Four Options at Any Decision Point
SHOULD: Cap any decision point at <=4 simultaneously visible options (Miller's Law as revised by Cowan, 2001: working memory holds ~4 items). 5-7 is the boundary — group them or reveal progressively; 8+ is overload, and an overloaded user does not choose slowly, they skip, misclick, or abandon. Carried into surfaces: <=5 top-level nav items, <=4 form fields before a visual break, 1 primary + 1-2 secondary buttons (rest in a menu), <=4 key metrics above the fold, <=3 pricing tiers. Grouping does not remove capability — a 4-item nav with a "More" group still reaches nine destinations — it removes them from the decision.
Working memory holds about four items — cap visible choices, nav items, and pricing tiers accordingly
Bad
Good
Why it matters
The thresholds are explicit and they are not aesthetic: at any decision point, count the distinct options a user must simultaneously consider. Four or fewer sits inside working memory. Five to seven is the boundary — group them or reveal them progressively. Eight or more is overload, and an overloaded user does not choose slowly, they skip, misclick, or abandon. impeccable carries the rule into specific surfaces: navigation menus get at most 5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories), form sections at most 4 fields before a visual break, action buttons get 1 primary and 1–2 secondary with the rest in a menu, dashboards at most 4 key metrics above the fold, and pricing at most 3 tiers, because more causes analysis paralysis.
The counter-intuitive part is that grouping does not remove capability — a nav with 4 items plus a "More" group still reaches nine destinations. It removes them from the decision, which is the only place they were doing harm. Pair a capped tier list with a highlighted recommendation and you collapse the choice further still: the question stops being "compare three" and becomes "accept this one, or look at the other two".