Anecdotal, conjectural, and even the dubious psychological experiments she references are completely misrepresented. The subjects were told told to memorize a

Anecdotal, conjectural, and even the dubious psychological experiments she references are completely misrepresented. The subjects were told told to memorize a number, and on their way to a different room where they expected to be tested, someone stopped them mid-way and asked them to choose between two snacks -- a fruit salad and a cake. The people who had been told to memorize many digits didn't choose the healthy snack as frequent as the people who had been told to memorize few digits (and, presumably, could focus on which choice they really preferred). It tries to convey "common sense" concepts, using conjecture and complicated constructs. It hurts my brain when I try to understand what is meant by "to use up cognitive resources". The more convoluted an explanation is, the less I feel it has been understood by the person explaining it. I have a strong distaste for psychology terms that add depth, but not clarity, as if trying to validate and give authority to the field or explanation. A bit ironic for an article trying to explain the concept of "minimizing drainage of the cognitive tank" (to paraphrase). So, what is this article really about? This -- http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-Usability/dp/0321344758 http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-Usability/dp/032134....