Falsifiability
Karl Popper argued that simple theories are preferable “because their empirical content is greater; and because they are better testable.”
Would the same be true of user interface?
8 Comments so far
Leave a Reply
Popper puts forward the notion that we can never really prove that something is true through experimentation, only demonstrate that it must be false. One of the key ingredients of such a position is that our experiments much be tightly controlled in order to ensure that we’re actually testing - and observing - what we intended.
On that basis, a simple theory generally can be tested with a simple experiment, meaning that we can be more certain of what it is influencing the behaviour we’re observing.
This concept is transferable into the area of user interfaces in so far as we’re interested in testing specific influencers of user behaviour.
However, from a design point of view, there’s definite merit in removing any extraneous elements and devices to provide as clean and uncomplicated interface as possible. The outcome is a tendency towards simplicity - the same general goal as Popper - although the driver was distinctly different.
In the studies I undertook a lifetime ago in mathematics, I saw time and again the elegance of mathematical solutions evolve over time. The best mathematicians through history have had the ability to simplify theories down to a point where they hold an aesthetic quality that was clearly present. A simple example is the general solution to a quadratic equation - the sort of thing we all learn in high school. Early versions of solutions for this class of equation were very clunky by comparison. In hindsight it’s clear that those earlier mathematicians hadn’t really grasped the nature of the problem. Once Decarte introduced a form of notation and analysis capable of describing the problem more completely, the solution (which we still use to this day) was much more apparent, and eminently more elegant.
I draw parallels to our design work in user experience: if the solution feels clunky, there’s a good chance we don’t fully understand the problem, or our techniques are suitable to the task of analysis.
Hmm… that last sentence should end as “…or our techniques are *un*suitable to the task of analysis.”
*Whoosh* is the sound that made as it went over my head.
I was discussing similar issues with a designer I work with recently. Let me be clear, she’s an excellent designer. But in this conversation I mentioned the word “elegance” to her, in terms of “simplicity” — and she kept understanding what I was saying in terms of aesthetic qualities rather than functional qualities. Her background is in a traditional graphic/architectural design program. But I first encountered my usage of the word in a physics classroom.
Anyway, I guess what I’m getting at is that these mathematical/scientific ways of thinking about the world and the things we make in it can be quite powerful — but somewhat alien for the traditional design culture.
It would be fascinating to try to bridge between these backgrounds more intentionally. So much design can learn from science.
Hi there’s already some sort of connection between these spaces in the design methods movement.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_methods
Some interesting comments on this thread, and thanks Patrick for posting this. Popper’s statement is primarily an epistemological one. At heart all its really saying is that a simple theory applies to more cases than a more complex one, and is thus more easily falsifiable (testable).
So, in terms of parallels with our field, we can only draw very broad and simplistic conclusions around this statement. We might say, for instance, that a simple design is better because it will be more widely accepted than a complex one. This might be a valid statement, but hardly ties in well with what Popper’s is actually saying. We might also say that if we have several competing theories for the explanation of user behaviour, the simplest one might be the most valid, as we more easily able to test it.
Any other inferences others might draw from this statement that allude to simple design being better are dangerously naive. Over the years I’ve seen an obsession in our field with simplicity and parsimony. Clearly we want simple designs, but not at the expense of usefulness. An inherently complex problem cannot be reduced to a simple one without loss of information.
As is stated in Occam’s razor - “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best”. In other words, if we have several possible designs that solve a problem equally, the simplest will be the best. What is often lost in this statement is ‘all other things being equal’. In other words, again, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.
Too often I’ve seen solutions where the designer, in their quest for simplicity, has ‘…removed extraneous elements and devices’ as Steve mentions above, until nothing of any use to the user is left. I think Einstein termed it best when he said ‘Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.’
Riiiight….so who’s got a PhD then? I mean seriously, “parsimony”? :)
Here’s an interesting video take on simplicity and the effectiveness (or not) of very simple interfaces (by the onion).
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary