<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Tyranny of Simplicity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/</link>
	<description>Information Retrieval Research, Issues, and Discussion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:19:48 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Information Retrieval Gupf &#187; The Tyranny of Simplicity, Redux</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-5540</link>
		<dc:creator>Information Retrieval Gupf &#187; The Tyranny of Simplicity, Redux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-5540</guid>
		<description>[...] of a user information need.  In that spirit, I wrote a minor rant last April about how the Apple iTunes smart playlist creation interface sacrifices functionality in the interest of simplicit....  One could only create smart playlists using a flat conjunction or flat disjunction of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of a user information need.  In that spirit, I wrote a minor rant last April about how the Apple iTunes smart playlist creation interface sacrifices functionality in the interest of simplicit&#8230;.  One could only create smart playlists using a flat conjunction or flat disjunction of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Information Retrieval Gupf &#187; Music Search: Exploration or Lookup?</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-5196</link>
		<dc:creator>Information Retrieval Gupf &#187; Music Search: Exploration or Lookup?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:19:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-5196</guid>
		<description>[...] The Tyranny of Simplicity [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Tyranny of Simplicity [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Information Retrieval Gupf &#187; Semantic Technology Search Panel</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-2415</link>
		<dc:creator>Information Retrieval Gupf &#187; Semantic Technology Search Panel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:54:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-2415</guid>
		<description>[...] ranted in the past about how functionality and interactivity is often sacrificed in the name of simplicity.  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ranted in the past about how functionality and interactivity is often sacrificed in the name of simplicity.  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeremy</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-1358</link>
		<dc:creator>jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 19:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-1358</guid>
		<description>Matt, you&#039;re probably not still reading this, but check out the following interface used by Copernic desktop search:

http://www.copernic.com/images/mediakit/screenshots/agent-big/x-ad-find-in-results-eng.gif

As you can see, it has the basic &quot;match all&quot; and &quot;match any&quot; functionality, similar to iTunes.  But then it also has an advanced option that says &quot;match the following boolean query&quot;.  That option does not clutter the interface, but does allow an advanced user to formulate something more sophisticated. 

That&#039;s all I&#039;m asking for. An additional 1-line input box in iTunes, that will allow me to craft something more useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, you&#8217;re probably not still reading this, but check out the following interface used by Copernic desktop search:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.copernic.com/images/mediakit/screenshots/agent-big/x-ad-find-in-results-eng.gif" rel="nofollow">http://www.copernic.com/images/mediakit/screenshots/agent-big/x-ad-find-in-results-eng.gif</a></p>
<p>As you can see, it has the basic &#8220;match all&#8221; and &#8220;match any&#8221; functionality, similar to iTunes.  But then it also has an advanced option that says &#8220;match the following boolean query&#8221;.  That option does not clutter the interface, but does allow an advanced user to formulate something more sophisticated. </p>
<p>That&#8217;s all I&#8217;m asking for. An additional 1-line input box in iTunes, that will allow me to craft something more useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeremy</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-997</link>
		<dc:creator>jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:21:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-997</guid>
		<description>And as far as writing an Applescript program that OR-ed all my podcasts together, and then AND-ed them out again into two separate, ratings-based partitions.. yes I agree that particular script would have very limited appeal.

However, I completely disagree with you that the masses (grandpas, parents, kids) don&#039;t want to be able to create more advanced playlists, in general.  For example, imagine a kid that wants to hear all the upbeat kids songs in his/her collection.  That kid would want to create a playlist of the form ((artist=&quot;sesame street&quot; OR artist=&quot;schoolhouse rock&quot; OR artist=&quot;electric company&quot;) AND beatsPerMinute &gt; 150).  Or a husband creating a romantic playlist for his wife of the form ((artist=&quot;al green&quot; OR artist=&quot;barry white&quot; OR artist=&quot;marvin gaye&quot;) AND beatsPerMinute &lt; 110)

