Write principles that can lose an argument

If a principle can’t tell you which of two designs is better, it is decoration.

Most teams have a list of design principles. Most of those lists say things like “keep it simple” and “delight the user”. They sound right. They settle nothing. This piece is about writing principles that can lose an argument, which is the only way they can win one.

Start from the tensions, not the virtues

Good product instinct and good learning design collide in at least seven places. Each instinct is correct in most products. That is what makes them hard to see.

FrictionInstinct: remove it all. Reality: some friction is where the learning happens.

EngagementInstinct: maximise time in the app. Reality: efficient learning may mean fewer, better-spaced sessions.

HelpInstinct: help the moment they hesitate. Reality: instant help can pre-empt the struggle that causes learning.

DelightInstinct: rich visuals and sound. Reality: decoration splits attention and lowers learning.

RewardInstinct: reward every action. Reality: extrinsic rewards can crowd out the reason to learn.

PersonaliseInstinct: make it feel easy. Reality: adapt to prior knowledge and the right challenge, not the comfortable path.

Typical userInstinct: design for them. Reality: there is no typical learner.

A strong principle takes a deliberate position on one of these. It doesn’t pretend both sides win.

Four steps from a finding to a principle

Finding. The evidence-based claim, in one sentence. “Working memory is limited and easily overloaded.”
Implication. What it means for a system like ours. “Our interfaces must ration attention and reveal complexity in stages.”
Principle. The commitment, in the team’s voice. “One idea in focus at a time.”
Pattern and anti-pattern. Progressive disclosure, fading worked examples, one clear action per step. Not: dashboards that show everything, options added “for power users” mid-task.

The discipline is the order. Teams that start at step three write slogans that decide nothing. Teams that stop at step one produce a literature review nobody designs from. All four, every time.

“Keep it simple” decides nothing. “One idea in focus at a time” can be pointed at a screen.

Five tests before a principle is adopted

Try them on a principle your team already has. “Keep it simple” is a good victim.

Does your principle pass?

Evidence-anchored. It traces back to a real finding about how people learn, not to taste or trend. Decidable. It can settle a real disagreement between two designs. Takes a position. It resolves one of the tensions above. About the learner’s outcome. It is justified by what the learner ends up able to do, not how the product feels. Falsifiable in the interface. You can point at a screen and say whether it honours or breaks it.

Most first drafts fail the second and the fifth. They sound right and decide nothing.

Watch for the myths that walk in uninvited

Predict before you look

There is no adequate evidence that matching teaching to a learner’s preferred “learning style” improves learning. Researchers have asked the field to stop repeating it.

Across 37 surveys of 15,405 educators in 18 countries, what share still believe in matching?

A seven-question lens for any screen

LoadIs the learner holding more than the task needs?

PriorDoes this meet learners where they are, and surface what they wrongly believe?

EffortDoes it ask them to retrieve and generate, or only to receive?

FormDo words, visuals and pace work together, or split attention?

MotiveIs it safe, autonomy-supporting and competence-building?

RangeDoes it work across all learners, devices and contexts, from the start?

TransferWill what is learned hold up outside this exact interface?

On transfer: practising mixed problem types felt harder and scored worse in the session. A week later, students who had mixed scored 63% against 20%. Vary the surface, hold the structure.

Take this with you

Write principles from tensions, not virtues. A principle that offends nobody decides nothing.
Finding, implication, principle, pattern. In that order, every time.
Test every principle by pointing it at a screen. If you can’t say whether the screen breaks it, rewrite it.

Design the system so the learner does the thinking, remove only the effort that is wasted, and never mistake a smooth experience for a learning one.

Try this week

Put one of your principles through the four steps.

Pick your team’s vaguest principle.
Find the finding it should rest on. If there isn’t one, say so out loud.
Write the implication, the principle, one pattern and one anti-pattern.
Point it at three real screens. Mark each honours or breaks.

To mull over

Which of the seven tensions has your team quietly settled without ever discussing it?
Which principle on your wall would you be embarrassed to defend in front of a learning scientist?
What would change if principles had to be retired when they stopped settling arguments?

Sources

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3). Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106.
Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How common is belief in the learning styles neuromyth? Frontiers in Education, 5.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35.
Deans for Impact (2015). The Science of Learning. Darling-Hammond, L., et al. (2021). Design Principles for Schools.