Laws of UX
Occam's Razor
Among solutions that achieve the same goal, the one with fewest elements, steps, or assumptions is preferable — complexity that doesn't earn its place should be cut.
Where it comes from
The principle is attributed to William of Ockham, a fourteenth-century English friar and philosopher, who argued that explanations should not multiply assumptions beyond necessity. The same logic — prefer the simplest sufficient option — has been borrowed by science, engineering, and design ever since.
Why it matters for your website
Occam's Razor — the principle that the simplest sufficient solution is the best — is as applicable to interface design as to philosophy. Every element on a page, every step in a flow, every field in a form has a cost: attention spent, cognitive load incurred, friction created. Yablonski's design application is clean: analyse each element, remove as many as possible without compromising function, and declare completion only when nothing further can be removed. The best test is not "does this add something?" but "does removing this break anything?" If it doesn't, it goes.
In an interface, every element charges rent. A button, a field, a line of copy, a step — each one costs attention, adds to cognitive load, and creates a little more for the user to process and ignore. Elements that don't earn that rent aren't neutral; they're a tax on everything around them, diluting the things that do matter.
The useful inversion is the test the canon names: not 'does this add something?' but 'does removing this break anything?'. Almost anything can be argued to add something; far fewer things are genuinely load-bearing. Designing by subtraction — defending every element against deletion — is how a page stays focused as it grows.
Wrong vs right
A landing page that keeps every element anyone ever suggested, on the logic that each one 'adds a bit', until the core message is buried.
A page stripped to what's load-bearing — remove anything whose absence wouldn't break the page — so the essential stands out.
A form padded with 'nice to have' optional fields that each cost completion without earning their place.
Only the fields genuinely needed now, with the rest cut or deferred.
An interface with redundant controls and decorative flourishes that add visual work without function.
The minimum set of controls that achieves the goal, with decoration that doesn't compete removed.
Understanding Occam's Razor
Occam's Razor, transplanted into design, says that among solutions that achieve the same goal, the one with the fewest elements, steps, and assumptions is best. It's not a call for austerity for its own sake — it's a recognition that every component of an interface carries a cost in attention and cognitive load, and that complexity which doesn't pay its way should be cut.
The practical method Yablonski draws from it is a discipline of reduction: analyse each element, remove everything you can without breaking function, and consider the design finished only when nothing further can go. The decisive question is framed as a test of necessity — does removing this break anything? — because that filter is far stricter than asking whether something adds value, and far better at exposing what's truly essential.
The boundary, as always, is sufficiency. The razor cuts complexity that doesn't earn its place — not the complexity a task genuinely requires. Stripping out something load-bearing in the name of minimalism is its own failure. Done well, the principle keeps a product focused as it grows, resisting the natural drift toward accumulation. It connects to aesthetic-minimalist design, Tesler's Law, and cognitive load.
How Kweri checks it
Whether an element 'earns its place' is largely a judgement, and Kweri approaches it as one. It can highlight signals of avoidable complexity — for instance forms with many fields, pages dense with competing elements, or flows with extra steps — that are worth questioning. But deciding what is load-bearing versus removable depends on your goals and context, which the tool doesn't fully hold. So Kweri surfaces candidates for simplification and prompts the 'does removing this break anything?' question, while leaving the cut itself to you.
FAQ
What is Occam's Razor in design?
Applied to design, Occam's Razor says that among solutions that meet the same goal, the simplest — with the fewest elements, steps, and assumptions — is best. Complexity that doesn't earn its place should be removed.
Who came up with Occam's Razor?
It's attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century philosopher who argued against multiplying assumptions unnecessarily. The principle has since been adopted across science and design, and was applied to UX through Jon Yablonski's Laws of UX.
How do I apply Occam's Razor to an interface?
Examine each element and remove everything you can without breaking function. Use the test 'does removing this break anything?' — if the answer is no, cut it. Stop only when nothing further can be removed without harming the design.
Does Occam's Razor mean making everything minimal?
No. It means cutting complexity that doesn't earn its place — not the complexity a task genuinely needs. Removing something load-bearing for the sake of minimalism is a failure of the principle, not an application of it.
What's a good test for whether to keep an element?
Ask whether removing it would break anything. Almost anything can be argued to 'add something', but far fewer elements are genuinely necessary. The removal test is a stricter, more honest filter than the addition test.
Related principles
Every extra element competes with the important ones — cut what doesn't earn its place.
The brain has a limited processing budget — demand too much and performance collapses.
Every process has an irreducible complexity — either the product absorbs it, or the user does.
A page should be self-evident — users shouldn't have to think to work out what it is or what to do.
Attribution & sources
Identified by William of Ockham (14th century). Catalogued from Laws of UX (Jon Yablonski).
A centuries-old principle of parsimony applied to interface design; popularised for designers by Jon Yablonski's Laws of UX.
See Occam's Razor on your own site
Run a free Kweri audit — a plain-English review of your site’s speed, accessibility, SEO and design, ranked by what to fix first. No login, no jargon.
Run a free audit →