I can't agree. Simple is important, but it's not the most important thing. The overwhelming evidence is that there's plenty of working software, in use, that i

I can't agree. Simple is important, but it's not the most important thing. The overwhelming evidence is that there's plenty of working software, in use, that isn't simple. Users will shape their behaviour and memorize flows around a complex piece of software if there is sufficient motivation. My own principles for design state this order: Functional, Simple, Delightful Does it do the job? Is it simple to use (nothing more than what's required)? Do people get excited to use it? The first is non-negotiable and the last is optional. There's a lot of software that is functional, but over-complicated. Lots that is delightful, but doesn't work and everything in-between. The software I admire most (and use daily) has a balance of all three.