Cognitive Load In UX

"Why cognitive load (not clean code) is what really matters in coding" What truly matters in software development isn't following trendy practices - it's minimizing mental effort for other developers. I've witnessed numerous projects where brilliant developers created sophisticated architectures using cutting-edge patterns and microservices. Yet when new team members attempted modifications, they struggled for weeks just to grasp how components interconnected. This cognitive burden drastically reduced productivity and increased defects. Ironically, many of these complexity-inducing patterns were implemented pursuing "clean code." The essential goal should be reducing unnecessary mental strain. This might mean: - Fewer, deeper modules instead of many shallow ones - Keeping related logic together rather than fragmenting it - Choosing straightforward solutions over clever ones The best code isn't the most elegant - it's what future developers (including yourself) can quickly comprehend. When making architectural decisions or reviewing code, ask: "How much mental effort will others need to understand this?" Focus on minimizing cognitive load to create truly maintainable systems, not just theoretically clean ones. Remember, code is read far more often than written. #programming #softwareengineering #tech

The average B2B buyer is drowning in information. Research shows: Only 17% of the buying journey is spent meeting with vendors. The rest? Sorting through conflicting information. Trying to make sense of mixed messages. Drowning in content from multiple sources. I watched a deal implode last week. The prospect said: "We went with someone else because their solution was simpler to understand." Not better. Not cheaper. Simpler to understand. This made me curious. So I reviewed our process: - 17 separate emails with attachments - 9 automated follow-ups - 3 technical documents - implementation guides That's 29 separate communications. All living in different inboxes. All requiring different logins. All telling slightly different stories. No wonder they were confused. We were creating cognitive overload. The human brain can only handle 5-9 pieces of information at once. Yet we bombard prospects with dozens. Yesterday, I tried something different: For a new enterprise opportunity, instead of our usual process, I created a single digital space: - One URL they could always return to - Information organized by stakeholder role - Content that appeared in logical sequence - No unnecessary details until requested The feedback was immediate: "This is the clearest sales process I've experienced. I actually understand what you do now." They signed in half our usual sales cycle. Most sales teams obsess over: • What information to share • When to share it Almost none think about: • How to organize it • How to reduce cognitive load Your prospects aren't rejecting your product. They're rejecting confusion. Create clarity, win more deals. The simplest story usually wins. Agree?

Poland-based Pakistani neuroscientist Dr. Ali Jawaid (@alijawaid_) and Dutch-Pakistani computer scientist Dr. Suleman Shahid, currently a professor at LUMS, have now teamed up to implement environmental enrichment in humans using novel virtual reality. Dementia, which is preceded by a milder condition called mild cognitive impairment, remains an untreatable illness affecting millions of people round the globe. Multi-modality cognitive stimulation, known as environment-enrichment , had previously shown promise for improving cognition and #mentalhealth in #laboratory models of dementia. Their pilot study, published in journal Brain Sciences, shows that #VR based environmental enrichment is safe and effective in stabilizing cognitive impairment and improving mental well being in both patients with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia. Their ongoing studies have the potential to revolutionize dementia treatment and bring tremendous hope to millions of people round the globe. Source : https://lnkd.in/ebC3F7kA

One of the largest (think 100,000 lines of C++) code bases I've ever worked on, had a single "God object" with one handler function for each event, and a number of helper functions. The implementation was separated out into multiple files based on functionality. It was one of the code bases that imposed the least amount of "cognitive load" on my mind: it wasn't fancy, but you knew exactly where to look for a given functionality, you knew exactly where to make each change, and you could easily look up all the functions affected by your change. I was reminded of this when a team member recently shared this article about "cognitive load", or the amount of thinking imposed on a developer by a code base. "Intrinsic" cognitive load, the author says, is the inherent difficulty of the task (e.g. a complex algorithm or a complex data structure). "Extraneous" cognitive load is created by the developer -- e.g. design patterns, deep inheritance hierarchy, too few functions, too many functions. The above code base only had intrinsic cognitive load. The code was kept "stupid" in the KISS sense. On the other hand, one of the most annoying code bases that I had to replace, had some code that applied certain rules based on incoming events (think trips with statuses). It was implemented as a state machine, with classes representing states and methods being triggered to effect state transitions, which in turn triggered event handlers that contained the business rules. It was quite difficult to understand or debug. Eventually we replaced whole thing with a series of if/else conditions and all was well. https://lnkd.in/gGwTm-bF

