Tutorials feel helpful.
They explain features. They guide new users. They reduce support tickets. They make complex systems appear manageable.
But when a product depends on tutorials to function, something deeper may be misaligned.
Good software should not require instruction to be understood. It should communicate through structure, not explanation.
When explanation replaces clarity
There is a difference between advanced documentation and basic usability.
Complex tools may require references for edge cases or professional workflows. That’s reasonable. But when core functionality needs onboarding tours, pop-ups, and multi-step walkthroughs just to be usable, the problem is rarely the user.
It’s the architecture.
Interfaces often become complicated not because they must be, but because they accumulate features over time. Each addition seems justified. Each release introduces another option, toggle, or configuration path.
Eventually, the interface stops being self-explanatory.
It becomes instructional.
Complexity as a growth side effect
Feature expansion is frequently driven by internal metrics. New capabilities increase engagement, broaden use cases, and create marketing momentum.
But as explored in the metrics that quietly destroy good software, what gets measured tends to dominate decision-making. Feature output becomes visible progress. Simplicity becomes invisible restraint.
Tutorials then act as a patch over accumulated complexity.
Instead of reducing friction structurally, teams add guidance layers.
The product grows louder instead of clearer.
The illusion of power
There is also a cultural bias toward complexity.
Advanced dashboards, multi-layered settings, nested menus — these can signal capability. A dense interface suggests power.
But power that requires explanation may actually signal poor information hierarchy.
Users don’t experience features as a list. They experience flow.
When the flow is intuitive, tutorials are optional. When the flow is confusing, tutorials become mandatory.
The difference lies in predictability — a theme explored in predictable software trust. Stable, consistent patterns allow users to form mental models quickly. Inconsistent interfaces require constant instruction.
Instruction replaces intuition.
When onboarding becomes compensation
Many products rely heavily on onboarding sequences:
- Guided tours
- Interactive walkthroughs
- Tooltips explaining basic actions
- Mandatory first-time setup wizards
These mechanisms can help. But they can also compensate for architectural decisions that were never simplified.
If users must be trained to use everyday functionality, the interface is doing too much.
Restraint is rarely rewarded in fast-moving teams. Yet embedding simplicity structurally — instead of explaining complexity later — aligns with the discipline described in what secure-by-design software means. Good design, like good security, begins with constraints.
Constraints reduce explanation.
Education vs dependency
There is also a psychological cost.
When products require constant tutorials, users internalize responsibility for misunderstanding. They assume they are the problem.
But when systems require frequent explanation, they may be drifting from clarity toward feature overload — a pattern common in products optimized for growth, not longevity. As discussed in exciting products age poorly, constant expansion often leads to unstable interfaces.
Over time, products that require continuous re-education erode confidence.
Users don’t want to study their tools.
They want to use them.
The quiet value of self-evidence
Self-evident systems rarely feel dramatic.
They feel obvious.
Buttons look clickable. Actions follow expectations. Errors communicate clearly. Navigation reflects real-world logic.
There may still be documentation — but it supports depth, not survival.
When the basics are intuitive, tutorials become optional rather than essential.
That distinction matters.
Designing for absence
A useful design test is simple:
If all tutorials disappeared tomorrow, could users still complete core tasks?
If the answer is no, the product may be compensating for accumulated complexity rather than solving it.
Clarity is not the absence of features.
It is the presence of structure.
Software that requires constant instruction often signals that structure has been compromised.
And once clarity erodes, rebuilding it is harder than writing another tutorial.