El Principio Pareto en el Diseño de InterfacesĮl Principio de Pareto establece que, de forma general y para un amplio número de fenómenos, aproximadamente el 80% de las consecuencias proviene del 20% de las causas.Es útil porque nos permite centrar nuestros recursos. Siempre se puede añadir mas a una interfaz, hacer el logo mas grande, añadir otra imagen, otro parrafo de texto, pero quitar lo que sobra es la habilidad de los profesionales del diseño.ģ. Significa quitar elementos innecesarios y repetir este proceso, analizando cada elemento, hasta que se haya minimizado todo lo posible sin comprometer la función general. Todo lo contrario.Ĭonlleva evaluar que elementos son necesarios para que el usuario final. Por ejemplo, podrá pedir a la imprenta que no deje el mas mínimo espacio del cartel en blanco, ya que piensa que un espacio en blanco es tinta que se ahorra la imprenta y dinero que pierde el cliente.Ĭonseguir una interfaz sencilla, que sea fácil de entender para el usuario final, no es fácil. Sencillo no es fácilĮn un proyecto que conlleva diseño, el cliente quiere recibir el valor equivalente a lo que ha pagado. Sin embargo, con cada nuevo elemento, funcionalidad e información, el resultado se vuelve más complicado de entender, usar y mantener. Menos es másĭado que la web y las herramientas de diseño cuentan con una infinitud de soluciones, caemos en la tentación de añadir cada vez más elementos a una interfaz. La Navaja de Ockham en el diseño de interfacesĮn su aplicación al diseño web o de interfaces de aplicaciones, podemos decir que «la solución más simple es casi siempre la mejor». un fraile franciscano, filósofo y lógico escolástico inglés, oriundo de Ockham, Inglaterra. La teoría se atribuya al lógico y teólogo del siglo XIV William of Ockham. La navaja de Ockham, a veces escrita cómo Navaja de Occam, es un principio de resolución de problemas que argumenta que la simplicidad es mejor que la complejidad. I have called this “ The principle of stability, inertia and recurrence“.En igualdad de condiciones, la explicación más sencilla suele ser la más probable. We find simple causes because we are designed to recognize simple objects. The more complex a phenomenon, the more difficult we have to identify it. The additional argument I put forward is that we are programmed to perceive simple facts. The former is simply more intuitive.Īn additional argument for rejecting Ockham’s razor The former is simply more intuitive.Ĭonsidering that natural wet neurons are responsible for sentience (without further explanation) is no less complex than considering that information processing units -such as artificial neurons or computers - are responsible for sentience (without further explanation). Ockham’s razor in the matter of sentienceĮven if it were true, many (or all) of the uses of Ockham’s razor applied to sentience (for example, to reject that computers or atoms are sentient) should be discarded because hypotheses are not being rejected because they are more complex, but for being less intuitive.īy way of analogy: considering that the Earth is flat (without further explanation) is no less complex than considering that the Earth is a sphere (without further explanation). If the sun seems to go around the Earth, it does. If things seem to be falling down, they are falling down. The idea that things attract each other is complicated. But on the other hand, if we have two good explanations, what reason is there to discard the most complex one, if not for practical considerations? Another good argument to defend it is that we can create infinite (bad) explanations or hypotheses if we allow ourselves to complicate them as much as we want. See: Ī good argument to defend the strong version of the razor is that the razor is precisely what science seems to be doing: making explanations compatible with evidence as simple as possible. Many arguments have been written for and against Ockham’s razor. We may ask ourselves: is Occam’s razor a consideration about the validity of theories, or a practical consideration?ġ) The strong Occam’s razor: Theories have more or less validity depending on their complexity: “Other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.”Ģ) The soft Occam’s razor: We choose the simplest simply for comfort: “Other things being equal, the practical thing is to choose the simplest explanation.” Interpretations of the meaning of Ockham’s razor There are different interpretations of the meaning of Ockham’s razor and different evaluations of its validity. Ockham’s razor is sometimes considered a type of scientific evidence. Occam’s razor is usually summed up in a phrase such as “Other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right one”. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” – Einstein?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |