> a compelling reason to use a ubiquitous framework is that the ubiquity means folks intuitively know how to interact with your product

Not that I disagree with you, but I'll also offer a tradeoff.

When people expect to pick up your app intuitively, it can also just mean them using the app absent-mindedly, which can mean them skipping the manual and jumping straight to trying to tie up the support lines. Whereas if your ui asks for a user's full focus up front, yes there are downsides to that but they're also more engaged.

▲

NewsaHackO an hour ago | parent [-]

I guess the issue is that when someone can't use a product immediately, they have an urge to abandon it altogether, not learn how to use it.

	▲	preg_match 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It depends highly on the application. If the application domain is inherently complex and or used in business contexts, then they will have to learn how to use it regardless. Intuitiveness only works for somewhat cookie-cutter applications. Consider Excel: Excel is not intuitive to people who have not used excel. We can make it easier to use, but regardless the user will have to learn the fundamentals of a spreadsheet (and even how the data is stored in memory!) in order to successfully use excel. The reason I say users even have to understand how data is stored in memory is because of types. Dates are not strings, for example.