Less Is More Is Not Just About Content, but About Learning Experience

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.