Reducing the number of clicks is a misguided metric. A process with eight trivially easy clicks is better than one with two fraught, confusing decisions. Each decision burns cognitive energy and risks making the user feel stupid. The ultimate design goal should be to prevent users from having to think.
The obsession with removing friction is often wrong. When users have low intent or understanding, the goal isn't to speed them up but to build their comprehension of your product's value. If software asks you to make a decision you don't understand, it makes you feel stupid, which is the ultimate failure.
Common frustrations, like chronically forgetting which stove knob controls which burner, are not personal failings. They are examples of poor design that lacks intuitive mapping. Users often internalize these issues as their own fault when the system itself is poorly designed.
The "Owner's Delusion" is the inability to see your own product from the perspective of a new user who lacks context. You forget they are busy, distracted, and have minimal intent. This leads to confusing UIs. The antidote is to consciously step back, "pretend you're a regular human being," and see if it still makes sense.
Instead of focusing solely on conversion rates, measure 'engagement quality'—metrics that signal user confidence, like dwell time, scroll depth, and journey progression. The philosophy is that if you successfully help users understand the content and feel confident, conversions will naturally follow as a positive side effect.
Don't design solely for the user. The best product opportunities lie at the nexus of what users truly need (not what they say they want), the company's established product principles, and its core business objectives.
The ultimate goal of interface design, exemplified by the joystick, is for the tool to 'disappear.' The user shouldn't think about the controller, but only their intention. This concept, known as 'affordance,' creates a seamless connection between thought and action, making the machine feel like an extension of the self.
All tools are fundamentally decision-making aids. A great tool, like a color picker, isn't just about precision; it's about providing a quick feedback loop to compare options and a safety net (like undo) to explore changes without fear. This allows users to dial in their choices effectively and without destructive consequences.
When products offer too many configurations, it often signals that leaders lack the conviction to make a decision. This fear of being wrong creates a confusing user experience. It's better to ship a simple, opinionated product, learn from being wrong, and then adjust, rather than shipping a convoluted experience.
Creating feature "modes" (e.g., "uphill mode") instead of exposing core mechanics (e.g., gears) creates a "nightmare bicycle." It prevents users from developing a general framework, limiting their ability to handle novel situations or repair the system.
Avoid the 'settings screen' trap where endless customization options cater to a vocal minority but create complexity for everyone. Instead, focus on personalization: using behavioral data to intelligently surface the right features to the right users, improving their experience without adding cognitive load for the majority.