So whether or not the kid or whoever could easily create such a playlist, there is definitely a need and desire to be able to create more expressive playlists than iTunes gives one the capability to do.  So this is why I am completely baffled as to why there isn&#039;t even at attempt in iTunes to provide an advanced option, perhaps by doing something graphical as Marti Hearst suggests.  There are for sure more people that just myself that need the more expressive capabilities of a richer Boolean formalism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And as far as writing an Applescript program that OR-ed all my podcasts together, and then AND-ed them out again into two separate, ratings-based partitions.. yes I agree that particular script would have very limited appeal.</p>
<p>However, I completely disagree with you that the masses (grandpas, parents, kids) don&#8217;t want to be able to create more advanced playlists, in general.  For example, imagine a kid that wants to hear all the upbeat kids songs in his/her collection.  That kid would want to create a playlist of the form ((artist=&#8221;sesame street&#8221; OR artist=&#8221;schoolhouse rock&#8221; OR artist=&#8221;electric company&#8221;) AND beatsPerMinute > 150).  Or a husband creating a romantic playlist for his wife of the form ((artist=&#8221;al green&#8221; OR artist=&#8221;barry white&#8221; OR artist=&#8221;marvin gaye&#8221;) AND beatsPerMinute < 110)</p>
<p>So whether or not the kid or whoever could easily create such a playlist, there is definitely a need and desire to be able to create more expressive playlists than iTunes gives one the capability to do.  So this is why I am completely baffled as to why there isn&#8217;t even at attempt in iTunes to provide an advanced option, perhaps by doing something graphical as Marti Hearst suggests.  There are for sure more people that just myself that need the more expressive capabilities of a richer Boolean formalism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeremy</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-995</link>
		<dc:creator>jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:51:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-995</guid>
		<description>Nope, I&#039;ve never written an application used by any number of millions of people.  So calling me to task on that is completely fair.  But let me say, that&#039;s the point I am speaking to.  I have a real problem with the belief that we should be trying our darndest to write curtailed-functionality applications that work for hundreds of millions of people.  Why?  Because that leads to a lowest-common-denominator solution that, in the end, lowers the quality for everyone.

I apologize if it sounds like I am only picking on Apple; I have the same problem with other information interaction interfaces that try to be everything to everyone, and therefore choose simplicity over the needs of their users.  See, for example, my discussion of Google a month ago (&lt;a href=&quot;http://irgupf.com/2009/03/18/long-term-versus-evolutionary-thinking-part-1-of-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://irgupf.com/2009/03/19/long-term-versus-evolutionary-thinking-part-2-of-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).  And for that matter, I have a problem with any information provider that tries too hard to appeal to too many users, and lets simplicity dominate in order to do so.  Let&#039;s say, for example, Fox News.  Fox paints a very simple picture with the way that it reports the news, and it therefore appeals to a great number of people (from grandpas to kids), and is wildly successful.  It garners lots of &quot;pageviews&quot;.  However, by reducing the real complexity of the world to such simplistic terms, it ends up under-informing all those same hundreds of millions of people. And an uninformed citizenry devalues our democracy as a whole.  Now, I&#039;m not so hyperbolistic to say that Fox News and iTunes playlisting are at the same level of social importance. Of course not. I am only saying that there is a fundamental abstract similarity in the attitudes that inform the design process. 

I never said iTunes programmers were monsters, nor even (I believe) implied it.  I did say: &lt;i&gt;I fully appreciate not wanting to overwhelm the user. But where iTunes falls short is that there is also no way of switching to “advanced” options, or “Smarter” Playlists.&lt;/i&gt; And yes, only providing the user with flat Boolean ANDs or ORs, with no ability to nest, is a &quot;crippling&quot; of the general expressive capability of the Boolean logical formalism.  I also used the words &quot;obstructed&quot; and &quot;stunted&quot; earlier in the post.  Should I have stuck with those, instead?  That is, I would like to ask if what has put you off is my terminology, or the underlying ideas?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nope, I&#8217;ve never written an application used by any number of millions of people.  So calling me to task on that is completely fair.  But let me say, that&#8217;s the point I am speaking to.  I have a real problem with the belief that we should be trying our darndest to write curtailed-functionality applications that work for hundreds of millions of people.  Why?  Because that leads to a lowest-common-denominator solution that, in the end, lowers the quality for everyone.</p>
<p>I apologize if it sounds like I am only picking on Apple; I have the same problem with other information interaction interfaces that try to be everything to everyone, and therefore choose simplicity over the needs of their users.  See, for example, my discussion of Google a month ago (<a href="http://irgupf.com/2009/03/18/long-term-versus-evolutionary-thinking-part-1-of-2/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://irgupf.com/2009/03/19/long-term-versus-evolutionary-thinking-part-2-of-2/" rel="nofollow">here</a>).  And for that matter, I have a problem with any information provider that tries too hard to appeal to too many users, and lets simplicity dominate in order to do so.  Let&#8217;s say, for example, Fox News.  Fox paints a very simple picture with the way that it reports the news, and it therefore appeals to a great number of people (from grandpas to kids), and is wildly successful.  It garners lots of &#8220;pageviews&#8221;.  However, by reducing the real complexity of the world to such simplistic terms, it ends up under-informing all those same hundreds of millions of people. And an uninformed citizenry devalues our democracy as a whole.  Now, I&#8217;m not so hyperbolistic to say that Fox News and iTunes playlisting are at the same level of social importance. Of course not. I am only saying that there is a fundamental abstract similarity in the attitudes that inform the design process. </p>
<p>I never said iTunes programmers were monsters, nor even (I believe) implied it.  I did say: <i>I fully appreciate not wanting to overwhelm the user. But where iTunes falls short is that there is also no way of switching to “advanced” options, or “Smarter” Playlists.</i> And yes, only providing the user with flat Boolean ANDs or ORs, with no ability to nest, is a &#8220;crippling&#8221; of the general expressive capability of the Boolean logical formalism.  I also used the words &#8220;obstructed&#8221; and &#8220;stunted&#8221; earlier in the post.  Should I have stuck with those, instead?  That is, I would like to ask if what has put you off is my terminology, or the underlying ideas?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-978</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-978</guid>
		<description>You certainly throw words like &quot;tyranny&quot; and &quot;crippled&quot; around quite loosely. You start out acting like you understand that capability and simplicity are trade-offs, but then you can&#039;t do what you want so the iTunes programmers are apparently monsters. Have you ever written an application used by tens or hundreds of millions of people, including grandpas, kids, etc.? It&#039;s a lot easier to write a blog post than actually find that balance.

