 |
 |
Michael raises interesting objections to my treatment of "complexity" in my 2011 book "Living with complexity." I'm not going to go into a lengthy debate here -- we have all seen how a sensible discussion degrades into endless quibbles on this list. So I'll simply review and comment on a few themes. First of all, the diagram that Michael posted is wonderfully complex. Indeed, despite all its complexity, it misses numerous works: just Google "complexity studies" and see the wild profusion of issues. Castellani, B. (2015). Fig. 13. Complexity Map Version 5. Retrieved May 26, 2015 (http://sacswebsite.blogspot.co.uk) I am fully aware of most of the items - in that delightfully complex diagram, as well as the entire field now called "Complexity Studies" ( or variants of that phrase). Northwestern University, where I was when I wrote that book, has an Institute on Complex Systems and I attended some of their seminars. And yes, my book ignores all that. (https://www.nico.northwestern.edu/) -- I focussed on the word "simplicity," and the big debate that was (and still is) ongoing decrying the complexity of today's technologies and crying out for "simplicity." Two of our own kind even wrote books on simplicity: Mollerup, P. (2015). Simplicity: A matter of design. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: BIS Publishers. http://www.bispublishers.com/per-mollerup-simplicity-a-matter-of-design.html Maeda, J. (2006). The laws of simplicity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. In my opinion, the Maeda book is, um, simple. The Mollerup book is profound. My book would have been much improved had I read Mollerup first Alas, I would have broken a law had i done so (a law of physics, that is: my book was published in 2011, his in 2015). -- Now back to Michael's comments. I have no real issue with most of his comments about complexity. They are correct and i agree with most of them. What I disagree with is his characterization of the goal of my book. I never intended to address the field of complexity studies. The purpose of my book was to address the concept of simplicity. To argue that the quest for simplicity was ill-advised. That what was really desired was understanding, and even complex things were often judged to be simple if they were understandable. I contrasted "complexity" with "complicated," where by "complicated" I meant "confusing.". The word "complicated" was a crappy choice. If I were to rewrite the book today, I would substitute "confusing" for "complicated." Otherwise, I would not change most of the book, except to take advantage of Mollerup's insights and build upon them. Michael says that my ignoring all the existing studies on complexity matters. I completely disagree. My ignoring complexity theories was not out of ignorance. It was because I had a different goal in mind -- arguing against simplicity. Michael said: This matters because ‘Living with Complexity’ presents itself as a new, instructive text on design fundamentals i.e. it prescribes rules for designers (and design users) to follow. In that situation, one might reasonably expect the authority of a given rule to rest on the authority of the case put forward. So, as rule giver, it seems to me the author is more or less bound to provide good and sufficient context for the case. No. Not at all. Remember, I am addressing only the meaning of the word "complexity" as the opposite of "simplicity." There are no new design rules in the book, nor did I pretend that there were. Yes, this was meant to be an instructive text, but not for existing designers: it is intended for design students and for non-designers, especially journalists who insist on touting the virtues of simplicity. My intent was to explain that the hope for simplicity is a badly informed, impossible hope, that complexity is not a bad thing, it is confusion that is bad. And finally, that a number of well-known design rules and practices are capable of turning otherwise confusing complex things into wonderfully understandable complex things, so understandable, that people would call them "simple." That's all. == Of course, in the latter part of his note, Michael takes me to task in several different ways. I disagree with him there. I know that many of the readers will agree with him. that is fine. Disagreement can be healthy. I've made my points earlier, so I will follow my own advice and not endlessly repeat what has already been said. I am in favor of things that are understandable, functional, usable, useful, and beautiful. Complexity isn't relevant to those beliefs. (Which was the point of the book.) Don - Don Norman Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego [log in to unmask] designlab.ucsd.edu/ www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/> ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------