Less, but better

DAte

Nov 14, 2024

Category

UX

Reading Time

6 min

I've been reading Greg McKeown's Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less. I started it to boost my productivity, but I quickly realized it’s an excellent metaphor for UX design—and life!

Applying Essentialism to UX and product design is about changing our thinking and moving past just chasing trends like reductionism and minimalism. A while ago, the design buzzword of the day was 'reductionism,' which was basically about cutting things down to the essentials—sometimes making stuff harder to use. Conversely, minimalism aims for a clean and classy look, but it can still have some elements that don't help users hit their goals.


"Essentialism" is a profound design philosophy: Identify only what matters and maximize its impact on users and business objectives.


I followed the thought through to User Research, here is what I came up with:

Minimalist research: is about simplifying research without focusing on what's truly valuable.

Reductionist research: is about stripping things down without considering the broader context or goals, potentially missing essential insights.

Essentialist research focuses only on what's truly meaningful and impactful, aligning research with goals and purpose.

When I consider how this applies to product design, my aesthetic leans toward minimalism, but my UX heart beats most wildly for essentialism.

Key Takeaways

1. Essentialism Defined: Focus on what truly matters to maximize impact for users and businesses. 2. Beyond Trends: - Reductionism: Over-simplifies and risks usability. - Minimalism: Aims for aesthetics but may miss user goals. 3. Essentialist Research: Aligns with goals, prioritizing meaningful insights over surface-level simplicity. 4. The UX Sweet Spot: Essentialism balances usability and purpose, delivering value through intentional design.

Yvonne Doll
Yvonne Doll

Product Design, UX, User Research

Share post

More

More

Demos Are Theater Demos are seductive because they make everything look easy. But let’s be honest: a demo is a theater. It’s staged, rehearsed, and performed by someone who already knows exactly where to click. They show the happy path only, with no hesitation, missteps, or errors. The presenter already understands the interface, so no one gets stuck, confused, or lost. As a result, you don’t see the real usability issues, where people pause, misclick, or give up. Demos persuade, but they don’t prove. They make the design look inevitable when, in reality, it’s fragile.

Demos Are Theater Demos are seductive because they make everything look easy. But let’s be honest: a demo is a theater. It’s staged, rehearsed, and performed by someone who already knows exactly where to click. They show the happy path only, with no hesitation, missteps, or errors. The presenter already understands the interface, so no one gets stuck, confused, or lost. As a result, you don’t see the real usability issues, where people pause, misclick, or give up. Demos persuade, but they don’t prove. They make the design look inevitable when, in reality, it’s fragile.

Demos Are Theater Demos are seductive because they make everything look easy. But let’s be honest: a demo is a theater. It’s staged, rehearsed, and performed by someone who already knows exactly where to click. They show the happy path only, with no hesitation, missteps, or errors. The presenter already understands the interface, so no one gets stuck, confused, or lost. As a result, you don’t see the real usability issues, where people pause, misclick, or give up. Demos persuade, but they don’t prove. They make the design look inevitable when, in reality, it’s fragile.

You've heard it, I've heard it, heck, we've probably all said it (and really meant it.) "Let's ship and learn". Every org claims to want to "ship and learn." The problem is: shipping is easy to measure (did it go live?) While learning is not. Teams celebrate velocity while skipping the critical feedback loop that tells you if what you shipped worked, and what to do next. That's where design can step in, not just as interface-makers, but as feedback architects who guarantee the "learn" part actually happens.

You've heard it, I've heard it, heck, we've probably all said it (and really meant it.) "Let's ship and learn". Every org claims to want to "ship and learn." The problem is: shipping is easy to measure (did it go live?) While learning is not. Teams celebrate velocity while skipping the critical feedback loop that tells you if what you shipped worked, and what to do next. That's where design can step in, not just as interface-makers, but as feedback architects who guarantee the "learn" part actually happens.

You've heard it, I've heard it, heck, we've probably all said it (and really meant it.) "Let's ship and learn". Every org claims to want to "ship and learn." The problem is: shipping is easy to measure (did it go live?) While learning is not. Teams celebrate velocity while skipping the critical feedback loop that tells you if what you shipped worked, and what to do next. That's where design can step in, not just as interface-makers, but as feedback architects who guarantee the "learn" part actually happens.

AI isn’t here to replace designers, it’s here to clear the clutter.

AI isn’t here to replace designers, it’s here to clear the clutter.

Scaling design teams

Generalists vs. Specialists: Scaling a design organization's impact.

Scaling design teams

Generalists vs. Specialists: Scaling a design organization's impact.