Summary: a deep-dive into the ‘jump right in’ fallacy — demonstrating when you should, and shouldn’t, show users results. To demonstrate this UX bias, we’ll look at real examples from Apple, YouTube and Zillow.

What is the ‘jump right in’ fallacy?

It’s wrong to assume that showing ‘options’ (or, results) quickly is always good UX — this is often under the pretence that it allows the user to ‘jump right in’.

Because there’s a nuance that’s seldom considered: can the user actually engage with all of this content, or not?

i.e., if they wanted to, could they actually use all of these options?

And if the user cannot engage with all of the options, should you be showing them any?

That’s why I call this a fallacy, because it’s a mistaken belief. I’ve had this conversation with many product teams (Note: I’m a UX consultant to some world-class product teams—inc. Klarna, Notion, Intuit, Pitch, Moonpay…), and when it ‘clicks’, it’s obvious. But like many UX quirks, the devil is in an often-overlooked detail.

So let’s talk about it.

TL:DR

Showing options immediately is not always great UX, it depends if all of the options are actually suitable for the user.

This is a common misconception.

A few examples:

Apple Fitness = how not to do it.

YouTube = when it’s okay to do it.

Zillow = why they haven’t done it.

If all the options are not suitable, then instead you should help them filter the results, or inspire them to what type of searches they can make.

Why do people assume that it’s great UX?

This is a good question. In my opinion — and from my experience speaking to product teams — there are a few reasons why this belief is so common:

• The assumption that reducing clicks is always the primary goal.
• The assumption that users will realise that they need to filter the results, and then be efficient at that task, without losing interest.
• The assumption that it’s impressive to show lots of results, regardless of how compatible they are with the user.
• The assumption that it’s always inspiring to show results — sometimes it is, but it depends if the user already knows what they want.

Let’s explore this with a few examples

Example 1: Apple Fitness

After signing up to Apple Fitness, you’re shown a whole feed of workouts. These range from ‘Hiit’ workouts, cycling classes, running classes, core workouts and more — there’s a huge range to choose from, all available with just a few clicks.

But, it’s unlikely that you have a fully-kitted gym in your house. You may have a few weights, or a treadmill, but probably not everything. If the user doesn’t have a spin bike, then the value of showing them cycling classes is null.

Not only that, but the physical space you have available in your house may rule out some of the classes. It’d be annoying to get 10 minutes into a class, to then realise that you’re unable to complete the workout, because you don’t have the space in your garage for some of the routine.

The real issue here is that Apple doesn’t provide an efficient means of filtering what you (the user) can and can’t do.

Sure, everything is technically available, but the value of many, if not most, is very low.

Example 2: YouTube

It’s worth talking about YouTube, as it’s an example of another important nuance: there’s a difference between preferences, and actually being able to use an option.

For example, if you loaded up YouTube for the very first time, you’d be shown say, 10 random trending videos. These may not be videos that you’re actually interested in, but you could still watch them.

Unlike the Apple example, where you’re unable to participate in a spin class (without a bike), you can watch any YouTube video. In other words, with Apple, the user doesn’t know if they’d like the spin class, as they can’t try it. But on YouTube, it’s preference-driven.

For YouTube, their challenge is not to help the user filter videos, but rather suggest videos that they will be interested in.

Example 3: Zillow

Let’s look at a third example; Zillow (and really, just about any property portal).

For the vast majority of people, they’re going on Zillow with a particular area in mind, and properties thousands of miles outside of that area are irrelevant to them. In other words, it doesn’t matter how nice the house in Australia is, if you’re looking to live in New York.

Imagine going on Zillow as a new user, and being shown a list of random properties all over the world. The images would probably be the most striking — and grab your attention. You may see a back garden with a pool, but then realise that the house is in an area that you wouldn’t consider.

So, to your disappointment, you’d need to now go through a process of filtering those results. This is why property portals force you to make a search as a first step. They’re avoiding the ‘jump right in’ fallacy.

The key takeaway

If you’ve identified that users will be needing to filter their results/options before they can efficiently engage with them, then your priority should be helping them to start filtering.

Yes, this may mean that, on the surface, the number of clicks to ‘reach a result’ is higher, but the overall user experience will be better.

If you’d like more UX content like this, including a full Apple Fitness case study, check out Built for Mars. ✌️

Oh, and I regularly tweet UX biases, tips and tricks.