As much as we’d love to remove complexity in UX design entirely, it’s not always possible — or even beneficial. Some problems demand intricate solutions rather than oversimplified fixes. In the 1980s, Larry Tesler explored this idea, leading to what’s now known as Tesler’s Law — the notion that complexity in a system is conserved and can only be shifted, not eliminated. Around the same time, Larry Wall introduced a similar perspective, calling it the Waterbed Theory, highlighting how reducing complexity in one area often inflates it elsewhere.
In this article, you’ll learn what Tesler’s Law is, and how to handle unavoidable complexity in UX design with care, rather than trying to eliminate it altogether.
Tesler’s Law, also known as the Law of Conservation of Complexity (or Waterbed Theory), states that every product has an inherent degree of complexity. Trying to simplify it beyond that point often makes things more complex rather than simpler.
For example, you’ve probably encountered websites where clicking “Contact us” automatically opens your default email client, pre-filling an email address. Sounds convenient, right? Not if you don’t use that email client. Instead of streamlining the process, it creates friction — you close the unwanted window, manually copy the email, and switch to your preferred platform.
A better UX strategy? Just provide a functional contact form.
This example illustrates why oversimplification doesn’t always work. Complexity doesn’t disappear — it just shifts elsewhere, much like how pressing down on a waterbed makes the displaced water pop up somewhere else.
One common UX mistake is splitting content into too many separate pages because it feels “simpler”. While this may make the design process more manageable, it often forces users to jump between pages unnecessarily.
Some examples of unnecessary complexity:
Instead of fragmenting content, a well-structured single page can be more effective. If designed correctly, it won’t feel cluttered — it will feel intuitive. To achieve this:
Sanne Wijbenga’s website (pictured below) does all of that really well:
Of course, A/B testing + UX benchmarking will tell you which option is best of all the options that you want to try (including multi-page navigation if you truly think that it’s a good option):
That being said, start with card sorting to determine the best structure. This UX research technique helps you understand how users naturally group related content, ensuring your information architecture makes sense.
Clarity is king in UX writing, but oversimplifying for the sake of brevity can strip away important details. The key is to cut clutter, not context. So to ensure your content is informative and easy to digest:
Just because a solution seems straightforward doesn’t mean it’s the best choice. The easiest implementation isn’t always the easiest to use.
For example:
So basically, just utilize some critical thinking skills to evaluate every possible solution thoroughly. And keep in mind that designing a more complex solution is better than having to design patches for half-baked simple solutions.
Interestingly, when a website or app feels simple, users tend to attempt more complex tasks. This most likely stems from a desire to maximize value from the product without inducing too much cognitive strain. This suggests that people prefer to push their cognitive function to the limit if it means getting more done, and these behaviours, as you can imagine, are quite common today.
Think of spreadsheets. While simple calculations are easy, users often create complex formulas, pull real-time data, and even write scripts, making them harder to use over time.
This principle applies to social media too — frictionless scrolling leads to digital burnout, as users engage beyond their cognitive limits. UX designers must strike a balance — instead of oversimplifying, they should help users pace themselves with subtle friction, like:
Even designers fall into the oversimplification trap, especially when creating personal projects. Many over-prioritize visual appeal, resulting in stylish but frustrating websites. Awwwards showcases many of these — sites with elaborate animations but poor usability.
Tesler’s Law reminds us that while simplification is essential, there’s a limit. Going beyond that limit can create more complexity, not less.
Oversimplification often leads to:
To prevent this:
Simply being mindful about UX decisions can go a long way as well.
The trick to this is asking yourself, “Does this approach truly offer a better user experience, or is it just easier for me as a UX designer/easier for engineers to implement/easier for administrators to manage/etc.?” You’ll almost invariably incur a technical debt of some kind by going down what seems like the easier routes, so it’s important to prioritize the long-term ROI of any decisions over the short-term ROI of any corners cut.
At the end of the day, great UX design isn’t about making everything as simple as possible — it’s about making things as simple as they can be, but no simpler.
LogRocket lets you replay users' product experiences to visualize struggle, see issues affecting adoption, and combine qualitative and quantitative data so you can create amazing digital experiences.
See how design choices, interactions, and issues affect your users — get a demo of LogRocket today.
Designing a great hero section can help make a great first impression on users while expressing your product, service, or company.
I’m confident that these interactions will continue to improve, with some patterns becoming obsolete and new UX patterns emerging.
Figma’s auto layout was recently updated with some new features. Let’s explore what these features are and how to use them.
Re-engagement doesn’t have to feel desperate. If users churn, there’s still hope. Here’s how UX can bring them back — and make them stay.
Learn more →
