The Dangers of Choice

Choice is generally accepted as a good thing. We value our free will and autonomy, and being able to make decisions and influence the course of our lives is important to us. Choice isn't always positive however. Choices can be misleading, they can distract from worthwhile options, and they can be a shield or be a distraction from what matters. Sometimes it is better to omit choice, and provide a good approach or value as the default. This needs to be balanced against providing flexibility, utility, and personalisation.

In this list below, which is by no means exhaustive, I have outlined some of the problems with choices and some strategies relating to using choice in design. These issues and approaches should apply across many contexts where choice is an issue, from user interfaces, to business design, and even how we build the basic institutions of our society.

Choices can be intimidating

Choices can be intimidating. A user interface that has too many options can deter people from using the product or service, especially if they need or want something quick and straight forward. You should not want to scare away your users or customers. A search interface that explicitly provides every possible option is overwhelming. It will take time for users to grapple with the interface and figure out what needs to be done.

Provide guidance and a safe environment. Signal and signpost the option that will be the most suitable for the majority of cases. Keep things simple and easy to understand; more advanced options can be provided, but tuck them away.

In one sense this is a curse of a graphical interface. The command line is unlikely to overwhelm users with options, but it can be just as intimidating in its blinking mystery and lack of guidance. A good example of an interface with progressive choice would be a search engine that allows modifiers and additional commands to be entered into the search box. These options are available to users, and the fact of their existence could be signposted, but they are not visually apparent on the initial screen so do not overwhelm a user. Yet advanced users can make use of them immediately.

Choices can give too much choice

Choices, like design, need constraints. Constraints provide context and direction, as well as narrowing the field of potential options. Too much choice can be daunting, and it may be impractical or too difficult to meaningfully compare or understand them all.

You should design with focus. Provide meaningful choices that support the user. Provide 'one step wizards' that will handle a task for a user, and also provide small steps and functions that are easy to understand and can be chained together to perform larger actions and tasks. The available choices can be designed and presented such that they impart meaning to the application or service, and help the user understand what is available to them.

Choices can be unhelpful

You are in charge of a nuclear power station. There is an emergency, and the reactor needs to be shut down. As a user you are only interested in safely shutting down the reactor. You want clear, identifiable and easily understood routes to shutting down the reactor. You do not want to be presented with superfluous options, nor do you want the option of omitting things such as raising an alarm.

Likewise rather than being presented with the choice of a range of differently performing schools, it is far better for the users of the service that the standards of schools are raised. In this example choice is masking the failure to provide an adequate level of service.

Within the concept of freedom there is a distinction between formal freedoms and real freedoms. Although formally a freedom may be accorded to you (you are free to do X), in practice you may be subject to constraints that limit or remove your ability to freely make a choice. Give people real choices, don't give the impression of choice where in practice there is no choice.

Choices should be meaningful, relevant, and supportive. Don't provide the choice to do things badly, or to offer a poorer level of service, or if you do provide the best choice by default; require the users to actively choose a poorer (e.g. less safe or less desirable state).

Choices can be presented poorly

The more differences there are between choices the harder they are to evaluate. In the market place there is a proliferation of choice (or at least the proliferation of the perception of choice). On the one hand this provides a greater diversity of products and services, but it also adds unnecessary choices and makes selection more difficult. As choice proliferates the effort and knowledge required to make an effective choice expands, ultimately harming the end user.

Support users in making choices. Provide meaningful comparisons. Indicate the costs and consequences of choices. Keep the field of choice small but useful.

Choice can be bad for your health

Choices are not always good. Who wants to choose between good healthcare or poor healthcare? A fulfilling life or a miserable life? Choice is generally considered to be a positive thing, but you should be cautious and carefully consider whether the choices being offered are beneficial to the other party.

A useful example comes via Brian Barry's Why Social Justice Matters. Imagine a system for health care, much like the American one, where your employer supplies health insurance as part of your reward package. Ideally for those who are the beneficiaries, this should provide for all of their health care needs. If this isn't possible then it should provide for the most likely and the most pressing health care needs. The example that Barry gives is that some companies start to provide a choice of health insurance packages. On the face of it, this seems positive because choice is considered to be good and empowering. In practice it becomes difficult for individuals to pick between the choices, and requires an investment of time and effort to fully understand all of the options and their ramifications. Additional issues include that: not everyone will be as well equipped to make the choice and so the less educated and those with less time will make poorer decisions; human beings are notoriously bad at assessing risk and so this is something better worked out objectively by experts; the choices may not be as good as the original comprehensive option and worse still employees may be asked to sacrifice more to select certain choices, and; rather than have a small number of people examining the available options the result is that now everyone has to carry out the effort. Pushing choice out to individuals, rather than having experts make choices, multiplies the overall work and effort required to make the choice. Once such a system is in place it has further ramifications: the stratified choices will create an administrative burden that has to be met by someone; it breaks people into groups which allows for treating them differently, and; it shifts responsibility, or the perception of responsibility, onto the employee. Where before there may have been a single fit-for-purpose system, there is now a series of options that are difficult to choose from, are not as comprehensive, cost more to make use of, take more individual and overall effort to asses, and if something goes wrong the perception is that the employee chose the wrong package rather than that the employer failed to provide adequate cover.

When considering and implementing choice we should always consider who benefits, and if we would be better off without a choice. Choosing between a poor transcoding algorithm and a good one is not a worthwhile choice, and nor is choosing between a poor reward package and a good one.

Provide a good level of basic service. Choice should be made available to personalise or adapt a system, not to diminish the experience of users. Clearly signpost risky or irreversible changes. Provide safety nets and recovery routes  (e.g. undo and/or a recycle bin).