CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Usability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology InteractionInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Should Computers Be Easy To Use? Questioning the Doctrine of Simplicity in User Interface Design

Open access
Sarkar, Advait·2023·Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3544549.3582741
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

That computers should be easy to learn and use is a rarely-questioned tenet of user interface design. But what do we gain from prioritising usability and learnability, and what do we lose? I explore how simplicity is not an inevitable truth of user interface design, but rather contingent on a series of events in the evolution of software. Not only does a rigid adherence to this doctrine place an artificial ceiling on the power and flexibility of software, but it is also culturally relative, privileging certain information cultures over others. I propose that for feature-rich software, negotiated complexity is a better target than simplicity, and we must revisit the ill-regarded relationship between learning, documentation, and software.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3544549.3582741

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The design of intuitive interfaces for GenAI systems might inadvertently give users a misleading sense of competence, increasing the risk of errors.

    “The design of intuitive interfaces for GenAI systems might therefore inadvertently give users a misleading sense of competence, increasing the risk of errors (likewise discussed in cognitive psychology [153]).”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [153]

    Section 2 (‘How Did We Get Here?’, page unavailable) warns that software can be made to appear more usable while becoming less useful, supporting the general concern about intuitive design. The paper does not establish that GenAI interfaces give users a misleading sense of their own competence or increase errors. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Simple textual prompts promoting self-awareness significantly decreased participants' susceptibility to incorrect (albeit realistic) information.

    “For example, simple textual prompts promoting self-awareness significantly decreased participants' susceptibility to incorrect (albeit realistic) information [153].”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [153]

    The section “Towards a Doctrine of Negotiated Complexity” discusses simple in-app prompts for teaching software features, but not prompts promoting self-awareness or a measured reduction in susceptibility to incorrect information. Searches for those concepts and for misinformation interventions found no passage in our copy reporting the claimed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Shaaron Ainsworth. 1999. The functions of multiple representations. Computers & education 33, 2-3 (1999), 131-152.
  2. David Bau, D Anthony Bau, Mathew Dawson, and C Sydney Pickens. 2015. Pencil code: block code for a text world. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 445-448.
  3. Anat Biletzki and Anat Matar. 2021. Ludwig Wittgenstein. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  4. John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194 (1996), 4-7.
  5. John M. Carroll and Mary Beth Rosson. 1987. Paradox of the Active User. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 80-111.
  6. Gilbert Keith Chesterton. 1929. The thing. Aeterna Press.
  7. Michel Foucault. 1969. L'archéologie du savoir. Vol. 1. Gallimard Paris.
  8. Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139-183.
  9. Felienne Hermans. 2020. Hedy: a gradual language for programming education. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM conference on international computing education research. 259-270.
  10. Thomas S Kuhn. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Vol. 111. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
  11. Brenda Laurel. 2013. Computers as theatre. Addison-Wesley.
  12. Douglas B Lenat and John Seely Brown. 1984. Why AM and EURISKO appear to work. Artificial intelligence 23, 3 (1984), 269-294.
  13. Henry Lieberman. 2001. Your wish is my command: Programming by example. Morgan Kaufmann.
  14. Gitte Lindgaard, Gary Fernandes, Cathy Dudek, and Judith Brown. 2006. Atten- tion web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behaviour & information technology 25, 2 (2006), 115-126.
  15. I Scott MacKenzie, Shawn X Zhang, and R William Soukoreff. 1999. Text entry using soft keyboards. Behaviour & information technology 18, 4 (1999), 235-244.
  16. John Maeda. 2006. The laws of simplicity. MIT press.
  17. Gaetano Mosca. 1939. On the Ruling Class. In Translated by Hannah D. Kahn; edited and revised, with an Introduction, by Arthur Livingston. New York: McGraw- Hill.
  18. Brad A Myers. 1998. A brief history of human-computer interaction technology. interactions 5, 2 (1998), 44-54.
  19. Joseph S Nye. 1990. Soft power. Foreign policy 80 (1990), 153-171.
  20. Martin J Osborne. 2004. An introduction to game theory. Vol. 3. Oxford university press New York.
  21. Rob Pike and Brian Kernighan. 1984. Program design in the UNIX environment. AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal 63, 8 (1984), 1595-1605.
  22. Horst WJ Rittel and Melvin M Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences 4, 2 (1973), 155-169.
  23. Advait Sarkar. 2016. Interactive analytical modelling. Ph. D. Dissertation. Uni- versity of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
  24. Advait Sarkar. 2022. Is explainable AI a race against model complexity?. In Work- shop on Transparency and Explanations in Smart Systems (TeXSS), in conjunction with ACM Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2022) (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3124). 192-199. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3124/paper22.pdf
  25. Advait Sarkar and Andrew D. Gordon. 2018. How do people learn to use spreadsheets? (Work in progress). In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG 2018). 28-35.
  26. Abigail Sellen and Anne Nicol. 1995. Building user-centered on-line help. In Readings in Human-Computer Interaction. Elsevier, 718-723.
  27. Alistair Stead and Alan F Blackwell. 2014. Learning syntax as notational exper- tise when using drawbridge. In Proceedings of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group Annual Conference (PPIG 2014). Citeseer, 41-52.
  28. Mark Weiser. 1991. The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific american 265, 3 (1991), 94-105.
  29. Slavoj Zizek. 1998. The interpassive subject. Retrieved March 1 (1998), 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sarkar, A.
Affiliations
Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Sarkar, Advait
ORCID
Sarkar, Advait
Venue
Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-04-19
Pages
1-10
DOI
10.1145/3544549.3582741
OpenAlex
W4366597495
Cited by
19
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 2
FWCI
4.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
usability, learnability, software documentation, information culture, cultural relativism, software evolution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review