[funcDropShadow]

> I'm curious why you think it reduces design costs to put less information on the screen?

The question is for whom it saves costs? For the developers of UI framework it certainly saves cost to treat the desktop as a second rate platform and to focus just on mobile.

Developers of desktop applications have to pay the price, by working around libraries and frameworks that do not consider them as a first tier clients.

[sulandor]

maybe oversimplified:

things on screen take effort. less things, less effort

[asoneth]

I've been a designer for a long time, and none of my contracts have ever paid based on the number of things I put on the screen. The design effort required to make a grid or list of data dense or sparse is pretty much identical.

(At least in enterprise software the data density typically depends on who makes the purchasing decisions. If novices and/or business folks are the ones making the pick then the software will look sparse. If technical and/or experts pick their own tools then it'll be dense and efficient.)

[dagw]

Deciding what not to put on the screen takes at least as much effort as adding things to the screen.

[stoperaticless]

I sense that you have in mind something like

> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

That is the right reaction to over-complicated baroque creations.

Important to note, that oversimplification is possible. (There is point at which removal is no longer benefitial)

[sulandor]

rhetorical relation but i agree that minimalism is a worthy goal.

though, excessive white-space does not really scratch the "efficient interface" itch