Permalink
Browse files

Rebuild site

  • Loading branch information...
1 parent 256994e commit fcace395390bd4716d5ddff976e8cb82e7cc8163 @ept committed Oct 1, 2012
Showing with 15 additions and 9 deletions.
  1. +15 −9 static/complexity.html
View
@@ -68,42 +68,48 @@
<p>But there is a subtlety that I have been missing in discussions about software complexity, that I feel somewhat ambivalent about, and that I think is worth discussing. It concerns the points where external humans (people outside of the team maintaining the system) touch the system &#8212; as developers using an API exposed by the system, or as end users interacting with a user interface. I will concentrate mostly on user interfaces, but much of this discussion applies to APIs too.</p>
-<h2 id='types_of_complexity'>Types of complexity</h2>
+<h2 id='whats_a_user_requirement'>What&#8217;s a user requirement?</h2>
-<p>Brooks introduced the distinction between <strong>essential complexity</strong> (roughly speaking, performing the key operations that users care about) and <strong>accidental complexity</strong> (stuff that&#8217;s just required to grease the wheels, but isn&#8217;t visible to users). The former is beautiful, pure and typically fairly simple already, whereas the latter is typically messy, implementation-dependent and should be removed or abstracted away as much as possible.</p>
+<p>Brooks introduced the distinction between <strong>essential complexity</strong> (roughly speaking, performing the key operations that users care about) and <strong>accidental complexity</strong> (stuff that&#8217;s just required to grease the wheels, but isn&#8217;t visible to users). Paraphrasing Moseley and Marks, the former is beautiful, pure and typically fairly simple already, whereas the latter is typically messy, implementation-dependent and should be removed or abstracted away as much as possible.</p>
<p>This distinction hinges crucially on the understanding of what <strong>user problem</strong> is being solved, and that&#8217;s where things start getting tricky. When you say that something is essential because it fulfils a <strong>user requirement</strong> (as opposed to an implementation constraint or a performance optimisation), that presupposes a very utilitarian view of software. It assumes that the user is trying to get a job done, and that they are a rational actor. But what if, say, you are taking an emotional approach and optimising for <strong>user delight</strong>?</p>
<p>What if the user didn&#8217;t know they had a problem, but you solve it anyway? If you introduce complexity in the system for the sake of making things a little nicer for the user (but without providing new core functionality), is that complexity really essential? What if you add a little detail that is surprising but delightful?</p>
-<p>You can try to reduce an emotional decision down to a rational one &#8212; for example, you can say that when a user plays a game, it is solving the user&#8217;s problem of boredom by providing distraction. Thus any feature which substantially contributes towards alleviating boredom may be considered essential. Yes, such reductionism can sometimes provide useful angles of insight, but I think a lot would be lost by ignoring the emotional angle.</p>
+<p>You can try to reduce an emotional decision down to a rational one &#8212; for example, you can say that when a user plays a game, it is solving the user&#8217;s problem of boredom by providing distraction. Thus any feature which substantially contributes towards alleviating boredom may be considered essential. Such reductionism can sometimes provide useful angles of insight, but I think a lot would be lost by ignoring the emotional angle.</p>
-<p>You can state categorically that &#8220;great user experience is an essential feature&#8221;. But what does that mean? By itself, that statement is so general that could be used to argue for anything or nothing. User experience is subjective. What&#8217;s preferable for one user may be an annoyance for another user, even if both users are in the application&#8217;s target segment. Sometimes it just comes down to taste or fashion. User experience always has an emotional angle that makes it hard to fit into a rational reasoning framework.</p>
+<p>You can state categorically that &#8220;great user experience is an essential feature&#8221;. But what does that mean? By itself, that statement is so general that could be used to argue for anything or nothing. User experience is subjective. What&#8217;s preferable for one user may be an annoyance for another user, even if both users are in the application&#8217;s target segment. Sometimes it just comes down to taste or fashion. User experience tends to have an emotional angle that makes it hard to fit into a rational reasoning framework.</p>
<p>What I am trying to get at: there are things in software that introduce a lot of complexity (and that we should consequently be wary of), and that can&#8217;t be directly mapped to a bullet point on a list of user requirements, but that are nevertheless important and valuable. These things do not necessarily provide important functionality, but they contribute to how the user <strong>feels</strong> about the application. Their effect may be invisible or subconscious, but that doesn&#8217;t make them any less essential.</p>
-<p>Some examples may help (all based on real products that I have worked on at some point):</p>
+<h2 id='examples'>Examples</h2>
+
+<p>Some examples may help (all based on real applications that I have worked on at some point):</p>
<ul>
<li>You have an e-commerce site, and need to send out order confirmation emails that explain next steps to the customer. Those next steps differ depending on availability, the tax status of the product, the location of the customer, the type of account they have, and a myriad other parameters. You want the emails to only include the information that is applicable to this particular customer&#8217;s situation, and not burden them with edge cases that don&#8217;t apply to them. You also want the emails to read as coherent prose, not as a bunch of fragmented bullet points generated by <code>if</code> statements based on the order parameters. So you go and build a natural language grammar model for constructing emails based on sentence snippets (providing pluralisation, agreement, declension in languages that have it, etc), in such a way that for any one out of 100 million possible edge cases, the resulting email is grammatically correct and easy to understand.</li>
