uxdesign.cc
As oversimplification and automation erode our cognitive abilities, embracing meaningful friction may be the key to restoring it.Photo by Amelia Holowaty Krales / TheVergeWhen I was 19, I took my first solo road tripa 250-mile drive from Long Island, New York to Delaware to pick up my girlfriend from collegea journey that normally takes four to fivehours.At the time, I had little highway or interstate driving experience. I was nervous about the whole thing. This was before GPS or smartphones were widespreadback when the most advanced technology people had was a flip phone and a desktop computer. Finding your way meant relying on an atlas. Thats right, kidswe had to use paper maps to getaround.An atlas reminiscent of the one I recall as a teenager / Image source: WorthPoint.comI still remember the day I left. I had planned my route using my fathers worn-out map book and got some advice from my girlfriends parents on the best route. My mother, meanwhile, was silently freaking out that I was heading out alone, with no experience driving beyond our surrounding towns.Less than an hour into the drive, I made a wrong turn. I had confused my directions for getting onto the Southern State Parkway and ended up at Sunken Meadow State Park instead. Anyone familiar with Long Island will laughas those places arent remotely close to eachother.But I didnt panicwell, I did a little. Fortunately, I was able to quickly retrace the route using the map of Long Island I had mentally stored. I knew if I could find 495 Westthe Long Island ExpresswayId be back on track. So I backtracked, spotted the signs for 495, and adjustedcourse.Some of you might say, Well, if you had GPS, that wouldnt have happened. And youd be right. But I also wouldnt have an interesting storyand, more importantly, a real-world example of how mental models, even a simple map of an unfamiliar area, can help us find our way. Its a skill that remains essential even today because GPS isnt foolprooftechnology fails, and cell service isnt always reliable.The trade-offconvenience vs. cognitive engagementWhat Ill call the GPS Effect is part of a broader UX trendour blind pursuit of simplicity and friction reduction is slowly erasing opportunities for deeper cognitive engagement.Modern UX often functions like GPS, keeping users on a narrow, predefined path. It worksuntil something unexpected happens. If the system doesnt anticipate a users goal or edge case, theyre left stranded, unable toadapt.This effect extends beyond navigation. Autocomplete, for example, speeds up typing but nudges communication toward the most common expressions. Gradually, this reliance flattens language, limiting nuance and originalityjust as GPS weakens our memory and spatial awareness.The more we depend on systems optimized for convenience, the less we develop the ability to function withoutthem.Image source: 9to5mac.comAI is accelerating this shift. Large language models, predictive text, and AI-generated content are reducing the need for critical thinking and problem-solving.Why struggle to write when AI can generate an answer? Why explore different approaches when an algorithm suggests the most efficient solution? These systems optimize for speed and easebut at whatcost?One could argue that these tools help us go further, expanding our capabilities and removing tedious obstacles. But lets be honestmany people dont use them to enhance their thinkingthey use them to replaceit.The case for cognitive depth inUXOur minds dont merely process informationthey construct meaning through what cognitive scientist Steven Pinker calls mentalesean internal language that helps us form mental models by connecting new input to existing knowledge. This ability is essential for problem-solving, adaptation, and anticipation.Image source: https://www.nature.com/articles/491036aConsider language acquisition. A child learning the word dog doesnt memorize the letters D-O-G first. Instead, they form a mental model that links the word dog and the physical animal. Over time, hearing or seeing the word triggers an image, a bark, or even an emotional response. This process streamlines information interpretation, making it more intuitive and efficient.The distinctionbetween surface-level memorization and true understandingmatters in UX. When interfaces are overly simplified, they can bypass natural cognitive processes. Step-by-step guidance enhances usability in the short term, but it weakens a users ability to develop their own mentalmodels.This is fine for isolated tasks. But when users need to deviate from the prescribed path, a lack of mental modeling leads to confusion and frustration. They resort to trial and error instead of intuitive navigation.Why the future of UX needs cognitive engagementThe trend toward hyper-simplification has turned UX into a system of invisible guardrailsusers are guided through interactions without necessarily understanding how or why things work. This creates a smooth experience but limits autonomy.Think about learning to drive. Many beginners start with an automatic transmission because it removes complexity, allowing them to focus on steering and road awareness.But if they never learn how a manual transmission works, they miss out on a deeper understanding of engine behavior and full control in all conditions. They can still get from point A to B, but their knowledge remains surface-level.The same applies to UX. Instead of eliminating all friction, interfaces should embrace progressive depthstarting simple but allowing users to gradually build competence.This strategy is sometimes called progressive disclosurea design approach that gradually reveals more complex information or features only when users need them, so they arent overwhelmed by too many options atonce.Interestingly, the effect of reduced cognitive flexibility isnt limited to end users. Designers themselves can become entangled in technologies that oversimplify essential complexities.In fact, I recently explored this idea in an article that sparked some strong reactions arguing that designers over-reliance on no-code tools like Figma has weakened their critical thinking skillsmaking them less attuned to the digital media they designfor.Of course, simplicity has its place. Removing unnecessary complexity is crucial for efficiency, usability, and accessibility. But the goal shouldnt be to eliminate all cognitive effortonly unnecessary friction. Thoughtful UX doesnt just make things easierit makes experiences more enriching and empowering overtime.How do we fix this? Designing for cognitive depthIf UX prioritizes frictionless experiences at the cost of user autonomy, the solution isnt to reintroduce unnecessary complexity but to design systems that encourage deeper engagement whenneeded.Some of the best-designed systems already do this naturally. For example, Wikipedia doesnt just provide a quick answerit invites users to explore interconnected ideas through internal links, forming a deeper understanding of a subject. Alternatively, Googles Advanced Search offers a streamlined starting point but reveals greater control for those who seekit.Even IKEAs self-assembly model turns effort into an advantageby assembling their own furniture, customers develop a stronger connection to the product, reinforcing both understanding and perceived value.Image source: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/ikea-effectHowever, it seems AI is moving in the opposite direction. Most AI-driven tools today prioritize instant solutions over long-term comprehension.Chatbots answer questions immediately, autocomplete finishes thoughts before they fully form, and code generators eliminate the need to understand syntaxall reducing effort but also stripping away the opportunity for learning.But what if AI did more than just provide answers? Imagine a design assistant that doesnt just suggest improvements but challenges users to think criticallyexplaining why certain choices work based on cognitive load principles and prompting them to refine their decisions through an iterative process.Or a coding AI that, instead of simply completing a function, nudges developers to predict potential errors, guiding them toward the solution rather than handing it over outright.The goal shouldnt be to eliminate every cognitive challengeonly the unnecessary ones. Thoughtful UX design, including AI-driven interfaces, should preserve engagement where it matters, guiding users toward understanding rather than just handing them solutions.Cognitive depththe missing ingredient inUXCognitive depth isnt about making interfaces or engagement harderits about making them more meaningful.Great design should empower users, not just guide them. Like learning to navigate without GPS, an interface that broadens mental models, encourages exploration, and promotes problem-solving to help users develop confidence and adaptability. When we remove all friction, we risk leaving people directionless the moment they stray from thepath.Because in the end, a frictionless world isnt always a better one. If I had GPS on that first road trip, I might not have gotten lostbut I also wouldnt have learned how to find my way. Sometimes, the best designs are the ones that make usthink.Dont miss out! Join my email list and receive the latestcontent.The cognitive cost of convenience was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.