Simple = Accessible

May 2023 ‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 6 minute read

There is a principle I have noticed in the world.

Things which are simple are also accessible.

From a holistic view this makes intuitive sense. Complexity usually creates barriers to entry, while simplicity ultimately allows for greater ease of use or understanding.

Let me express the principle in a different way. Same statement. Different words.

What is mainstream is basic.

Still on the same page? You’ll get what I mean if I give some examples.

Informative Writing

Most people would agree that for the layman, scientific research papers are difficult to read. This is because most of us simply don’t have the assumed knowledge and expected understanding required to read and understand them. Nonetheless, this stands to reason – the purpose of informative writing is to express ideas, and to explain complex ideas, complex language must be used. Because of this however, the barriers to entry for the common man are too high. Low readability equals low accessibility.

Likewise, essays, blogs, articles and books can lack readability also. It is for this reason Paul Graham favours writing simply in his essays. For one, it articulates ideas easier. For another, the writing suddenly becomes far more readable, and far more accessible.

Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas — Paul Graham, Write Like You Talk

That is, comfortable, functional and easy to get around in. However, even writing with simple language can be difficult to read if it has a high insight density - great depth of information.¹One notable form of insight density (if you will allow me little wordplay here) is that of insight condensity – when a larger piece of writing has been condensed into something like a summary, abstract or synopsis. Of course, when dealing with insight condensity, the original writing will better express the ideas, but it will just take a little longer to express. You have to stop and reread sentences to fully comprehend their meaning. Sometimes there is simply an information overload. Now, I’m not saying insight density is bad – readability is not meant to be the main aim of essays, blogs or books. I would even argue that on the whole, it is totally worth the effort of plodding through informative and insightful writings to reap the reward of the knowledge and understanding they may bestow upon you.

Consider this quote:

I think it more respectful to puzzle and challenge an audience than to bore and insult it — Eric Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar

Interestingly, this then highlights the need for writing simply even further; needless complex language may result in needless insight density. And if informative writing isn’t aiming to be readable, it should at least aim to express ideas in the most effective way.

On the other end of the spectrum, consider the clickbait and simplistic news stories which comprise most mainstream media. Ironically, the most prolific type of informative writing contains unapologetically minimal insight density and even information. But comparatively, very easy to read, and because of that highly accessible – there’s a reason it’s called 'mainstream media'. If curiosity is the hunger of the mind, this lack of depth is highly unhealthy in terms of our information diet. But the thing is, most people are addicted to it, in the same way that people are addicted to sugar. And like any addiction, while the barriers to entry are low, the barriers to exit are high. On the flip side, I would suggest that insights are like the vitamins of one’s information diet. Intellectually nutritional, whether it be hidden in informal writing like spinach in a brownie, or unapologetically eloquent and verbose like a plain spinach salad.

Eat your intellectual vegetables kids.

Music

Where in terms of writing I considered readability as a measure of accessibility, in terms of music I consider listenability. What I have observed, or rather heard, is that the more musicality embedded into a song, the less listenable it becomes. Songs which contain metric modulation, odd time signatures, polyrhythms, harmonies, even something as basic as a key change can all add flavour, and truly enrich a song. But too many of these can ruin it – complexity to the point of confusion. Some people as musicians can appreciate their genius, but most people cannot.

Of course, the opposite is also true. The most prevalent songs – pop songs – are from a musical perspective relatively basic.²It is important to make a distinction – I speak here not of pop music historically (the most popular music of an era), but of the subsequent genre which has come about as a result of historical influences.

A rudimentary drum kit part. A simplistic or even non-existent bass part. Repetitive, unoriginal lyrics. But a catchy tune. These are the hallmarks of today’s pop music. And that shouldn’t be surprising – the aim of pop music is not to be musical, but to appeal to the widest possible audience. And to achieve reach the widest possible audience, a song needs to be catchy and sing-along-able. In essence, the music needs to be simple enough for the layman to be able to replicate the music in their head. This then creates an earworm, and to scratch that particularly invasive mental itch, you have to hear the song again. And again. And again. This is why hits can stay at the top for so long.

Of course, as with all these things, there is a spectrum. Alt and indie as genres have gained popularity as listeners have, subconsciously or consciously, sought more musically creative sounds. But in the end, while nu jazz, classical music and prog rock are only appreciated by a select few, pop music is the genre which ultimately still reigns supreme.³Don’t get me wrong here. The point of preference is that anybody can enjoy any music they please. But for most people, there is no major consideration of the music itself. It just sounds good. Again, the simplest way (and in this case maybe even the best way) to determine preference, also happens to be the most accessible way.

Fiction Writing

What about fiction writing? Again, same mechanics at play here. Highbrow literature, or 'The Classics' are difficult to read. Antiquated language, verbose descriptions and a snail’s pace plot are all some of the barriers which reduces readability. No disrespect to Dickens, Hemmingway or Austen, but these authors were writing for the educated, high class society, whereas authors these days are aiming to write for everyone.

The simplicity here aligns with a formula. Agatha Christie, John Grisham, Stephen King – the popularity of their writing came, and comes from, the nailing of a formula, whether it be a murder mystery, a legal thriller or a horror. Their books may differ in character, and specifica, but the bones are mostly always the same. That’s not to make their writing any less predictable or impressive. But what it does do is allow them to become more accessible. Again, high accessibility creates a kind of addiction – if you’ve got someone hooked on a formula, you can’t expect them to want a slightly different drug.

In summary:

Simple equals accessible. The simpler something is, the more accessible it will be, whether it be writing, music, art, design, food, language, interfaces. Whatever.

Complexity may add value, but it will usually come at the cost of overall average accessibility.

Too much complexity can create confusion. Information overload. Analysis paralysis. All debilitating barriers to entry.

Too much simplicity can also be equally debilitating. If you continue to water something down, eventually all you’ll be left with is water. Meaningless mush. Redundant redundancy.⁴I hope this isn’t too ironically complex a statement

Also, that which is overly accessible can become addictive, whether it be an earworm pop song or engrossment in media. Low barriers to entry but high barriers to exit.

So, if you want to make things more accessible… just simplify.

← →