Even then, you can kill a lot of seemingly inevitable interface complexity by thoughtful application of common idioms, hiding elements (ideally automatically) that are really never useful in that part of a workflow, consistent meaningful layout among work screens, communicating commonality and intent with color, proximity, shape, size, etc., good use of labels when necessary, and moderate use of animation to convey how the interface is changing so a user can stay oriented. You can really only make these decisions by carefully studying user workflows. How many enhancement request issues have you seen in issue trackers where a project maintainer makes an off-handed declaration that users don't really want/need that functionality? How often do you suppose it was entirely based on the way they use the software and nothing else?
I've spoken to many developers whose workflows have been stymied by oversimplified interfaces and they associate designers with pretty looking but defanged interfaces. Those are poorly designed interfaces. Usually they're put together by someone whose goal is to get featured on Dribbble where functionality is secondary. Those designs have their place as aesthetic inspiration for other designers, but they should not be seen as formal goals.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
The reason why the interface design and graphic design degree programs are very similar at the college I'm attending is because many of the goals are exactly the same— using layout, text, graphics, animation, and other elements to communicate complex ideas as clearly and efficiently as possible. The semiotic analysis common in higher-level design has just as much application in interface design. The denotation of two separate save buttons might be exactly the same, the connotation might change drastically depending on what it's next to, what it's the same color of, the weight of the font, the weight of the stroke of the button compared to other elements, if there's an animation when your cursor gets close to it, etc.
I've spoken to many developers whose workflows have been stymied by oversimplified interfaces and they associate designers with pretty looking but defanged interfaces. Those are poorly designed interfaces. Usually they're put together by someone whose goal is to get featured on Dribbble where functionality is secondary. Those designs have their place as aesthetic inspiration for other designers, but they should not be seen as formal goals.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
The reason why the interface design and graphic design degree programs are very similar at the college I'm attending is because many of the goals are exactly the same— using layout, text, graphics, animation, and other elements to communicate complex ideas as clearly and efficiently as possible. The semiotic analysis common in higher-level design has just as much application in interface design. The denotation of two separate save buttons might be exactly the same, the connotation might change drastically depending on what it's next to, what it's the same color of, the weight of the font, the weight of the stroke of the button compared to other elements, if there's an animation when your cursor gets close to it, etc.