Simplicity and Functionality

Simplicity and Functionality

A discussion in to how the use of simplicity in product design has affected the way products function.

Alexander Taylor Leeds Beckett University

Content Introduction

Definitions Introduction to the Topic Simplicity in Design Functional Design

Simplicity in Aesthetics

Definition Case Study - Apple Scroll Wheel Case Study - Icons in UI Design

Simplicity in User Interface Definition Case Study - Apple Touchscreen Gestures Case Study - Apple iOS

Simplicity is Complexity

Case Study - MacBook’s Unibody Design

4-8 4 6 7 8

9 - 11 9 9 - 10 11

13 - 16 13 14

15 - 16

17 - 18 17 - 18

Personal Practice

19

Conclusion

29

Relating the Article to my Coinciding Project

Reflection and Summary

Bibliography

21 - 22

3

Simplicity

“Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious and adding the meaningful. It’s about making something easier to understand.”

Functionality

“the quality of being suited to serve a purpose well; practicality”

4

5

Introduction Product design has been increasing its focus on simplicity over the past decade.

The functions of products are constantly updated due to new technology, consumer demand, competitive markets and change in global trends. These two ideas (simplicity & functionality) are becoming what companies are all striving to achieve through their products, which makes them both inextricably linked.

This article will discuss how the use of simplicity in product design over the last 15 years has affected the way products function, how the user interacts with them. Does simplicity have an ever-increasing positive impact on the way we use products and what effect does it have on a company taking the idea of simplicity in to their designs?

The article will use Apple and their product as the primary case study however also unpacks various other products that use simplicity as a key component in their designs. It also reflects on how these changes have not just come about in the last few years but incrementalally developed.

Product design will be the main topic for the case studies as this is where my interests lye, however ‘design’ is a wide field of study and other areas with relevant articles will be drawn upon, including graphical user interface (GUI).

The key points throughout the article will be taken and related against my own coinciding design project which features a functional desk/dining table for small home dwelling.

The study concludes with an reflection on whether or not simplicity has had a positive impact on the way we use products over the last 15 years. It also summarises the main points in the article as well as the short term and long term costs to a business of adopting simplicity in to their designs.

6

Simplicity in Design

“The easiest way to simplify a system is to remove functionality. Today’s DVD (remote), for instance, has too many buttons if all you want to do is play a movie. A solution could be to remove the buttons for Rewind, Forward, Eject, and so forth until only one button remains: Play.� (Maeda, 2006).

Maeda 10 laws explain how simplicity can truly be achieved. The example he gives in his first law draws upon the use of DVD remotes and how they are becoming too complicated with their infinite number of buttons.

The complexity of a standard tv remote (figure 1) shows what Maeda is analysing, there is a button for every function and many are not needed. Some buttons on the remote have a colour but and some text to tell you what its function is. Reducing the amount of buttons may prove difficult but when you realise how little you use some of the functions it is realistically needed.

Figure 1: Standard TV Remote (n.d)

The Apple tv remote (figure 1.1) completely takes on board this idea of reduction in functions and completely simplifies a remote control down to its bare necessities. The functions needed are: arrow keys, select, menu and play/pause.

It is not only tv remote that has been improved but also the software behind the it. Simplifying what is on screen when the user is navigating through the menus has also changed the way we use remotes.

There are however many other ways a design can have the values of simplicity, not just the reduction in functions.

7

Figure 1.1: New Apple TV Remote (2009)

Functional Design

“Functional design is necessarily a relationship between users with problems to solve and designers with solutions to offer”.

The quote above from Denis Apchin (Apchin Design Corp) states the definition of functional design to mean the relationship between the user and the designer, while keeping in mind a problem to solve.

Figure 2 shows a standard Hoover that can still be bought today. It is similar to an original design for the Hoover with only forwards and backwards motion. The function is quite simple, cleaning a floor surface.

The Dyson ‘Ball’ (figure 2.1) has considered what the user will be doing when using a vacuum. The ability to manoeuvre around objects in the home is the primary function of the new ‘ball’ system. The axis on which the vacuum sits creates movement in to difficult spaces with little need for the user to change their body position.