If you're a software engineer doing these three things, you may be making it harder for your teammates with dyslexia. Hey, I'm Bree, a software engineer and developer advocate, and I'm dyslexic. While I don't speak for everyone with dyslexia, here are three common habits that often make collaboration more difficult than it needs to be: 1️⃣ Skipping comments because “the code is self-explanatory.” It might be to you, but clear comments help me process and retain logic faster. When crafted correctly, they provide clarity and context. 2️⃣ Saying “Just read the code.” Reading code is a great way to learn and establish good programming habits, but this assumes that everyone processes when they're reading the same way. Reading ≠ comprehension. I might need to jump between files or revisit the same block several times before it clicks. 3️⃣ Using variable names that are too similar. Think: handleInput, handleInputs, inputHandler, handlerInput My brain blurs these together. Descriptive, distinct naming helps reduce cognitive load. At the end of the day, clean code is great. But inclusive code is better. Just because something is clear to you doesn’t mean it’s universally understandable. Thoughtful repetition, comments, and accessible naming conventions aren’t "extra." Write code as if someone different from you is going to maintain it.

Our brains are lazy on purpose. And that’s a feature, not a bug. Most apps forget how quickly mental overload can push people away. This is the second post in a short series based on the Emotional ROI framework we use at Live Neuron Labs, using a mock app for beginner runners. Today’s focus: the MENTAL dimension—reducing cognitive load. Behavioral science and neuroscience agree: our brains have evolved to avoid unnecessary effort. When a task feels mentally demanding—too many fields to fill out, too many decisions to make, too much to interpret—we’re more likely to delay, disengage, or abandon it entirely. And most of the time, we don’t even realize we’re doing it. In our Emotional ROI framework, mental costs include things like: 🔻 Figuring things out without help 🔻 Decision-making overload 🔻 Uncertainty about what to do next 🔻 Heavy reading or data processing Mental gains, on the other hand, come from: 🟢 Clear, instant understanding 🟢 A surprising insight or “Aha!” moment 🟢 Humor or whimsy that makes thinking fun 🟢 A sense of learning or mastery In this behavioral makeover, we made three small but powerful changes: 🧠 Start onboarding with a single, confidence-boosting question 🧠 Added a motivational insight to increase follow-through 🧠 Offered a default running goal to reduce decision fatigue (with the option to personalize later) These aren’t cosmetic tweaks—they’re designed to reduce mental effort so users can focus on doing, not deciding. 💬 What apps or tools have you encountered that either eased your cognitive load—or left your brain feeling fried?

Just finishing up prepping for a workshop later today on code readability. For such a ubiquitous problem in software development, there's alarmingly little research and literature on this. Most school programming courses place heavy emphasis on commenting. But we know from experience that more comments != easier to understand. (Often quite the reverse, in fact). Readability seems like a difficult thing to measure, so predicting which code will be hard to follow might be a struggle. Some research finds a strong correlation between readability and complexity - often performing better as a predictor than neural networks trained on annotated code samples. Module and function size/length, cyclomatic complexity, and Halstead volume all seem workable indicators. I've also experimented with natural language readability metrics like Flesch-Kincaid, as well as with conceptual correlation with the language used in requirements text. There's also the question of how we test actual readability. Usability testing might provide some clues here. I've had success with asking developers of different levels of experience in, say, C# or Python to explain code as they read it, and predict what it will do in specific scenarios ("If I call this method when the queue is empty, what will the output be?" sort of thing). If they get stuck, or get it wrong, we note where the gap in understanding was, and try to find a way to make it more obvious in the code. All of this might sound like overkill - I mean, how many teams actually go this far? So a combination of predictors and readability testing of the "hot spots" may help us do it in a more targeted way. I'm also wondering what tool support - aside from linting/static analysis - could be brought to bear. More recent research (2016) also suggests that code readability testing does in fact help developers write more readable code. (See link in comments). And if we do indeed spend most of our programming time reading code rather than writing it, isn't it odd that we've paid so little *practical* attention to readability? Our focus has been mostly on trying to speed up writing code, so there's more to read. Go figure!

