When “don’t make users choose” is a lie — a crazy housing experience case from New York.
Why do we think that users don’t want to think?
Steve Krug’s Don’t Make Me Think was published 24 years ago and became a must-read for anyone in UX. The idea of creating interfaces that require minimal effort from users was groundbreaking at the time.
However, as much as the book has influenced the industry, the way we think about users has evolved. Ease of use is essential, but we’ve come to understand that not all interactions are about reducing thought.
Many UX principles that were once celebrated, like “designing for delight,” have lost relevance over time. Designing for delight is dead, and so it is time to bury the “users-don’t-want-to-think” design with it.
Serious decisions are not meant to be simple
In certain contexts — like real estate or financial decisions, medical choices, or complex tools — users want to engage more deeply.
They need to:
- process information,
- weigh options, and
- make thoughtful decisions.
Long-term decisions require thought and designs around such decisions should not be too simple. It’s about giving users the right information and the right tools to compare, filter, and evaluate.
A study: users weigh decisions more carefully than we think
In a study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, researchers found that people tend to turn down offers of “free money,” as well as unusually high salaries or suspiciously cheap services because they seem “too good to be true.”
This psychological insight is critical for UX, especially when designing for decisions that require trust — like renting a home. Users aren’t just evaluating the surface value of a deal; they’re weighing social and psychological cues to determine if something feels off.
If your design or offer feels too perfect, too smooth, or too easy, it could trigger distrust.
For example, I’ve never understood the real estate agency websites that offer you the option to rent an apartment for thousands of dollars with just a few clicks. It’s that easy, apparently.
This feels like the ultimate “too good to be true” moment. You’re about to make a major commitment, and the process is designed to be as simple as buying a pair of shoes. And then there’s the cheeky copy — something like,
“Don’t worry, what you see is what you get”:
Suspicious!
“Less choice” works only for short-term decisions
The idea that people want less choice was a popular topic with Harvard Business Review about a decade ago. It’s catchy, sure, but as Harvard explained, it’s because:
“an abundance of choices can cause decision paralysis and dissatisfaction, leading people to feel unsure about their decisions or regretful afterward.”
While this fear of overwhelming users with too many options is valid in some contexts, it has led to overly minimalistic designs, especially for long-term decisions, where simplicity can backfire and result in distrust.
Real estate is a tricky area, and NYC is downright crazy. As of 2019, New York City had a total of 3,469,240 housing units. Out of these:
- 1,038,200 are owner-occupied, while a staggering
- 2,183,064 are renter-occupied.
What’s even more alarming is that:
- over half of all renters in the city spend 30% of their income on rent,
- and one-third of renters are spending 50%
And that 50% doesn’t even include deposits or furnishings, which can eat up the remaining income. It’s a broken system.
So, when building one of my projects — a real estate rental and co-living platform — I took the opposite approach of “don’t make me think.” Instead, I focused on offering plenty of choices. Plenty. Of. Choices.
Show relevant filters and make prices transparent
- Users want to choose location, necessities, and price.
To make the location selection intuitive, we introduced a dynamic map search feature. Users can drag the map to explore different neighborhoods, and listings will update in real time based on their chosen area:
