Why Feature Glut Will Always Trump Simplicity in Tech

Charlie's post this morning calling for simplicity in gadgets reminded me of a great book I read a few months back by Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert called Stumbling on Happiness. Gilbert devotes a portion of his book to how our brains perceive value -- specifically the numerous types of comparisons (present, past and imagined future) our brains make when we're off hunting for new toys -- and how our faulty perceptions inevitably lead us to misjudge what we really need and want.

His argument with regard to gadgetry is as follows: Both retailers and manufacturers know that cramming electronic devices full of "features" wreaks havoc on our ability to decide what we need and, indeed, what will make us happy. Because "the three-pound meatloaf between our ears" is naturally inclined to compare one feature against other, we start considering all sorts of crap we normally wouldn't when confronted with, say, super steady shot image stabilization, or dynamic range optimization, or even touch-screen control systems. In other words, feature glut leads us to pay attention to any attribute, not just the ones that are important.

Here's a telling anecdote from Gilbert's book:

I've probably spent some of the unhappiest hours of my life in stores that I meant to visit for fifteen minutes. I stop at the mall on the way to the picnic, park the car, dash in, and expect to reemerge a few minutes later with a nifty little digital camera in my pocket. But when I get to Wacky Bob's Giant Mega Super Really Big World of Cameras, I am confronted by a bewildering panoply of nifty little digital cameras that differ on many attributes. Some of these are attributes that I would have considered even if there had been only one camera in the display case ("This is light enough to fit in my shirt pocket so I can take it anywhere"), and some are attributes I would never have thought about had the difference between cameras not been called to my attention ("The Olympus has flash output compensation, but the Nikon doesn't"). Because side-by-side comparisons cause me to consider all the attributes on which the cameras differ, I end up considering attributes that I don't really care about but that just so happen to distinguish one camera from another.

Now a lot of comments in Charlie's post mention convergence, how it can be a good thing insofar as the devices that blend features in an appealing, sensible way tend to survive. Those that don't, simply disappear. I won't argue there's isn't a certain allure to devices that combine functions in an intelligent way. but more often than not, convergence is just an excuse for the very thing Gilbert complains about. Look at David Pogue's review of the Flip video camera again. He specifically talks about happiness. How often do you read gadget reviews where that specific word is employed? In the end, it's not rocket science: Something that's simple, that does one thing particularly well (and that doesn't make us feel like we need to go out and get an additional degree to use it) is pleasing. But simple devices also happen to be much easier to select (or eliminate) based on that one thing they do so well. And for that very reason, we'll probably never see widespread adoption of the 'keep it simple' ethos. After all, retailers don't want gadget selection to be an easy process. Gadgets are complicated amalgams of transistors and integrated circuits. Furthermore, one has to consider the high-end gadgets, the low-end gadgets, and everything in between. Which do you need? It's confusing and you'll probably want to see them all side-by-side and try them out and have someone walk you through the whole process. Just ignore the fact that he or she is probably working on commission.

If you haven't picked it up, Gilbert's book is well worth the read. In my humble opinion, it should be mandatory for all tech journalists.

Here's a link to Gilbert's 2006 TED talk, in which he highlights many of the ideas that later appear in his book.