Sorry, but the buck has to stop somewhere. For example, if a handful of users can't figure out how to use a mouse, then do we replace all mouses with Wacom tablets because they're so "inelegant" and "unintuitive" to a few people? No, because it turns out they're very useful for most people who get it.
Do they require practice and a certain (very small) amount of domain knowledge? Yes. Is that a bad thing, considering how useful they are? No.
"The user is always right" isn't an ultimate mandate. The customer isn't right if they come in to your store and demand everything for free. Likewise a driver isn't right if he doesn't want to figure out which pedal is "stop" and which one is "go". You must have a certain small amount of domain knowledge to use the complex tools you're given, and dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator is a Sisyphean task because there's always a lower common denominator just under them.
While more natural, they are not as useful. they require ui elements to have WAY more realestate on already paltry screens in most cases, (seriously, most 15" laptops are 1366x768) and don't allow for easy access to context menus. right clicking things was the best thing that ever happened to UIs since renaming directories to folders.
Foolish line of reasoning. Of course they do things wrong. It's just that you have a different set of expectations for what users must learn to do to operate something than other people.
(e.g. users need to know how to turn on their computer, what a usb port is to charge/connect peripherals, etc.)
I think it's a great principle to design from, it challenges one do to better. And: users wouldn't need to know what a USB port is, if the design was self-evident.
I don't think reasoning like "must" (or "never") pushes innovation and great design.
"users wouldn't need to know what a USB port is, if the design was self-evident."
"I don't think reasoning like "must" (or "never") pushes innovation and great design"
So "never" getting to know what a USB port is for, "must" be the result of great design ? It "must" be, but that would be bad... by you own stunted definitions. But do keep moving the goal posts around.
In the end you just produce a lot of forced substitutive declarations, like the concepts of innovation and great design that you use. You seem to void them in the process.
They will always be "better" solely because they are used by you, no matter the paradox and bs level needed to try to justify something that isn't even real.
I am going to let the "never" slide because you switched on it again. So we are down to your point being that there aren't any good designers around ? And somehow "great design" occludes knowledge.
Does this configure or bring any hope for users, it would be the designers that lock users out of the know-how... you see how that may not even be possible, because of innate properties like human curiosity, the very target of said "great design".