Break rules, build worlds

The wager

‍

Progress rarely begins with consensus. It begins with a quiet, stubborn wager, “there is a cleaner way to do the same job, and if we remove the parts people wrestle with, new behavior will emerge”. That wager is not rebellion for theater. It is refusal in service of ease. When you anchor on people rather than precedent, they stop polishing the old form and start shaping a smaller, clearer one.

This is the stance. The point we argue for is that challenging accepted practices is a means to an end. It is an experience that feels obvious the second time you use it. That feeling is not magic. It’s the product of aesthetic judgment disciplined by user truth and the nerve to discard habits and rules that no longer earn their keep.

What if the simplest thing that could work is also the most radical thing you can do?

‍

Against habit

‍

Habit loves buttons and toggles. It multiplies options to defer decisions. Real craft cuts the branch instead. In 2007, the phone everyone carried had keys you never rethought. Then Apple removed them, asked people to use their fingers, and promoted software to the front row. The change was not made to shock, it was made so the device could become whatever the task required, moment to moment. That choice—remove, then reveal, redefined the baseline for everyday computing [1].

The other famous line from that launch is about a tool no one misses, “Who wants a stylus?” The provocation was not anti–stylus, it was pro–human. Hands were already there. The rule broken wasn’t technology, it was tradition that put intermediaries between people and their intent [1].

‍

Elegance as logic

‍

Aesthetics is often dismissed as surface. That is a category error. In responsible work, elegance is compressed reasoning—fewer steps, cleaner cues, and a shape that teaches without a manual. Dieter Rams expressed this decades ago, “good work is useful, understandable, long-lasting, and as little as possible” [2]. Elegance reduces the room for error; it clarifies the path of use; it lowers the cognitive price of every action.

When form is treated as logic, obsession with finish is not vanity. It is accountability. You remove anything that adds a question. You choose proportions that guide the eye. You set type that lets breath in. You keep color honest. You let the object or interface tell the truth quickly. That is how ethics show up in design—by scrubbing away confusion that would otherwise become someone else’s daily tax.

If your product had to teach itself in one minute, what would you cut?

‍

Users first, then craft

‍

“User experience” was defined long before it trended. Don Norman and Jakob Nielsen framed it plainly, “UX is the whole relationship a person has with your product and your company, not just the pixels they tap” [3]. That definition rejects the lazy defense of “works as designed.” Work must meet people where they are. It must notice their hands, habits, constraints, hopes, and the contexts they cannot change quickly. It must be learnable.

From there, taste becomes a multiplier. Taste enforces restraint. It keeps placeholders from shipping. It refuses to let convenience trump clarity. Taste is also social, it respects time. The teams who internalize that truth build fewer features and better stories. They become the quiet kind of ambitious—more intent on fit than on noise.

‍

Shape of new categories

‍

Category creation is treated like sorcery. It is closer to carpentry. You remove a seam people trip on; you join two jobs that used to be split; you make something once-specialist feel native to daily life. The moment customers stop thinking about how and focus on why, a category boundary has moved.

The most durable new categories are side effects of empathy plus refusal. They misread as “disruption” because they make the old shape look clumsy, not because they shout louder. That is why the most credible strategy is to build a tool that respects the person first and the market second. Markets catch up to dignity.

What everyday contortion have your users normalized—what pain hides in plain sight?

‍

Refuse default paths

‍

Refusal is a skill. It starts with an inventory of defaults you’ve never challenged. Why do we mimic forms that were once constrained by materials we no longer use? Why do we keep fields no one needs? Why are we still routing people through steps added to solve a problem we don't have anymore?

Refusal is also a risk calculation. Removing is scarier than adding because it leaves decisions exposed. But categories don’t shift through additions. They shift when someone makes the base model truthful. That is how a phone became a camera, a map, a wallet, and a studio. Once the surface stopped lying, software could grow without fighting the hardware under it [1].

