June 2026 • 5 min read
Tags: UX Design, Psychology, Learning, Product
TL;DR: We often overload people with information because it gives us a sense of confidence. We said everything, added everything, and did not miss any important detail. But on the other side, too much information can create the exact opposite - confusion, insecurity and a feeling that the learner or user is the problem. The goal is not to transfer as much information as possible. The goal is to help the other side build understanding.
When I was an instructor in the army, I taught reservists how to use radio devices and operate them technically.
I really wanted to give them all the details and not miss anything important. So I explained everything: the device, the connections, the operation, all the tips I had, everything in the presentation, plus plus.
At the end of one of the training days, I got feedback that my lesson was really overloaded. Too much.
Looking back, the criticism was justified. Out of my desire to cover everything, I gave them too much information.
This is a very common mistake: flooding people with information.
In teaching, in presentations and, of course, in user interfaces.
If there is any doubt, there is no doubt - add it to the screen. Let them have it if they want it. Maybe someone will need it. Maybe it is important. Maybe it is better that nothing is missing.
And it really can give us a sense of confidence in the role of the explainer. We said everything, showed everything, placed everything that might be relevant on the screen.
But that same sense of confidence on our side can reduce the sense of confidence on the other side.
Because when someone encounters too much information at once, they do not necessarily feel more in control. Sometimes they simply feel that they do not understand.
In learning, people talk a lot about cognitive load - the mental effort required to process information while trying to understand something new.
One interesting principle in this context is Richard Mayer’s coherence principle: people learn better when unnecessary information is removed, instead of adding more details, explanations and decorative elements that do not directly support understanding.
This sounds almost opposite to our instinct.
We feel that more information will create more confidence. But in practice, extra information can compete for the other person’s attention, blur what matters and make it harder for them to understand what is important now and what can wait until later.
I once tested a screen that had been developed very quickly, and the team made sure to include a lot of details: all the technical terminology, all the collected information, all the records stored in the database. On the surface, everything was there.
I asked two colleagues who were unfamiliar with the screen to try using it. They did not manage to complete a single task. At the end, they told my manager they felt as if they had just come out of a bad job interview.
That sentence stayed with me.
Because the screen did not explain itself well. But they felt they had failed.
It may sound absurd, but it happens a lot: the explanation is bad, and the student feels they are the problem. The interface is unclear, and the user feels they are not smart enough. The presentation is overloaded, and the audience feels they lost you halfway through.
When we think about what will make us feel comfortable with an explanation, a screen or a presentation, we often focus on what gives us a sense of confidence: another data point, another clarification, another footnote, another button, another field, another small piece of text in case someone needs it.
But the more important question is not what will make me feel that I covered everything.
The question is what will help the other side feel that they understand.
The confidence we should be looking for is that the other side understood, not that we checked off everything we wanted to put in front of them.
Just because we said something does not mean they understood it.
Just because we added something to the screen does not mean they noticed it.
And just because information exists somewhere does not mean it helps the user complete the task.
Very often, the smart thing is not to add more.
It is actually to simplify: build a clear framework, create a simple flow, decide what the first thing to understand is and what can wait, and create similarity between what the user is seeing for the first time and something they already know from somewhere else.
Give enough information to move forward, not all the possible information just so we can feel calm.
This does not mean hiding important information.
And it does not mean treating people as if they are not capable of understanding.
It means understanding that comprehension is built in stages.
And if we put everything there all at once, we may not have helped them understand more. We may have only transferred our own load onto them.
There is one distinction I come back to a lot:
What did I do?
And what happened on the other side?
I can explain, present, add to the screen, send a document and say, “But it was there.”
But the important part is not only what I did.
The important part is what happened on the other side.
Did they understand?
Were they able to act?
Did they know what matters now and what matters less?
Did they leave with more confidence, or with a feeling that they missed something?
In the end, there is a huge difference between passing information along and building understanding.
The second part is the part that matters.