Comments on: (too) Minimalist design http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/09/03/too-minimalist-design/ Not blaming the user since 2007! Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:01:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard Pak http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/09/03/too-minimalist-design/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Richard Pak Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:07:08 +0000 http://humanfactorsblog.org/?p=184#comment-197 Good points. I think the popularity of Apple products is not solely driven by (questionably) good, minimalist design, but buzz generated by good advertising/marketing (which is obviously independent of good or bad usability). Good points. I think the popularity of Apple products is not solely driven by (questionably) good, minimalist design, but buzz generated by good advertising/marketing (which is obviously independent of good or bad usability).

]]> By: Ariel http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/09/03/too-minimalist-design/comment-page-1/#comment-193 Ariel Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:53:52 +0000 http://humanfactorsblog.org/?p=184#comment-193 Looks like a fun concept - but this type of super-minimalist design always irks me.. as it seems to be the extreme other end of the whole flexibility-usability tradeoff principle of design -- as functionality increases usability descreases. It only has two functions, but looks surprisingly unintuitive from a user perspective (perhaps largely because the expectations set from devices we're used to dealing with). Sure, once we use it we can get the hang of it pretty quick, but can we really commend a design from a HF standpoint if it has such a blatant lack of affordances? I think of ipods similarly: everyone talks about the great simplicity and usability of their design (which can no doubt be learned quick), but if you observe a first-time user of an ipod try to simply play a song, not to mention someone from a non-high-tech generation, it isn't pretty. Looks like a fun concept – but this type of super-minimalist design always irks me.. as it seems to be the extreme other end of the whole flexibility-usability tradeoff principle of design — as functionality increases usability descreases. It only has two functions, but looks surprisingly unintuitive from a user perspective (perhaps largely because the expectations set from devices we’re used to dealing with). Sure, once we use it we can get the hang of it pretty quick, but can we really commend a design from a HF standpoint if it has such a blatant lack of affordances?

I think of ipods similarly: everyone talks about the great simplicity and usability of their design (which can no doubt be learned quick), but if you observe a first-time user of an ipod try to simply play a song, not to mention someone from a non-high-tech generation, it isn’t pretty.

]]> By: Richard Pak http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/09/03/too-minimalist-design/comment-page-1/#comment-189 Richard Pak Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:52:49 +0000 http://humanfactorsblog.org/?p=184#comment-189 I'm not sure; but Apple sure has found success in applying an almost extreme amount of minimalism in the design of their ipods and computers. I’m not sure; but Apple sure has found success in applying an almost extreme amount of minimalism in the design of their ipods and computers.

]]> By: marita http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/09/03/too-minimalist-design/comment-page-1/#comment-188 marita Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:22:26 +0000 http://humanfactorsblog.org/?p=184#comment-188 is there a class of users or product types for which the minimal design aesthetic is appropriate? is there a class of users or product types for which the minimal design aesthetic is appropriate?

]]> By: Richard Pak http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/09/03/too-minimalist-design/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Richard Pak Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:33:13 +0000 http://humanfactorsblog.org/?p=184#comment-165 Agreed--I actually really like this design. I think a minimal design aesthetic is too often neglected :) There probably should have been a question mark after the title. Agreed–I actually really like this design. I think a minimal design aesthetic is too often neglected :) There probably should have been a question mark after the title.

]]> By: Christopher Monnier http://humanfactorsblog.org/2008/09/03/too-minimalist-design/comment-page-1/#comment-164 Christopher Monnier Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:30:48 +0000 http://humanfactorsblog.org/?p=184#comment-164 I actually thought this was a brilliant design for a radio. Sure, there's no obvious affordance telling users to pull the knob upwards to turn it on, but once a user figures it out (playing with it for a bit might reveal the fact that to turn it on you pull it up), I think it's easy (and fun!) to use. Once turned on, while there's no clear indication as to which way to turn the knob to increase the volume, I would think that the audio feedback from the speaker (which was just revealed when the knob was pulled up to turn the radio on) would be enough to let users know how to increase or decrease the volume. I actually thought this was a brilliant design for a radio. Sure, there’s no obvious affordance telling users to pull the knob upwards to turn it on, but once a user figures it out (playing with it for a bit might reveal the fact that to turn it on you pull it up), I think it’s easy (and fun!) to use. Once turned on, while there’s no clear indication as to which way to turn the knob to increase the volume, I would think that the audio feedback from the speaker (which was just revealed when the knob was pulled up to turn the radio on) would be enough to let users know how to increase or decrease the volume.

]]>