Users don’t want rich

When I'm making something using Flash, AJAX, scripted SVG, or <canvas>, I like to think in terms of which UI elements can be simplified or eliminated by having a more expressive interface.

For example, AJAXified controls can eliminate the need for a "save" button in some forms, drag-and-drop can simplify moving and reordering operations, scripted SVG can bring sanity to working with tree-structured data, AJAX polling or Comet streaming can eliminate UI actions like page reload or manually checking for updates, etc.

It's a little more complicated than to just keep it simple. Spamming a bunch of simple features is bad, but more complicated (high quality non trivial) features is almost never bad. So basically anything that most people can't script themselves, like a face detection feature or something like that, would be a great feature to implement, whereas something like linking Entourage with iCal (which is horribly implemented in Entourage) is a shitty feature. A bunch of these simple things which offer little value and must be customized for individual uses anyways may as well be implemented as extensions instead of features.

B U T, users want simpler interfaces and quick ways to find something. So KISS the UI, but complexify the rest may be one good proposition.

If you consider library API's as a UI for coders here is an example from jQuery:

   $().css(data);

  $().getCss(data);
  $().setCss(data);

You need to know which tools your users actually want to use. You need to know which order they use them in and when to present them. You need to understand what people are doing with your app and how to strip everything out except what they want next.

Focussing on a minimal set of features lets you focus on a minimal set of customers. Instead of half-serving two ill-defined groups with a chimera application you service one well defined group with an application of clear value. Saying "no" to the ill-defined group isn't always easy though.

Twitter doesn't count because they didn't solve an existing problem, they invented something new that everyone found useful. Apple doesn't count because they target the small niche that does things the Apple way. They don't try to appeal to everyone, unless they are manufacturing appeal like Twitter.

The web doesn't count because it's easy and cheap to try out new web apps and to use many of them at once. You don't have to shell out for one vendor to solve all your problems. It's just too bad that web apps can't really talk to each other.

You have to give Microsoft credit for embracing diversity. They try to solve everyone's problem and they pay the price in complexity. Perhaps a more connected web or a more responsive open source ecosystem can replace the MS mega-app, perhaps not. There is a lot of dirty work out there that nobody else wants to do.

Barry Schwartz (The Paradox of Choice) puts it best: "[as people are given more and more options they] become overloaded…. Choice no longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize."

"I think the software you've written is perfect - it doesn't need any more changes and it does absolutely everything I want it to do".

Where did that statistic come from? Word is essential for students and most of its features, especially the word count, the thesaurus, the referencing for the footnotes, the formatting of paragraphs, the spell checker, I can't actually think of anything that I do not need and even if I did not, word loads quickly, its interface is somewhat simple and kind of intuitive, so why should I care about some hidden feature which I do not use.

Doctors use word, dentists, lawyers most certainly, every office in the country uses word, every school, really only my grandma does not need word!