> When we talk about a product being simple, what we usually mean is that it integrates (folds together) many complex dimensions such as ergonomics, manufacturing, aesthetics, cultural signs, etc. into a single solution.
I would argue that in order for that to happen, the design and internals of the product need to follow principles of simplicity and separation of concerns. You can't just wrap a pretty layer around a snarl of insanity and get a usable product.
For example, a common design mistake is to use several visual indicators for one piece of information: this warning text is bold, a different color, and placed inside a box. Once you've done that, you have used up three visual "slots" that can't be used as effectively for other information.
Great design like you describe requires thinking about single uses for single mechanics. It requires thinking about how things fit together while remaining functionally distinct, rather than just adding more and more complexity to solve problems that come up.
I would argue that in order for that to happen, the design and internals of the product need to follow principles of simplicity and separation of concerns. You can't just wrap a pretty layer around a snarl of insanity and get a usable product.
For example, a common design mistake is to use several visual indicators for one piece of information: this warning text is bold, a different color, and placed inside a box. Once you've done that, you have used up three visual "slots" that can't be used as effectively for other information.
Great design like you describe requires thinking about single uses for single mechanics. It requires thinking about how things fit together while remaining functionally distinct, rather than just adding more and more complexity to solve problems that come up.