BugTracker.NET's Corey Trager posts about "featuritis" - one simple definition is where continually adding features to software eventually pushes users beyond happiness. Corey references Kathy Sierra's original post which explains it a lot better than I can here (and has a nice graph too).
I have two counter-arguments to the simple definition of "featuritis": discoverability, and user personas (to be fair, Kathy goes into a lot more detail and her post is well worth reading).
If an application adds new features but makes them hard to discover, or does the opposite by adding new features and making the older ones harder to discover, then users will be frustrated. Microsoft Office is a classic example of an application that keeps adding features, attracting derogatory terms like "bloatware". However, Office 2007 has addressed the discoverability issue by better grouping of commands via the ribbon (yes, you may not agree with me, but I only said addressed the issue, not necessarily solved it).
My second objection to Kathy's original graph is that it lumps all users on the one scale. I reckon that for different types of users (e.g. personas), more features would actually be a good thing. Here's my take on it:
For a "power user" (you know who you are), I reckon more features make an application more attractive, although there will be a point where the "where the heck did they put that feature?" syndrome kicks in (let alone the problem of adding features at the expense of fixing existing features).
With this post I'm just making the point that adding more features does not necessarily frustrate users, especially when you take into account discoverability and different types of users. "Featuritis" is a problem; Kathy has still got the last word on it when she says that developers should "give users what they actually want, not what they say they want. And whatever you do, don't give them new features just because your competitors have them!"
Tags: featuritis, user, features