Update: Minimalist villains!

Via, Core77 via Mocoloco.

Here’s a much abbreviated version of the scenario:

Imagine receiving a little wooden box that looks like it holds a treasure. The box cannot be opened. There is a button on top and an LCD display. You press the button and the display reads, "This is attempt 1 of 50. Distance: 55km. *Access Denied* Powering off...". The next time you press the button, in a different location: "Attempt 2 of 50" and a different "Distance" reading. And so on, until you’ve figured out that the box, equipped with a GPS inside, is leading you to one specific location where the box can be opened and the treasure inside it claimed.

His full writeup is here.

Via Cultureby

Check out this minimalist USA map by Patrick Mahoney.

Nifty.

Via.

Image from a photo by Alexis Brion

Logic and reason, I have to keep explaining, are wonderful virtues, but they are irrelevant in describing human behavior. Trying to prove a point through intelligent, reasonable argumentation is what I call the “engineer’s fallacy.” (Also, the economist’s fallacy.”) We have to design for the way people really behave, not as engineers or economists would prefer them to behave.

As designers who favor restraint and minimalism, Norman's thesis is frustrating: people say they want simplicity, but in practice they really don't.

But I think he has a good point. When most of us see less, our instinct is to think we're getting less; fewer features and less control. And paying more to (apparently) get less is bound to set off our BS detectors. Confronted between two options, we're bound to go with the more complex choice because of perceived value.

Norman isn't suggesting we give up on simplicity, but today he reminded me that while achieving it isn't easy, selling it is even harder.