Optimised for Capitalism: The Invisible Politics of UX Design

Disclaimer: When I write, I aim to highlight a particular aspect of reality and bring it into focus. My topics are often complex, attempting to capture macro-level societal processes, and within this complexity, it is impossible to cover every perspective and nuance, even with the best intentions.

In contemporary design — especially in digital contexts — certain principles dominate: accessibility, clarity, and user-friendliness. Good design today is seamless and simple. Colours are harmonious, contrast meets accessibility standards, typography is legible, buttons are obvious, and the system always provides instant feedback so users don’t feel lost or frustrated while waiting. Information hierarchy feels intuitive, and every interaction is designed to be smooth and effortless. If something isn’t user-friendly, it’s almost considered a sin.

While this focus is meant to make life easier, it’s worth asking why these expectations have become so dominant. I have a suspicion that the reason design is largely centred around these ideas is that it is, first and foremost, a tool of capitalist production.

Accessibility, Efficiency, and Capitalist Logic

Design has been tied to market economies. The things designers create have always been intended for sale: they need to be visually appealing, practical, and comfortable enough for people to want to buy them. Today, service design is about efficiency, while UX and UI design focus on creating frictionless experiences. A well-designed service ensures that people can complete their intended actions with minimal effort and hesitation.

The expectation of this pragmatism suggests that behind a clean, ergonomic solution is a profit-driven mindset that seeks to optimise user behaviour for consumption through an optimised user experience. The fewer obstacles a consumer encounters, the more efficiently they participate in economic processes.

Even in the public sector, where the goal isn’t to maximise profit, the same logic of optimisation and standardisation prevails. Systems need to function smoothly, data must be easily accessible, and processes should be designed to minimise difficulties. Accessibility plays a key role in this as a means of democratisation, ensuring that information and services are available to as many people as possible, regardless of ability or background. But this, too, strengthens a world where everything is expected to happen with precision and efficiency.

Accessibility as an Aesthetic Norm

Accessibility is framed as a purely functional concern — about making systems usable, understandable, and inclusive. But I argue that it has become more than that: accessibility itself has shaped the aesthetics of contemporary design. The principles of clarity with seamless interaction define how digital experiences look and feel.

This creates an interesting contrast with more expressionist and artistic design attitudes which often aim to embrace complexity, ambiguity, and challenge. Some designs are about provocation, reflection and rebellion, prioritising aesthetics and concept over ease of use.

Of course, not all design is meant to express beliefs or emotions. A system like a tax interface isn’t the place for artistic provocation or expression. Its goal is to be as clear and efficient as possible. But even when design tries to be neutral, it still communicates values. The dominance of accessibility-driven aesthetics in digital design reflects a broader cultural expectation: that interactions should be seamless, that complexity should be hidden, and that friction should be minimised wherever possible.

So, Where Do We Go from Here?

We all live in this capitalistic culture and share its expectations to be efficient and easy. Designers are also part of this system not just as participants but as people whose livelihoods depend on how well they serve these market expectations. And that creates a contradiction: while many designers often want to drive social and cultural change, their work is usually shaped by the very economic forces they might wish to challenge.

In my point of view, the most important thing we can do is continuously reflect on our role and recognise how design functions within broader economic and social structures. This doesn’t mean rejecting accessibility or usability, but it does mean questioning whether frictionless efficiency should always be the end goal.

Design has the power to create clarity and ease — but it can also create discomfort, provoke thoughts, and open up new perspectives.