It’s only one more field.
What time could there be adding one more field to a form that only has 10? The answer, it turns out, is in the context of the question. If we’re designing a form that is allowing somebody to sign up for an account, that is a form where we require lots of information, adding an additional field is perfectly except. On the other hand if we are designing a search, having 11 fields is Way over-the-top.
I have found that often times this doesn’t happen all at once. We don’t start designing a form with the goal of having more fields than we have search results. What tends to happen is we start looking at it as the one more thing. It’s very easy to add another field. The problem becomes the additional load we add to our users in their use of the form we create. For every field we add its a question we don’t answer, we leave that up to the user. Imagine how less useful a Google search result would be if rather than having one search box you had 15. Often times, that is exactly what we find ourselves designing.
As designers and developers it is our job to reduce the load on our users. Every question we can answer rather than requiring the user to answer is a question we should answer. We should not expect our users to design their system. We should be willing to make the hard decisions.
This means we have to start saying no. At the very least it means we start having a discussion of why. If the question is that important are there other questions that are less important that could be removed? This back-and-forth needs to happen. It gives us context into the systems we design, as well as a window into the user that will be interacting with said system.
You have 700 records returned.
When was the last time you performed a Google search and actually went beyond the third page? It may seem counterintuitive but the more options we present the user the less likely they will choose one. As an example look at the cacophony of options presented to a user that opens up Microsoft Word, just look at the toolbar – hundreds of choices, for writing text. The interface of Microsoft Word is a perfect example of people saying yes over the span of two decades.
When we design for ourselves we tend to design only the features we envision ourselves needing. When we design for others somehow that sense of balance goes away. It’s simple really, things we don’t use we care less about. somehow we need to figure out how to design for ourselves when designing for others.
A web page is not a spreadsheet
Now that we’ve established we’re returning 700 records even though the user will likely only ever see 75, what else can we do? Easy, we add more fields than we can possibly display or that the user can possibly comprehend. We might decide that rather than expand the page out we simply compact the data. This looks really bad. Not only that but as we increase the amount of information we decrease the readability and comprehension of the information we are presenting.
Rather than simply adding that one more field we need to talk about why it must be on the page. This conversation isn’t just about one field it’s a conversation we should have for every piece of information we’re showing the user. Every piece of information we display should have a purpose. Content for content sake is nothing more than Kipple.
When you’re conditioned to hear yes it’s hard to hear no
When nobody says no every idea you have is a great one. 15 columns in a table, awesome. 32 search fields, best idea ever. Saying no brings focus, clarity. It is easy to tell which products were designed in a process where people said no. These products were built with restraint. There is a purpose to their function.
Then again, look at your cable box remote. North of fifty buttons, each of the same general size and shape. No priority, no order. The tough decisions weren’t made, nobody said no. Sure, we can have another row of similar sized rectangular buttons over the last group of similar sized rectangular buttons.
I can imagine the requirements gathering process where some faction of the cable company said, “people often need to change the aspect ratio of their screen” let’s put buttons on the remote just for that. I have never, in my life needed to change the aspect ratio from the cable remote. Perhaps I’m lucky? Was anyone around thinking about the consequence of this button disaster? I doubt it.
Once people know you will always back down, it becomes an expectation. Don’t.
