Comments on: Mint container consistency http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/mint-container-consistency Adam DuVander’s thoughts on keeping things simple. Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:03:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Michael Sigler http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/mint-container-consistency/comment-page-1#comment-2035 Michael Sigler Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:14:19 +0000 http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/mint-container-consistency#comment-2035 I mainly came here to spread a little obligatory comment love after seeing your twitter post. Then you mentioned mint tins and it became a NEED to comment. I have a deep love of mint. I haven't read the other comments yet but I think you can break it apart into two concepts when applied to the tin. 1. Simplicity - Minimal effort is required to open the tin. 2. Familiarity - The mechanism is unfamiliar and while it fits the definition of simplicity, it becomes difficult to open. The shape implies functionality that seems implicit - twist it, because it's round. The reason we do that is because its the mechanism we are most familiar with. In the end its an argument of semantics. Something can be simple, yet difficult to use. Something can be both simple and easy to use. Something can be both easy to use and complex, as long as the functionality is implicit or familiar. I mainly came here to spread a little obligatory comment love after seeing your twitter post. Then you mentioned mint tins and it became a NEED to comment. I have a deep love of mint.

I haven’t read the other comments yet but I think you can break it apart into two concepts when applied to the tin.

1. Simplicity – Minimal effort is required to open the tin.
2. Familiarity – The mechanism is unfamiliar and while it fits the definition of simplicity, it becomes difficult to open.

The shape implies functionality that seems implicit – twist it, because it’s round. The reason we do that is because its the mechanism we are most familiar with.

In the end its an argument of semantics.
Something can be simple, yet difficult to use. Something can be both simple and easy to use.
Something can be both easy to use and complex, as long as the functionality is implicit or familiar.

]]>