37Signals on Fast Company on Simple
Posted on | November 26, 2005 | 6 Comments
Jason nearly dislocates his shoulder patting himself on the back writing about Fast Company’s “The Beauty of Simplicity” cover story.
One of the things that Jason writes is, “The big guys have to force simple. The small guys are simple by default.” Which, of course, is not true. *Everyone* has to force simple. At Adaptive Path, we’ve worked with many less-than-10-person startups who could NOT be convinced to embrace simplicity.
And some big companies get simple by default. Apple, with the iPod and iTunes, is the obvious example. Google and their home page is another. (Though, Don Norman pointed out Google’s nudity in his insightful, The truth about Google’s so-called “simplicity”.)
If you want a truly valuable, and subtle, take on the Fast Company article, read John Maeda’s “The Subtlety of Simplicity.” He recognizes that less isn’t more… That what we’re striving is not simply the elimination of details and complexity, but the addition of meaning and elegance.
Comments
6 Responses to “37Signals on Fast Company on Simple”
Leave a Reply
Hello
Archives
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (9)
- December 2011 (7)
- September 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (4)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (1)
- February 2011 (2)
- January 2011 (3)
- December 2010 (4)
- October 2010 (2)
- September 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (7)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (16)
- January 2010 (35)
- December 2009 (4)
- October 2009 (1)
- September 2009 (4)
- August 2009 (4)
- July 2009 (7)
- June 2009 (7)
- May 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (2)
- March 2009 (5)
- February 2009 (6)
- January 2009 (7)
- December 2008 (5)
- November 2008 (7)
- October 2008 (5)
- September 2008 (8)
- August 2008 (5)
- July 2008 (15)
- June 2008 (8)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (4)
- March 2008 (14)
- February 2008 (6)
- January 2008 (8)
- December 2007 (14)
- November 2007 (3)
- October 2007 (9)
- September 2007 (6)
- August 2007 (8)
- July 2007 (11)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (8)
- April 2007 (9)
- March 2007 (12)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (9)
- December 2006 (8)
- November 2006 (17)
- October 2006 (9)
- September 2006 (12)
- August 2006 (8)
- July 2006 (12)
- June 2006 (12)
- May 2006 (8)
- April 2006 (18)
- March 2006 (12)
- February 2006 (14)
- January 2006 (9)
- December 2005 (19)
- November 2005 (10)
- October 2005 (10)
- September 2005 (18)
- August 2005 (21)
- July 2005 (12)
- June 2005 (9)
- May 2005 (16)
- April 2005 (11)
- March 2005 (12)
- February 2005 (7)
- January 2005 (8)
- December 2004 (15)
- November 2004 (12)
- October 2004 (13)
- September 2004 (3)
- August 2004 (13)
- July 2004 (9)
- June 2004 (11)
- May 2004 (6)
- April 2004 (9)
- March 2004 (8)
- February 2004 (7)
- January 2004 (9)
- December 2003 (7)
- November 2003 (6)
- October 2003 (19)
- September 2003 (12)
- August 2003 (16)
- July 2003 (10)
- June 2003 (6)
- May 2003 (7)
- April 2003 (7)
- March 2003 (4)
November 26th, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
My shoulder has been sore. Now I know why!
“That what we’re striving is not simply the elimination of details and complexity, but the addition of meaning and elegance.”
I wouldn’t disagree with that one bit. I actually prefer the word CLARITY because simplicity is often misunderstood for emptiness and the lack of details. The RIGHT details are the key, of course. And meaning is always important. It’s the reason to get clear. The clearer you are the more meaning you broadcast.
And, for the record, I’ve believed in the “less is more” concept. Less is less. Less is more implies more is better (which it usually isn’t).
November 26th, 2005 @ 6:42 pm
Suggest part of simplicity also creating a simple value proposition that can be sold, designed, developed and scaled. Have seen a number of products that lose focus very quickly because they are trying to tweak a complex platform to create a market need, or dont know if the market need exists so create complex functions think these will sell or just does not make sense against simpler ways the task could be done manually or with a competing product … its a tough balance. I think people will continue to cry out for simplicity. *reaches for dim sum on a Sunday morning in Hong Kong*
November 29th, 2005 @ 11:42 am
Hello Peter,
Saw you at Webvisions 2005 in Portland, Oregon and was inspired by your presentation.
I think it’s ironic that to print the Fast Company article “The Beauty of Simplicity,” the page requires the user to find the “Printable Page” link near the top of the article, or get to the end of the article and find the “Print this” link. Do both these links accomplish the same task? The user must ponder. Follow “Print this” link and we endure yet another loading of this page, which is not that fast!
Why not simply have styles that permit the user to print on the article page and let CSS style the print version for you? I find the same issue on most newspaper sites, for example nytimes.com!
Best regards,
Rich
December 3rd, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
proenhance
December 3rd, 2005 @ 8:39 pm
best penis enlargement pill
April 4th, 2006 @ 3:09 am
Hi there! Your site is cool! buy tramadol online