John Maeda is a renowned graphic designer who currently holds the chair of The Rhode Island School of Design President. He has been a strong proponent of simplicity in design and is the author of The Laws of Simplicity, a summation of his thoughts on how and why to strip away the unnecessary parts of one’s design. Maeda has divided up this process, which he refers to as “thoughtful reduction,” into ten “laws” (I think the term “law” isn't really appropriate—I would call them “methods,” “steps,” or even simply “topics,” but I didn't write the book).
Law1_reduce(); Strip away functionality. Question the number of things the product needs to do or how much information the design needs to communicate.
Law2_organize(); “Organization makes a system of many appear few.” A simple grouping of like items can allow large groups of items to be dealt with (physically or mentally) at a time. As one commenter on Maeda's blog said, this concept could be expanded to include abstraction—which is more of a mental organizational tool and perhaps is inherent to the organization process—is no less useful to understand.
#Andrew Stribblehill December 16, 2006
If by organisation, we are talking about aggregation of related objects, I think abstraction is a similar, but potentially more powerful, concept.
I don’t need to worry about how my clean socks are organised, for example, because I know they’re in my sock drawer. Now I only need concern myself with the (less flexible) interactions between me and the sock drawer rather than with individual socks. (It also makes them easier to count, which I see as a hint that it’s a useful abstraction.)
Somewhat related to abstraction are metaphor, allegory and approximation. When applied helpfully, each allows us to work at a higher level by being able to ignore underlying complexity.
#Maeda December 16, 2006
Thanks Andrew, yes, “abstraction” is a good way to frame the entire space of simplicity. It represents the fact that you know where your socks are, thus you do not have to open each drawer to find them. Abstractions work best when they are tacitly understood. Seems kind of odd that abstractions have to be concrete … sort of an oxymoron to mull over on a lazy Saturday :-)
Law3_time(); “Savings in time feel like simplicity.” This rule is so simple it hardly warrants explanation. Suffice it to recant the old comedian's mantra "Brevity is the essence of wit."
Law4_learn(); This one isn't immediately obvious, but is in fact rudimentary: knowledge is power—the power to simplify. The example that Maeda uses is perfect, so I won't tamper with it:
Operating a screw is deceptively simple. Just mate the grooves atop the screw’s head to the appropriate tip—slotted or Phillips—of a screwdriver. What happens next is not as simple, as you may have noted while observing a child or a woefully sheltered adult turning the screwdriver in the wrong direction.
My children remember this rule through a mnemonic taught by my spouse, “righty tighty, lefty loosy.” Personally I use the analogy of a clock, and map the clockwise motion of the hands to the positive penetration curve of the screw. Both methods are subject to a second layer of knowledge: knowing right versus left, or knowing what direction the hands of a clock turn. Thus operating a screw is not as simple as it appears. And it’s such an apparently simple object!
My children remember this rule through a mnemonic taught by my spouse, “righty tighty, lefty loosy.” Personally I use the analogy of a clock, and map the clockwise motion of the hands to the positive penetration curve of the screw. Both methods are subject to a second layer of knowledge: knowing right versus left, or knowing what direction the hands of a clock turn. Thus operating a screw is not as simple as it appears. And it’s such an apparently simple object!
Law5_differences(); Simplicity stands out when compared with complexity. A simple design will shine through a haze of complex competitors. A more intriguing question, which is not addressed in Maeda's blog post, is “how could one incorporate both complexity and simplicity into a design so that the simplicity is properly appreciated.”
Another interesting question, which was raised by a commenter, was whether complexity could shine through a haze of simplicity. The poster posited that it could not. “Complexity can’t eat simple, but the simple can eat complexity.” Intuitively, I think he's right, but it's worth some thought.
Law6_context(); “What lies in the periphery of simplicity is definitely not peripheral.” For whatever reason, that is all there is to this rule. No explanation whatsoever on the site. The comments, however, offer some interesting interpretations and ideas.
Law7_emotion(); “More emotions are better than [fewer].” Apparently the site only has descriptions for the first 5 laws (presumably to promote the sale of the book). One way to interpret this is simply to say that emotion is an engaging experience, and so designing products that your audience can connect with emotionally will, of course, have more impact.
Law8_trust(); “In simplicity we trust.” This seemingly vague and reletively useless rule is actually a meaningful explanation of why simplicity is effective. As one commenter put it, “Trust wants transparency. Transparency wants simplicity.” In other words, if a design is simple—if it doesn't seem like it is hiding anything—it seems more trustworthy and the user/audience will, in theory, be more inclined to interact with it and invest time in it.
But, there is a flipside to this in that complexity can draw people in. It is fascinating and deep. The application is of course paramount in deciding where the design should rest on this continuum, but very rarely, I think should one make something entirely simple or impenetrably complex.
Law9_failure(); “Some things can never be made simple.”
Law10_theOne(); “Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful.” Maeda says that he meant this rule to be a summation of the previous laws. I think it's an elegant way of putting it.
As a closing note, it should be said that these are not only design concerns. The laws of simplicity can—and probably should—be applied to other areas of life.
