can be achieved carefully with what some call gradual engagement, and often the sensible thing might be to unleash complexity in carefully orchestrated phases, initially setting manageable levels of engagement and interaction, gradually increasing the inherent power of the product and fostering an empowered community.\n\nThe design aesthetic\n\nHere\u2019s a familiar scenario: the client or project lead gets overexcited and skips most of the important decision-making, instead barrelling straight into a bout of creative direction Tourette\u2019s. Visually, the design needs to be minimal, white, crisp, full of white space, have big buttons, and quite likely be \u201cclean\u201d. Of course, we all like our websites to be clean as that\u2019s more hygienic.\n\nBut what do these words even mean, really? Early in a project they\u2019re abstract distractions, unnecessary constraints. This premature narrowing forces us to think much more about throwing stuff out rather than acknowledging that what we\u2019re building is complex, and many of the components perhaps necessary.\n\nSimple is not a formula. It cannot be achieved just by using a white background, by throwing things away, or by breathing a bellowsful of air in between every element and having it all float around in space. Simple is not a design treatment. Simple is hard. Simple requires deep investigation, a thorough understanding of every aspect of a project, in line with the needs and expectations of the audience.\n\nRecognizing this helps us empathize a little more with those most vocal of UX practitioners. They usually appreciate that our successes depend on a thorough understanding of the user\u2019s mental models and expected outcomes. I personally still consider UX people to be web designers like the rest of us (mainly to wind them up), but they\u2019re web designers that design every decision, and by putting the user experience at the heart of their process, they have a greater chance of finding simplicity in complexity. The visual design aesthetic \u2014 the fa\u00e7ade \u2014 is only a part of that.\n\nDivide and conquer\n\nI\u2019m currently working on an app that\u2019s complex in architecture, and complex in ambition. We\u2019ll be releasing in carefully orchestrated private phases, gradually introducing more complexity in line with the unavoidably complex nature of the objective, but my job is to design the whole, the complete system as it will be when it\u2019s out of beta and beyond.\n\nI\u2019ve noticed that I\u2019m not throwing much out; most of it needs to be there. Therefore, my responsibility is to consider interesting and appropriate methods of navigation and bring everything together logically.\n\nI\u2019m using things like smart defaults, graphical timelines and colour keys to make sense of the complexity, techniques that are sympathetic to the content. They act as familiar points of navigation and reference, yet are malleable enough to change subtly to remain relevant to the information they connect. It\u2019s really OK to have a lot of stuff, so long as we make each component work smartly.\n\nIt\u2019s a divide and conquer approach. By finding simplicity and logic in each content bucket, I\u2019ve made more sense of the whole, allowing me to create key layouts where most of the simplified buckets are collated and sometimes combined, providing everything the user needs and expects in the appropriate places.\n\nI\u2019m also making sure I don\u2019t reduce the app\u2019s power. I need to reflect the scale of opportunity, and provide access to or knowledge of the more advanced tools and features for everyone: a window into what they can do and how they can help. I know it\u2019s the minority who will be actively building the content, but the power is in providing those opportunities for all.\n\nMuch of this will be familiar to the responsible practitioners who build websites for government, local authorities, utility companies, newspapers, magazines, banking, and we-sell-everything-ever-made online shops. Across the web, there are sites and tools that thrive on complexity.\n\nAlas, the majority of such sites have done little to make navigation intuitive, or empower audiences. Where we can make a difference is by striving to make our UIs feel simple, look wonderful, not intimidating \u2014 even if they\u2019re mind-meltingly complex behind that fa\u00e7ade.\n\nEmbrace, empathize and tame\n\nSo, there are loads of ways to exploit complexity, and make it seem simple. I\u2019ve hinted at some methods above, and we\u2019ve already looked at gradual engagement as a way to make sense of complexity, so that\u2019s a big thumbs-up for a release cycle that increases audience power.\n\nPrior to each and every release, it\u2019s also useful to rest on the finished thing for a while and use it yourself, even if you\u2019re itching to release. \u2018Ready\u2019 often isn\u2019t, and \u2018finished\u2019 never is, and the more time you spend browsing around the sites you build, the more you learn what to question, where to add, or subtract. It\u2019s definitely worth building in some contingency time for sitting on your work, so to speak.\n\nOne thing I always do is squint at my layouts. By squinting, I get a sort of abstract idea of the overall composition, and general feel for the thing. It makes my face look stupid, but helps me see how various buckets fit together, and how simple or complex the site feels overall.\n\nI mentioned the need to put our design egos to one side and not throw out anything useful, and I think that\u2019s vital. I\u2019m a big believer in economy, reduction, and removing the extraneous, but I\u2019m usually referring to decoration, bells and whistles, and fluff. I wouldn\u2019t ever advocate the complete removal of powerful content from a project roadmap.\n\nAbove all, don\u2019t fear complexity. Embrace and tame it. Work hard to empathize with audience needs, and you can create elegant, playful, risky, surprising, emotive, delightful, and ultimately simple things.", "year": "2011", "author": "Simon Collison", "author_slug": "simoncollison", "published": "2011-12-21T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2011/taming-complexity/", "topic": "ux"}