I think I can see where you're coming from - and it is true that there are cases of dogmatism as a defense for just sucking at UX - but I violently disagree here.

Good UX I believe doesn't mean that the implementation details are hidden, but conveyed in a way that is human-readable. You do not hide the machine from the man, but translate between them in a way that makes neither of them invisible.

This makes for better experiences, as reality gets bound by.. well.. reality. So you don't get these weird failure modes that live in the gap between the narrative (e.g. "everything just works") and reality (e.g. "networks are always black magic").

This is also important for the user, because by having _a_ mental model (even if it is very low-res), they gain the ability to diagnose issues themselves and not be completely helpless once the magic box breaks down. They might not know exactly what to do, but the direction is very clear.

Agency is important. A lot more important than convenience. And fake convenience through frontloading short-term rewards for long-term systemic instability.

A developer sees an application as a toolkit to help them solve a problem. The more flexibility and power, the better it is. They’ve become comfortable with complex tools on the computer, over the years, because they enjoy learning about and using computers.

A nontechnical end user generally isn’t interested in operating a toolkit— they want to solve their problem, and the application claims to do that. The easier it is for them to get from problem to solution, the better.

When a developer sees a software interface, they see a palette of commands and parameters to pass to a software back end. Understanding that, and it’s implications, took years of learning and intensive usage that has blended into an imperceptible base layer of technological understanding.

To a nontechnical end user, the interface is the software. The button might as well mechanically do something. For whatever reason, often because they didn’t find it interesting, or their cognitive skillset didn’t easily adapt to it, or they just didn’t have the exposure, they didn’t learn about the basic structure of applications, and they’d be years away from understanding it enough to make decisions based on that.

Flexibility and power yields agency for technical users. It blurs obvious pathways and dampens signals for nontechnical users that just want a problem solved.

It’s difficult for experts to see things with novice eyes. That’s one of the most important things a designer can do for the software building process.

Fundamentally, interface design is a communication discipline. There’s a reason it’s a field unto itself, with its own degrees and professional organizations, and there’s a reason it’s often taught in art schools. There’s also a reason that every significant user-facing interface in your life, from your text messaging apps to the ordering kiosks in restaurants— none of which need documentation— were created by designers and not developers. Looking nice is not the point — it’s often a side effect of clear and deliberate communication, which is both difficult and important.

> Good UX I believe doesn't mean that the implementation details are hidden, but conveyed in a way that is human-readable. You do not hide the machine from the man, but translate between them in a way that makes neither of them invisible.

This is where skeuomorphism used to be king before computers ate the world. In the 90s everybody knew how a paper book worked, so document readers presented as books. Everyone knew how a tape deck worked, so audio apps presented as tape decks. Floppy disk as save icon, etc

Unfortunately, the passage of time is inexorable, and by the late 2000s we had a lot of users who had never actually seen a tape deck/floppy disk. And the whole skeuomorphic project came crashing down.

That's one of the things that surprised me (in a positive way) about Mac OS X when I first got to use it -- it actually does indeed do lots of things in an _understandable_ and genuinely simple way. It's also clear how much work went into making the system behave in this way, it certainly wasn't an accident.

In the era of web apps and Electronification of anything I believe most of this is sadly gone, but in the older Mac OS X models you could clearly understand and see the logic behind the software and I believe it worked well for non-technical people from what I observed.