The Paradox of Simplicity

Case Study - The Water Bucket

2008-12-31T14:53:00.001-05:00

We don't normally think of the water bucket an example of technology. That is because in the conventional view we think water flows from the faucet to the bucket, but that conventional view is incomplete.

There was surely a day when the water bucket in the village was "the state of the art" technology, displacing the more familiar gourd. Like the gourd, the bucket was used to fetch water from the local river. Later, wells were dug, and the user interface to water was simplified because the walk to the river was eliminated.

If you look at the picture above you can see the bucket evolved from a basic device for carrying water, to a device that was lowered into a well to capture water closer to the user. Later the water bucket was enlarged and functioned as a holding tank to supply water to the whole village. Then it grew even larger to supply water as a utility to our modern world. So now I hope you can see that water flows from that utility sized bucket to the facets of our homes.

For this evolution of a utility to happen, services evolved around the technology of the bucket such as to dig wells. The well digging service included specialists like the dowser[1] , diggers and other technologies like the diving rod[2] and the shovel. Later pumps were added, simplifying the user interface still further and windmills drove those pumps. But not everyone could afford a windmill, so a water utility was created - in which the village shares the cost and function of the water utility.

I could have made this case study using a modern technology like a cell phone, but you might have missed the point that the Paradox of Simplicity is universal concept and has been with us as long as we have been toolmakers.

[1] Dowser – the user of the driving rod to find water.
[2] Diving rod - the preferred stick used by the dowsing in the age-old practice of finding water.

Adapting to Technology

2008-12-31T13:20:00.000-05:00

Perfecting the picture of the early color television set was a job for Dad. Dad was also the producer and director of our 8mm home movies, yet even Dad pulled out his hair when it came to setting up our vintage VCR.

I can remember laughing at the images of the Ford Model T automobiles being started by a hand crank or puttering along at 15 miles per hour. These early TVs, Cameras, VCRs and automobiles were actually simple in comparison to their modern counterparts, but you would not know it by observing their user interfaces.

Humans adapt to early technology.

As technology evolves, it adapts to us.

In adapting to us, the human interfaces get simpler but “under the hood” the technology actually gets far more complex. I call this the Paradox of Simplicity; simple human interfaces hide multiple layers of complexity. Modern devices are designed to be operated by anyone, but serviced only by specialists. In early devices, the user is also the specialist. If the family car breaks down today, Dad will call AAA, or better yet, hit OnStar.

Paradox of Simplicity Defined

2008-12-31T13:17:00.000-05:00

The evolution of simplification follows a pattern. Early technologies tend to look like the technologies they displace. The Ford Model T resembled a horse buggy. As technologies evolve, the interfaces get simpler, hiding even greater levels of complexity. The automobile ignition key is simpler to use, yet internally more complex than its predecessor the crank-start. All technologies follow what Dave Nocera calls the Paradox of Simplicity, that is, no matter how simple the interface, underlying complexity is preserved.