Comments on: Law 8: Trust http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/ simplicity resources for design, business, technology, and life Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:53:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Vicky http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-9358 Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:47:26 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-9358 Good evening! First, I'd like to mark that this post is not actually be going to be a comment on this particular law because I just didn't manage to find the right page for responses on the book in general. Second, some problems I came across might have been caused by an improper translation of the book as I don't have the original, in this case I bring my apologise beforehand. First of all, I have been reading your book for almost 2 weeks because it no way makes an easy reading and I just couldn't stand reading it longer than 20 minutes at a time. In lots of parts it is made too short because of your attempts of making it easier, as a result half of the laws look unfinished (due to your desire of finishing it earlier?) and sometimes even hard to agree with, lacking proofs and at the same time including too many details in examples provided. Another thing is that you put too many links for your website into the book trying to shorten it, but in fact it didn't make it look easier - on the contrary, it made it look scary. Simplicity stands for no artificial frames, as I see it. Considering your idea about simple devices as tiny devices I can say that I can by no means accept it - most tiny devices do look complicated unlike larger ones for several reasons: they are more convenient, they even look more usable, the more free space is on the surface the simplier the thing looks. That's why cheap cell phones for kids and elderly people will hardly ever be made smaller (despite nowadays smaller size doesn't cause serious increase in price). But although there were some other points I found unecceptable, I'd like to thank you for the book as I found it quite inspiring and informative as my knowledge in design is based on nothing but my own views (I study international economics). So, thank you. :) Good evening!
First, I’d like to mark that this post is not actually be going to be a comment on this particular law because I just didn’t manage to find the right page for responses on the book in general.
Second, some problems I came across might have been caused by an improper translation of the book as I don’t have the original, in this case I bring my apologise beforehand.

First of all, I have been reading your book for almost 2 weeks because it no way makes an easy reading and I just couldn’t stand reading it longer than 20 minutes at a time. In lots of parts it is made too short because of your attempts of making it easier, as a result half of the laws look unfinished (due to your desire of finishing it earlier?) and sometimes even hard to agree with, lacking proofs and at the same time including too many details in examples provided.
Another thing is that you put too many links for your website into the book trying to shorten it, but in fact it didn’t make it look easier - on the contrary, it made it look scary. Simplicity stands for no artificial frames, as I see it.

Considering your idea about simple devices as tiny devices I can say that I can by no means accept it - most tiny devices do look complicated unlike larger ones for several reasons: they are more convenient, they even look more usable, the more free space is on the surface the simplier the thing looks. That’s why cheap cell phones for kids and elderly people will hardly ever be made smaller (despite nowadays smaller size doesn’t cause serious increase in price).

But although there were some other points I found unecceptable, I’d like to thank you for the book as I found it quite inspiring and informative as my knowledge in design is based on nothing but my own views (I study international economics). So, thank you. :)

]]> by: Josie http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-9204 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:37:34 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-9204 I want to get some weed I want to get some weed

]]> by: Josie http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-9203 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:36:04 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-9203 I want to google and simply gogle I want to google and simply gogle

]]> by: Josie http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-9202 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:34:04 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-9202 I want to google for simple aswers I want to google for simple aswers

]]> by: Pascal Chirol http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-8908 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:29:15 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-8908 Can we use this law for "LOVE" ? You use a heart in front of the rules ! Do you think love can be simple ? Does simplifying love give more means ?! ... In love we trust. Can we use this law for “LOVE” ?
You use a heart in front of the rules !
Do you think love can be simple ?
Does simplifying love give more means ?!

…
In love we trust.

]]> by: Igor Pismensky http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-7738 Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:28:35 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-7738 Some 45 years ago, my shop teacher stressed KISS or "Keep It Simple Stupid". I've tried to do so ever since with various degrees of success. I've found that if done correctly, there are two byproducts. The first elegance and the second that it becomes instinctual or as Ash Donaldson said "familiar". Some 45 years ago, my shop teacher stressed KISS or “Keep It Simple Stupid”. I’ve tried to do so ever since with various degrees of success. I’ve found that if done correctly, there are two byproducts. The first elegance and the second that it becomes instinctual or as Ash Donaldson said “familiar”.

]]> by: Ash Donaldson http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-7729 Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:00:41 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-7729 To echo Kokomo, I often open my Human Factors presentations with a quote from one of the fathers of the science, Alphonse Chapanis. In 1982 he stated the truism: "It is easy to make things hard. It is hard to make things easy." I guess, for me, the trust issue in simplicity comes out of my personal definition: Simplicity is achieved when we don't have to consciously think. Now, not having to consciously think about something makes simplicity a personal thing. It depends on my background; my experiences; my skills; my knowledge; my context; and my mental model of how the world works. These factors can and do differ between individuals. It can mean that even the most complex tasks are simple - to me. I don't even have to think about driving a car or flying an aircraft, yet others may find these to be complex tasks. I don't have to think about calculating the trajectory or acceleration of an incoming ball to catch it. For me, it's simple. For a machine, it's complex. If something is simple to me, it's often familiar. If it's familiar, I can better predict outcomes. If I can better predict outcomes, I can better trust it. In simplicity we trust. To echo Kokomo, I often open my Human Factors presentations with a quote from one of the fathers of the science, Alphonse Chapanis. In 1982 he stated the truism:
“It is easy to make things hard.
It is hard to make things easy.”

I guess, for me, the trust issue in simplicity comes out of my personal definition: Simplicity is achieved when we don’t have to consciously think.

Now, not having to consciously think about something makes simplicity a personal thing. It depends on my background; my experiences; my skills; my knowledge; my context; and my mental model of how the world works. These factors can and do differ between individuals. It can mean that even the most complex tasks are simple - to me.

I don’t even have to think about driving a car or flying an aircraft, yet others may find these to be complex tasks. I don’t have to think about calculating the trajectory or acceleration of an incoming ball to catch it. For me, it’s simple. For a machine, it’s complex.

If something is simple to me, it’s often familiar. If it’s familiar, I can better predict outcomes. If I can better predict outcomes, I can better trust it.

In simplicity we trust.

]]> by: Olek http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-4394 Sat, 26 May 2007 11:01:18 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-4394 Simplicity is elementary. Elementary is simplicity. Simplicity is elementary. Elementary is simplicity.

]]> by: Olek http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-4393 Sat, 26 May 2007 11:00:26 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-4393 Simplicity is elementary. Elememntary is simplicity. Simplicity is elementary. Elememntary is simplicity.

]]> by: Ajay Singh Niranjan http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-1026 Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:06:29 +0000 http://lawsofsimplicity.com/2006/07/23/law-8-trust/#comment-1026 “In simplicity we trust” You are very right. Trust wants transparency. Transparency wants simplicity. Simple …and again simple facilitate a true feeling of trust. I feel that your equations of simplicity are very simple and understandable for all. Best wishes, Warm regards & thanks Ajay Singh Niranjan http://greathumancapital.wordpress.com/tag/mind/ “In simplicity we trust”

You are very right. Trust wants transparency. Transparency wants simplicity. Simple …and again simple facilitate a true feeling of trust.

I feel that your equations of simplicity are very simple and understandable for all.

Best wishes,

Warm regards & thanks
Ajay Singh Niranjan
http://greathumancapital.wordpress.com/tag/mind/

]]>