For example, the ‘more is better’ practice of loading a screen with information is still prevalent in computer-based learning. It’s evidence that users/learners are expected to parse out the utility and meaning from the body of information dumped on them. The trouble is that the time and energy doing this is to the detriment of the learning (or as you so aptly put it, an info dump provides “the opportunity to screw things up”). What should be happening is the technology should be affording effective ways of interacting with the content based on the users’ goals—or in my case, learning outcomes. It becomes a positive ROI.

And of course ‘more is better’ makes teaching the complex principles or concepts…well, complex. You discuss properly defining scope and managing design complexity. I interpret your points as a discussion of the designer’s responsibility to provide proper guidance/structure for the learner—in line with what the learner needs to accomplish. If the interface is uncrowded and directs the user/learners to the germane content, then the learners can each integrate that information into their respective mental maps. In other words, the user/learners will understand the complex material each on their own terms. But if the interface is too uncluttered or the learning content is too sparse, there is not enough structure to help the learners to map the information appropriately, thus their understanding is flawed. Finding this balance can be complicated for the designer.

You cover other parallels between our two professional design practices, but hopefully you get the idea. Thanks again.

The ‘more is better’ philosophy is still something that’s hard to change for most of the management, because more is perceived to be more in value.
For me, I suggested to the management that we can increase the overall value with less: by embody-ing the perceived quality using marketing campaign. Users will be drawn to a smaller, less functional product if they perceive it to be more valuable than a bigger one with more features.
Like what’s been suggested by John Maeda in The Laws of Simplicity: “Perceived excellence can be programmed into consumers with the power of marketing.”

And I agree with you, that we have to be aware that complexity can only be reduced to a particular point, which designs can lose both their utility and appeal. The challenge is to be simple without losing their utility and appeal.