[soraki_soladead]

> There is also no pride.

Is the pride not in solving the users' problems?

> nobody talks about it, treats it with interest, or pays above market rate to work on it.

Definitely needs a citation for this one. For so many products the user isn't paying for standout design. They're paying for insight, leverage, velocity, convenience, whatever. The market definitely supports this by paying above market salaries.

Good design can be a useful differentiator but it isn't the only way for a tool or product to "spark joy" and often _fancy_ design (not good design) is used as a crutch for a subpar product.

[rustystump]

To prove the above person’s point, sap and salesforce have some of the most notoriously bad ux in the market and yes they make bank.

Design is much harder for power user tools compared to consumer. There is far more complexity and the expectation often is users must be trained to even use the tool.

Design only goes so far.

[whatever1616]

> sap and salesforce have some of the most notoriously bad ux in the market and yes they make bank.

Why ? Since its so notoriously bad why have there been no attempts to improve it ?

[dragonwriter]

Because the people making purchasing decisions for SAP and Salesforce are not people who spend any substantial share of their time using it directly or care about the UX.

[rustystump]

There have been but the strength isnt in the ux. Both are effectively enterprise ruby on rails where you can customize and integrate with anything. That is also why they are sticky. They become part of core business pipelines. It is hilarious because the performance is terrible too.

[jimbokun]

Those are the kind of domains where LLMs as an interface should kick ass.

Describe the idea of what you want to do, not the inscrutable steps the application requires to get there.

[nostrademons]

Much of the sadness of the current tech industry comes about because the user's problems were solved in the 90s but now we need to make up new ones to justify the fat salaries, headcount increases, and stock price.

[Fordec]

> They're paying for insight, leverage, velocity, convenience, whatever.

Correct, they are paying for work done by people in other roles, who's title isn't UI or UX designer. It's on the backend person for velocity, it's for business development for leverage, it's on data scientists for insight, it's on logistics for convenience. Those people will be paid for solving those problems, not for tweaking CSS. My team, who falls into this category of more invisible work, has not hired UI or UX person at all. Which by mathematically speaking by default, is simply below the average rate for that work. Meanwhile Apple will pay easily mid six figures for someone in a more flashy role.

[ItsClo688]

the "solving users' problems" framing works for most products but gets complicated for developer tools, where the design is the interaction model. a CLI that gives you typed errors and predictable verbs is design. a confusing API surface that makes you guess is also design, just bad design. the pride question becomes: did you respect the user's mental model?