Similarly figure 2.2 shows another function of a vacuum that has been developed around the intention of the user. The ability for the design to be lightweight and carried around the house has been an issue in the past. However the new mini vacuum cleaner (a4 paper size) gives the user little difficulty.

Figure 2: Standard Hoover (n.d)

Figure 2.1: The Dyson ‘Ball’ (2005)

Figure 2.2: The Dyson ‘DC29’ (2010)

8

Simplicity in Aesthetics “Aesthetics, as defined in the context of product design, refers to the comparative study of sensory values experienced in relation to products. These values can be in relation to overall product appearance or to some particular product detail or design feature.“ (Xue, 2007)

Definition

Aesthetics in Product Design

The appearance of a product in the consumers eyes can attract their attention and make them want to know more about it. It is important therefore for companies to consider how their product looks when developing it for mass market situations.

“The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.” (Maeda, 2006) Reducing the amount of functions on the surface of a product gives it a simplistic appearance therefore making functions easier to find. If the functions are therefore easier to find then the user can access them quicker and the design becomes more intuitive.

“The iPod was introduced on October 23, 2001 and though also originally ignored, the iPod has grown at a ridiculous rate and seamlessly moved on to various versions, different form factors and more power and capability. A portable music player couldn’t just be a music player anymore, largely because of the iPod” (Chan, 2010).

Case Study iPod Wheel

The first generation ipod (figure 3) had a matte white plastic appearance with a stainless steel back.

Jony Ive (quoted in Isaacson, 2011) said “there was something very significant and non disposable about it (the iPod)...it was restrained but also crazy, with those flowing headphones. That’s why I like white. White isn’t just a neutral color. It is so pure and quiet.”

Ive spoke about the appearance of the iPod in his own words as “pure and quiet” whereby its functions do not necessarily get in the way of the overall aesthetics.

9

Figure 3: The First Generation iPod (2001)

Figure 3.1: Wheel Illustration (Maeda, 2006)

Features on the front were 4 click buttons around the outer wheel which were used for: menu/back, forward/backwards and play/pause. The user could simply read the symbols or text and translate this very quickly into the actions on screen; the middle button was for making a selection.

The unique feature of this iPod was the mechanical (physically movable) wheel which let users control the speed of their scrolling up and down the iPods menus (figure 3.1 illustration).

Figure 3.2: The Third Generation iPod (2003)

The amount of functions available to the user from the appearance seemed little as the white buttons matched the white iPod colour giving an illusion of less features than there were.

Maeda analyses the mirrored back of Apples iPod and how it “creates the illusion that the object is only as thin as the floating white plastic layer because the rest of the object adapts to its surroundings� agreeing with the previous point of giving the illusion of less features.

Figure 3.3: Wheel Illustration (Maeda, 2006)

A third generation iPod was released 2 years later in 2003 (figure 3.2). Apple had reorganised all symbol buttons to the top which meant the buttons could be seen while using the scroll wheel.

As the scroll wheel and middle touch buttons were almost seamless to the rest of the front they could be ignored when the user was pressing the buttons, creating less functions visible and therefore a decrease in confusion when using the device.

In 2004 Apple released the fourth generation iPod (figure 3.4). The new click wheel meant that two functions could be performed with the wheel reducing the amount of buttons on the front.

This reduction in buttons meant there was only the appearance of one circular button which could function the whole iPod.

Figure 3.4: The Fourth Generation iPod (2004)

Figure 3.5: Wheel Illustration (Maeda, 2006)

10

However simplicity in appearance does not always make a design more intuitive.

Familiarity in the appearance of a products features can make it more intuitive due to it being something you have seen/used before.

Blacker states that “many designers believe that icons have more universal familiarity as users live in the same visual world” (2005).

For example we all adopt the same thoughts when seeing a letter as an icon on everyday products, this shows that we have a new email or message waiting for us. Therefore familiarising ones self with icons leads to an increase in formality of using that icon which in turn makes the design more of a ‘norm’.

Icons used in graphical user interfaces (GUIs) have been developed ever since the first computer that had a GUI and mouse (the Xerox Alto in 1973).

