One of the main problems with the concept of simplicity is that it is misunderstood. A simple website is not sparest or one without features. Google aside, it is not one with the least complicated interface. It’s one that is straightforward to use. Google’s home page is simple. Google’s website is anything but.

Getting to many of Google’s more advanced features actually requires a fair amount of expert knowledge. Since the features are not revealed on the home page, we usually have to learn what features are available, and how to use them, from an outside source. Google offers many non-search related features, like blogs, a shopping cart servie, email, and an online office suite that are not readily apparent by just visiting www.google.com. Further, many of the advanced search related features that Google offers, like using the search box as a calculator, are usually learned by reading tips elsewhere, or by digging deep into its page hierarchy. Google can get away with this because of its dominant market position. Most of us don’t get books or blogs written about out sites and how to use them. The very fact that there are multiple books written about using Google is a strong clue that its home page doesn’t give us all the information we might want.

To make our sites usable we need to make the features we offer readily apparent from the beginning. If we feature visitor contributed content, as do forums, community sites, or YouTube, we need to make it readily apparent how to play the game. Would ebay have become what is was without making it simple to sell stuff. Would Amazon have been as successful if it didn’t feature customer reviews of its products?

Even if we don’t offer user contributed content we need to make it easy for visitors to find what they need. That means making what they are most likely looking for prominent. As a consumer and tester of too many shareware programs, I’ve seen a lot of product websites. The ones that work seem to follow a simple formula. They offer an: overview page, a features page, screenshots, faqs, documentation, an order page, and a download page with system requirements clearly featured for each product. In addition they offer a contact/support page, a home page and often either support forums or more and more a wiki. On any or all of those pages they include user testimonials, links to online reviews, pull quotes, and photos of their products. The idea of providing a simpler page to start with and obvious links to more information is called progressive disclosure.

They could make it simple and leave out any or most of the above, and just say here’s my product buy it. It’s not likely they would have many sales from such an approach. The same is true of software sellers who leave out the details and say download a trial for free, then buy it. Why should I waste my valuable time playing with an under documented program when there is usually another that will do what I need that does give me adequate information to make an informed choice. It is no accident that a major element of web design is termed information architecture. The web is about information. If you don’t provide it, you become irrelevant. If your competitor provides it and you don’t you go broke.

The trick to simplicity is not to leave out features but to make it easy for visitors to find the most important information quickly and easily. The page design needs to be as complicated as it takes to achieve that goal. So simple is a relative term, not an absolute one. The best kind of simple is the kind that makes information obvious and using the site easy, not the sparest interface.

Possibly related:

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 11th, 2007 at 2:15 am and is filed under Design Theory. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.