I often use applications and electronic devices for which I think: "Why on earth did they engineer that thing as it is? They must have known that it is a pain in the neck to work with".

On the other hand I often observed that I created a (G)UI that I was convinced about, that it'd delight my customers and was a breeze to work with. Although my customers thought that too, it became obvious that it wasn't at all easy to work with in day-to-day work.

Because of that I believe that there are many developers and designers out there who are genuinely convinced that their product has the perfect user interface, but it hasn't!

That's why I wrote this question: To collect some of the common misconceptions developers have about user interfaces and to prevent other developers (including me) from making the same mistakes.

What annoys you most in user interfaces of applications, web sites, electronic devices, etc. but presumably was created for the benefit of the user? What was it that you were convinced would be a great idea—but in the end only annoyed your customers?

Please write only one example per answer.


33 Answers 33


I'd suggest that the most common UI misconception is this:

That my users are interested in my application.

Most users aren't interested in your application at all.

In most cases if your users could replace your application with a large red button marked "Go", they would. And then they'd train a monkey to press the button over and over, go home, and relax.

Users aren't interested in applications. They're interested in getting things done. Applications are just a means to an end.

  • 13
    +1 so. hard. The same is true for pretty much everything. This is why splashscreens/intropages for websites fail. And long introtexts. If only people would get it into their heads
    – Jonta
    Commented May 24, 2011 at 9:03
  • 3
    Most irritating thing to me are the twenty long Logo animations I'm forced to sit through before I can play my favorite video game. I already know you made the game Ubisoft...I've seen your logo fifty million times now let me play the effin game! Commented Jun 17, 2011 at 20:17
  • I think Jeff Atwood wrote on this on Coding Horror. Anyone have a link? Commented Aug 23, 2011 at 7:18

"My users are other software developers who want to be informed of every technical detail just like I would."


  • 4
    Definitely one of the more common problems!
    – Dan Barak
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 10:47
  • 1
    One I have to avoid making everytime I am allowed near a forms designer. :)
    – pipTheGeek
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 15:00
  • 15
    Nearly all FTP software is guilty of this. Command: PASV ??? Response: 227 Entering Passive Mode ??? Uh, what? Just tell me if I'm connected and the files uploaded successfully! Commented Aug 24, 2010 at 9:50

The belief that users don't know how to scroll (everything needs to be above the fold).

  • 3
    Actually, studies have shown that users really don't mind scrolling at all. Check out this site: cxpartners.co.uk/thoughts/… for an explanation and some tips for encouraging your users to scroll. Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 18:16
  • 19
    yes @Logan, that's why it's a myth :)
    – GSto
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 19:33
  • 2
    Here's my favorite article about it: iampaddy.com/lifebelow600 Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 21:43
  • 6
    Wow, not sure where my head was on that one. Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 2:06
  • 1
    For the most part almost everyone does scroll. But a few times we have had customers call us asking us about a product when the answer to their question was just down an inch or two but they didn't scroll to see it. Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 15:04

There is a GREAT collection of user experience myths at http://uxmyths.com/ with wonderful supporting evidence as well. I just found this last week.


"Everything should have options"


If I use rounded corners in my design, everything will look better.

  • 1
    Ha ha - how true! :)
    – Dan Barak
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 10:47
  • 4
    And it costs damn lot of work to get those rounded corners cross browser
    – naugtur
    Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 8:36
  • That, and gradients. Thankfully, that's not as common nowadays.
    – Casey Chu
    Commented May 30, 2011 at 9:37
  • Could we please have examples of bad rounded corners? I simply love them.
    – Randomblue
    Commented Oct 20, 2011 at 13:37
  • Update: If I use square tiles, everything will look better.
    – Yogu
    Commented Feb 10, 2014 at 17:26

One thing that annoys me - and is the cause of many of the annoyances you'll see on this page - are organisations that think they can figure out out how their customers will use their product without actually getting their customers to use their product!

I'm amazed at the number of companies who still don't invest in quick, cheap guerilla usability testing. Spending half a day and getting a little feedback would save them a barrel full of pain later on.


UI is always GUI. In the sense that UI doesn't have to be Graphical.

  • Which summarises the point of our entire product. Awesome.
    – Rahul
    Commented Aug 22, 2010 at 21:43
  • 1
    Well, what I meant is that UI is always GUI is a myth. Anyhow, nice app!
    – Ignacio
    Commented Aug 22, 2010 at 23:39
  • You can edit your answer to reflect your comment, ign. Commented May 24, 2011 at 0:54
  • since WWDC11 everybody has been calling it "HI" instead of "UI"
    – slf
    Commented Jul 14, 2011 at 19:35

If I make a flashy/cool/colorful UI the users won't notice how terrible the application really is


"Adding descriptive text will help the user"

  • Of course it can be overused, but how is this a misconception? Commented Aug 23, 2011 at 7:22
  • It might be argued that on some occasions, if a lot of the features need to be explained in greater detail, the GUI and interaction design is far from optimal.
    – agib
    Commented Aug 23, 2011 at 7:33
  • 2
    Related - "The user will check the Help/FAQ if they can't figure it out."
    – eBeth
    Commented Aug 24, 2011 at 15:41

"The users are morons. They will never use that."

  • 6
    This is a misconception!? :)
    – Sruly
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 6:40
  • 8
    and the reverse: "The users aren't morons. They will never misunderstand that."
    – NickAldwin
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 14:37
  • This generally is the case, Rusty. Commented May 24, 2011 at 0:55
  • @Nick True but always good to check first :)
    – Rusty
    Commented May 24, 2011 at 1:14

Making something accessible to people with disabilities is hard. Besides, none of our visitors (users) has a disability.


