The amazing world of video games

Video games are amongst the non-essential things that compete for a share of our free time. Regardless of whether they are a good thing or a bad one, two things are quite certain:

'Day 220-the tetris' by ne!l chen
under a CC license

• some of them - somehow - do manage to get hold of our attention and, thus, of a fair portion of the free time of a wide range of individuals, and 
• they are the products of a very diverse market, often operating at the world-wide level, with noteworthy and increasing turnover share. 

Regardless of one 's feelings towards video games, their world - and impact - is practically hard to ignore.

Simplicity; the all-too-common target we normally miss

'Beauty in Simplicity' by Clay Carson
under a CC license

Can you recall the safety demonstration that is performed just before take off in every flight? It is basically about just 4 things (seat belts, oxygen masks, life jackets, emergency exits and route to them). That simple. The bare minimum information that can save lives in case of emergency within a plane, which, by the way, is a very complex machine.

I like simplicity. Most people do so, I believe. But I'm used to things around me being complex and requiring handling of a certain complexity. 

In some cases, simplicity may be a matter of taste. For instance, minimalist architecture, minimalist design and minimalism, in general. Then, it may be a matter of function or usability. For example, the one-button mouse that Apple introduced or the bare interface of GNOME or Xfce, the operation of Microsoft Kinect and so on. And, of course, we have simplicity in processes and procedures (administrative procedures included), with the one-stop-shops and lean manufacturing or lean management concepts as examples.

To me, the latter is of utmost importance. Simplicity is the approach that saves resources, helps transparency, facilitates participation, minimises mistakes, encourages standardisation, etc. For instance, could you imagine referendums with complex what-if sort of questions? I hope not. That level of simplicity should be a target for most processes and procedures around us. The tax forms, the procedures for establishing businesses, the formalities of communication across public or private organisations, the procedures for public consultation, etc.

Of course, many will argue that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't really work in all aspects of life. True. But I believe that the challenge is to apply simple models on small groups of applications in a coherent way rather than trying to use a single process for all applications. However that is no small feat. Mistakes will be made, corrective actions will need to be taken and a new 'simplifying' circle will need to start. And there lies the hidden challenge: frequent changes cause confusion, regardless if each new approach is a simple one.

Simplicity (and clarity) is a thing that we could certainly use more of. At the collective level, it could allow things to function better and at a lower cost. It would cut down red tape and limit confusion. At a more personal level, simplicity has the potential to make our lives better and give us the chance to focus more on things that matter, undistracted from clutter, regardless of those 'things' being people, causes or creations of any kind.

So, once more, is there a limit to simplicity? Most likely yes. But we have still plenty till we hit that.

Legal compliance: A battle facing complexity?

'Winter Simplicity' by
Doug Brown under a CC license

Some say the food sector is one of the most regulated areas of economic activity. Although a bit counter-intuitive, since making food seems easy to most people and that would not seem to justify having a lot of regulations, the statement is not far from true, at least in Europe.

Under more careful thinking, the argument in favour of such a tight regulatory framework is easy to see: there is a great deal of things that can go wrong in food production and that can cause trouble to consumers, economic losses, etc. The type and severity of that "trouble" depends on the type of the problem, the size and the distribution of the product batch. And, yes, food-borne "trouble" continues to occur even today from time to time (e.g., there seems to be an ongoing incident with Hepatitis A, possibly from contaminated frozen berries) and it is always associated with a corresponding cost.

Even if having a tight regulatory framework is inevitable, at least for the time being, there is no need for that to be unreasonably complex. Of course, here, the word "unreasonably" would be interpreted in a very different way by the different stakeholders of the food industry. Most probably some lawyer would even go as far as to claim that the set of laws for food production is really simple and straightforward (!).

Interestingly, two guys from the Michigan State University attempted to measure the complexity of the Law (in the US Code)  - the research paper and a corresponding presentation are also available. In brief, the two researchers tried to quantify "complexity" by using metrics that would apply to people trying to read the law and comprehend its requirements. One of the approaches was to count the references of a piece of text to other pieces of legislation. (Yes, certain Titles of the Code were rather complex indeed).

I would find it extremely interesting if a similar approach would be routinely implemented to other bodies of law, e.g. the food law in the EU or in its Member States. Or. possibly, to run benchmarks among similarly-oriented bodies of law across countries. That could be a novell way to drive the various legislative bodies to produce regulations that, as a whole, are easier to find, comprehend and apply.

In my humble opinion, clearer regulations would lead to higher compliance, possibly with a lower associated cost. That would mean more money for business to pursue other goals (e.g., environmental performance) or invest elsewhere. In the food sector, higher compliance usually translates to better protection of the consumer and, in turn, higher confidence of the consumer to the food production and distribution chain.

To be fair, there is an increasing trend for authorities to provide consolidated versions of the legislation or - at least - to group all legislation relevant to a topic and provide it to the public as such. That 's very good news but, again, we are nowhere near to claim that we have achieved simplicity and clarity in the legal texts, yet...

Usability: The elusive daemon of innovation

Have you ever found yourselves in the position to get a cool gadget (or product) on your hands just to find out, minutes or hours later, that it is annoyingly difficult to use? Have you experienced that transition of feelings, from excitement to frustration? You don't have to be a gadget freak or an "early adopter" to have found yourselves in that unfortunate position; it happens to most of us, typical consumers.

The problem with usability is that it is an elusive concept. To make something innovative, you just need to push things a bit forward (by featuring new technology or a new working principle or a new application, etc.). But for that innovative something to become a success, amongst other things, it must also be usable. People need to feel comfortable using it. And no, people don't like reading manuals.

While a growing number of technical standards exists, which make things much more straight-forward for manufacturers, there are still plenty of traps to fall in. Take for instance the option menus of digital cameras. Some are definitely a bit "weirder" than others. Or think of the vast majority of the mobile mice, which while advertised as being fully functional, space-saving cousins of the normal mice, they often turn out to be difficult to guide and tiring to use. And what about the early GPS-enabled PDAs, which had displays that were simply not bright enough to be used in daylight (or even if they were bright enough, they couldn't stay away from the charger for more than 90' or so). There are even some food products (e.g., dehydrated sauces in powder form) that have failed to get consumer acceptance simply because they included non-obvious steps in their preparation.

There is no secret that successful innovation must be able to take advantage of human intuition and/ or common sense. Exceptions do exist (e.g., specialised equipment for industrial/ medical/ etc. use), but usually even there, a clever, intuitive design is a plus, simply because it simplifies the learning process and reduces the chances of human error. If you have some time, you might want to visit the Media Lab of MIT for some refreshingly simple ideas.

To be fair, though, usability is no easy task to master. Different cultures, different tastes, and that "cursed" characteristic of humans to learn and adapt to most things, which will ensure that at least a handful of people will feel comfortable with any given new product, thus misleading its designer....

Fortunately - for us end users - the product market ecosystem evolves somewhat similarly to the natural ones: the fittest products spread more, persist for longer and inherit some of their characteristics to their derivatives. And even, it is those products that set the requirements for the products or services to come.

[By the way, my first blogspot template was taking advantage of my full 1680x1050 desktop resolution... until I remembered that the typical netbook is restricted to 1024x600. Good thing I'm a netbook owner, too!]

(Photo: "Complicated cabling", by me.)