This is part of a series looking at John Maeda’s ten Laws of Simplicity.

“Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious and adding the meaningful.”

With a great definition like that, it should be clear why I think simplicity is everyone’s job. There is enough complexity in the world without even trying. The more meaningful sites we can add to the Web, the better.

With this single law, he fixes a failure he acknowledged in the ninth law:

“Simplicity is hopelessly subtle and many of its defining characteristics are implicit (noting that it hides in simplicity)… When in doubt, turn to the tenth law: the one. It’s simpler that way.

When something is too obvious, it’s probably unneeded. With the obvious removed, the meaningful comes into view. Here are the other nine laws of simplicity, stated in terms of The One:

Reduce	Removes unneeded features.
Organize	Saves some of the features for when needed.
Time	Speeding up a process removes unneeded waste of time.
Learn	Remove unneeded confusion by explaining.
Differences	If everything is meaningful, nothing is.
Context	Make the meaningful subtle.
Emotion	Sometimes something can be obvious and meaningful.
Trust	When we trust that we’re seeing something meaningful, even more can be removed.
Failure	Sometimes with only the meaningful remaining, it’s still complex.

This is part of a series looking at John Maeda’s ten Laws of Simplicity.

“Some things can never be made simple.”

This is for the simplicity haters who insist on poking holes because simplicity does not work exactly the same in every situation. An earlier law says simple can’t exist with the complex. The law of failure says that some things can’t be simple.

Attempting to simplify a complex procedure is reasonable. It may end in failure or it could lead to a more usable product. Maeda says there is a “Return on Failure,” too. When I fail and I take the time to find out why, I learned a great lesson I can use later on. So, either I have made something simpler, or I have knowledge to help me do so in the future.

Google Maps revolutionized online mapping with its time-saving click-and-drag interface. The product was introduced in 2005, but would have ended in failure any time earlier because browser differences were so much greater.

Similarly, I worked a long time on creating Javascript sliders for BestPlaces in 2002. I made some that worked okay, but they were just too buggy cross-browser. Today, something similar is part of the Yahoo! UI Library.

In another turn for the simplicity haters, Maeda admits some failures of his book. The first four laws are filled with acronyms. The mnemonics didn’t really work for me, so I didn’t include them here.

The laws of differences, context, emotion, and trust are less logical and applicable compared to earlier laws. They are a little more touchy-feely, explaining more about the why than the how.

Maeda explains…

As the Laws progress in the book, the themes become increasingly ambiguous. In the second Law I introduce the concept of gestalt–or the ability of the mind to “fill in the blank”–which justifies my approach to allow creative interpretation. However this open explanation can be confusing if taken logically.

The final flaw Maeda mentions with his approach to simplicity is that there are too many laws. He fixes that with the final law, The One, which boils down Simplicity into a single sentence.

This is part of a series looking at John Maeda’s ten Laws of Simplicity.

“In simplicity we trust.”

This is my favorite chapter. It explains a connection between usability and simplicity that I always knew was there, but never tried to figure out. It also foreshadows privacy issues that are bound to be a bigger deal in 2007 and beyond.

Usability as trust
Like trust in people, in order for a Web site to gain trust it has to prove itself deserving. The other laws help because something simple to use is easier to trust.

There are a lot of Web sites that feel “breakable.” I have even built some of them. Many mistakes can cause that feeling: ugly designs, layout bugs, and shoddy error checking, to name a few. When users run into a problem it makes a little chink in the trust armor. A couple of those and users start seeing chinks where there is no defect.

When a Web site fails gracefully, this builds trust–especially when the error is fixable and non-fatal. Maeda devotes two pages to the concept of “undo:”

Computer tools give us the option to undo often, and no infinitely. Digital media is a forgiving media. Any visual mark, spoken utterance, or typed word entered into a the digital domain can just as easily be removed.

Undo on the Web is not nearly as ubiquitous as in desktop applications. In fact, I’d say it is nearly non-existant. At best, most Web sites only provide an undocumented and makeshift re-do option, where you can backtrack your steps and do it right.

Privacy as trust
Another side of trust is that it is increasingly common is related to personal data. Briefly at the end of law three I mentioned how much time we save by banking online. That greatly simplifies checking balances and transferring money between accounts. Online banking only works if we trust our data to the banks. They need to either keep us safe or keep our financials off the Web.

There are also other types of personal data that could be just as harmful in the wrong hands. The same information can be used to give us better browsing experiences.

Maeda gives us a trust continuum:

The left side, how much you need to know, is covered in usability above and law four, learn. As we get smarter stuff, the need to learn will decrease. With more of our services online, we’ll likely start questioning the right side of the continuum. How much does the system need to know about me?

If tools ask for too much, they’ll lose some of the trust they’ve built up. If tools get too personal before building trust, they’ll lose users before they even get a chance to build trust.

This is part of a series looking at John Maeda’s ten Laws of Simplicity.

“More emotions are better than less.”

Get ready designers. Like the law of context, this chapter is for you. The law of emotion makes flair okay. It allows for the flash intro and might even forgive MySpace their misgivings.

Okay, so designers won’t like that entire list, but Maeda is very specific:

“When emotions are considered above everything else, don’t be afraid to add more ornament or layers of meaning.”

Maeda admits that this appears to contradict reduction, the first law. To make sense of this, I imagine the simplest web page possible. I picture a heading and some text, all black on a white background.

A blank page might be simpler, but reduction is also about being as complex as necessary. Most designers, I would guess, would want to add something to the above Web page. If I took a poll of what it needs, I’d guess the number one answer would be color. Why?

As the law of context showed on the hiking trail, color can help point the way. The law of differences would say we need multiple colors to provide proper contrast between unlike elements. Indeed, white text on a white background would not be complex enough. Folding in the law of organize, it would be perfectly appropriate to use colors to separate different categories.

Still, I bet most designers would want to add to this. They would want different colors, or some sort of graphic. Asked why, one might say, “it just feels right.”

That is the law of emotion. If you are still skeptical, Maeda gets much deeper into it in his book.