If you have to explain it, or the oversimplification of UX.
If you have to explain it, it ain’t working.
— Milton Glaser
Ever since I started studying design, I’ve been followed, perhaps even haunted by some of what is considered to be the most iconic American graphic design from the sixties and seventies.
From Milton Glaser’s iconic I Heart NY, to Herb Lubalin and many of his impacting logos (like Families or Mother & Child), they have always agreed on one thing; simplify, simplify, simplify.
This eventually leads to the omnipresent phrase less is more.
This phrase, which originally appears in a Robert Browning poem, and which was later adopted by Mies van der Rohe, has become one of the staples of modern graphic design of the second half of the twentieth century.
For the sake of brevity, we’ll attribute the nineties (names like Emigré and http://www.davidcarsondesign.com) to the first part of the twenty-first century, they’re a story for another day.
This inherent simplification seems to be a perfect match for UX design. Make it simpler, and users will understand it better. It assumes that users that understand the product will be happy and returning users.
There is one caveat that many people usually let go by unnoticed: the inherent simplification in design should not imply treating people as if they were stupid, nor should it mix the concept of simplification in design with simplification in UX.
Basically, there are three precepts one must follow when approaching this subject, they should be givens, nonetheless, they are often overlooked.
1. Your user isn’t stupid
Even though many users might seem technologically-challenged, they are not idiots. I think it’s safe to assume that most people browsing the web are computer-literate. They will know what a scroll bar is; if they see it, they will know they can scroll down. They do not need an arrow pointing down, and a label stating that they can scroll to see more content.
2. Less isn’t always more
AIGA and other similar bodies have taken care of representing iconic concepts in symbols. There are even web sites dedicated entirely to this. Nonetheless, do not think that because you remove a label and add an icon, your site is easier to use. It might be easier to localise, but removing is not simplifying.
3. Less in graphic design ≠ less in UX
In graphic design, less is more means using thought out type combinations, instead of using every font available. In UX, it doesn’t exactly mean the same. Less interactions aren’t necessarily a better thing. Having one button that can do ten things, or removing 9 functionalities to avoid having more than one button is not a good solution. The solution is a compromise between the two.
Our goal should be for users to enjoy the products, and know how to use them. After all, an engaged user is much more important than 10 passive users. As they say, good design is invisible.