Case Study

Icon Design in User Interfaces

The simple black and white ‘trash’ can logo (figure 4) used in the Xerox star tells us that even though this computer is nearly 25 years old it still considered how the users would interact and understand what was on screen.

The familiar logo of the ‘trash’ can would be used on almost every interface to this present day. This is because we associate the trash can by placing rubbish inside, the fact that this was used on screen transferred this meaning in to terms of deleting files.

Figures 4 - 4.2 show how the evolution of the logo in fact did change significantly between 1981 and 2009 however it never lost the fact that it was a recycling bin where waste (files) go if not needed.

Annie also responds to the idea of familiarity between the icon and the frequency it has been encountered. “Familiarity is defined in terms of the frequency with which icons had been encountered. Icons are regarded as concrete if they depict real objects, materials, or people; those that do not are considered as abstract.” (Ng, 2008)

11

Figure 4: Xerox Star Trash Icon (1981)

Figure 4.1: Windows 95 Trash Icon (1995)

Figure 4.2: Windows 7 Trash Icon (2009)

12

Simplicity in User Interface “User interface design is a subset of a field of study called human computer interaction (HCI). Human-computer interaction is the study, planning, and design of how people and computers work together so that a person’s needs are satisfied in the most effective way ...Proper interface design will provide a mix of well designed input and output mechanisms that satisfy the user’s needs, capabilities, and limitations in the most effective way possible“ (Galitz, 2007).

User interface design is what a consumer will look at in a design or on screen and how they interact with what they have in front of them.

As UI design is becoming a huge part of the field in the 21st century (particularly in the form of new ‘apps’) an era of minimal designs are taking over the way we use the functions of our latest technologies.

Technology is becoming increasingly complex as an increasing amount of functions can be accessed at our very fingertips or the touch of a button. Creating a certain amount of simplicity in the UI can make the technology available for a wider target market.

Haymes puts it as “Elegant [or simplicity in] design can allow the user to interface with complex technologies in a way that is simple and approachable.

This requires a discipline that is often lost on many technology designers who like to emphasize all of the neat things the technology solution can do.

In the process, they lose track of the user’s goals and the cleanest narrative that is necessary to take them there.” (2014) Haymes describes the elegance in a product as a pathway to understanding its functions.

The UI in an a operating system for example can make the user understand more about the complex functions that are featured within.

13

Definition

User Interface Design

Gestures while using a touchscreen Apple device use finger movements to control different functions of their popular products (the iPhone, iPad and iPod etc..).

Case Study

Apple Touchscreen Gestures

Multi-touch technology is the ability for the surface to recognise the presence of more than one interaction at a time. This means the user can use multiple finger for different gestures therefore increasing the functionality of that certain product.

The basic gestures (figures 5-5.3) show how the user can interact with their touchscreen device, these are guidelines as to how the user can use one or more fingers to control their iPhone.

Interacting with a touch device became simpler than ever. Let’s take the ability to zoom in for example, on computers at that time the only way to zoom in was to scroll the mouse wheel up and down. Taking the same gesture from a 15 inch screen of a computer to a phone was a difficult task as the user became so adopted to scrolling with their mouse button.

Gestures redefined how we use our touchscreen devices, what was once normal to tap the ‘up’ and ‘down’ arrow keys on an old Nokia for example (figure 5.4) would now become the gesture of swiping your finger up and down the screen. The gestures for iPhone are a much more hands on approach and as the user becomes used to these they can transfer the same knowledge to different devices (such as the iPad). This simplicity in transferring knowledge from each device creates functions that are also transferable.

Maeda explains in his fourth law “Knowledge makes everything simpler” (2006). The knowledge used from turning a book page has been made translatable in to gestures.

Tapping and dragging the pages on the iPhone (figure 5.5) has been adopted from the real life simulation of turning a page which the user already will know how to do.

Figure 5: Tap

Figure 5.1: Tap Twice

Figure 5.2: Tap, hold and drag

Figure 5.3: Pinch

Figure 5.4: Nokia 3210 keypad (1999)

Figure 5.5: Turning a page gesture iPhone (n.d)

14

“Organization makes a system of many appear fewer.” (Maeda, 2006). This quote from Maeda is his second law of simplicity and suggests that by organising a complex system it makes functions easier to access and use.

The organisation of a product can lead to a certain simplicity in its functions. Using a certain piece of computer software with too many options can become confusing and often frustrating.

Maeda also states in his second law that “working with fewer objects, concepts, and functions—and fewer corresponding buttons to press—makes life simpler when faced with the alternative of having too many choices.”

(2006).

If the user has fewer buttons to press to get to a specific function they are likely to be able to work with the user interface at a greater level which therefore means that simplicity in UI design is essential. “iOS is the operating system used for mobiles manufactured by Apple Inc. Originally unveiled in 2007 for the iPhone, it has been extended to support other Apple devices such as the iPod Touch (September 2007), iPad (January 2010), iPad Mini (November 2012) and second-generation Apple TV onward (September 2010).”

(Wikipedia ‘iOS’, 2014)

Case Study Apple iOS

Simplicity in the operating system is what makes it so user friendly and accessible to all.

Accessing functions in a few simple clicks is what Steve jobs wanted when creating even the first iPod in 2001: “His main demand was “Simplify!” He would go over each screen and apply a rigid test: If he wanted a song or a function, he should be able to get there in three clicks” (Isaacson, 2006).

The points made before about simplicity by organising can be put in to perspective with the new operating systems in all iPhones.

Figure 6 shows the recent update in 2014 of iOS 8 for the iPhone.

15

Figure 6: Apple iOS 8 for iPhone (2014)

Since iOS 4 was released users have been able to sort all their applications in to group folders on the home screen. This grouping (figure 6.1) creates organisation on screen which in turn gives the user less to look at.

Fewer items on screen leads to greater understanding of how to navigate through the iPhones home screen and therefore ability to access functions quicker.

Similarly iPhones only have one button at the button which is to go back to the home screen (figure 6.2). This button simplifies the whole use of the iPhone for the consumer as they know that this button takes them back to the ‘start’ of their device use.

Figure 6.1: iPhone App Folders (n.d)

This links back to the previous topic of the appearance and aesthetics of the iPod. The user can only see one button and the screen and everything defers to that screen. Nothing distracts the user from their primary task of using the phone.

The simplicity of the UI affects the way a product functions in a positive way as the use of more advanced technology can be simplified in a way that all users can understand.

Figure 6.2: iPhone Home Button (n.d)

16

Simplicity is Complexity However with simplicity in design comes increased complexity. Don Norman quotes in his book ‘The Design of Everyday Things’ that “added complexity and difficulty cannot be avoided when functions are added, but with clever design, they can be minimized” (2013).

Creating a design that is simple yet has the desired functions to make it accessible by the user is not easy. There is a complex thought process in stripping down a design to its key functions and therefore with this complexity comes an increase in the time spend designing and in turn how long it takes for a product to come on to the market.

A similar quote from Norman is that “new designs are pushing hard on the paradox of technology: added functionality generally comes along at the price of added complexity.” (2013).

The new technology that Norman is speaking about may come in the form of the software behind a new mobile phone for example.

However new manufacturing techniques have also affected the complexity of designs as striving to reduce manufacturing times increases the likelihood of beating a competitor on to the market.

Advances in manufacturing of complex parts (through increasingly precise techniques) verges towards designs that need fewer and fewer parts. The fewer the parts that create a product mean those parts must be increasingly complex and therefore more time is spent thoughtfully considering how components are assembled.

“The MacBook Pro is a line of Macintosh portable computers introduced in January 2006 by Apple Inc., and now in its third generation” (Wikipedia ‘MacBook Pro, 2015).

The first MacBook Pro was released in 2006 however the first one to use a ‘unibody’ design was released 2 years later in 2008 (figure 7).

17

Case Study

MacBook’s Unibody Design

Computers in 2008 all assembled multiple parts and fixings to create a single enclosure for a laptop. The new MacBook Pro released in 2008 was designed to solve the problem of having these multiple parts and how they could all be manufactured in to a single part.

This part is called the unibody.

This unibody part (figure 7.1) consists of the main body for where the keyboard and the trackpad will sit, it also houses all the electronic components underneath.

