Tech companies have so many competing priorities that lead to design evolution and there is always a choice to be made around, Does this change help people do their work, or does it help the product look “cleaner”? Far too often in our modern world, the answer is the latter. Microsoft isn’t the only tech company navigating these decisions. Remember when Apple introduced iOS 17 for a more more icon-forward layout and visual contact cards? This was quickly restored in iOS 18 for easier access to key actions by reintroducing clearer textual cues and structure in response to mountains of feedback about poor usability and discoverability.
Microsoft announced a simplified app bar for Teams that hides apps behind an overflow instead prioritizing access with keyboard toggles and minimizing visual cues. The stated goal by Microsoft is a well intentioned focus on decluttering the interface but the result misses the fundamental reason people open Teams in the first place: to get work done without repeated friction.
I’ve written before about how elevating AI experiences ahead of core user needs can make everyday work feel heavier, not lighter. The same principle applies here as I continue to advocated for centering design decisions on real-world user needs with empathy and clarity. An AI-forward world cannot leave our top users in the dust.
Simpler” isn’t the same as “more usable”
One of the most cited principles from Nielsen Norman Group is Recognition rather than Recall. Applying this concept, we focus on how interfaces can make actions visible and understandable. When we hide a navigational signifier behind abstraction (aka an overflow button) we now ask users to remember or guess at functionality. Text labels and visible navigation reduce cognitive load by making it easier for people to understand what they can do without having to stop and think about it.
Now that primary Teams features are planned to be tucked into overflow menus or collapsed beneath ambiguous icons, what was once discoverable becomes forgotten. Of course, fewer things on the left rail looks cleaner but what happens when someone can’t find what they need in the moment they need it? This isn’t an aesthetic preference. We are talking about the difference between a tool that supports user workflows and one that interrupts it.
Icons without context communicate less
There’s a reason designers label icons (and not me!). User research studies show users are far more successful when icons are paired with text or clear meaning. Without that context, even familiar symbols become guesswork, especially for those:
- who use Teams intermittently
- who are neurodivergent
- who rely on assistive technologies
- who are new to the product
- who are switching mental context between tasks
Icons alone don’t carry enough semantic weight. They look minimal and they leave people learning and relearning patterns instead of working adding to the cognitive friction in their day which reduces the mental energy left for real work. We don’t want to spend our mental calories on the tools, but the work we are completing through the tools.
When changes hide functionality unless you know the shortcut, you’re inevitably prioritizing expectations of expert users over inclusivity for all users. This creates an unnecessary hierarchy of usability. Most organizations rely on Teams precisely because it should work intuitively for a broad range of people. I never needed a training to use my iPhone and we inherently apply those same expectations with systems we use in our jobs.
Small changes should reduce our friction
I’m a BIG fan of thoughtful simplification. As Steve Jobs famously said, “Simple can be harder than complex. You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple.” I struggle with it as an inherent maximalist in life and deeply appreciate this challenge. Ultimately though, good simplification doesn’t remove accessibility, context, or clarity. It only removes noise that doesn’t matter to the task. I fear we are removing the tools users actually need to do their jobs. Usability isn’t about minimalism for minimalism’s sake (though DAMN it can be attractive). It’s about:
- Clear labels that reflect user goals
- Interfaces that minimize cognitive load
- Discoverable options that don’t rely on memory
- Support for both new and experienced users
Show me the user research
Here is my soapbox moment: This is why UX research isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity for every organization for high impact solutions, not only tech companies like Microsoft building enterprise solutions. Great design looks effortless because it aligns with how real people actually think and work. User research is what makes that possible. It ensures interfaces function in the real world, not just in design reviews or internal demos.
My plea to Microsoft: share more of your user research that drives these decisions. When organizations share more about the research behind their design decisions (the user testing, the behavioral findings, the trade-offs considered) it builds trust in the platform. It reassures customers that changes are not arbitrary, aesthetic, or trend-driven. Yes, we are all feeling AI fatigue. Customers are then visibly centered in these choices, aligning with Microsoft’s mission statement to “empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more.”
If Microsoft models that level of transparency, it does more than justify a design decision. It empowers organizations around the globe to hold themselves to the same standard in their own product decisions and it raises the bar for the entire industry.
Empowerment isn’t just about what you build. It’s about how, and why, you build it.
Emily Mancini 