Beyond the Spiel: Machine Design Readers KISS and Tell Their Thoughts on Design Simplicity

Last month, I shared with you about my family purchasing a new washer and dryer for our laundry room. I admitted that we had opted for mostly mechanical appliances with minimal electronics, which got me to thinking about what you—the engineers who design machines—thought about this decision. More than 50 of you took the time to provide thoughtful, articulate answers (thank you!), and I learned that simplicity resonates deeply with many of you. The “Keep It Simple Stupid” (KISS) principle is clearly a guiding philosophy, as this phrase and/or its acronym came up more than a dozen times in the survey results.

Is Simple Better?

The complete survey question was: “When it comes to home appliances like a washer and dryer, is simple better? Please explain why or why not.” The responses varied but they shared common threads that emphasized reliability, ease of maintenance and a preference for straightforward functionality.

There were several respondents who highlighted their experiences with older appliances that have stood the test of time. “My washer and dryer are over 30 years old,” one of you wrote. “The best new ones to buy are like what the article suggests, simple mechanical machines.” (I feel so seen!) Another relatable response came from the respondent who said, “The fault should be easily detectable and the user should be able to correct it without tedious processes.”

There was noticeable skepticism toward the modern features that are marketed as essential. “Elegant simplicity is best! Fewer parts, proven designs, fewer failures!” Several remarked that advanced technology doesn’t necessarily improve functionality, often causing more headaches than they solve. For instance, “Yes, simpler is better. Often times what breaks are the ‘bells and whistles’ part of the equipment.”

A common refrain was the desire to return to “good old reliable manual non-computerized junk.” Another strong opinion: “Yes! Many of the ‘features’ added these days are dreamt up by marketing folks. If you need that feature, by all means purchase that machine. For myself (and my non-engineer wife), we’d prefer not to suffer with it. Simplicity rules!”

There were also some responses that connected simplicity to environmental sustainability. One of you said, “Anything fixable is better for the environment,” reflecting a bigger concern about waste and the lifecycle of appliances. I like the fact that we are thinking ahead and considering the long-term impact of the products we choose. More about sustainability in just a bit.

In my original post, I noted that one of the reasons I chose the models I did was so that once the warranty expires, I will have a better chance of being able to fix any problems on my own. This DIY attitude was front and center in many of the responses. “I like to repair my own appliances; and the older ones—and the commercial ones—are definitely more suited to repairs vs. replacement.” And “My washer and dryer are both 20 years old and I have repaired both of them with the help of YouTube.”

It seems this community is made up of individuals who value the ability to maintain and care for appliances themselves as well as a bit of nostalgia: “Give me old reliable. I don’t need my washer and dryer sending me text messages.”

Best Design: Front or Top Loading?

The next survey item was “Top loader vs. front loader: Make your case for the best design.” With diverse opinions flowing in, it is fascinating to see how different experiences and preferences shape our views on appliance design. The key themes that I noticed for this one include practicality and ease of use, mold and maintenance concerns, water and energy efficiency, performance and cleaning effectiveness, and—of course—personal experience and preference.

“Top loaders are easier to contain the water…less bending of back to operate,” one respondent wrote—a common sentiment and one that resonated with a good number of you. Front loaders, however, were praised for their water and energy efficiency—sustainability. “Front loaders tend to use less water…so, for me, a front-loader is the right choice.” Others reported that this benefit came at a cost, including potential leaks, complex maintenance issues and less-clean garments. “Energy Star-driven minimization of water usage does come with the downside of inferior cleaning,” one respondent noted. Another wrote: “It depends. Front loaders are more complicated, but clean better with less wear on clothes. They also use less water.”

Although many of the survey respondents had a clear preference one way or another, there is diplomacy in some comments:

• “Front loaders better for design magazine look, as can put a nice butcher block shelf on top and box in the back to hide hoses etc.—done that 3 times in remodels; top loaders better for maintenance—just open the front—and (they) don’t mold.”
• “Top loader is best for design ease and repair. Front loader solves the stacking issue but comes with complications.”
• “I like both, if design is good.”

If design is good. This perspective highlights what the readers of Machine Design are all about. In industrial machine design, a good design transcends aesthetics; it encompasses user ergonomics, functional efficiency and reliability, too.

Balancing Innovation and Simplicity

The final survey question asked: “How do you balance innovation with simplicity in your work or experience?” There was a clear consensus that simplicity should be the primary goal in design and innovation.

“A machine needs to be as complicated as it needs to be to work, and no more. Extra bells and whistles are just that—extra.” There’s the KISS principle again. “The simplest design to do the task is always best.”

Many of you stressed the need to critically evaluate the purpose of innovation. One wrote: “What improvement do you really get with the ‘innovation?’ Is it economically worth it?” I would guess that many of you focus on how new features contribute to overall functionality and reliability rather than just adding complexity for complexity’s sake.

The issue of long-term usability and sustainability was frequently mentioned. Participants noted that overcomplicated designs can lead to a “throw it away culture” when items become too difficult to repair. As one respondent explained, “The problem is that when something breaks, we don’t fix it because we can’t; it’s too complicated.” Emphasizing durability and ease of repair resonated with many, as noted in this comment: “Keep simple so it works and is easy to repair or doesn’t break in the first place.”

Interestingly, many responses identified innovation as a potential avenue for achieving simplicity. “Innovation all the way…use innovation to simplify.” Thoughtfully integrated innovations can lead to efficient, less cumbersome designs that improve rather than complicate the user experience—whether we are talking about a washing machine or an industrial milling machine.

Of course, balancing simplicity and innovation often depends on the specific application or context. One individual said, “It really depends on the application specs that the customer provides.” This pragmatic approach acknowledges that while simplicity is important, it must be tailored to meet the specific needs and complexities of a given task or industry. “It is probably impossible to strike the perfect balance. A former colleague referenced the three-legged stool of cost, performance and support for any product/decision. It is good to consider all those factors.” So true.

Respondents also noted the importance of continuous learning and adaptation. “Carefully consider the pros and cons of available options and never stop learning about new developments and technologies!” I couldn’t agree more. I printed a note for my office that reads “stay curious” to remind me; and although it is not the most unique mantra, I realized while watching the series “Ted Lasso” it is one that I live by inside and outside of work.

Beyond the Purchase

I promised to let you know if the purchase was worth it. At the time of this writing, it’s been about five weeks since our appliances were installed, and they have made a royal difference! Wash cycles are quite fast—even if I choose to soak and run an extra rinse. Synthetic shirts no longer have a funky odor because they are clean. I have not used any scent beads at all, and the laundry has never smelled better.

The washer is a bit noisier, so there is that element to consider. We are fortunate to have a laundry room with a door that closes, which helps block out the sound. 

I did notice a slight jump in water usage that amounted to a few bucks for the month. If I average it out, it will cost us between $30 and $40 more for the year—less than I spent on those scent boosters—well worth it for this household of four.

Future Fodder

What a great exchange of feedback and ideas this was. Thank you to those who participated as well as to those who simply digested the content. If you would still like to weigh in on washing machine design, the survey, which you’ll find in the original post, is open until the end of this month. We’d love to hear from you!

Moving forward, I’ll be using this column for more musings about machine design. Please complete this survey to help me choose some topics, and you can always reach me at [email protected]. Until next time, stay curious!