I think a lot of software over-constrains its users
Lately I’ve been thinking about how often tools try to be “helpful” by forcing structure — templates, required fields, rigid workflows, predefined steps.
It makes sense in theory. But in practice, it often gets in the way of how people actually think and work.
I’m building something small right now, and it’s forcing me to confront this tradeoff constantly: how much structure is genuinely helpful vs. when it starts to feel restrictive.
My current belief is that software should start permissive and earn the right to add structure over time — not the other way around. Give people a blank canvas, then offer guidance only when they ask for it.
That approach feels harder to design, but more respectful of experienced users.
Curious how others here think about this:
Have you seen flexibility turn into confusion?
Where do you draw the line between guidance and control?
Any products you think strike this balance especially well?
Would love to learn from your experiences.
7 Reddit Marketing Changes in 2025 That Nobody is Talking About
Validating: Journalist aggregator for the Substack/YouTube/Rumble era
The blank canvas idea sounds nice, but every time I’ve tried it a couple users just freeze and ask “what am I supposed to do here?” so I keep bouncin between too loose and too opinionated, havent cracked it yet honestly
"Start permissive, earn the right to add structure" is a great framing. The default in most software is the opposite - constrain first, then watch users route around you.
The tricky part is that flexibility without guidance creates a different kind of friction: the blank page problem. Notion is the classic example - incredibly flexible, but new users often bounce because they don't know where to start.
Products that thread this needle well usually do it through progressive disclosure: show a simple default, let advanced users unlock complexity. Figma does this well - basic tools are obvious, but power features reveal themselves as you explore.
One pattern I've noticed: the best way to know what structure to add is watching where users create their own. When people start building workarounds, that's a signal you should codify that pattern as an option - not force everyone into it.
What's the tool you're building? Curious where you're landing on this tradeoff.
Yeah, this really resonates. I’ve honestly had to force myself to use Notion, which probably says everything. I know how powerful it is, but that totally blank starting point can feel heavier than helpful sometimes.
Your point about progressive disclosure really clicks for me. Flexibility is great, but only if there’s some kind of gentle nudge to get moving. I’ve been thinking less in terms of “templates” and more like optional starting points — things you can ignore, tweak, or throw away without friction.
I also love what you said about watching where users create their own structure. That feels like such a clean signal for what should eventually be supported instead of forced.
I’m building a session design tool for soccer coaches, so I’m living in this tension daily — helping people start quickly without boxing them in. Still figuring it out, but this framing helps a lot. Appreciate you sharing your insight!
Soccer coaching session design is a perfect example of this tension! Coaches have mental models from years of experience - the last thing they need is software telling them "you must define warm-up before drills."
The "optional starting points" framing is smart. It acknowledges that blank pages are friction for beginners while respecting that experienced coaches just want to capture what's already in their head. Maybe even let coaches save their own starting points that evolve with their style.
One thing I've seen work well: show the structure after someone creates content, not before. Let them dump their session ideas freely, then offer to organize it. "I noticed you have 5 activities - want me to group them into phases?" feels helpful. "Please fill in Phase 1 before proceeding" feels like homework.
The coaching domain is interesting too because sessions are inherently contextual - same drill might be warmup or main activity depending on the group. Rigid categorization breaks down fast.
Would love to try it when you're ready for early feedback!
Really appreciate this perspective — you're articulating something I've been wrestling with but couldn't quite name.
That "show structure after creation" pattern is brilliant. I've been so focused on making the canvas flexible that I hadn't considered the organization step as a separate, optional moment.
Funny enough, I actually built something that maps to this without realizing the full implication. Coaches have three paths:
And crucially, activities created in the graphics builder can be collected into session templates afterward. So the structure is optional and happens when it's useful, not as a prerequisite.
Your framing helped me realize that's exactly the pattern you're describing — I was thinking of it as "three separate entry points," but it's really progressive disclosure with respect for different working styles.
Your point about context-dependent categorization is spot-on too. A passing drill isn't inherently a "warm-up" or "main activity" — it depends on intensity, duration, group age, session goals. Forcing that upfront would be artificial.
I'm targeting a public beta launch on February 2nd. Here's the landing page if you want to see where it's headed: https://usepitchlabs.com
Would genuinely love your feedback when it's live — especially on whether the balance between freedom and guidance feels right. I'll drop you a note when it's ready if you're interested.
Thanks for the thoughtful exchange. This helped clarify some design decisions I've been sitting on.
This is exactly it - you had the right architecture, you just needed the language to describe why it works. "Progressive disclosure with respect for different working styles" is a much better mental model than "three entry points."
The fact that graphics builder creations can flow into templates afterward is the key insight. You're letting coaches discover their own patterns through usage, then crystallize them when they're ready. That's the opposite of "fill in this form before you can do anything."
Context-dependent categorization is the hidden dragon in domain-specific tools. A lot of builders try to impose universal taxonomies because it makes the data model cleaner, but real workflows don't care about clean data models. You're right that intensity, group age, and session goals all change what a drill "is."
I checked out usepitchlabs.com - the positioning is clear. February 2nd noted. I'd be genuinely interested in testing, especially around how the template-to-builder flow feels in practice. Happy to give detailed feedback when you're ready.
Good luck with the final push to launch!