Every product option you add to your site is a tiny withdrawal from your customer's mental bank account. And when it's empty, they leave without buying anything. Every choice, no matter how small, has a cognitive cost. Your goal is to architect a path that requires the fewest mental withdrawals. The 3 step "Cognitive Tax" audit: 1. Homepage tax: Does your homepage present 10 different paths (New Arrivals, Bestsellers, Sale, Collections A, B, C...)? This is a massive upfront tax. Reduce it to 3 clear paths max. Example: "I'm a Runner," "I'm a Hiker," "I'm a Gym Rat." 2. Category page tax: Do your category pages show 47 filters? Most people use 2-3. Hide the advanced filters. The top 3 filters for an apparel brand are usually Price, Size, and Color. Make those impossible to miss. 3. Product page tax: This is the final tax before bankruptcy. The biggest culprit? The "Add-On" section. "Do you want the protection plan? The carrying case? The extra charger?" This forces a new, unexpected decision after the main one. Bundle the most popular add-on into the main product and call it the "Complete Kit." It simplifies the final step. Map your customer's journey and count the number of active decisions they have to make. Your goal is to cut it by 50%.

The last five years have introduced or amplified many novel experiences in our daily lives. One such experience, while not wholly new, has settled into a state of almost routine as our everyday usage continues to intensify: the VIRTUAL MEETING. As the marketplace increasingly revolves around virtual meetings, there has been a similarly steady increase in the use of blurred or simulated backgrounds. The question we should consider is how the reduced sensory input of in-person interactions coupled with the artificial or blurred surroundings of virtual interactions might impact our well-being and performance. When we engage mainly through screens, especially with simulated backgrounds or filtered images, we greatly restrict vital sensory experiences. Research has revealed that this reduction in sensory input can result in loneliness, isolation, diminished cognitive performance, and emotional fatigue. Our cognition thrives on rich, multisensory stories. Face-to-face interactions naturally provide subtle visual, auditory, and environmental cues—facial expressions, body language, ambient sounds, and spatial context—that significantly enhance communication, empathy, creativity, and situational awareness. In virtual settings, especially those with artificial vignettes or blurred backgrounds, our brains must work harder to interpret limited information, resulting in cognitive fatigue, reduced discernment, and a feeling of isolation. Moreover, trust and psychological safety, essential for high-performing teams, depend significantly on nuanced sensory interactions (90% of emotional communication is nonverbal, relying heavily on subtle sensory cues). Without these sensory cues, the door is opened for misunderstandings to occur, team cohesion deteriorates, and our essential connections begin to wane. Over time, this may fragment critical areas in organizational culture and diminish a team’s ability to operate at optimal levels. To counteract these impacts, we can intentionally reintroduce sensory-rich experiences into virtual work: ·      Encourage video meetings with authentic backgrounds. ·      Plan periodic in-person interactions for meaningful connections. ·      Incorporate physical and tactile activities into daily routines. ·      Use diverse communication channels to restore emotional context. It is crucial to be aware of the hidden impacts of virtual isolation. By intentionally reintegrating sensory richness into our interactions, we enhance cognitive clarity, emotional resilience, and overall organizational health. Let's strive to maintain meaningful human connections—even within virtual worlds. #virtualmeeting #zoomfatique #connections #isolation #loniness #culture #beyondtheleader #thefollowereffect The Encompass Group E3 Leadership Academy

I came across a term recently that stuck with me: decision stress. It’s not new, but it feels newly urgent. At its core, decision stress is the fatigue consumers feel when they’re faced with too many options, conflicting messages, or unclear value. It’s showing up more and more at the exact point where brands want to win: the moment of purchase. According to Accenture’s 2024 Consumer Pulse study: - 72% of consumers are confused by product terminology or benefit metrics. - 76% struggle to know whether a product will deliver on its promises. - 41% say it now takes more effort to make a purchase than it did just three years ago. That’s not friction... it’s paralysis. So what’s the fix? Beyond driving traffic or promotions, it’s about reducing noise. Helping shoppers cut through the clutter, and giving them confidence to act. Some brands are starting to get it right: ➕ Clarity in product messaging - Simplified features, fewer variations, clear comparisons. ➕ Pricing to build trust - Consistent, understandable, aligned across channels. ➕ Less choice, not more - Smart curation over endless scroll. ➕ Confidence builders - Ratings, reviews, and helpful associates. ➕Localization that's useful - Relevant offers based on real shopper behavior. Where does Wiser fit into this? We’ve been talking a lot about “Winning the Moment” and delivering a Decision Point Advantage. Decision stress adds a new dimension, making it not just about competitive pricing, availability, or visual compliance. Decision stress makes it the brand and retailers' responsibility to reduce the cognitive load on shoppers. And that’s something Wiser can uniquely support. So here’s what I’m thinking: How can we bring “decision stress” into conversations with brands and retailers? What does “Winning the Moment” really look like when mental friction is part of the battle? How do we continue to develop the tools necessary to reduce decision fatigue? Here’s the full Accenture study if you want to dive deeper:  https://lnkd.in/egN2YtCM Mark