What is “simple”, anyway?
Is “simple” really as “simple” as it sounds?
This solutions professional doesn’t think so.
I work in tech. I have always worked in tech. Over the years, I have fielded tens of thousands of requests to build some system, some product, or some capability for an audience and, in doing so, have often heard the maxim “Just keep it simple. It needs to be as simple as possible”. Whether I was working in live events, IT support, media production and management, web management, or product development, I have always had a role where I functioned as a designer or influencer of the technology solutions my organization required. And after so long, I feel confident saying this: Despite what people want you to think, there is no such thing as “simple” anymore in the world of technology.
However, this is a far cry from what we read when we look at the marketing for some of our favorite tech companies like Apple, Google, or Samsung. But, that is because marketing often needs to sell you on a feeling or idea, not necessarily a fact. More on that later. That isn’t actually the hot take that it may sound like it is.
Simple has no single definition
This one word has more meanings than most I can think of in the English language. You may think: “Really, Leon? I’m pretty sure there is just one definition in the dictionary.” And you would be right. But we don’t think like dictionaries when we speak to each other. When a person says “This just needs to be as simple as possible” — I assure you that, in this statement, the word simple is far more loaded than what Webster’s can attest within an out-of-context description in their latest volume. In fact, I think we should all understand today that this word has a constantly changing definition — and that is simply due to the fact that meaning, in communication, is really held and designed first and foremost by the communicator, not a culture or societal assumption.
Poppycock.
Okay, so maybe you need some more convincing. No worries! I will try to make this explanation as simple as possible (see what I did there?).
Let’s take the example of a board room conference system. You’ve just been assigned the task of designing a new audiovisual system within a client company. The system is intended to be used to support video conferencing as well as audiovisual reinforcement for the in-room audience. You are told by the client “We really need an upgrade. Every time we try to do a virtual meeting, we have to fiddle with so many settings to get the visuals and sound just right. It takes so long. We need a new system that is simpler to use.”
“…plain, basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature, or design...” - Webster’s definition of the word “simple”.
I am sure that all of us have heard something similar on a job like this one. But let’s look at the clues here to see exactly what “simple” means in this scenario. Let’s pay attention to what they did say — and also to what they did not say.
Notice what they did not say. They did not spell out what the system actually needs to do for them. Of course, this is when the technician will invariably have to employ their skills in site survey and discovery to nail down a specific list of required outcomes and constraints. After doing so, you find that:
The system is going to be used by executives from various businesses apart from this one, typically in groups of 10 people.
The users often arrive minutes before their scheduled appointments in the space, and there is a high turnover rate so the room needs to cleared for the next user immediately following most meetings in the room.
The building has few technicians on staff for supporting such systems continually.
The system is used to display slide decks, record meeting notes, and accept calls from outside.
Now on to what they did say. Context clues tell us that their pain points have to do with the adjustment of lots of settings, which could very well be for factors and variables that your potentially less-techie client does not fully understand (or need to understand). These clues also point to the fact that the client may find the current system to be finicky, or at least relatively complex, when their assumption or desire is that operating a video conferencing system should not be a complex activity and the system should “just do” what the user expects it to do (perhaps even with the veil of appearing to read their minds).
What we have just described is a fairly standard scenario. However, there isn’t actually anything “simple” about it. There are myriad factors to consider, from technology to human experience, personal priorities, time constraints, and — oh yeah, budget. In fact, from a purely technological perspective, there really isn’t anything “simple” going on, when you recognize how much technology (often invisible) is being used in just one of the mentioned applications (video codecs, internet transmission, audio capture, power supply, etc). If we are being honest, it actually isn’t possible to deliver a solution that is uncomplicated in nature here, because the activity and the outcomes themselves are not uncomplicated in nature. Even when you have delivered exactly what the client is looking for, and they ultimately love the deliverables, you know that you delivered something that is far from simple. But you have to keep that to yourself. The client is happily served, and that is the important thing.
