← All posts

Designing for people who are already stressed

Most design processes assume a calm, capable, unhurried user. Someone who reads the microcopy, notices the helper text, and takes the time to understand their options.

In financial services, that assumption fails constantly.

The people using the products I design are often in the middle of something difficult. A job loss. A fraud incident. A life event they didn’t plan for. They’re not browsing — they’re trying to resolve something, and it matters.

Designing for this context isn’t about dumbing things down. It’s about meeting people where they actually are.

Cognitive load is not a constant

Standard usability thinking treats cognitive load as something to minimise. But cognitive load isn’t fixed — it varies enormously based on what someone is carrying into the interaction.

A user who is anxious, rushed, or dealing with a high-stakes situation processes information differently. Error messages hit differently. Long forms feel more overwhelming. Ambiguity is more frightening.

The design response to this isn’t to remove information — it’s to be more deliberate about sequencing it.

What helps

A few patterns I return to in high-stress contexts:

Progressive disclosure done properly. Not as a way to hide complexity, but as a way to give people what they need, when they need it, in an order that makes sense.

Language that acknowledges the situation. “We need a few more details before we can process your claim” reads very differently to “Error: incomplete submission.” Same information. Different effect.

Clear exits and saves. People who are stressed often need to stop. Designing for graceful interruption — saving progress, clear re-entry points — reduces the cost of not finishing in one go.

The edge case is the user

In regulated services, the “edge case” is rarely a rounding error. It’s often the most vulnerable person in the flow: someone with limited documentation, an unusual situation, or a need the system wasn’t designed around.

Those users deserve the same rigour as the modal path. Sometimes more.