Unabortable wizards or in general UIs that force you into set steps, but disallow you to abort said steps at certain points.

I know why there might be technical reasons for such a solution, but there are few things that bug me as much as a wizard or dialog that I by mistake have entered into that forces me to complete it, or wait for n units of time while it completes one or more of its steps.

Installing applications on Mac OS X is at times a perfect examples of this.

  • Mozilla Firefox is a perfect example of this when installing addons. "Wait X seconds" why??
    – Mark
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 15:26
  • 2
    @Mark There are good reasons for this: squarefree.com/2004/07/01/race-conditions-in-security-dialogs
    – Ignacio
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 17:45
  • 1
    @Mark: What I'm really getting at is the inability to cancel dialogs. Waiting to continue is valid in many cases, whereas not allowing aborting the dialog IMO often is a case of programmer laziness. That said, there are times when it is difficult or "impossible" to allow a cancellation. Commented Aug 18, 2010 at 20:06

Since other are doing this, it should mean it is simply better.


Something typically in projects where we develop software to replace older software, and when asking for specification I often hear:

"It should work exactly the same as in our old software."

I hate it when people take this as an anwer. I prefer to repond:

  • Then why are we developing new software?
  • Wasn't the purpose of this project not because we were unhappy the old software?
  • Why are we not allowed to do it better than in our previous software?

That users know or even care very much about user interfaces or computers or technology or any of the stuff UI designers care about. They just want to get something done without feeling miserable doing it.


More colors == better


"My users are just like me (so what is obvious to me will be obvious to them)."


"We must avoid jargon at any cost, even when research shows that our users understand it, and regularly use it in place of clunkier, ambiguous, harder-to-read alternatives"


In a GUI, if the user taps a button a tenth of a second after it appeared, the user meant to tap that button.

If the button appeared as a direct result of the user's action, that's probably a decent assumption. But it if appeared due to some asynchronous event that the user didn't initiate, chances are the user intended to tap whatever was on the screen previously.

If you change what's on the screen, don't activate the controls until the user has had a chance to see the new screen.


Along the lines of "Users are interested" is the misconception that the more people see of the hard work I have put in, the better. I realise, as a software developer, that I have to justify my time, and being able to show something to my boss is helpful, but I also know, as a software developer interested in HCI, that the very best work I do is the work that no-one sees, that has very little impact on the user, that they hardly notice.

For me, the most satisfying result is when I do days of work, and the users are unaware of any change, except that "things seem to work better now." When the focus is on the user achieving their real task, this makes for good UI design. When the focus is on showing how much work we have done, it makes for nightmares.


"Our end users are engineers, they're smart guys, they will have no problems figuring out how it works".

The number of times I have heard this...


What I see often is that developers think that the fewer times you need to click the mouse button in order to access a function, the more user friendly the application is. A direct consequence is that as many UI elements and information as possible is put on the main screen of the application.


To force users to perform actions in only one way (software designers way, usually).


For web sites/applications, etc., etc.

Links (anchors) should go somewhere (go to user screen) and buttons should do something (update information, etc.).

  • Do you mean people don't follow the guideline, or that the guideline is wrong?
    – Dan Barak
    Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 10:46
  • 1
    That people don't follow it. Whether or not I agree with is ultimately inconsequential, it is the accepted practice of the web. Commented Aug 17, 2010 at 13:35
  • This needs to be reworded, but yes. Following Existing Conventions 101. Commented May 24, 2011 at 0:56

The UI is not important. The application needs to be stable and reliable, that's more important.

  • I disagree. An application's stability and reliability can be overwhelmingly better than the UI that users will forgive the bad UI. Take for example ImageVenue. Its UI is horrible but it's still the #1 image hosting service used in forums because it has much less dead images compared to other services.
    – JoJo
    Commented Feb 10, 2012 at 17:25
  • There is not a single reason in the world why stability and reliability cannot be combined with a good UI. As a user I refuse to use bad UIs like ImageVenue despite the stability and reliability. If you use your philosophy when designing software you are giving you competitors the possibility to make you suffer. Commented Feb 11, 2012 at 13:27
  • At the end of day, an applications success is determined by traffic and profit. As long as the application is popular and making money, the owner couldn't care less if the UI sucks. I've seen other image hosters with good UI, but none have matched the core functionality of ImageVenue - fast loading, no crazy low bandwidth limit, and no broken images. Yes, I would like ImageVenue to have better UI, but the current UI does not detract me and the millions of patrons from using it.
    – JoJo
    Commented Feb 12, 2012 at 22:49
  • @JoJo: You continue to put good usability as an opposition to good stability, performance etc. It's like going to a car dealer and the dealer tells you: What would you like? An economical car, a beautiful car or a reliable car? I would walk out of the dealership and go to another one where they can sell me a beautiful, economical and reliable car. Commented Feb 13, 2012 at 7:30


  1. Whether the submenu will fly out on hover of the main menu, or I have to click it.

Giving no indication of what rules are enforced for your password.

If you remind me it had to be at least eight characters with two numbers I'll know which one I used. If not, I'll have to use all the possible ones it could be until I finally get it right.


It is normal that when adding functionality to the application, the UI becomes more complex.

Version 1.0 could be ran on 800 * 600 Version 2.0 requires 1024 * 768 Version 3.0 requires 1920 * 1200

Perfectly OK. Plus screens are getting bigger anyways.

I actually heard a product manager say: "With the application getting more and more complex, it is normal that the UI also becomes more complex."


UI should be tested as well as the functionalities.
But the test should be performed by end users that were not implied in the technical definition of the project. In my projects I often noticed that the applications are tested by people that helped designing them so they already have a "used to" user knowledge.

And when it's possible, you should be a user of your own application ! (you might then notice some issues with the everyday use)

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.