It&#039;s also possible for a motivated individual to simply write a program (in AppleScript, Python, or Javascript using OSA) that generates a playlist, so even if there wasn&#039;t the workaround mentioned above, you could still do exactly what you want.

But I suspect such a program would be of limited interest since your problem is surely more complex than the needs of the VAST majority of iTunes users.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You certainly throw words like &#8220;tyranny&#8221; and &#8220;crippled&#8221; around quite loosely. You start out acting like you understand that capability and simplicity are trade-offs, but then you can&#8217;t do what you want so the iTunes programmers are apparently monsters. Have you ever written an application used by tens or hundreds of millions of people, including grandpas, kids, etc.? It&#8217;s a lot easier to write a blog post than actually find that balance.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also possible for a motivated individual to simply write a program (in AppleScript, Python, or Javascript using OSA) that generates a playlist, so even if there wasn&#8217;t the workaround mentioned above, you could still do exactly what you want.</p>
<p>But I suspect such a program would be of limited interest since your problem is surely more complex than the needs of the VAST majority of iTunes users.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-971</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-971</guid>
		<description>Completely agree that its inelegant, but their current interface is understandable, and nested boolean operators usually aren&#039;t.  At least with this cascaded playlist solution you can see intermediate results &amp; debug each stage.

I like the &quot;filter/flow&quot; interface from the chapter you linked to.  Using Apple as an example again, Automator seems to do this a little, but without the branching &amp; merging (last I checked anyway... been a while since I played around with it).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Completely agree that its inelegant, but their current interface is understandable, and nested boolean operators usually aren&#8217;t.  At least with this cascaded playlist solution you can see intermediate results &amp; debug each stage.</p>
<p>I like the &#8220;filter/flow&#8221; interface from the chapter you linked to.  Using Apple as an example again, Automator seems to do this a little, but without the branching &amp; merging (last I checked anyway&#8230; been a while since I played around with it).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeremy</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-969</link>
		<dc:creator>jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-969</guid>
		<description>Ok, I tried your suggestion of creating an intermediate playlist, and then Boolean-ANDing my way into two separate forks (Rating=5, Rating=0).  Really does work, thanks again!  But now in order for this to work, the intermediate playlist has to remain on my iPod, rather than only on my iTunes library.  So it ends up cluttering my playlist scrolling process.  Inelegant.  

I&#039;ll have to name the dummy/placeholder list &quot;zzz&quot; or something like that, to get it mostly out of the way.  

Still, I think iTunes should make it much easier for me to organize my information than this kludge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, I tried your suggestion of creating an intermediate playlist, and then Boolean-ANDing my way into two separate forks (Rating=5, Rating=0).  Really does work, thanks again!  But now in order for this to work, the intermediate playlist has to remain on my iPod, rather than only on my iTunes library.  So it ends up cluttering my playlist scrolling process.  Inelegant.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ll have to name the dummy/placeholder list &#8220;zzz&#8221; or something like that, to get it mostly out of the way.  </p>
<p>Still, I think iTunes should make it much easier for me to organize my information than this kludge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeremy</title>
		<link>http://irgupf.com/2009/04/29/the-tyranny-of-simplicity/comment-page-1/#comment-967</link>
		<dc:creator>jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://irgupf.com/?p=551#comment-967</guid>
		<description>Excellent, thanks for the pointer, Jon!  I half suspected that someone was going blow a hole in my rant, by showing me how I could actually do this in iTunes.  But that&#039;s a good thing :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent, thanks for the pointer, Jon!  I half suspected that someone was going blow a hole in my rant, by showing me how I could actually do this in iTunes.  But that&#8217;s a good thing <img src='http://irgupf.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
