Most still don't get it because it's not true. Look at all of the additional options with non-obvious discovery that Apple has added to the iPhone because some more advanced users want e.g. swipe up quick settings. If you as a user want more control, the design needs to include more controls. Open up MS Paint on one monitor and Photoshop on the other to see what I'm talking about. I realize that this concept is offensive to designers, but designer happiness isn't the goal. Good UI is the goal.
The UI's are different because Schumacher wants more precise control (brake-bias, suspension rate, turbo angle of attack, etc) and you can't get that level of control without a more complicated UI (you need the appropriate buttons and levers for all of those things).
The title of the person who lays out the Ferrari F1 car's cockpit is literally UI designer. If you think an F1 car's cockpit is simple then you should reconsider. The cognitive load of those two sets of controls is very different, made possible and desirable because one set of users is expert and the other isn't.
No. The UI designer does not choose functionality on their own. They need intimate knowledge of how the car and driver work together, and then must simplify to the bare necessities. The better they are at the job, the better they know about both. And same applies to the developer and even the driver. The best drivers are deeply involved with every aspect of their cars. And in the end, nothing is redundant.
And no, MS Paint and Photoshop are not the same program with one just having more options. Photoshop is a beast, and it's UI has improved over the years -- to match that functionality.
The UI is different because Schumacher is driving an F1 car.
> additional options with non-obvious discovery
This is bad design. iTunes and Apple Music are horrible also. Not everyone at Apple gets it. But everything that made Apple successful was about getting it. Steve Jobs got it.
> designer happiness
There is only designer happiness among those who don't get it. There is no designer-developer distinction to the user. Ultimately all there is is user happiness.
The UI's are different because Schumacher wants more precise control (brake-bias, suspension rate, turbo angle of attack, etc) and you can't get that level of control without a more complicated UI (you need the appropriate buttons and levers for all of those things).
The title of the person who lays out the Ferrari F1 car's cockpit is literally UI designer. If you think an F1 car's cockpit is simple then you should reconsider. The cognitive load of those two sets of controls is very different, made possible and desirable because one set of users is expert and the other isn't.