Lesson 24 of 30
"Fewer choices is always better" is a folk version of a real, named law — and the folk version is wrong in a way that matters: the fix for too many options is almost never deleting features.
12 min read
Every option explains itself — why the right one is right, and why each wrong one is wrong. Miss one and it comes back later on a spaced-repetition schedule.
Question 1 of 3
According to Hick's Law, how does decision time change as the number of visible choices grows?
Hints without spoilers, and a plain explanation of why a wrong answer was wrong — answered only from this lesson. Free account, no card.
Sign up freeWhat interviewers actually ask about this, and what a strong answer has to cover.
A strong answer covers
Likely follow-ups
Hick's Law states that the time it takes someone to make a decision grows with the number and complexity of choices available — roughly logarithmically, not linearly. Going from 2 options to 4 adds noticeably more decision time than going from 20 options to 22; each additional choice matters less once there are already many, but the first few added choices cost the most.
This gets misquoted constantly as "always minimize the number of options," which isn't what the law actually implies. A recipe site with 12 filters isn't automatically worse than one with 4 — Hick's Law says the visible, undifferentiated choice count at any one moment is what costs time, which is a case for grouping and progressive disclosure (show 4 categories now, reveal the 12 filters inside them on demand), not a case for deleting 8 filters a real user wanted.
A related but distinct idea is working memory — how much information someone can hold and manipulate at once, independent of how long a decision takes. The famous "7±2" figure (Miller, 1956) gets cited as if it's a hard, current limit; more recent research puts practical working-memory capacity closer to 3-4 chunks for most people, especially without rehearsal aids. The number matters less than the mechanism: both Hick's Law and working-memory limits are reasons to reduce what's visible at once, not reasons to reduce what the product offers.
3 visible options: a short decision. Little to scan, little to weigh.
A settings page with 12 flat, undifferentiated options makes every one of them compete for attention at the same instant — that's the expensive case, by both Hick's Law and working-memory limits. Grouping those same 12 options into 4 labeled categories of 3 doesn't remove any functionality; it changes what's simultaneously visible, which is the actual variable both ideas are about. A search-heavy power user still reaches the 12th option in roughly the same number of clicks — they just aren't paying the full 12-option decision cost to get there.
"This screen has too many options, how would you fix it?" is testing whether a candidate reaches for "delete features" (the shallow answer) or "group and progressively disclose them" (the answer that names Hick's Law and correctly identifies what actually drives decision time — visible choices at a given moment, not total functionality).