Hacker News Reader

It is not KISS from the engineers perspective, but from the user perspective. >> The best interface is a simple interface, not a whole bunch of programming voodoo to achieve a simple task.

The point is: the best interface is NO interface. Go to car. Open door. Sit. Not: Go to car. Find keys. Unlock. Open Door. Sit.

Ordering your food is less simple than ordering your food and handle money? But you do loose a lot of anonymity, which offsets the ease of use.

I agree. When I go to my car, I walk up to it and touch the door handle, which unlocks it. I sit down and press the start button to start the engine. The key never leaves my pocket, and I don't really care what it's doing as a user. (I personally care since I'm an engineer, but that's beside the point) To the user the unlock and start procedure has precisely 0 steps that aren't physically opening the door and stating the engine via a single dash button press.

- owner approaches car

- owner puts hand in pocket

- owner grabs keys

- owner removes keys from pocket

- owner finds car key

- owner inserts key into lock

- key engages pins in lock

- owner applies torque and turns the key

- pins allow tumbler to turn

- electronics detect turned lock

- lock disengages

- owner turns key back

- owner removes key

- owner puts key in pocket

- owner opens door

- owner enters vehicle

"key engages pins in lock" is missing some steps - like the atoms push against each other and stuff...

Why do I care about the pins? I don't. They do their job without me telling them what to do. With menus it's not that simple - I have to engage them; I have to obey them.

The comparison here is not to a menu system, but to a wireless keyfob. Contrast pin engagement with keyfob signal decryption.

If your car door has menus, then yes, that's a huge usability problem, but no one's arguing in favor of that.

The comparison holds. But this is not what I meant. Lots of comments here expose interface details from hacker's perspective and forget that they don't matter. Users dont care if its a keyfob or a key if it does the same thing with the same effort.

My point is that any interface has some abstractions beyond which you get only hacker delight in knowhing their inner workings.

For usability purpose you don't need to know there are pins or bits - just that they work. When on the other hand, you artificially expose inner workings (menus) and _force_ the user to make note of them - you should not be allowed anywhere near a design table.

Designer's job is to make users life easier not to shout at them "you stupid you who don't know how to exit my maze"

I don't really disagree with what you're saying. I just don't see the relevance of your references to menus. The conversation in this comment thread is centered around wireless keyfob complexity vs key complexity, and you jumped it with a non sequitur about menus.

   owner unlocks door with key

That statement hides a lot of mechanical complexity (especially when you consider central locking, alarm and immobiliser). you should break it down into what happens when you turn the key, like you have with the remote key example. you can have just as many steps.

..How the hell is this more simple than:..

If the technology does 1 Billion operations on your behalf when you could do it in 10, but now you have to only take one action, then it is simpler to you.

How is it simpler?

- owner's keyfob transmits signal to car

- owner's car polls for incoming signal

- owner's car decrypts keyfob signal

- owner's car verifies that the keyfob has a legitimate encrypted key for that vehicle

- owner's vehicle signals the locking routine in the ECU

- owner's ecu flips solenoid for only the drivers side door

- door unlocks

All the above steps are done without the owner having to know about it.

I'm quite sure he is talking human->computer interfaces not computer->computer interfaces.

By your logic, it's simpler to buy something from someone in another country with cash than it is to use PayPal.

Let's simplify the top instructions the same way the bottom has been. The bottom is a high level view, the top is from a low level view. From the high view it would be even simpler than the bottom, owner approaches, enters, turns on. No interfacing required until you get in the thing and press the button.