Minimalism is one of the trends in UX design. A clear example is Google, where the search function is completely central and all non-essential elements are omitted. Less is more seems inseparable from minimalist Web design. But is that always justified?

The essence of minimalist web design is to display content and features as simply as possible, without sacrificing functionality. Elements that do not directly contribute to the user's primary goal are omitted. When done correctly, it can provide a better user experience, increased conversion and faster load time.

However, we increasingly see examples of minimalist designs that backfire. So much information is left out that visitors have trouble navigating or that information becomes untraceable. In such case, Minimizing comes at the expense of functionality. How do you find the right balance? This article explains the psychology behind minimalism, the pitfalls and what you can do about it.

Limit choices

One of the focal points of minimalism is limiting the number of choices. This idea is based Hick's Law , a psychological principle that describes that the time it takes to make a decision is based on the combination of the number of choices and complexity. When the latter increases, the time it takes a person to decide also increases logarithmically (Rosati, 2013)

When the number of choices is too high(also called choice overload or choice stress), our working memory has to process too much information at the same time. Making a choice then takes a lot of computing power (effort and time) and people get frustrated faster. This results in a high risk of dropout behavior. To avoid this, it is important to keep the number of choice options limited, but in such a way that each element contributes to the visitor's goal. It is essential not to omit elements that support that primary goal. In other words, keep functionality from the visitor's perspective constantly in mind when limiting choices.

Visual tranquility

One of the other pillars of minimalism is creating visual tranquility. The underlying idea is that too much visual input causes, as with choice stress, our working memory has to process too much information. When that happens, selective disregard occurs, which means we subconsciously stop paying attention to information we are used to (such as banners) and to information we unconsciously assess as irrelevant (Bater &Jordan, 2019). The undesirable result is that we overlook important elements. And that leads to frustration and dropout behavior.

So it is important to keep your page as visually calm as possible, without unnecessary visual elements, text and information. Again, approach this from the user's perspective. The use of whitespaces and a limited color scheme are often used to create that calmness. Again, balance is important: don't eliminate elements that contribute to the user's main goal.

With these psychological effects and pitfalls in mind, we can go back to the key question: how do you find that right balance between minimalism and functionality? Unfortunately, there is no standard recipe for this: it always depends on the context: things like the webflow, your target audience and your user's motivation. The good news is: you can measure and analyze a lot, though.

Neuro usability research

With the help of usability research, you can to some extent figure out the user's experience and expectation. However, choice stress and visual (un)rest are more difficult to explain, as are emotion and intuition. The method that does lend itself well to this is neuro-usability, in which behavior and emotions are also measured.(Specifically: EEG, eye-tracking, touch/mouse-tracking, and video recordings capture the behavior of participants who independently perform a test, followed by an interview with the measurements as input).

Below example is a good example of minimalism. Recently, a benchmark was conducted on the usability of grocery apps. A group of participants were instructed to order groceries where their emotion and behavior during app use was mapped. This benchmark also looked specifically at the latest App from Albert Heijn, the Dutch market leader: AH Compact, in which several minimalist concepts were applied. Contrasting that AH Compact app with the app of, for example, its competitor, PLUS, yields interesting insights.

In terms of minimalist design, PLUS has also strongly implemented this idea in their app. For example, the menu contains only icons, unlike Albert Heijn, which has also added text in its app. However, neuro-research shows that PLUS' menu is perceived much less positively: attention (working memory) and frustration spikes when interacting with the menu. Participants report that they do not understand what the icons mean and have difficulty navigating to desired pages. This is a good example of minimalist design hindering the user's goal (in this case, navigation).

 In contrast, when using the AH Compact App, people experience positive emotions: the visual display is calm and it is clear how to navigate with the icons in the menu. 

Learning: minimalism, but with the right balance

Neuro-usability research provides insight into the effectiveness of (minimalist) web design and in this example we see that less is certainly not always more. In other studies we also encounter this regularly, both in websites, apps and (television) commercials. Not surprising when you consider that neuroscience has only recently started to make inroads into e-commerce.

Minimalism remains a powerful tool to improve user experience. Psychological insights have demonstrated the importance of keeping the design visually calm and limiting the number of choices to allow users to easily reach their goals. The context determines how(minimalist) design is best done and what is a good ratio between minimalism and functionality. So don't get distracted by general best practices but test your flows carefully to find the right balance for your specific situation.

‍

Literature

• Luca Rosati, “How to design interfaces for choice: Hick-Hyman law and classification for information architecture”, in Aida Slavic, Almila Akdag Salah & Sylvie Davies (eds), Classification and visualization: Interfaces to     knowledge; proceedings of the International UDC Seminar (Würzburg: Ergon, 2013), pp. 125–138. (pdf)
• Lovina R. Bater & Sara S. Jordan, “Selective Attention”, in Virgil Zeigler-Hill & Todd K. Shackelford (eds), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (Springer: living edition, online 2019) (link).