Figure 7: MacBook Pro (2008)

The unibody design for this part is created out of a single piece of extruded aluminium which then goes through several stages of operations, of which most are CNC. As this important part of the MacBooks design is all one body it reduces the risk of inconsistencies in using multiple parts for the same operation.

This also reduces shipping costs as the MacBook now ships with nearly 50 per cent fewer parts than the previous generation from the result of the unibody construction.

Figure 7.1: MacBook Pro Unibody Design (2010)

Jony Ive states how “this one part provides so much functionality...a lot of time is spent designing the fixtures that secure the part in to the machines..it was about figuring out process” Ugrind Productions Inc (2010).

The simplicity in the design of this one part has a number of very complex stages of production. As Apple strives to achieved simplicity in their products (like the unibody design) the manufacturing techniques become more and more complex.

Therefore simplicity of products comes at a price of increased complexity in many senses.

The earlier quote “Clever design can reduce complexity in functions” Norman (2013) is fundamental in what Apple achieved in the design of a unibody laptop. The clever use of manufacturing techniques meant that the complexity in functions was reduced.

18

Personal Practice This article has analysed the impact simplicity has had on product design over the past 10-15 years and whether or not its impacted positively on functionality and user interaction.

The points made will be applied to my coinciding project which is a desk/dining unit suitable for a small home environment (figure 8).

The unit contains two seats, a table, a standing work surface (figure 8.1 in white).Seating and a table can be rotated out and placed in a position comfortable for the user. The suggestion of thoughtful reduction has been taken in to account with these surfaces as they are the only ones needed for up to two people to dine/work effectively.

Neutral white colours used for the surfaces are suggestive of which layers can be rotated. As the white contrasts to the plywood colour it can easily be distinguished as the user learns that these are the layers that move throughout the design.

Figure 8: Desk/Dining Unit (2015)

Figure 8.1: Seating and Table (rotated out)

Complex layers (shown in light brown) are laser cut out of sheets of plywood. These shapes are stacked one on top of the other with no layer being the same as the previous.

The whole unit shape is based on the natural form of the human body (figure 8.2) which means the user will interact with it easier as the curves suggest where you should be stood when at the standing work surface.

The 5 drawers all use push to open drawer runners (figure 8.3) and sit flush with the surface of the design when not in use. Using the same mechanisms in each drawer creates clarity in the user as they know how to operate each drawer through intuitive learning.

Figure 8.2: User Stood at the Unit

As quoted earlier by Don Norman “added functionality generally comes along at the price of added complexity� (2013) however in this case the functions of the drawers are all similar so complexity can be kept to a minimum.

Figure 8.3: Drawer pulled out from the unit

19

Conclusion In conclusion simplicity has had a huge effect on the way we use and interact with products and how a business uses this idea in their designs.

Simplicity in design through “thoughtful reduction” (Maeda, 2006) can create products that not only function as they should but at the same tame attract the user to their aesthetically pleasing values.

Advancements in technology, such as those in graphical user interfaces on phones, has meant that these GUIs have become much simpler and easier to navigate. Simplicity in the GUI makes the user understand the complex technology that is behind smart phones and gives them a product that is more intuitive.

Similarly as product designs reduce the amount of functions available to those that are only necessary (as Maeda tenth law states “simplicity is about subtracting the obvious and adding the meaningful” (2006)), then a consumer will know they are buying product which actually does what it is meant to.

However with simplicity comes complexity to a business. In the short term investing in the ideas of simplicity will: increase manufacturing costs due to new methods used, consume a lot of time in the design process and therefore mean that competitors to a firm will be able to beat them to the market.

In the long term however (drawing upon Apple as the primary example) a company can create a product that sets itself aside from the rest of its competition as more thought has been put in to every aspect of the design.

In summary of the whole article I conclude that the long term benefits of simplicity in design outweigh the short term costs as the designs are able to promote usability and functionality clearly.

20

Bibliography Books

Isaacson, W. (2011) Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Jenson, S. (2002) The Simplicity Shift: Innovative Design Tactics in a Corporate World. 1st ed.

Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Maeda, J. (2006). The Laws of Simplicity (Simplicity: Design, Technology, Business, Life). 1st ed. The MIT Press.

Norman, D. A. (2013) Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded. New York: Basic Books.

London: MIT Press.

Blogs

Haymes, T. (2014) 99% Invisible. http://www.nmc.org.

2nd December [Online Blog]. Available from: <http:// www.nmc.org/news/99-invisible-technology-design-andcommunication/> [Accessed 13th January 2015].

Howard, J. (2013) The Evolution Of Icon Design From 1981-2013. http://www.pencilscoop.com/. 4th December [Online Blog] Available from: < http://www. pencilscoop.com/2013/12/the-evolution-of-icon-designfrom-1981-2013/> [Accessed 13th January 2015].

E-Books

A, W.Y. Ng and A, H.S. Chan (2008) Visual and Cognitive Features on Icon Effectiveness [Online].

In Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists. Available from: <http://www.iaeng.org/publication/IMECS2008/ IMECS2008_pp1856-1859.pdf> [Accessed 12th January 2015].

Blackler, A and Popovic, V and M, Douglas. (2005) Intuitive Interaction Applied to Interface Design [Online]. In Proceedings International Design Congress. Available from: <http://eprints.qut.edu. au/3638/>[Accessed 12th January 2015].

Galitz, W. (2007) The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques [Online]. John Wiley & Sons. Available from < https://books.google.co.uk/> [Accessed 13th January 2015].

Images

TV Remote Control (n.d) [Online Image] . Available from: < http://www.centurylink.com/help/?assetid=143> [Accessed 12th January 2015].

Apple TV Remote (2009) [Online Image] . Available

21

from: < http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT3176> [Accessed 12th January 2015].

Icon Designs (1981-2009) [Online Images]. Available from: <http://www.pencilscoop.com/2013/12/theevolution-of-icon-design-from-1981-2013/> [Accessed 13th January 2015]. iPhone Gestures (2013) [Online Images]. Available from <http://www.macworld.co.uk/how-to/apple/ how-use-gestures-iphone-3467782/> [Accessed 15th January 2015].

Nokia 3210 (1999) [Online Image]. Available from: < http://smartphones.wonderhowto.com/inspiration/frombackpack-transceiver-smartphone-visual-history-mobilephone-0127134/> [Accessed 15th January 2015].

Flip Maps for iPhone (n.d) [Online Image]. Available from: <http://www.redrobotstudios.com/our-work/> [Accessed 15th January 2015]. iOS 8 (2014) [Online Image]. Available from: <http:// www.engadget.com/2014/06/02/apple-ios-8-official/> [Accessed 15th January 2015]. iPhone App Folders (n.d) [Online Image]. Available from: <https://c1.staticflickr. com/5/4014/4503634273_27c7d57dca> [Accessed 15th January 2015]. iPhone Home Button (n.d) [Online Image]. Available from: <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/f/fa/IPhone_5.png> [Accessed 15th January 2015].

MacBook Pro (2008) [Online Image}. Available from: <http://www.everymac.com/images/other_images/ macbook-pro-13-2008.jpg> [Accessed 15th January 2015].

Macbook Pro Unibody Design (2010) [Online Image].

Available fro: <http://www.brighthub.com/computing/ mac-platform/articles/81955.aspx> [Accessed 16th January 2015].

Journals

L, Xue and C, C, Yen. (2007) International Journal of Design. Towards Female Preferences in Design, 1 (3) December.

Online Videos

Ugrind Productions Inc (2010) Unibody MacBook Pro Design Video [Online Video], 24th August. Avaliable from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-BwO_ jBKxk> [Accessed 16th January 2015].

Websites

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Remote> [Accessed 12th January 2015]. <http://www.okanaganhome.com/article/form-followsfunction> [Accessed 12th January 2015]. <http://gizmodo.com/a-visual-history-of-the-ipod-clickwheel-r-i-p-4> [Accessed 13th January 2015]. <https://www.apple.com/pr/products/ipodhistory/> [Accessed 13th January 2015]. <http://media.soundonsound.com/> [Accessed 13th January 2015]. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS> [Accessed 15th January 2015]. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro> [Accessed 15th January 2015]. < http://www.brighthub.com/computing/mac-platform/ articles/81955.aspx> [Accessed 16th January 2015].

22