Workflow and scope
Occam's Razor
Prefer a simpler adequate solution. Adequate still includes accessibility, clarity and recovery.
The idea in plain language
What it means.
Parsimony favors avoiding unnecessary assumptions when comparing otherwise adequate explanations. Its use in product design is an analogy: remove unnecessary mechanisms while preserving the task's requirements. The fewest controls, clicks or words can still create the most confusing workflow.
Evidence and interpretation
What supports it.
A philosophical principle adapted as a design heuristic. The connection to UI simplification is editorial; it is not an empirical rule that minimal interfaces always perform better.
From principle to interface
Where you could use it.
Proposed applications, not tested outcomes. The expected effects are hypotheses to check with realistic tasks and users.
Application 1
Choose a filter design
Use a labelled selection control when the task has a small, stable set of options instead of building a custom gesture-based picker.
Expected effect to test
The interaction is easier to explain and maintain while meeting the requirement.
Keep in view
Verify the control supports the real selection task, keyboard operation and platform behavior.
Application 2
Simplify a document workflow
Combine redundant review screens while retaining a clear final summary and an edit path.
Expected effect to test
The person avoids repeated work and can still verify the result.
Keep in view
Removing confirmation is inappropriate when it removes a necessary opportunity to catch a consequential error.
Turn the idea into a check
Use it deliberately.
- Write the requirements before comparing simpler alternatives.
- Remove duplication and unnecessary states before removing labels or controls.
- Evaluate errors, understanding and recovery as well as step count.
Where the rule gets complicated
Keep the limits attached.
- Simplicity is relative to a task and audience.
- A minimal appearance can conceal substantial interaction complexity.
- Keep necessary safety, accessibility and expert paths available.
A named principle does not settle an accessibility requirement, prove a conversion lift or replace testing the particular interface.
Application and implementation boundaries
What the application check shows.
The example used a native selection control while retaining advanced choices and cancellation. Fewer custom mechanisms did not require removing safeguards.
Methods: Local application example. A completed check covers the stated sample; it is not a safety certification.
- Target
- Original IonBin synthetic interface example; no external product or human-participant study.
- Version or capture
- 2026-10-19 local fixture
- Integrity scope
- SHA-256 f85d1056afd667225a1e0364edfb8f25b4693ffa7b2b8c7d7af5b92338b85ee4 identifies the exact HTML fixture only.
Test conditions
- 155.0.8059.82 Chromium; fresh context with all network requests blocked.
- Synthetic inputs, memory-only state, reduced-motion preference, 1280px and 320px viewports.
Individual checks and observations
Native choice
passLocal application example: Exercise the original local application fixture and inspect the resulting controls or DOM state.
Observed: Keyboard ArrowDown selected PDF and the visible label matched.
Advanced disclosure
passLocal application example: Exercise the original local application fixture and inspect the resulting controls or DOM state.
Observed: The advanced JSON/XML choices remained available through a labelled disclosure.
Cancel is nondestructive
passLocal application example: Exercise the original local application fixture and inspect the resulting controls or DOM state.
Observed: Cancel retained the synthetic draft and returned focus to Delete.
Security findings and boundaries
Review of the local example’s stated interaction boundaries; no backend, authentication, production permissions or external service was exercised.
Practical advice · caution
Minimal controls are not automatically safe
Keep review, correction and permission boundaries when simplifying a workflow. A shorter path can still make mistakes harder to recover from.
Practical caveats
- Compare task adequacy and error recovery, not just clicks or visual density.
What remains untested
- This checks an authored application example, not the truth, effect size or generality of the named principle.
- No users, assistive-technology participants, physical devices or production task outcomes were evaluated.
Security limits
- The example has no real authorization or persistence layer; its UI behavior cannot establish the security of a deployed workflow.
Evaluation sources
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Simplicity
Scholarly philosophical context, not a UI study or a primary Ockham text.
- Nielsen: Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
Author's usability heuristic about relevant content; separate from the philosophical origin.
Go to the source
Research and further reading.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Simplicity
Scholarly philosophical context, not a UI study or a primary Ockham text.
- Nielsen: Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
Author's usability heuristic about relevant content; separate from the philosophical origin.
Related questions
More on workflow and scope.
Design heuristic
Tesler's Law
When a task is complicated, decide who should handle each part and how mistakes can be corrected.
Design heuristic
Parkinson's Law
Define the useful task and remove avoidable work. Do not manufacture urgency.
Design heuristic
Pareto principle
Find where effort has the greatest measured effect. Treat 80/20 as a prompt to investigate, not a fact about your product.