On Removing Features

[charmian]

Blog post on the importance of removing features: http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2010/02/02/removing-features/

I found this via the Twitter of one of Posterous's founders.

In a nutshell, the pictures of the Swiss Army Knives in the pics really say it all. The problem with a bajillion features is that you need the resources to keep updating all of those features so they stay competitive and the resources to support them. Having many features also makes the software/app/website more difficult and confusing to use. Also, being spread over many niches means being potentially vulnerable to competitors who are specializing in one niche. (Kind of like evolution, I suppose).

Also, if this is left unchecked, things develop in the direction of removal becoming gradually and gradually less possible:

"If you leave features in your application just because half a dozen people actually use them, you’ll end up with Microsoft Word. Most people only use a small percentage of all features in Word. Unfortunately, most people use a different small percentage of all features in Word. Even the most unpopular, most broken feature is used by somebody. "

Comments

[sub_divided]

Fewer features is just the writer's preference. "Don't add features just because the users want them, or you will end up like this scary knife!!" It has to be a tradeoff, right? If you have fewer features you should have more of something else - more lightness, more speed, more ease of use, or more prettiness - you can't just take the features away and not make up for that in some way. And taking features away won't automatically make your program easier to use, either. Good design does that.

Anyway, where's the proof that more features always leads to too many poorly supported features?

[charmian]

I think the point is that features in and of themselves often (though not always) incur a cost (maintenance, complicating the user interface). Obviously, features shouldn't be taken away merely for the sake of taking them away. In other words, the article is about the tradeoff.

He didn't make that claim, he just made the claim that this often occurs if less-relevant features are added, which is why developers must be mindful about adding in new ones and considering the possibilities of pruning. I saw it as being similar to Denise's post about how more options often worsens UI/UE.

Also, poorly supported features aren't the only problem. Lots of features means that the resources needed for the computer to run the program also increase, the size increases, etc. The more features there are, the more difficult good design becomes, as well (that is basically one of his points: one of the major reasons for limiting features is precisely because they get in the way of good design). The difficulty of creating a good design with all of those features will also take up resources.

[sub_divided]

I still think it's more an aesthetic preference than a general rule. There's a set of users that wants to buy a Word or an Eclipse, even if those programs slower and harder to use than other programs, because they do think that they want all that stuff. You have to figure out which type of user you're trying to sell to.

[elena]

This issue has been long recognised in computing:

http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/c/creepingfeaturism.html