# Should Computers Be Easy To Use? Questioning the Doctrine of Simplicity in User Interface Design

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.01643 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01643/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2023.

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Improving Steering and Verification in AI-Assisted Data Analysis with Interactive Task Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.02651/) (2024)
- [Will Code Remain a Relevant User Interface for End-User Programming with Generative AI Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.00382/) (2023)
- ["If You're Very Clever, No One Knows You've Used It": The Social Dynamics of Developing Generative AI Literacy in the Workplace](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01386/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

That computers should be easy to learn and use is a rarely-questioned tenet of user interface design. But what do we gain from prioritising usability and learnability, and what do we lose? I explore how simplicity is not an inevitable truth of user interface design, but rather contingent on a series of events in the evolution of software. Not only does a rigid adherence to this doctrine place an artificial ceiling on the power and flexibility of software, but it is also culturally relative, privileging certain information cultures over others. I propose that for feature-rich software, negotiated complexity is a better target than simplicity, and we must revisit the ill-regarded relationship between learning, documentation, and software.