[IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 3, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> Sorry Jared, unless you cite people who've told you otherwise, I'm  
> not buying it. I've never heard anyone in the software industry ever  
> make the claim they makes things complicated on purpose.

Sorry to break it to you Andrei,  but just because *you* haven't seen  
it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :-)

Before I started UIE, in the mid-80s, I first encountered this  
attitude at a company called Autographix, which made presentation  
systems (before the days of Harvard Graphics, Aldus Persuasion, and  
long before MS Powerpoint). They sold their software/hardware solution  
practically at cost and made all of their money on training and  
support, particularly on user certification. (Certified users could  
get a 20-30% salary increase because the system was so arcane.)

I was working on a small skunkworks project to produce a pc-based (DOS/ 
CGA) what-you-see-is-what-you-get slide editing system. It worked  
pretty well too. When we presented it to mgmt, we were told that the  
company wasn't set up to sell software that didn't require training.

After I started UIE, I ran into several clients with this perspective.  
In the early '90s I ran into a typesetting company that was in a  
similar situation. (The name is escaping me right now, but they were  
based out of Wakefield, MA.) They sold to magazines and newsletters  
and made a ton of revenue through their training and support. Their  
users also benefited from the certification by commanding higher  
salaries that non-certified page setters. Certified users produced  
pages faster than the best users of other systems, so the customers  
(newspaper owners) saw the benefit of the ecosystem too. They did  
everything they could to keep certification high.

At the same time, we did a set of studies for a company in Newton, MA  
that made fire alarm systems for large building complexes. Again, they  
basically gave their systems away without a profit and made all their  
money on support contracts and training. We actually conducted  
usability tests on "layman" doing typical tasks. If the layman  
(without support certification) could complete the tasks, we had to  
*change the design*.

There were many product managers at WordPerfect, Lotus, and Novell  
that had the if-we-make-it-too-easy-we'll-erode-our-market philosophy.  
I've also met groups at MS and IBM that had a similar attitude.

One that stands out in my mind (and which you may be familiar with)  
was MetaCreation's Kai's Power Tools and Bryce. While the designer Kai  
Krause was a fan of hiding complexity, the tools had a huge learning  
curve. There was at least one version that hid functionality from  
users until they proved they could master the functions already  
provided, then it slowly revealed new functionality, much like video  
game.

By the way, a lot of this comes from people who do a surface analysis  
on what makes games popular. In gaming, you can't have it be too easy.  
There is a requirement, for a successful game, for select users to  
have mastery that most users don't. In my experience, managers who  
promote the if-we-make-it-too-easy-we'll-erode-our-market philosophy  
often cite the success of video games as a rationale.

If I thought about it harder, I could probably come up with more folks  
I've run into in the last 30 years with this attitude. I've never seen  
the strategy work, but that doesn't keep it from emerging from people  
who are trying to be a little too clever (and avoiding the hard work  
to rethink overly complex designs).

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks