Users are smarter than you think

Canvs Editorial
UX Collective
Published in
5 min readMar 26, 2023
Abstract illustration of a person’s face with color blots
Source : Lucian Radu on Dribbble

Anyone who has remotely worked in the digital product landscape must have heard some version of the phrase “design for stupid users.” On calls, in meetings and in our daily conversations — the idea of simplicity is propagated using dumbed-down phrases like these. But what does it mean to design for ‘dumb’ users and is it worth following this flavour of product design?

When a product “guru” tells younger designers to, “simplify the product,” they are conveying a lot of philosophies in far too concise a manner. Typically, this means that the product has become too complicated, and needs to be simplified. It also addresses the knowledge bias that designers can develop over time. When you are deeply immersed in a product, the complicated processes become apparent to you, but not to the user. These are valuable concepts to keep in mind, but in practice, we must remain focused on addressing the actual problems the product faces, rather than getting sidetracked by these types of statements.

Smart users vs. not too smart users

Black and white illustration of a woman’s face
Source : Lucian Radu on Dribbble

Let’s first look talk about the dichotomy of user intelligence. Right from the ground up the tech industry has created a perception of tech being used by “smart” people. Smart people use smartphones, smart people have smart homes and if technology is too hard then you are not so smart. This is the kind of elitist marketing that has worked really well to onboard users to try new things. The divide between smart people and not-so-smart people don’t really exist (or it is not as extreme) in real life.

To illustrate this, let’s take an example that you might have seen in the real world — old people struggling with technology and the younger generation excelling at it. Is the difference because the youngling is brighter than the old gun, or is it just because of the difference in their environment? If you have grown up around technology — you will be better at it, just like any other thing, and if you are used to certain mental models, it is tough to change them.

The pitfalls of designing ‘dumb’

Abstract illustration of a face with orange halo
Source : Lucian Radu on Dribbble

Users aren’t stupid — they have other things to focus on

How often have designers pulled out their hair in frustration after a round of usability testing, defending their designs by saying things like “it was right there if they only knew how to read” or “have they never used a phone before?”.

The reality is that users do not care about your product as you do. Users are not stupid or lazy, they have other priorities in life and an app is not the first thing on their minds. So it might be better to design interfaces that consider the level of attention as a metric rather than the user’s 10th-grade mark sheet.

Abstraction doesn’t work for complex products

This kind of design feedback often results in abstraction and generalisation of the process. Abstraction has worked well for digital products. Designing products that replicate existing models — like files and folders on a computer, eradicated the need to learn new concepts. This, however, is not as effective today as it was in the 80s simply because we are making far more complicated products. Digital products have transitioned from being convenient utilities to driving major economies. The idea that a product should be simple and not require instructions is archaic at best and detrimental at worst. Complex products require complex flows and in turn, they need to provide assistance to the user.

The other problem with abstraction is that it leaves room for interpretation and therefore the results are unpredictable. How many times have you crafted the perfect flow, only to realise that it does not make any sense to even your peers? People develop their own understandings and their own mental models and generalising it to one that is “perfect” is often unrealistic.

Dumbed down does not solve cognitive load

Keeping this mindset while designing products ultimately makes the whole design process feel a bit empty. Not only that but it often misses to solve the actual problem — reducing the cognitive load of a user. Abstraction causes confusion and confusion increases the mental load. So at the end of the day, you are left with dumbed-down designs and no users.

Designing for usability

So how can you create interfaces that solve complex problems? Jakob Nielsen, the “king of usability”, described a framework to design usable and intuitive interfaces. In the framework, he describes ten heuristics to focus on. We can extrapolate these guidelines to solve almost all kinds of design problems.

Source: Nielsen Norman Group

Talking about usability testing and the whole ‘dumb’ user debate, Nielsen summarises his thoughts by saying “It is not a question of whether users are capable of overcoming complexity and learning and advanced user interface. It is a question of whether they are willing to do so… They want to get in, get out and move on with their own tasks.”

Accept the reality

Designers have a knack for coming up with interesting solutions, in-fact that is something we pride ourselves on. When a solution doesn’t work as we expected it to — it is easier to blame the user and completely lose sight of what the actual problem statement was. It’s scary to be wrong and be seen as stupid, but realising that it is natural to feel that way and still persist makes you a stronger designer. As a designer learn to love the problem and not the solution.

Simple point: Never blame the user.

The takeaway

Designing with the mindset of “dumb” users can lead you down a path of constantly trying to simplify a process to make it easier to understand. However, good designs should not dilute the process but rather distil it to add more depth to the user experience. With the complexity of modern apps and websites, achieving simplicity may not always be the best problem to solve. People are not made for products; instead, products are made for people.

The Canvs Editorial team comprises of Editorial Writer and Researcher — Sidhant Tibrewal, the Editor’s Desk- Aalhad Joshi and Debprotim Roy, and Content Operations- Abin Rajan

We also have a weekly newsletter — Design & Tech Weekly, which goes out every Wednesday with all the latest updates from the week in design, tech, space, business and all things interesting. Subscribe to it here.

Free

Distraction-free reading. No ads.

Organize your knowledge with lists and highlights.

Tell your story. Find your audience.

Membership

Read member-only stories

Support writers you read most

Earn money for your writing

Listen to audio narrations

Read offline with the Medium app

Published in UX Collective

We believe designers are thinkers as much as they are makers. Curated stories on UX, Visual & Product Design. https://linktr.ee/uxc

Written by Canvs Editorial

Meaningful stories and insightful analyses on design | Check out our work: www.canvs.in | Our newsletter: www.designtechweekly.com

Responses (9)

What are your thoughts?

However, good designs should not dilute the process but rather distil it to add more depth to the user experience. With the complexity of modern apps and websites, achieving simplicity ...

Great, thanks

--

They want to get in, get out and move on with their own tasks

Which mirrors the thoughts of a dearly departed friend of mine.
"People don't visit websites for the goofy graphics you hang around your content. They visit FOR the content!"
or something else Nielsen said ages ago:
"The best user interface is the one…

--

Abstraction doesn’t work for complex products

There is a term for this I'm surprised you didn't use in the article. False Simplicity.
False simplicity occurs when you make something look simple, but have in fact "dumbed it down" to the point you make reaching the goal and/or accomplishing the…

--