Comments on: User Interface Design: Complexity vs. Flexibility

By: admin

admin — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:13:31 +0000

I’m talking about the user experience of the software. XML is very flexible, and it may be simple for a software developer to understand, but what if I gave it to a business user and told them to edit it? I’d have to create some kind of GUI editor on top of it that limits his options (thus reducing flexibility). Adding tons of preset search parameters makes the software more flexible from a UI perspective – it allows a user to be more in control of the data they see.

By: http://

http:// — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:08:39 +0000

are talking about the software itself, or the user experience? something highly configurable by the end user will be less flexible for the developer. a single report may seem more flexible to the user, but its actually more code and more complexity they’re seeing. don’t flexibility and simplicity often go hand-in-hand. XML being an example. by adding tons of preset search parameters as in your first example, aren’t you really making the software itself less flexible?

By: rwalling

rwalling — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:08:50 +0000

Ilya, Thanks for your feedback – you make a good point. Thirty years ago I bet that car makers would have placed a set of toggle switches on the dash and expected you to remember them. This would not only be easier to design, but cheaper to build. This is how a lot of application developers approach application design – do what’s easy to design and cheap to build. So I do think complexity naturally increases as flexibility does, but there are ways around this tendency. But those ways require additional design work or additional constructions costs…or both. And that’s the point of this post. Finally, I don’t think the converse is true; in other words, a project does not becomes more flexible anytime it’s made more complex. Since my statement of an “inverse relationship” does indicate the converse to be true, I’m going to remove that piece and leave it as the more simply stated: “…the more flexibility something offers, the more complex it tends to become.” Thanks for your insight, Rob

By: John

John — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:55:59 +0000

This reminds me of the old program PC Tools/PC Backup, back in the DOS days. One of the menu bar headings was something like “Complexity” and the choices below were something like Simple/Medium/Advanced. Of course, the default was simple.

By: rwalling

rwalling — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:54:39 +0000

Amit – I’ve changed the wording to what you’ve suggested in order to better map to an inverse relationship.

By: Ilya Grigorik

Ilya Grigorik — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:51:24 +0000

Interesting read, but I think the inverse relationship is too simple of a theory. Let’s step outside the world of software development for a second and look at ‘adjustable seats’ in your car. Some of the higher end models have a dozen adjustable settings – it’s both a complex and flexible system. However, now assign each position a toggle and lay them out on the dash. Will you ever remember which is which? Probably not. But, if you lay them out in the shape of the seat itself, all of the sudden it becomes easy and simple. (presence of a natural mapping) Complexity and flexibility are definitely not one to one. You can make a project more complex without making it flexible and vice versa.

By: http://

http:// — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:03:19 +0000

You’re probably better off stating “The more flexibility something offers, the less simplistic it tends to become.” Which basically boils down to the same thing you are stating.

By: http://

http:// — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:00:11 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_relationship Usually an inverse relationship is where one value increases as another value decreases as the wikipedia definition states. But, your example states “the more flexibility something offers, the more complex it tends to become.” That looks like a direct relationship to me.

By: rwalling

rwalling — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:01:17 +0000

Babak – thanks for the input. Looks like I’ll have to delve deeper into this topic. Amit – Tell me more about how my use of inverse relationship is skewed.

By: http://

http:// — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:47:22 +0000

your use of inverse relationship here is a little skewed, but I think I understand the point you’re trying to make.

By: http://

http:// — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:15:33 +0000

I agree but you’re stopping short of the real story here… that is, what were the elements of design and HCI that wordpress and gmail implemented that allowed them to reach such a lofty balance of simplicity and flexibility? iow, how can we design solutions which cater to both the beginner (by being simple to use) and to the expert (by being flexible and configurable)? I look forward to part 2 ;o)