Simple does often have a common theme
So what? Do we give up on the word, or even the idea of “simplicity”? Are we prevented from really providing the solutions people need because technology is just too complicated these days? No. But I want to encourage us to think differently about what simple means. I believe that, while there is no single pure definition of simple in every person’s mind, there is a common concept that underlies the meaning they have when they use the word. SPOILER ALERT: It isn’t “uncomplicated”. It isn’t “elegant”. It isn’t “streamlined”. And it certainly isn’t “easy” or “cheap”. So what is it?
Intuitive.
Here is another example, this time from a real-world application.
I serve as a technology SME for my church. In 2020, we embarked on a journey to begin live streaming our weekly services out of a need to stay connected as a congregation despite the physical limitations imposed by COVID at the time. In truth, we had already dabbled in live streaming prior to this year, but the climate made this capability more mission-critical than in years past.
It was a somewhat standard setup in the beginning: computer, camera, audio input, Zoom, and an internet connection. Later, we began streaming to Facebook, YouTube, and our website simultaneously. The church did not have paid technical staff, but it did have volunteers willing to learn how to operate and ultimately manage the live streaming system that we designed. Over time, we found that many volunteers would consistently feel uncomfortable with the setup, often forgetting steps in the SOP, or not feeling confident troubleshooting issues within the system. We had designed everything to function using hardware and software that many people had in their homes and offices — Windows computers, USB web cameras, unbalanced audio connections — in an effort to “simplify” things for the operators. But this wasn’t yielding the results we needed for the volunteers. They would look nervous when they logged into the multistreaming software, or when they would verify the audio inputs were working properly using the visible meters, or clicking various toggles with their mouse to begin picture-in-picture displays of content and speakers. They would say “I know this is as simple as it can be, and I’m sorry that I’m not getting it” and then eventually “It’s just not simple enough for someone like me”.
One day, I changed our setup to run completely off of iOS devices. An iPad was the main switching hub/control device and iPhones and iPads were the camera sources. Audio hardware remained the same, but now connected to the headphone jack of an iPad instead of the input of a Windows computer. We left Zoom in favor of Switcher Studio software, which ran as an iOS app from the App Store. Our multistreaming software of choice (Restream.io) remained the same. I showed this to the volunteers.
Complete 180.
Immediately, they were operating the livestream with success and comfort. They no longer asked for supervision (for the most part), and started fixing issues as they arose, without looking for support from me as the system designer.
Let’s look at what happened here. The actual procedure for setting up and operating the stream was actually still relatively similar. The volunteers booted the hardware, mounted and adjusted the cameras (more cameras now than they used in the previous setup, actually), verified audio capture using visible meters, connected the same cables as before (minus one USB cable), logged into control software, setup picture-in-picture, sent the stream to the cloud, and then operated all of these things in real time. Oh, one more thing: They also monitored and responded to the chat in multiple destinations. But something had changed. Somehow, they weren’t saying “This is too complicated for me”. They were saying “This is so much simpler”.
What was different? They were no longer using a standard desktop computer, keyboard, and mouse. They were using index finger to manipulate all of those various settings. And they weren’t connecting cables to a computer or manipulating a computer’s interface. They were handling a mobile operating system and mobile apps. Was this actually “simpler”? No. But because they used computers and the like only for work-based applications where they don’t have much choice, and often used mobile devices (the same devices in fact) in their personal lives, it no longer felt complicated to them, despite the fact that they were actually performing even more advanced tasks than before. To them, it just felt more intuitive. To them, this was the real definition of the word “simple”. And it was closely tied to their feeling of comfort and confidence.
So, what is the takeaway?
I am sure that we can all find examples like this one, so I don’t think I’m breaking new ground here. What I want to encourage is the idea that we should not over-generalize the word “simple” or look at it as a throwaway term to describe the opposite of an experience we did not like. I would challenge us to perhaps change the way we view the word, and make sure we get to the heart of what someone means when they might use it. Connect the word to the human who is saying it. After all, there is nothing “simple” about the human experience. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t feel differently.
This topic has also been featured on Commercial Integrator. Read it here: https://www.commercialintegrator.com/insights/what-is-simple-these-days-for-technology-solutions/137035/