[jollyllama]

> Did you mean to reply to me?

I think so.

> The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face"

Yes, I agree with this person.

>How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992?

I don't think it is. Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now.

[paulcole]

> Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now.

Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time?

[vehemenz]

Here are a few perfectly acceptable explanations.

1. Computer users were generally well-educated, unlike today.

2. UX designers didn’t inherit any mess and could operate from first principles.

3. The “experience” of modern users—phones, tablets, and software that does everything for you—doesn’t translate the way you think. And it explains why Gen Z seems to have regressed in terms of tech knowledge.

[jollyllama]

> Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time?

The userbase has been watered down with a larger proportion of individuals who are not highly technical.

[FarmerPotato]

Oh that statement is so 1992. Millions of people getting a Dell or a Gateway and annoying their techie friend “So now what do I do with this?”

Or 1982.

Users are always non-technical.