Comments on: Joel Spolsky Attacks 37signals and iPod http://www.webword.com/wp/2006/12/12/joel-spolsky-attacks-37signals-and-ipod/ The usability blog of John S. Rhodes Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:25:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Jesper Rønn-Jensen http://www.webword.com/wp/2006/12/12/joel-spolsky-attacks-37signals-and-ipod/#comment-41129 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:18:34 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2006/12/12/joel-spolsky-attacks-37signals-and-ipod/#comment-41129 I can't say I will agree with Joel and Thomas Baekdal here. A good example of simpler is better is the new "Import data" feature on Google Finance. I wrote about it in <a href="http://justaddwater.dk/2006/12/15/simplest-import-data-user-interface-ever/" title="Permanent Link to Simplest “Import Data” User Interface Ever" rel="nofollow">Simplest “Import Data” User Interface Ever</a> However, I still recommend to read Thomas's article "<a href="http://baekdal.com/articles/Usability/make-it-hard-vs-easy/" rel="nofollow">make it hard vs make it easy</a>" I can’t say I will agree with Joel and Thomas Baekdal here.

A good example of simpler is better is the new “Import data” feature on Google Finance. I wrote about it in Simplest “Import Data” User Interface Ever

However, I still recommend to read Thomas’s article “make it hard vs make it easy“

]]> by: Thomas Baekdal http://www.webword.com/wp/2006/12/12/joel-spolsky-attacks-37signals-and-ipod/#comment-40703 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:10:51 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2006/12/12/joel-spolsky-attacks-37signals-and-ipod/#comment-40703 ...where having **Less features** was a... …where having **Less features** was a…

]]> by: Thomas Baekdal http://www.webword.com/wp/2006/12/12/joel-spolsky-attacks-37signals-and-ipod/#comment-40700 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:37:52 +0000 http://www.webword.com/wp/2006/12/12/joel-spolsky-attacks-37signals-and-ipod/#comment-40700 I must admit that I think Joel is right. I cannot recall a single project where having features was a successful strategy. Of course, adding the wrong kind of features - or making bloated software isn't very good either. The entire Getting Real deal is to me only a good strategy when: a: Your competitors makes way to complex software b: You are new on the market - or your product is new to the market. As an example. Imagine anyone trying to make a clone of BaseCamp with less features - wouldn't work :) I must admit that I think Joel is right. I cannot recall a single project where having features was a successful strategy. Of course, adding the wrong kind of features - or making bloated software isn’t very good either.

The entire Getting Real deal is to me only a good strategy when:

a: Your competitors makes way to complex software
b: You are new on the market - or your product is new to the market.

As an example. Imagine anyone trying to make a clone of BaseCamp with less features - wouldn’t work :)

]]>