The Underlying Logic of Design: Solving the Real UX Problem

After reading The Underlying Logic, one point from Chapter 2 that left a particularly strong impression on me was the idea of not being led by surface-level problems. In design work, we often encounter many issues that appear clear and specific at first glance. However, these are often only symptoms rather than the real essence of the problem. If we stay at the surface level, we may spend a lot of time “patching” instead of truly “solving”. The following three common situations in design work helped me better understand how the author’s idea of essential thinking can change the way we work.

Users Feel a Feature Is Complicated: The Issue Is Not the UI, but the Task Flow

In a project, when users say that “the interface is too complicated” or “the operation is too difficult”, the team’s first reaction is often to adjust the UI, change the color, or add more hints. However, this usually only addresses the surface problem. After deeper observation, we often find that the real reason users feel burdened may be that the entire task flow does not match their mental model. As a result, every step feels like “solving a puzzle”.

This helped me realize that complexity does not simply come from the number of buttons. It often comes from a process logic that does not align with how people naturally think and act. Once this is understood, the design direction should return to task analysis, user behavior breakdown, and the removal of unnecessary steps. In other words, we should address the essence of the problem instead of decorating the surface.

For example, whenever stakeholders are asked to give feedback, many of them do not view the page from a usage-scenario perspective. They may not consider why users enter the page or what their original intention is. Instead, they often fall into the trap of focusing only on the current page from a personal point of view. This may lead to redefining page requirements, adding unnecessary elements, and placing content in inappropriate positions. As a result, the real user experience becomes confused, the original page intention is lost, and users may lose interest in browsing.

Low Conversion Rate: It Is Not About Making the UI Brighter, but About Strategy and Value Proposition

The idea of “survivorship bias” mentioned in Chapter 2 also resonated with me. When KPIs do not perform well, teams often assume that the interface is not attractive enough or that the CTA is not eye-catching enough. This can lead to endless visual adjustments. However, when we open up the funnel and examine the full journey, we may discover that the problem is not the UI at all. It may be that the traffic audience is not accurate, the value of the feature is unclear, or users are not entering with the mindset of completing a task. These are problems that UI alone cannot solve.

This helped me reframe my understanding of conversion. Conversion is not created by stacking visual effects. It depends on whether value, messaging, and user needs are properly matched. If the direction is wrong, even the brightest button cannot save the conversion rate.

Low Feature Usage: It Is Not Necessarily Low Demand, but a Lack of the Right Trigger Point

When a feature has low usage, a common response is to enlarge the button, change its position, or add tutorials. However, these actions only repair the visible symptom. Through user interviews, we may discover that users are not avoiding the feature because they do not need it. Rather, they may not know when they should use it. If a feature is not naturally integrated into the user’s task flow and does not appear at the right moment, it will not become part of the user’s habit.

This helped me understand that the value of a feature does not come from forced exposure. It comes from the alignment of context, motivation, and timing — a contextual trigger. The role of design is not simply to make users “see” a feature, but to help them use it naturally when they need it.

Conclusion: Seeing Through the Surface Is the First Step to Solving the Real Problem

What Chapter 2 communicates is not just a theory, but a way of observing the world. For designers, it reminds me that:

The first impression of a problem is often incomplete, so we need to analyze it from multiple perspectives.

Surface-level issues are only symptoms; the essence is where the real solution begins.

Before solving a problem, we must first ask: “Is this truly the root of the problem?”

When I bring this mindset back into design work, I realize that many “difficult problems” become difficult only because we are solving the wrong problem. When we begin to focus on the essence instead of patching the surface, the efficiency, direction, and outcomes of design will all improve.

This is the most meaningful insight I gained from Chapter 2 of The Underlying Logic, and it is also a way of thinking that I hope to continue cultivating within the team.