Simplistic infers a lack of understanding of nuances and complexities of design: typography, colour, proportion, etc.

Simple takes the complexities of design and uses them to present an idea in the clearest way possible – in a way that seems so obvious, so perfect it’s hard to present it any other way.

I hate to do it, but here’s some definitions from dictionary.com:

Simplistic (adj): The tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications; characterized by extreme simplism; oversimplified: a simplistic notion of good and bad

Sorry – after 5 years of teaching design and hearing students describe their designs as “simple and clean” when it’s just Arial centered on a white background, I get a bit passionate about this.

I think that simple is so hard to achieve, most designers give up at the simplistic stage and don’t continue to refine the design to make it simple. It’s easier to add ornamentation to cover up a bad idea than to distill the idea and make the communication simple.

To me, ’simple’ and ’simplistic’ are two very different terms. ‘Simple’ is phenominally hard to achieve, ’simplistic’ is a crude imitation of ’simple’ without the craftmanship or understanding of design. ‘Simple’ is seen as easy to do because the end result is so perfect. Imitators end up with ’simplistic’.

Things that are simple:
Apple’s 1st gen iPod Shuffle – unbelievably tactile
Paul Renner’s Futura typeface – many imitators, no competitors
Anything designed by Dieter Rams

Mark – shoot for simple.

/rant