A recent article in RCR Wireless News provided details of AT&T's outreach program to teach seniors how to use their phones. It noted that manuals for mobile phones often have as much as 100 pages covering the numerous icons and features of these devices. In response, AT&T has partnered with organizations for seniors to provide one-on-one instruction in using cell phones.

Notably, the article quoted Arlene Harris, the founder of Jitterbug which makes those simple cell phones with large buttons and no confusing icons. Harris prefers to make the phone simpler so that no (or very little) instruction is required.

Check out the article at: http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008853329203

What do you think? Is it preferable to provide instruction on full featured phones, or is it better to have simple phones requiring little instruction?

A complicated phone is not necessarily complicated if it is intuitive. A simple phone can also be simple because it lasks features and depth. The solution lies in a phone that on its face has an architecture to support features that are necessary to the user, and an interface that is intuitive to the cognitive level and needs of the user.

In cognitive accessibility, my area of need and expertese, there is a broad range of user skillsets, where the needs would tend to also match the users skillsets. You need to know which features are highest priority, and design the phone to those features/users. In cognitive, you could likely have 3 or 4 user levels/features. The simple part of the phone would be how well the phone meets the core key features. The more intuitive the phone to the users needs and skillset, the better the phone will fit the user.

Keep it simple stupid is good, as long as the simple architecture is intuitive and does not short any features of the phone.