There are 4 notes on this page:
About Christopher Fahey
I am an artist, designer, teacher, and captain of industry living in Brooklyn, NY. I'm one of the co-founders of Behavior, an interaction design consultancy.
Go to my About page to learn a whole lot more about me and this web site.
And please feel free to follow my ad-hoc commentary on Twitter, see my photos on Flickr, visit my links on Delicious, or just say "hi" to me in an old-fashioned email.
Credits
Site contents and design by me. HTML and CSS by the excellent Pau Santesmassas. Software courtesy of WordPress.
Subscribe to my 
RSS Feed, or you can get get updates by email.
Contents are under Creative Commons license and are © 1998-2009 Christopher Fahey.
Categories
(Tweeted October 28, 2008)
The converse of this: Whenever you remove a feature from an interface, it’s more like removing two or three things from the pile of stuff users need to think about.
It’s like juggling (I am a juggler, by the way): Handling one ball is dead easy — most people can do this without thinking. Throwing two balls from hand to hand is actually much harder and usually requires at least few minutes or even hours of practice to get right. Three is way harder and can take many weeks to learn.
by Christopher Fahey October 29th, 2008 | 1:55 pmIs this conjecture? Or do you have experiments/studies, etc??
Just curious :-)
by twhid October 29th, 2008 | 2:16 pmsounds plausible, but there’s a problem with your math.
by felix October 29th, 2008 | 3:09 pm2×2 = 4. 2×2x2×2=16. so 4 features are 4 times more complex than 2.
@twhid: I pulled it out of my ass.
@felix: Good point, but I believe that “exponentially” doesn’t necessarily mean a pure exponent needs to be used.
Actually, I would describe this more like an S-curve (a logistic growth pattern). It increases logarithmically at first, but then flattens out after a while. one button is simple, two buttons is a little more complex, four buttons is waay more complex, etc. But when you get up to fifty buttons, for example, adding one more doesn’t raise the level of complexity too much, I think.
by Christopher Fahey October 30th, 2008 | 10:05 am