[kristopolous]

Not having seen this before, I use the term "faucets and toilets" to mean the same thing.

It should always work, be boring, obvious to use, and ideally not even be considered technology.

If you ask people if they know how it actually works, they should be able to confidently say yes until it comes time to explain it.

It means it's so reliable, predicable and dependable that it's viewed almost as a law of nature. It becomes knowable without having to also be known

[CharlesW]

> …I use the term "faucets and toilets" to mean the same thing. It should always work, be boring, obvious to use, and ideally not even be considered technology.

I like that, but I think that's something different than expressed by "the user is drink" or "the user is high".

Assuming I understand you correctly, "faucets and toilets" is a way of summarizing that UX design should favor popular convention when possible.

"The user is drunk/high" is a way of saying that, regardless of the novelty of a particular interaction (not all of which can be faucets/toilets), designers should assume that users will always be more-or-less impaired by the distractions of life.

[kristopolous]

Nope. When was the last time you truly focussed on the operations such things?

If you focus on a toilet, at least in a conventional setting, there's either something wrong with it or that's your profession.

That's one point. If people have to pay attention, it's broken.

Such quibbles here are ultimately irrelevant, but your characterization is a misreading.

[CharlesW]

> If people have to pay attention, it's broken.

Ah, now I get your point. I've never used or help design an app where no interactions require at least some attention, but I like it as a goal.