Simplicity vs. clarity in UI design (and translation)

The iPhone analogy is a good one. ParaTExt is much the same. It has core functionality which underpins an host of semi-discreet operations. I'm not sure limiting functionality is that helpful, one man's 'don't need it' is another's 'must have'. Whether all the functionality needs to be on display all of the time is perhaps a better question. Just as SLT changes the PT interface to reflect it's own particular functionality perhaps other PT functions/sub-systems could do the same? Limiting the functionality on display doesn't necessarily simplify the UI but it might make it clearer in context. Is the Bible always trying to be clear? I remain to be convinced. If something can legitimately be 'made simple' that is surely a good thing but so too is finding ways to preserve the ambiguities in the text. Some of them at least may be there for a reason.

I quite agree about PT, though I do find myself leaning toward "stop the features!" at this point. As to the Bible being clear, the tricky part in translation is that it can never be as clear in many ways in translation as it presumably was originally. We simply do not share enough cognitive environment with those who first heard the words of scripture spoken (and they usually were spoken) to them. But it does seem likely that poetry was even then harder to understand than prose was in general, and narrative usually easier than epistolary instruction. And then there are not a few cases where the situation is reversed: we as readers/hearers of the presented events are in on the game with the narrator, while the major participants of the story are presented as being either dim-witted or at least simply ignorant. One thinks of the disciples vi-a-vis Jesus' ongoing self-revelation, or Jesus' parents amazement (Luke 2:33) at Simeon's words about the child in the temple. Finally, for both tech and BT, I suspect that simplicity in and of itself may in fact be useful for some audiences (e.g. novices, children). But if I read the article right, maybe I really just mean clarity (i.e. simplicity at each and every level of the UI or text). Hmmm...

Paradoxically: being clear and simple is a complex task. I used to work as a graphic designer and illustrator some years ago, and a clean, simple design that could be understood was one of the most demanding work. Because it has to be visually compelling, economical (made with just a few elements), without sacrificing the message and (this is really important) having in mind the specific audience. So, as the article says, "clear and simple" could change depending the user. Regarding the Bible, I am with Bob: "it can never be as clear in many ways in translation as it presumably was originally", but I am a supporter of reading the whole Bible as a book, from beginning to end, and in that way it is clearer than just isolating a verse or a paragraph and try to understand the whole deal from it. About Paratext: It is simple but it is not visually compelling, but sometimes you have to sacrifice beauty to be practical (even though using a visually compelling computer application for hours make the work easier).

Nice comments, Fausto. Context indeed does help a lot in clarifying things. On PT/UI, I wish I could convince more programmers of the utility of beauty. You would think Apple's success would have already done that.