How can fewer features be better?
Just today I started to get interested in this field and I've started with Getting Real. I kept seeing answers here that recommend it and it also seems trustworthy.
However, one thing I don't get is this:
We'll cover the concept of less throughout this book, but forI understand most of these, but "less features"? why?
starters, less means:
- Less features
- Less options/preferences
- Less people and less corporate structure
- Less meetings and abstractions
- Less promises
Later in the book they mention Writeboard . I Googled it to see what we're talking about, but to be honest I was kind of disappointed. I assumed it was something like an online OneNote or something..
It's just a place to put text in online.
It is useful IMO, don't get me wrong, but if it had more features wouldn't it shine much brighter? Maybe if you could also draw and not only type text, maybe you could drag & drop images, or attach files, and so much more.
Why shouldn't my application thrive with features to make the user experience as best as I can make it? By the way, that doesn't have to mean that my software would be even a tiny bit more complex or intimidating. Also, why less options/preferences? people want to be able to customize their programs. Think of a world where you can barely do that.. isn't it just awful by comparison?
Getting Started Software Books
-
Well how many features are there on the Google homepage? – Frenchie 11 years ago
-
@frenchie Ugh you really tackled me. It's so weird. The way I always saw it is the more features - the better, and suddenly it appears to be the other way around. I still don't understand **why** it is like that. Although for Google.. I don't see anything they can add to the homepage. The links at the top of the page have everything. – Ken 11 years ago
-
There's a quote that goes something like "perfection isn' reached when there's nothing left to add but instead when there's nothing left to remove". Search engines used to look like the Yahoo homepage and then Google removed every feature they could and I think they were just left with the search bar. But less features doesn't mean less capabilities; it's just that you want the features to be revealed as the users get more involved with the product, not upfront. The opposite example would be MS Word: you need to take a class for 6 months before you can use it to write a letter. – Frenchie 11 years ago
-
@frenchie Oh, I'm starting to get a clearer picture. But why believe in "no features" rather than "simple"? simple programs can have tons of features, but if they keep a simplistic user-interface and not limit essential features for extra features, it sounds much more appealing, don't you think? – Ken 11 years ago
-
They're talking about the phase when you're STARTING a business: you start with a simple product that's focused on few features and then you add them as the business evolves. Facebook started with just status updates. You start simple, and then you add. – Frenchie 11 years ago
-
@frenchie Ah, now I get it. BTW you should post what you told me here as an answer, it's really helpful and you deserves some rep for it too ;). – Ken 11 years ago
-
Ok, I posted some comments as the answer; you're right, it could be useful. – Frenchie 11 years ago
-
@Ken excellent question, I just read Getting Real my self and have been doing some of the wire-framing sketching etc for an app i'm building but at the same time I was stuck in a never ending cycle of feature development and things I wanted and never launched. I put that project aside and moved to a stripped down version which i'm very happy about saving money and will launch a quality product not a half ass one. That said look at Zendesk, and Assitly. Plenty of features but awesome interfaces. – Anagio 11 years ago
-
Perfect example of this is [37 signals](http://www.37signals.com) - t hey follow this motto that exceling in one or a few features is better than trying to be everything to everyone. – Code Talk 11 years ago
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better – Neil Mc Guigan 11 years ago
6 Answers
There's a quote that goes something like "perfection isn't reached when there's nothing left to add but instead when there's nothing left to remove". Search engines used to look like the Yahoo homepage and then Google removed every feature they could and I think they were just left with the search bar. But less features doesn't mean less capabilities; it's just that you want the features to be revealed as the users get more involved with the product, not upfront. The opposite example would be MS Word: you need to take a class for 6 months before you can use it to write a letter.
Getting Real talks about startups and STARTING a business: you start with a simple product that's focused on few features and then you add them as the business evolves. Facebook started with just status updates. You start simple, and then you add.
-
To add to this one.. you have limited resources. Period. Whether that is time, money, people, market opportunity, etc, you can only do so much. So it's better to do fewer things better than do everything halfway. Also, remember than anything released has to be included in support, future testing, iteration planning, etc, etc. – Casey Software 11 years ago
-
@CaseySoftware: very true. Google now even has software that can drive cars; they didn't need that feature to launch their search engine. – Frenchie 11 years ago
-
Their market cap is also larger than 80% of the countries of the world and they can cherry pick grads from all over the world.. so they're starting to have (effectively) unlimited resources. That changes the economics completely. – Casey Software 11 years ago
-
Less features also mean less distraction, less bugs, and more focus on the core of what you're doing. There was a TV advert that ran a few years ago, about a guy going to a cafe and ordering coffee and getting drowned in the questions by an employee - this or that, and the likes. He ends up assaulting the employee and storming out shouting _"I only wanted a coffee"_. Can't remember what the ad was for, but seems relevant in this discussion here – Elssar 11 years ago
-
@elssar: yes that's a good point. Less is more in the startup world. – Frenchie 11 years ago
'Getting Real' is good book, heavy on substance, but heavy on hype and over-simplification too.
