For over a decade, we've been promoting "mobilize, don't miniaturize." Unfortunately, the typical implementation of mobile web (or apps!) has meant "strip out functionality to the core essence of the service." Here's a sampling of what folks are saying around the web:
Mobile websites should be designed to be small, simple and distilled down to their most crucial aspects.
—Mobile Web Pages Need to Be Simple, Web Design SEO
When it comes to mobile websites, simplicity is key.
— Mobile Web Design Trends, Smashing Magazine
Less will always be better- that is the primary rule of converting your website to mobile.
— What Should My Mobile Site Do, MoFuse Premium
While we advocate simplicity in design, we're not really sure this is especially true for mobile. First, there may be functionality in the mobile possibly not in the desktop version of the site. But let's ignore that. Is simple always the best answer? Should we always reduce functionality to the "core"?
What is Simplicity, Anyhow?
And are we even talking about the same thing? The quotes above essentially suggest simplicity and complexity are opposite ends of a continuum, with everything true and good in the world to the left, like so:
This over-simplifies the simplicity discussion. Or, simplicity is more complex then this.
What does "simple" or "complex" mean? In one of our Friday design discussions, we realized the argument is mistaken in one of the commonly encountered senses, where "complex" frequently means cluttered. We've all heard this from reviewers and clients. We drew this on the whiteboard to frame our discussion:
The two axes are mostly independent of each other. A highly complex functional product can have a "clean" interface (consider www.google.com), or it can look cluttered (think Facebook and Myspace). A product with few features can look cluttered, the way Craigslist does, or can be clean like many online stopwatches.
The simple/complex axis largely relates to functionality or amount of content. The clean/cluttered axis is more a measure of the visual, information, interaction, and content design.
Another benefit of the chart above is that it's a 2 x 2 grid! All MBAs like 2 x 2 grids. Not only do many of our clients have MBAs, but so do I. So this is a good thing. Here we map some services into our grid:
Visually Clean
Most interesting digital systems are indeed functionally or organizationally complex. But they needn't look cluttered.
The essence of being "visually clean" is that the possibly complex system doesn't look complex. One great way to accomplish this is to display only the information relevant right now.
Is Simplicity Universally Desired?
The aversion to "cluttered" likely has a cultural component. Consider this set of Japanese mobile portals selected for their good design; they have a lot going on. Many modern cityscapes are similarly cluttered.
Not only does the aversion to cluttered have a cultural component, it also have a contextual component. Sticking with the Japanese, check out Presentation Zen's 7 Japanese aesthetic principles to change your thinking. So this culture desires both cluttered and clean, in different contexts.
Complex Cluttered Arrangements of Simple Clean Objects
Or, portals, dashboards, and cockpits.
We humans have a repeated behavior of collecting simple things and arranging them for aesthetic or functional purposes. iGoogle, NetVibes, and Pageflakes are all examples. Web portals tend to do the same. If you want a bit of fun, get Steven talking about portal theory.
These systems, as a whole, are complex and cluttered. But each element is simple.
Is Functionally Complex and Visually Cluttered Bad?
For consumer systems, probably yes. Choices are overwhelming, users don't understand the complexity model, features get lost. The ability to handle functionally complex is typically through visually simple interactions in which content is well organized in time and space.
But consider an airplane cockpit. Lots of information is immediately visible, even in glass cockpits with their modal display of information. These are complex systems, both functionally and visually. They require a lot of training to learn to use. There is still a lot of design here.
The key to making these systems easy to use is to work on matching displays to mental models, and training users on the proper mental models.
Back on the consumer side, or even enterprise employee mobile phone user side, you can add complexity over time. If a new Facebook user were to see a heavy Facebook user's page, she would be lost. Actually, I'm lost; I only use Facebook sporadically. The site is manageable because users learn small parts of the service before being bombarded with memes, applications, and friends.
The Challenge of Functionally Simple
It was difficult to pick out good "simple" and "clean" examples within the web domain. We discussed a currency calculator and an online stopwatch.
This comes as no surprise. Most apps and sites are built by an organization. Organizations have as their very nature a key unstated goal: to continue existing. To do this, they have to keep growing. To do this, they have to add value. Most apps and sites run by organizations will grow, and become less simple.
As your site grows, that original clean interface may simply stop working. It's not any one person's fault, but it often happens when organizations grow, and as individual needs are met without stopping to reconsider the whole product. Beware.
Several good design and product management practices can help avoid creeping featuritus. The use of personas, themes for each product release, and more can all help. The selection of which tool depends on your organization. (we can help)
How Much Simplicity?
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
—Albert Einstein
Einstein is right: don't overdo the simplicity. And let's make things complex enough to meet users' needs.
The features required for any particular context, be it device, user, time of day, location, situation, etc. vary a lot. There's no way to tell, and one context's simple is another's too complex. Worse yet, is being too simple.
There is a good cutoff, at the arbitrary (and unscaled) point shown above, where any design should probably have a certain degree of "clean-ness" -- avoiding the clutter of your typical overdone web portal.
The functional complexity might not need to move, especially with an increasing number of people using the mobile as their primary access to the web. Do you want to reduce functionality for a class of user? If so, be sure that they would agree.
How Simple is Too Simple?
If your target users can not accomplish key goals, your service is too simple.
What Does This Have to Do with Mobile?
Nothing and everything.
Nothing: These ideas behind simplicity apply to most design exercises; they certainly aren't limited to mobile. Indeed, there is a growing sentiment around the web to design for mobile first, then design for other platforms in a progressive enhancement approach. Even David Wood's recent Symbian blog entry on simplicity is more about software development in general than anything mobile specific.
Simplicity (cleanness) is a design ethic of our times, not just for mobile.
Everything: Mobiles are pretty complex already, especially including the wide variety of contexts they will be used in. And many operating systems expose much of that complexity to the end user.
Considering solely the use on the phone and making that as simple as possible, particularly functionally simple, can increase complexity for the user. In an effort to achieve mobile simplicity, Gmail mid-to-low capability mobile sites and Java applications do not provide labeling functionality. If you use labels to organize your many gigabytes of email, you'll have to do it on the desktop.
In contrast consider the Twitter application for the S60 platform, Gravity. If you've not seen it, please do go read the All About Symbian Gravity review and also see this set of Gravity screen shots. The user interface is visually clean, with a functionally complex set of controls appearing as needed. It keeps the complexity in context, making it not seem complex.
Impact of Multitasking
This brings up a good point. Are simple applications or web sites really great for general computing devices that do not have good multitasking? That (of course) depends. If you need to use the simple app in some continuous, largely uninterrupted, and finite manner, such as a stopwatch, weak or no multitasking is fine. But if you need to dip into the application several times over the course of the day, such as a task timer used for billing, then the repeated time costs of loading the application will become unacceptable.
Clean on the Small Screen?
Yes, you can get functionally rich services with simple design on the small screen. You can keep the white space, though you should design with the frame of the device in mind.
What you shouldn't do is take out too much. Most of the time, you should only remove what is truly irrelevant when mobile. Just like you should remove desktop-irrelevant stuff from the desktop interface.
Thought I’d point out that your 2nd 2 x 2 grid is wrong (at least according to the words above it). The grid seems to say that Facebook is a simple system with cluttered interface, but the text (and common sense) would indicate that it is in fact a complex system with a cluttered interface.
Yes you’re absolutely right. Facebook and Craigslist should be swapped. We’ll get to that probably tomorrow when Steven isn’t home sick.