Great design fails when it breaks mental models
· 1 min read · UX Design, Product Design
Here's something odd in LinkedIn.
If you schedule a post for later, there's no obvious way to access it afterward. No "Scheduled Posts" tab. No visible shortcut. No contextual entry point.
If you want to edit that post? You have to click "Start a new post," pretend you'll schedule a new one (click the clock/calendar icon), and only then a tiny link appears: "View all scheduled posts." That's where edit and delete options live.
This is a mismatch between the way the system is structured and the way people expect to interact with it. The platform treats a scheduled post as part of the "create" flow – but most users think of it as a standalone object they should be able to manage directly.
The system knows exactly where the post is. But the user doesn't – even though it's their post.
What's the lesson? Don't force users to reverse-engineer your logic. Model your interface on their mental map – not just your backend structure.
Good UX isn't just about functionality. It's about clarity and findability that create predictability.
Because if I need to "fake" creating a new post just to manage an old one – that's a sign something's off.
Design for how people think – not just how the system works.
More writing
Where does intelligence belong?
Most AI briefs say “add an assistant”. The better question is where AI should help, and how much. Five rules for designing AI into a complex product, with an example from KNIME.
AI UXExperience architectureProduct DesignAssistant usage is not the metric. Resolution is.
Teams measure AI features by how often people use them. That rewards the wrong design. Five behaviours that tell you whether an intelligence layer is doing its job, and how to instrument them from the first release.
AI UXMetricsProduct Design