People love to quote famous writers and throw stuff like 'fewer is better', 'small is beautiful'.
More is Actually Better
As you have probably noticed, quite often, more is more. What a surprise. That is why Microsoft Office, while considered bloated by many, is still the most profitable software in the world.
You Can't Do More
You should forget the literal interpretation of the 'less is more'. Be smart and think about it. The real problem is people significantly underestimate how much effort it takes to implement a given feature. It takes even longer to do it well. And it takes, again, much much longer, to implement it in a notably good way. (Think 'Paper' for iOS)
Do As I Do, Not As I Say
If you look at 37 Signals' own products, you will notice that they add stuff over time. They have almost never removed features. It is logical, and makes sense, but is inconsistent with the advice they give.
Focus
So, even if more is more, you can't do it all. You can't even do much. What you can realistically hope for, is to correctly identify the core functionality of you app/idea, and to put all your efforts into it.
In the end, if you succeed in making it good and satisfying beyond people's expectations, it might just be enough for success.
-
Microsoft Office is made by Microsoft: they can afford to spend a billion dollars a year to have a few thousand developers implement all sorts of features. Startups can't, and therefore shouldn't. 37signals isn't a startup either, at least not anymore; they can also afford to add features. But I totally agree with you on the fact that people vastly underestimate how much time it takes to implement even seemingly simple functionalities. – Frenchie 11 years ago
-
Microsoft Office was an example that if you can do it, more is actually better. There are 2000-3000 developers on MS Office. The product generates several billions per year. To suggest how successful it is, just divide by 1000. Equals 2-3 devs earning millions. – Boris 11 years ago
-
@Boris - Office is successful because it is the defacto corporate standard, not because it is an awesome product. Most people use a small percentage of its capabilities, but not the same parts. Uncontrolably adding features makes them very hard to rationalise later. – Dave 11 years ago
-
@dave ... and it is the standard for a reason. Many features well implemented trump few features well implemented. – Boris 11 years ago
-
@Boris - it is the standard for a number of reasons, not the least of which was Microsoft's early sabotage of competing products (Windows won't ship until Lotus 123 won't run). – Dave 11 years ago
-
@dave So you say Lotus 123 was actually a better product? That it still is? WordPerfect was/is the superior word processor? Don't agree. – Boris 11 years ago
Less features is better. One of the biggest problems in software is that developers love to make stuff. (it's in our nature, and yup I'm guilty too )
Product Guy 1: Can you make this blue?...It takes a lot of restraint for the developer (and product management) to say no - we don't need this . Or as they often say in Agile Development YAGNI (Ya Ain't Gonna Need It).
Product Guy 2: Nah. Wait how about purple?...
Developer: How about we just make it configurable!
I'll need to add a new table to the schema, store the current value in the session, build a configuration page with a color wheel widget that lets you choose the color...
Both groups of people should be focused on what features the end user actually needs. Do they need to be able to export this data? No? then don't waste time building the export wizard.
When indecisive about a feature... I like to ask myself... "Are we going to lose customers if we don't add this feature?" - If the answer is no or likely not then you need to ask yourself if it is worth adding.
-
You're blaming the developer but it's the product team asking for these features. The developer wants to craft the best solution possible that satisfies the request, with the incentive of not being bothered further with ridiculous and mundane requests such as color changes. – Joe A 11 years ago
-
I think the "blame" goes to both parties. The Developer shouldn't blindly accept the "requirements"... and the Product team should "verify" the actual needs before making the items a "requirement". I can't count the number of times that a product person has stated a "requirement" that was actually their "personal desire". It is better for both parties to succeed by satisfying the customer's/market's needs. ;-) – Scunliffe 11 years ago
I am missing an important issue so far: product-market fit. Unless you are building a product for yourself, YOU ARE NOT THE CUSTOMER. You may think you know its needs well, but you WILL be wrong on many parts. Starting with less means less wrong assumptions (and therefore less waste of your efforts).
Entrepreneurs are passionate and inevitably opinionated (this is a good thing). It's a good strategy to start with less, get surprised by user feedback, learn from it and then home in on additional features that hit the mark better.
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
? Leonardo da Vinci
All features in your app add value to it... and cost for you to maintain them.
Every feature means more code, more bugs, more user training, more specs, more designs, more docs, more performance issues, but not always means more value for the user. Indeed, 20% of your features shall represent 80% of your app's value.
"Less features" is just another way to say "Stick with the 20% that matters and forget the 80% of headache!"
