When building XenT, we faced a fundamental decision about content organization: should we support hierarchical categories or stick with a flat structure? After implementing and then removing hierarchical category support, here’s why we chose simplicity.

The Hierarchical Temptation

Hierarchical categories seem appealing at first glance:

• Logical Organization: Development > Frontend > CSS feels natural
• Scalability Promise: Appears to handle large content volumes better
• Familiar Patterns: Many CMSs use this approach

We initially implemented full hierarchical support with:

• Tree-building algorithms
• Level-based styling
• Complex parent-child relationships
• Nested filtering logic

The Reality Check

After building the hierarchical system, several problems emerged:

Maintenance Complexity

Code Complexity: The hierarchical system required:

• buildCategoryTree() function with recursive logic
• flattenCategoryTree() for display processing
• Level-based CSS styling (.category[data-level='0'], etc.)
• Complex state management for expanded/collapsed states

Content Management Burden: Authors had to:

• Decide on proper hierarchy depth
• Maintain consistent parent-child relationships
• Reorganize entire trees when taxonomy evolved

User Experience Issues

Cognitive Overhead: Users faced:

• Multiple navigation levels to understand
• Hidden content behind collapsed categories
• Unclear category boundaries

Mobile Limitations: Hierarchical trees are particularly problematic on mobile:

• Limited screen space for tree visualization
• Touch interaction complexity
• Poor accessibility for screen readers

The Flat Alternative

A flat category system offers compelling advantages:

Technical Benefits

Simple Implementation:

// Instead of complex tree building
const categories = extractCategories(posts);

// Simple, predictable filtering
const filteredPosts = filterByCategory(posts, selectedCategory);

Predictable Performance: O(n) operations instead of tree traversals

Easy Maintenance: No cascade effects when changing categories

Content Strategy Benefits

Clear Boundaries: Each post belongs to exactly one primary category Flexible Tagging: Use tags for cross-cutting concerns Easy Migration: Flat structures are easier to reorganize

User Experience Wins

Immediate Clarity: All categories visible at once Mobile-Friendly: No complex tree navigation Fast Navigation: Direct category selection

Our Implementation Philosophy

We settled on a 4-category maximum approach:

• Development: Technical implementation, code, architecture
• Design: UI/UX, theming, typography, visual design
• Documentation: Guides, tutorials, setup instructions
• Testing: Validation, testing posts, feature verification

This constraint forces intentional content organization while maintaining simplicity.

When Hierarchical Makes Sense

We’re not anti-hierarchy in all contexts. Hierarchical categories work well for:

• Large Enterprises: With dedicated content management teams
• Product Documentation: Where structure mirrors product architecture
• Academic Content: Following established taxonomic standards

The Tooling Factor

Modern content discovery relies more on:

• Full-text search (powered by tools like Fuse.js)
• Tag-based filtering for flexible categorization
• AI-powered recommendations based on content similarity

This reduces the importance of perfect hierarchical organization.

Lessons Learned

1. Start Simple: You can always add complexity later
2. Question Assumptions: “Other CMSs do it” isn’t a good reason
3. Consider the Maintenance Cost: Who will manage this taxonomy long-term?
4. Mobile First: Complex navigation patterns often fail on mobile
5. Measure Impact: Does the feature solve a real user problem?

Conclusion

Choosing flat categories wasn’t about being minimal for the sake of it—it was about recognizing that simple solutions often serve users better. By removing hierarchical category support, we created a more maintainable codebase and a clearer user experience.

Sometimes the best feature is the one you don’t build.