Almost every blog I have ever seen is a good example. Most blogs have the latest content, the ability to search the content, the archives of the content, a tag cloud of the content, and a “best of” section for content. This is all based on making sure to show the user content the writer wants them to see instead of making it easy for them to find what they want.

Jason Santa Maria does a pretty good job of solving this problem. He lists individual articles and then has a separate page where you can look back through the old content and find what you are looking for.

In the spirit of open dialog (a.k.a I don’t mean to be argumentative):

I actually have a different feeling on the subject. Many users muddle and guess what to do in any circumstance. They go on instinct and previous experience. Many applications have 1 and only 1 way to do a task. (Like gmail adding a message to a label). I find that annoying and also, I find task completion lowers substantially in these cases. I call it bending your users. (like spoon bending)

This is one topic I have enjoyed tangible success. My favorite comment was “I just guessed what to do and it read my mind and did the right thing.”

I would be really interested in your thoughts. Specifically, I wrote it up here: http://www.commadot.com/book/The%20UX%20Handbook/The%20UX%20Book%20-%20Chapter%201.pdf

It’s a quick read, but I would be honored by your feedback. I am a big fan.

Although too many choices can bog down a system, not enough choices can make it useless. If a program doesn’t also have the ability to be flexible, it might be useless.
Notepad is great and simple, but if I wanted to publish a document, or create a handout, it doesn’t work too well.

I’m not sure where or how to find the balance between choice and ease-of-use, but it’s an important balance.

Outlook 2003′s ‘advanced find’ dialog (aka search) has 3 different text fields and 4 combo boxes. Just give me one text field and figure it out please!

I think it’s worth making the distinction between giving the user options vs. forcing the user to choose. In many cases where it makes sense (by some measure) to present options to the user, there is also a pretty obvious candidate for a default. If you make that obvious candidate the default (and the UI makes it clear that it’s the default) you greatly reduce the cognitive load on the user, while still presenting the user with options.

The strongest example I can think of that I see commonly is wizard style installers with install options presented as radio buttons. The default option is pre-selected and the label has a “(recommended)” appended to it. Normally all a user has to do is hit the “Next” button.

Afraid of stating the typical example, the guys from 37signals are a case of this concept taken to extreme; so their apps are probably interesting examples of giving users the fewer options possible. The “less options” approach is discussed quite lengthy in their Getting Real book.

Now, an example of a bad design that probably burdens thousands of users daily: Wikipedia Search.
When you go to Wikipedia main page searching for something, you see a text box with two buttons: “Go” and “Search”. What’s the difference? You can’t tell without first trying. Turns out that Go goes to the direct match (as if you had typed the en.wiki…/wiki/Foo by yourself), which probably serves no one.
The main problem here is that they gave the users two ways to do slightly different things, and most of the users will hardly know what is the one that they’re looking for. The obvious solution here is that the Go button could go way and the exact match would be easily covered by the Search feature.

Now, it’s important to note that there are two different types of problems on this more/less choices problem. There are the cases when the application gives you two different ways to do one kind of thing (as the Wikipedia example), and there the cases where presentational or even functional options are given to the users when a default should have been picked and enforced instead.
Both of these are cases when the programmer or design couldn’t make up his mind and decided to put the burden of the choice on the user.

One example of the second case are options like choosing the color or position of a button, or the way a notification will be displayed to the user, the sound that a message will produce, or the entrance page and the displayed itens that will be featured on a web-app when the user logs in.

Folders and tags for bookmarks :-)

@Heather [»Folders and tags for bookmarks :-)«]:
Very nice! The tag system, combined with the ability to search fast, is rendering the folder system redundant (at least for personal data).

@Aza:
I am always bugged by sites that duplicate browser/computer functions. For example the back-to-top link, print button, font-size-manipulations (or stylesheet in general) etc.
Well, I am not completely sure about the last point. I tend to think that disabled users have their own user-stylesheet that fits them best, whereby an extra function is not needed. What do you think?

Another grave mistake is: Making the search complicated with too many input options. Optimal is only one input field, but also providing a link to advanced search for the ones who want to use it. Like Google.
For that matter, I love the AwesomeBar, but not everyone knows that you can just type in everything and the worst that can happen is that it gets googled.