‍

Systems that teach themselves

‍

A system earns adoption when it explains itself. You know this feeling, you tap and the interface answers with the right micro-feedback. You drag, and the motion matches expectation. You make a mistake, and the recovery is clear. No tooltips, no lecture—just a path that behaves the way the world already does.

Rams’s guidance travels well here. Useful beats novel. Understandable beats clever. Long-lasting beats trendy [2]. A system that teaches itself creates compounding trust. People share it. They take fewer screenshots and write fewer how-to threads. Support tickets drop because the interface tells the truth. That quiet wave is how categories form—by lowering the learning cost below the threshold of hesitation.

Could your product be learned by observing someone use it across a room?

‍

Disruption as method

‍

Clayton Christensen’s language around disruption can be abused when it becomes a goal detached from people. The original theory is more humble, entrants win by serving overlooked jobs or low-end use, improving until they meet mainstream needs [4]. In practice, the projects worth betting on use disruption like a wrench, not a trophy. They pick a job to be done, deliver it with less friction and less price, and climb by evidence.

In that view, “break the rules” is shorthand for “find the hidden cost the incumbent can’t remove.” Sometimes the cost is literal dollars; more often it is time, attention, setup, care, or the coordination tax of tools that won’t talk. When you strip that cost, behavior reroutes itself—not because of noise, but because the path is finally sane.

Where is your competitor structurally unable to say yes to the simplest thing?

‍

Making it durable

‍

Rule-breaking ages poorly when it is unprincipled. The fix is to tie every cutback to a user truth and a standard that endures. Rams again is a compass—honesty, usefulness, understandability, unobtrusiveness [2]. These aren’t fashion. They are ways to keep ships pointed when the fog rolls in. (For a deeper lens on steering under uncertainty, see Beacon in the fog.

Durability also means design that respects the planet and the person. Short-lived objects and disposable software produce the same outcome, more churn than progress. The antidote is restraint in features, patience in rollout, and a bias toward systems that scale care. That bias shows up in typography that reads well in bad light; in defaults that choose safety; in settings designed to be understood, not just discovered.

‍

From idea to adoption

‍

A common failure mode appears when teams try to think their way to a category with documents and decks. Strategy is necessary, but categories harden in the hand, not in a slide. You need to get the smallest whole promise into the world and watch people miss, hesitate, and succeed. You need to observe where confidence breaks, then move the interface so the next person doesn’t fall in the same place. If you want to read more on this, see Architecture of exchange.

That loop benefits from craft rituals. Walkthroughs where designers narrate why a line exists. Reviews that look for any phrase a new user wouldn’t say. Critiques where the default question is, “What can we remove?” Sprints tuned to ship the smallest promise that teaches most. Advisory partners help, but only if they share your bias for craft, quality, and honest systems. Our Advisorship program exists for this reason.

What is the smallest whole promise you can ship that still teaches?

‍

Operational stance

‍

Inside the team, the stance matters as much as the spec. A user-first culture avoids the fatal sequence of roadmap first, then fit. It begins with observation—watching where people win and where they give up. It writes briefs that name the friction precisely. It sets a definition of done that includes reading level, motion sanity, and recovery states. It treats bug counts as measures of care, not just speed. It says no more often, and earlier.

Externally, the stance looks like calm ambition. No fireworks in the updates, just steady competence. You show people what got simpler. You celebrate one fewer field, one tighter motion, one more job that now fits in the palm. You keep taste in check by letting the typography, spacing, and timing do work you don’t mention.

‍

Care and refusal

‍

Care is not soft. It is the most demanding part of the job. It forces you to reject defaults that make your work someone else’s burden. It trades heroics for hygiene. It turns aesthetics into a testable claim. Care is why you cut the extra step and the extra sentence. Care is how you build worlds that are worth living in—quiet ones, where the system disappears and the person does not.

This is the promise of principled rule-breaking. You don’t break to be seen. You break to let people see less of your product and more of their own intent. That is the right kind of audacity—not spectacle, but service.

Where will you remove one layer today so the real job can breathe?