Users arrive with an intention. Design that serves it (and nothing else) keeps them; design that hijacks it loses them. This is goal-oriented UX.
Intentionality (or user intent) is what a user actually wants to accomplish. Goal-oriented design aligns the product with that intention instead of the company’s hidden goals. Get in the way, for example by demanding data before delivering value, and you lose users (often about half at first, and most of the rest after one use). Use ‘information scent’ to signal where a path leads, and keep options few (Hick’s Law: more options mean slower, more error-prone decisions). The simplest action that matches the intent is usually the right one.
Key takeaways
- User intent is the goal a user wants; design should serve it, not the company's hidden agenda.
- Blocking intent (asking for data before value) drives heavy abandonment.
- Information scent gives users cues about where a link or step will lead.
- Hick's Law: more options mean slower decisions and more mistakes.
- The simplest action matching the user's intent is usually correct, an Occam's Razor for UX.
Goal-oriented design (and how it goes wrong)
When someone registers, their intent is simple: use the service. The stakeholder’s intent might be to collect data. Push for more and more information before delivering value and you break the intent. In practice roughly half of hard-won users abandon, and up to 80% of the rest use the product only once. If 100 users cost $100 each, they suddenly cost $1,000 each. A real yoga app made users answer a long questionnaire before even revealing the price or the purpose, a textbook intent violation.
Information scent and user path analysis
Information scent is the trail of cues that tells users whether a link or option leads to what they want. When early questions give no scent, users cannot tell what the product offers. User Path Analysis examines the real paths people take to find where intent and design diverge. You can study paths after collecting cohort data, or, as in Quantum UX, use AI to analyze and respond in real time.
Fewer options, clearer intent
All things being equal, the simplest action or desire is usually the correct one.
The principle of intentionality (an Occam's Razor for UX)
If the task is ‘pay a bill’, the shortest path is to pay the bill. By Hick’s Law, more options mean longer decisions and more errors (sometimes weaponized as a dark pattern). Do not add friction to a high-load task like payment. A clean flow serves the intent:
- Welcome
- What do you want to do? (present options)
- Enter your data
- Your balance is shown
- Choose a payment method
- Pay
Anything else is noise. Presenting options reveals intent, and information scent then guides the user along a linear, low-load path. Respecting intentionality builds trust, keeps users longer, and saves the cost of building complex processes that quietly push people away.
It is what the user actually wants to accomplish. Good UX aligns the design with that goal instead of the company’s hidden objectives.
The cues that tell users whether a link or option will lead to their intended information or task, like breadcrumbs guiding them to their goal.
The time to make a decision increases with the number and complexity of options, and more options also raise the chance of errors.
Usually because the product asks for data or effort before delivering value, breaking their original intention. About half leave, and most of the rest use it once.
Serve the simplest action that matches the goal, give clear information scent, minimize options, and remove anything that adds friction to the task.
Want flows that serve what users actually want? Talk to Dorve.
Start a project