[oblio]

> The desktop apps of the 90s was the heyday of UX for power users.

Regular users didn't set up their own hotkeys or their toolbars. And they definitely didn't read the help or tool tips.

The best UX for regular users, not interested in computers, is somewhere between websites and mobile apps.

[badsectoracula]

Every time i hear about "Regular users" being the reason why modern UIs suck so much i get the feeling that regular users tend to be the enemy of actual users.

[TeMPOraL]

Regular users are not interested in computers. They're interested in getting shit done, and getting on with their lives.

Which is precisely what modern UX makes harder. You see, regular users aren't "neanderthal users". They have a brain and some amount of focus, and if they have to use an application/website more than few times, they'll figure out and appreciate any feature that lets them do their work more efficiently. Unfortunately, modern UX trends are all about removing productivity, turning tools into toys.

[zzzcpan]

This is just giving UX a bad name.

There cannot exist the best UX for regular users. There are things that are used once or very rarely and have to be designed to rely on people's prior experience with other things, like most websites. And there are other things that are used often and have to be designed to be learned. Every case is different and not simple.

As for trends, maybe you are thinking about UI trends. People do like to follow those and confuse UIs with UX and make things harder for everyone. But you can't really say there are UX trends.

[js8]

> This is just giving UX a bad name.

It's a question if UX already isn't an orwellian term for "be cheap on UI" or "target lowest common denominator of users". I don't know, but you should ask that question yourself.

If you're more interested in name than substance, it might be an indicator.

> There cannot exist the best UX for regular users.

Categorical claims of non-existence require extraordinary amount of evidence.

> Every case is different and not simple.

That might be the thing. UIs (and usability) in the 90s focused on consistency. But then interactive websites ("applications") became a thing and the consistency (for example in the looks) was thrown out the window.

So everybody has to target the lowest common denominator (aka "regular users") now, because of the mess that this artistic explosion created. (There are other factors, too, such as that touch screens by definition lead to worse UIs.)

I don't entirely lament the mess (the artistic explosion is nice). But please, don't claim that we made progress in usability.

> But you can't really say there are UX trends.

I would say UX itself is a trend. As someone already noted, it had a name before - ergonomics. It's really similar to "data scientist", which is largely a modern trend of how to call a statistician.

[zzzcpan]

I don't know how to explain this better, but there is no lowest common denominator among users. Regular users use different things differently, some things they use like tools, often, other things once and never again. This usage is what influences design decisions, not the regularity of users.

[rleigh]

"UX" already has a bad name, and it's entirely justified. When several decades of solid usability research are thrown away largely due to aesthetics over functionality, resulting in poorly usable, inefficient and confusing interfaces, it's a net loss. Oh, but the experience is better! No, it really isn't. This lawsofux website is IMO an ironic parody of just how out of touch these "UX experts" are, though no doubt they find it wonderful, and it keeps them all in cushy jobs, which is no doubt the main reason for it even being "a thing".

[reitanqild]

That's because they don't get a chance anymore.

Many of us have graduated from users to superusers to sysadmins or devs but modern software feel quite dumbed down compared to the options we had.

[oblio]

That's only because you were interested in IT, either as a career or as a hobby. Most people aren't.