<li>You have a multi-step user flow that is used in various different contexts, but ultimatively achieves the same thing in each context. (For example, <a href='http://rapportive.com/'>Rapportive</a> has several OAuth flows for connecting your account with various social networks, and there are several different buttons in different places that all lead into the same user flow.) The simple solution is to make the flow generic, and not care how the user got there. But if you want to make the user feel good, you need to imagine what state their mind was in when they entered the flow, and customise the images, text and structure of the flow in order to match their goal. This means you have to keep track of where the user came from, what they were trying to do, and thread that context through every step of the flow &#8212; fiddly and time-consuming.</li>
-<li>You have an application that requires some arcane configuration. You could take the stance that you will give the user a help page and they will have to figure it out from there. Or you could write a sophisticated auto-configuration tool that inspects the user&#8217;s environment, analyses thousands of possible software combinations and configurations (and updates this database as new versions of other products in the environment are released), and automatically chooses the correct settings &#8212; without having to ask the user for help. In the latter case, the users never even knew that they were spared a confusing configuration dialog. But somehow, word gets around that the product &#8220;just works&#8221;.</li>
+<li>You have an application that requires some arcane configuration. You could take the stance that you will give the user a help page and they will have to figure it out from there. Or you could write a sophisticated auto-configuration tool that inspects the user&#8217;s environment, analyses thousands of possible software combinations and configurations (and updates this database as new versions of other products in the environment are released), and automatically chooses the correct settings &#8212; hopefully without having to ask the user for help. With auto-configuration, the users never even know that they were spared a confusing configuration dialog. But somehow, word gets around that the product &#8220;just works&#8221;.</li>
</ul>
+<h2 id='emotional_design'>Emotional design</h2>
+
<p>What these examples have in common: as an application developer, you can choose whether to take on substantial additional complexity in the software in order to simplify or improve the experience for the user. The increased software complexity actually <strong>reduces</strong> the complexity from the user&#8217;s point of view. These examples also illustrate how user experience concerns are not just a matter of graphic design, but can also have a big impact on how things are engineered.</p>
<p>The features described above do not contribute to the utility of the software &#8212; in the e-commerce example, orders will be fulfilled whether or not the confirmation emails are grammatical. In that sense, the complexity is unnecessary. But I would argue that these kind of user experience improvements are just as important as the utility of the product, because they determine how users <strong>feel</strong> about it. And how they feel ultimately determines whether they come back, and thus the success or failure of the product.</p>
-<p>One could even argue that the utility of a product is a subset of its user experience: if the software doesn&#8217;t do the job that it&#8217;s supposed to, then that&#8217;s a pretty bad experience. But there are many ways to create a bad experience while remaining fully functional from a utility point of view.</p>
+<p>One could even argue that the utility of a product is a subset of its user experience: if the software doesn&#8217;t do the job that it&#8217;s supposed to, then that&#8217;s a pretty bad experience, but there are many ways to create a bad experience while remaining fully functional from a utilitarian point of view.</p>
+
+<p>The expression &#8220;icing on the cake&#8221; usually refers to something that is nice but not essential. Maybe the cake fulfils its nutritive purpose perfectly well without icing; maybe the icing would even harm its dietary properties. But if most people choose to buy the cake <strong>with</strong> icing, then that icing sounds pretty damn essential to me.</p>
-<p>The expression &#8220;icing on the cake&#8221; usually refers to something that is nice but not essential. Maybe that cake fulfils its nutritive utility perfectly well without icing; maybe the icing would even harm its dietary properties. But if most people choose to buy the cake <strong>with</strong> icing, then that icing sounds pretty damn essential to me.</p>
+<h2 id='questions'>Questions</h2>
<p>This is as far as my thinking has got: recognising that it is not just the utility of software, but also its user experience, that determines its essential complexity. But that still leaves me with some unanswered questions:</p>
<ul>
-<li>Every budget is finite, so you have to prioritise things, and not everything will get done. When you consider building something that improves user experience without strictly adding utility, it has to be traded off against features that do add utility (is it better to shave a day off the delivery time than to have a nice confirmation email?), and the cost of the increased complexity (will that clever email generator be a nightmare to localise when we translate the site into other languages?). How do you reason about that kind of trade-offs?</li>
+<li>Every budget is finite, so you have to prioritise things, and not everything will get done. When you consider building something that improves user experience without strictly adding utility, it has to be traded off against features that do add utility (is it better to shave a day off the delivery time than to have a nice confirmation email?), and the cost of the increased complexity (will that clever email generator be a nightmare to localise when we translate the site into other languages?). How do you decide about that kind of trade-offs?</li>
<li>User experience choices are often emotional and <a href='http://martin.kleppmann.com/2010/10/30/intuition-has-no-transfer-encoding.html'>intuitive</a> (no number of focus groups and usability tests can replace good taste). That doesn&#8217;t make them any more or less important than rational arguments, but combining emotional and rational arguments can be tricky. Emotionally-driven people tend to let emotional choices overrule rational arguments, and rationally-driven people vice versa. How do you find the healthy middle ground?</li>

0 comments on commit fcace39

Please sign in to comment.