@David: In my experience, users do not make “choices” every single time. I have found that they make a guess as to how something works once (regardless of how many ways there are to do it). If they fail, they try again. (muddle). They keep trying until something works.

The “first” time they figure something that works, they hardly ever try another way. They stick with the first way. Neural pathways are set.

One of the more popular features of Google’s apps are their keyboard shortcuts. Why would you NOT allow the same function via a keyboard shortcut? It doesn’t get in the way AT ALL. There is no “choice” to make. It’s just there in case you are a “keyboard person”.

There are 5 ways I have found people try things: Menu, Button, Keyboard, Drag/drop and Right-click. These are non-overlapping. Why not make them all work. That way the first “guess” is the right one.

This also applies to how you construct a complex object, like a workflow. A wizard is not a lovable UI. You would be surprised how one can allow a customer to go in the order that THEY want to go in and still figure out (without problems) what they want to say.

I’ve actually spent alot of time studying this effect. I tried to elaborate in that link, but maybe my writing wasn’t up to snuff. :)

Chrome recently made me question a lot of browser interface things that I never thought about. One example is the banner that displays when a password is saved. In Firefox, there is a “Not Now” button and a section close “x” icon that both do the same action. Chrome simplifies this down to the close icon.

Microsoft.com has a horizontal menu with some potentially confusing choices. “Security & Updates”, “Training & Events”, and “Support”. Updates and training both strike me as forms of support, and “Partner & Customer Solutions” could possibly add to the mess even more. I can understand highlighting updates and training, but that leads me to wonder what could possibly be under “Support”.

So I click Support, expecting it to probably be troubleshooting, as that is the only thing not covered in my mind by the other choices. But it gives me many more options, including “Help & Support Home” (isn’t that where I should be right now?), “Microsoft Update” (huh?! Updates were on the last page!), How-Tos (which sound suspiciously like training), and various solution centers. I’m still trying to track down a solid definition of “Support”, so I click “Help & Support Home”.

This gives me links to the solution centers again, along with updates, troubleshooting, and some more how-tos. Oh my! After selecting a product, I am plagued with the same problems, with troubleshooting listed under the heading of “Update Windows XP”. From here, I am thoroughly confused.

Although on the bright side, even though I am utterly lost, I can theoretically get to wherever I was intending to go during any step of the way. But with clearer selections, I would get there with much more confidence.

Either I am explaining myself poorly or the world is topsy-turvy. I assume the former.

In Firefox, I press Control-T to open up a new tab EVERY time. My father (anecdote) refuses to do that. He refuses to use any keyboard shortcuts ever. I can’t make him uses control-c/x/v for cut/paste. He insists on clicking File-New Tab. I have watched users in the Intuit lab try basic tasks and people absolutely try the way they are comfortable with.

Having both methods does not bother me if it’s not in my way. Not having a keyboard shortcut would drive me nuts.

It’s like having a UI in just English even though some people speak other languages.

I liken it to spoon bending in the Matrix. Developers assume there is a “right/intuitive” way to do a task. The right way is saying to user, “bend and do it my way…don’t worry it’s the right way.” The kid in the Matrix says, (paraphrase) “bending spoons is easy when you realize there is no spoon (or right way to do a task). It is not the spoon you are bending, but yourself.”

So, here is what I am reading: Control-T should go away. Control-P shouldn’t print. Control-C shouldn’t copy. There shouldn’t be a print button or a menu choice to print. One and only one way to do a task and let the user discover it.

Please tell me you aren’t advocating this.

I think the question depends largely upon who the audience is. “Users” today aren’t like “users” who were first exposed to the personal computer ala the Microsoft Windows example. *see also: http://oss.zentu.net/?q=node/27 where I referenced your blog :) Users of the future will be of an entirely new breed.

For certain things, it does make sense to design an incredibly idiot-proof UI, but an idiot-proof UI also comes at a cost: loss of power.

I think it can be a mistake and actually hurt when preemptively assuming users are all idiots. Even the notion of an “average” user doesn’t give much away: there are visual learners, audio learners, kinesthetic learners, and so on.

So I guess the key to your question is: frequency. Is it just a one-time thing, or a mundane task? Mundane tasks can and should be made as efficient as possible (firing up a web browser, deleting all spam messages at the same time). There might be a period of adjustment in the short-term while the user learns the new behavior (keyboard shortcuts), but overall, if it’s something that’s done frequently, the amount of time spent on the task will be reduced.

