Overdoing Simplicity
Category: Design...
Posted Thursday, December 15, 2005 at 08:50 AM [GMT-6]

You know me...I'm all about simplicity, usability, yielding control to the customer. When I see "KISS," I think facilitation, not osculation.

So it's strange that I should find myself needing to issue a mild rebuke to the Wall Street Journal for going too far down the path of simplification. Here's what I mean:

This is a screen capture from the bottom of the page devoted to today's "Question of the Day," an informal poll regarding burning issues (la pregunta de hoy: "Which type of Web site is most in need of greater government oversight?" (Fortunately...surprisingly...blogs weren't among the named choices, although I'm sure they're what everyone has in mind when they pick the "Other" category.) This page contains the poll itself, followed by a series of message board-style comments left by those who want to editorialize about why they voted as they did. It's all very routine stuff.

However, someone at the Journal has apparently decided that despite the fact that access to their website costs around a hundred bucks a year and the average subscriber has at least an undergraduate degree, something on this page is potentially confusing and therefore readers need the equivalent of the Staples "Easy Button."

I applaud the designer's sensitivity, but, frankly, I don't get it. It's especially puzzling when I click the "Basic View" link and -- just as with the "Easy Button" -- nothing changes. I can't tell any difference between the Basic and Advanced Views. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough, but I submit that if one has to look really hard to distinguish between two options, there may well be one too many options.

OK, I'll admit that there is one difference between the Basic and Advanced Views. The Basic View is lacking the option to change the font size. It's possible that the designer decided that the popup menu allowing the change in font size might be intimidating or confusing -- Wonder what they mean by "adjust"?. Never mind that the option is, well, optional.

I've intentionally not placed this example into the Gazette's world renown "Usability Hall of Shame," because it's not bad design; it just appears to be unnecessary design. It's as simple as that.

Technorati tags: Wall Street Journal | Usability