Forum Discussion
Less Is More Is Not Just About Content, but About Learning Experience
After working in instructional design for many years, I've come to realize that "less is more" is often misunderstood. It is usually associated with simplifying content, such as making courses shorter, reducing information, or avoiding overload. But in my experience, it goes beyond that.
Even when we have correctly identified what learners need to know, do, or change in order to meet business goals, there is still another important question:
How should we design the learning experience itself?
The goal should be to help learners learn with the least unnecessary effort. Not by removing depth or rigor, but by removing friction that does not contribute to learning.
Over the years, I've seen many different approaches to learning design. Some learning experiences feel under-designed, where the lack of structure or intention makes it difficult for learners to stay engaged or understand the purpose of the content.
I've also seen cases where, in an effort to avoid being "too simple" or "boring," additional layers of interaction, visual elements, or gamification are introduced. Many of us have probably spent hours building advanced interactions in Storyline or carefully structuring a Rise course because we wanted the learning experience to feel more engaging.
There is nothing wrong with using these features. The question is whether they genuinely support learning.
Sometimes these additions are driven more by what the tool allows us to build than by what learners actually need. As a result, learners may end up spending more time completing interactions than understanding, retaining, or applying the knowledge that really matters.
This is especially important in corporate learning. Learners are often balancing training with their daily responsibilities. Time is limited, and attention is limited. That is why I believe we should be intentional about where we add complexity.
Interaction is not the problem. In fact, meaningful interaction is essential for learning. The key word is meaningful.
The most valuable learning experiences are those that help learners understand concepts more deeply, retain what they have learned, and apply that knowledge in real work situations.
This is where I choose to focus my design effort. Not on adding interaction for its own sake, but on identifying the moments in learning that truly matter.
Instead of asking, "What cool Storyline feature can I use here?", I think we should be asking, "How does this interaction help learners understand, retain, or apply what they need to learn?"
When we design with that intention, learning can often become simpler while also becoming more effective.
That's the kind of learning experience I continue to strive for.
I'd love to hear how you decide when an interaction is truly worth adding.
9 Replies
Many years ago, I attended a presentation by Dr. Michael Allen, the eLearning pioneer. I still remember (I learned!) two things:
He used M&Ms (chocolate!) as a mnemonic to remind us that content should be meaningful and memorable.
And he said something like this: "Alternate navigation is not interaction." In other words, clicking extra buttons on the screen to view more text isn't really an interaction. It's still a one-way content dump. Instead, a true interaction involves the user making a decision and encountering consequences, aka feedback.
More recently, he's called that the CCAF (Context, Challenge, Activity, Feedback) framework. I've seen others refer to CCC (Context, Challenge, Consequences).
I wish I could say that all my courses included only true interactions. But I've worked on a lot of compliance courses... 🤷‍♀️
Thank you for sharing this, JudyNollet.
Dr. Michael Allen's Designing Successful E-Learning was actually one of the first books that shaped my thinking when I entered the instructional design field. The idea of WIIFM (What's In It For Me?) has stayed with me throughout my career.
I also couldn't agree more with his point that "alternate navigation is not interaction." I've always believed that true interaction happens in the learner's mind, not just through their mouse clicks.
Interestingly, I actually enjoy designing compliance courses. Since they're usually designed for people across different job roles, I often find myself thinking, "I could be one of these learners." That makes it much easier for me to think from the learner's perspective and ask, "Why should I care?"
I also think compliance topics lend themselves well to scenario-based learning. When learners are asked to make decisions in realistic situations, and even when appropriate, with a touch of gamification, the learning becomes much more meaningful than simply presenting rules or policies.
I attended one of Allen's certificate programs back in 2004 and remember the M&Ms. I always liked his quote about "There's no such thing as boring content. Only boring treatment of content." That guided a lot of how I approached course design when I was working for a compliance vendor "back in the day."
I love that quote too. "There's no such thing as boring content. Only boring treatment of content." It has always resonated with me.
Especially back when we had far more technical limitations than we do today, figuring out how to design meaningful and engaging learning experiences around challenging topics was one of the biggest challenges in instructional design. For me, it was also one of the most enjoyable parts of the job.
Thanks for sharing this, JoanneChen​! I definitely feel this way in my own work. Sometimes there are so many creative possibilities, but I think one of the hardest decisions is knowing when to scale back.
I wonder if this could make for an interesting Weekly Challenge topic in the future, DavidAnderson​? Maybe members could redesign an existing course using fewer elements while trying to improve the learning outcome. Or everyone could work within the same design constraints and see the different solutions people come up with. I think it could spark some interesting conversations about intentional design.
Great idea, Katie. I like that idea of starting with a fully designed slide, then paring it back to only what's necessary.
Thanks, Katie-Jordan! My own approach is usually to go back to the learning objectives and ask what learners need in order to achieve them, while staying motivated throughout the learning experience. Once that's clear, the design decisions tend to become much easier.
I also like to think about what is the minimum effort required for learners to successfully achieve the learning outcome. If an interaction or activity doesn't meaningfully contribute to that goal, I'm usually comfortable leaving it out.
I love your idea of working within the same design constraints. @DavidAnderson I think it would be fascinating to see how different instructional designers solve the same learning problem. I suspect we'd end up with very different designs, and that's exactly what makes instructional design so interesting.
This thread is a good reminder that simplicity and quality aren't the same axis. You can strip a course down to nothing and still fail learners if you remove the wrong things.
One test I've started using when reviewing a design, before adding or keeping an interaction, is asking what happens if a learner skips it entirely. If skipping it means they'd genuinely struggle with the final task or decision, it stays. If skipping it just means they saw fewer animations, it goes.
It's a small shift, but it moves the question away from "is this engaging" and toward "is this load bearing." A lot of interactions survive the engaging test but fail the load bearing one.
I'd add one thing to the time and attention point too. In corporate learning specifically, the cost of an unnecessary interaction isn't just the learner's time in the course. It's the mental tax of switching from "trying to learn this" to "trying to figure out how this screen works." Every new interaction pattern is a small usability puzzle before it's a learning moment. Familiar patterns used well often beat novel ones, even when the novel one is more fun to build.
JoanneChen​ , your "minimum effort required to achieve the outcome" framing is close to this, I think we're circling the same idea from different directions.
@souravwebalearn, I really like your point about the mental tax involved in figuring out how an interaction works. I've seen learners become frustrated when they have to spend more effort understanding the interface or the interaction than the actual content they're trying to learn.
When that happens, learners can easily lose motivation or even decide that the learning experience isn't worth continuing, which ultimately affects the learning outcome.
For me, designing a learning experience is about helping learners stay focused on what truly matters. Their effort should be spent on understanding, practicing, and applying the knowledge or skills they need, while remaining motivated and engaged throughout the learning process, rather than figuring out how to navigate the learning experience itself.