Though, to answer your web-related question, OpenID comes to mind — I think confuses a lot more people than it helps!

There should be many ways to do a task for the same reason we grow many varieties of apples, you never know what the weather will be like, and one variety may do better in one year than another. You are much more stable this way. There are simply things we can not predict.

Mozilla vs. Firefox…

I found that related

As the primary designer of Google Chrome’s “Omnibox” address bar, a key motivation in combining the search and address bars of existing browsers was for precisely the reason you mention: to reduce choice. For some users, the distinction between URLs and searches is unclear, so people typed into the wrong box. But even for experienced users, there’s a tiny (but nonzero) amount of cognitive overhead in selecting the control to use — not enough to notice as “annoying”, but enough that getting used to a single entry box can make other UIs frustrating.

Outside my own area of expertise, I’d say Google Maps has tried valiantly to limit the number of distinct boxes to type address components into.

@Jörn: I sort of contradicted myself I think, by agreeing that intuitive means familiar, but then stating that a system ought to be intuitive in its own respect. Perhaps better word choice is in order. Or perhaps I need to think more about what I meant to say. Upon later thought, it occurs to me that it is, of course, impossible for a system to be intuitive independently of prior experience.

My important point, though, was that a system should not be considered intuitive merely because of the fact that it works the same as every other system. If every other system has a bad interface, then your system has a bad interface as well, even if users can still use it because it is familiar. The actions performed by the program should mimic or easily mentally map themselves to the physical actions the user is performing, as best they can.

Mouse gestures are popular for this reason; you needn’t think about how to achieve what you want to achieve, but rather you just move your mouse in a way that feels as if it reflects what you’re trying to do. If I want to go back, I move my mouse to the left, which is logically “previous” in our left-to-right reading (and reasoning) order. I suppose what I am getting at is that interface actions should be familiar to the real action itself, not necessarily familiar to the interface action in other applications.

An example might be: Suppose the standard thing to do, for whatever reason, became to press the K key to go back (no idea why this would happen, but just take it as an example of an illogical interface action). If I am making a new program, my “back” action can be intuitive if I use the K key, but it can also be intuitive if I use a mouse gesture to the left. The prior interface is familiar based on experience with other software, whereas the latter is familiar based on the properties of the action. In the latter case, the user is conditioned based on their experiences with mentally backtracking general (it’s to the left!), and in the former, the user is conditioned based on their experiences with software, using the K key to go back.

I hoped that jumbled mess of thoughts cleared something up. I know what I’m trying to say, but the way to explain it isn’t quite crystallized in my mind just yet. The key idea is that what we have standard now is not the best of all possible interfaces, so to improve we must potentially push users out of their comfort zone by changing the way common actions are done, if those new ways are “better”. The user’s expectations of the interface which are founded in their experiences with other interfaces are unimportant. Standard, homogeneous interfaces damage progress by limiting the allowable experimentation.

Although I agree that interface choices can (and often do) go way too far, it sounds like some are advocating a pretty totalitarian view.

Only one light switch per room. Go walk over to the only one.
No remote controls for TVs. Get up and walk over to the power button on the TV.
Control-B is gone, make it bold the “intuitive” way.

I might suggest reading Emotional Design by Don Norman and not just DOET. A functional, intuitive interface is not the end-all-be-all. Sometimes you have to let people customize and do it THEIR way to get them to LOVE something.

To be clear: I do NOT advocate UI that gives choice that is confusing. Peter’s work on Chrome is a great example of this.

Search and URL belong in the same box as stated. That’s not user preference to “choose a box”, it’s just two boxes that work in exactly the same way.

However…chrome has several different ways to close a tab. Which one is the “right” one? It’s silly. They don’t overlap. Have them all. They are equally discoverable and some people prefer one over the other.

It’s like having just the missionary position. The human species might die out! Give me UI liberty or give me death. (maybe I am overstating this a bit)

Impressive!! I hope you will keep up the outstanding work.

Just wish to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is just nice and i could assume you’re an expert on this subject. Well with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the rewarding work.

I saw a couple of other similar posts however yours was the best thus far.