The more flexible a design is, the more it tends to underperform
A Formula 1 car is built for one purpose. Every decision, from the geometry of the chassis to the compounds on the tyres, serves that single goal. A consumer car is built for many purposes, and that breadth comes at a cost: it does nothing with the same precision.
The same trade-off appears in design.
A tool built to do everything rarely does anything brilliantly. Adding flexibility and options can be genuinely useful, but it introduces complexity, slows performance and tends to dilute the experience for the people it was designed to serve. Specialised design is faster, clearer and more satisfying to use, precisely because it isn’t trying to accommodate every possibility.
The skill is in knowing when to optimise for focus and when broader flexibility is worth the trade-off. If the clarity of your vision matters more than a wider audience, think carefully before watering it down. Flexibility almost always means compromise; the question is whether that compromise is worth making.
When we develop a user experience, we keep this tension in front of us. We ask whether each feature genuinely helps users reach their goals, and if it doesn’t, we push back. It’s how we stay focused, resist feature creep and protect the quality of what we’re building.
