{"id":835,"date":"2020-09-24T12:31:00","date_gmt":"2020-09-24T12:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/f1studioz.com\/blog\/?p=835"},"modified":"2026-03-03T10:42:49","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T10:42:49","slug":"occams-razor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/f1studioz.com\/blog\/occams-razor\/","title":{"rendered":"Occam\u2019s Razor"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Contextualizing and deconstructing the \u201claw of parsimony\u201d in the context of design.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"\/
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Some designers may be familiar with the \u201claws of UX<\/a>\u201d, a set of guiding principles for designers in the form of a website (and later book) created by Jon Yablonski<\/a>. There are 20 laws, ranging from philosophical paradigms to theories used in Mathematics, Psychology Economics, like the Pareto Principle or Fitt\u2019s Law. One of these laws is Occam\u2019s Razor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is Occam\u2019s Razor?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The team at F1 Studioz<\/a> chose Occam\u2019s Razor as the first topic to kick off our \u201cstudy group\u201d sessions \u2014 a weekly community-wide meeting where we gather to discuss, dissect and understand core theories and practices that can be applied to our own work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Occam\u2019s Razor is a law that states that amongst a set of competing hypotheses that predict the same outcome, the hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. Although William of Ockham is credited with the construction of this law, the core idea \u2014 that of simplicity \u2014 has been expressed by many of the ancient great thinkers, such as Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Newton. The first question we asked ourselves was \u201cwhy razor?\u201d The answer can be found in understanding what the functionality of a razor is in daily life. It shaves off unnecessary things with precision, leaving only the necessary elements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Occam\u2019s razor is a metaphorical razor in that it shaves off complex theories, only leaving the most simple and necessary explanation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Contextualizing Occam\u2019s Razor in the world of design<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Occam\u2019s Razor is a principle implies simplicity, elegance, and necessity. Steve Jobs, whose mantra is \u201csimplicity is the ultimate sophistication\u201d, is the most well-known example of someone who has applied Occam\u2019s Razor to the core of their design thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An
Credit: Unsplash<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

This mantra is evident in Apple\u2019s clean website design, the physical stores with high ceilings, glass, and open layout, the elegance of the aluminum Chromebook\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Elegant
Credit: Unsplash<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

But, in Job\u2019s words \u201cSimple can be harder than complex. You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This begs the question \u201cdoes simplicity imply ease of use?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It seems that, in the context of designing a User Interface, the designer should reduce the clutter of excess buttons, pop-ups, and tooltips. Instead, simplify by reducing the options the user has to avoid potentially making a \u201cmistake\u201d. Reduce the distraction of bright animations and colorful backgrounds which interfere with the visual contrast. However, merely reducing features is not the answer. Thinking critically about what is essential and what is useful<\/em> is more important than following the trend of \u201cminimalistic design\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It can be risky to conflate simplicity with correctness and ease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Breaking Points of Occam\u2019s Razor<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We took a critical approach in our study group, questioning everything and arguing that popular opinions are not necessarily true in all cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Firstly, simplicity does not always have to be reductive in nature. The double diamond quite directly contradicts this idea. One has <\/em>to zoom out. To complicate things to eventually simplify them. Processes can become complex to make the final product simpler. Simplification can also be addictive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Double
View Source<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Second, as Anne-Laure Le Cunff<\/a> puts it in an article in Ness Labs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe biggest mistake people make with this mental model (Occam\u2019s Razor) is to assume it reasonable to transpose a philosophico-scientific principle to messy day-to-day challenges. It may also be used as a way to gloss over complex but crucial components in an argument, thus falling prey to confirmation bias \u2014 our natural tendency to interpret information in a way that affirms our prior hypotheses.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Can a designer really compare explanations of outcomes from A\/B tests and solutions for various problem spaces with all other things being equal?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider all alternatives<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, one should not equate simplifying with ruthless reduction, correctness, or ease of use. Instead, a designer should get consistent feedback on the work and iterate. Having several design alternatives and thinking critically about these choices, carefully considering each consequence, is more fruitful than blindly following the law of parsimony.<\/p>\n