Free software scares normal people

Good article, but the reasoning is wrong. It isn't easy to make a simple interface in the same way that Pascal apologized for writing a long letter because he didn't have time to write a shorter one.

Implementing the UI for one exact use case is not much trouble, but figuring out what that use case is difficult. And defending that use case from the line of people who want "that + this little extra thing", or the "I just need ..." is difficult. It takes a single strong-willed defender, or some sort of onerous management structure, to prevent the interface from quickly devolving back into the million options or schizming into other projects.

Simply put, it is a desirable state, but an unstable one.

Good points, but to add to the sources of instability ... a first time user of a piece of software may be very appreciative of its simplicity and "intuitiveness". However, if it is a tool that they spend a lot of time with and is connected to a potentially complex workflow, it won't be long before even they are asking for "this little extra thing".

It is hard to overestimate the difference between creating tools for people who use the tools for hours every day and creating tools for people who use tools once a week or less.

And why exactly should free software prioritise someone's first five minutes (or first 100 hours, even) over the rest of the thousands of hours they might spend with it?

I see people using DAWs, even "pro" ones made by companies presumably interested in their bottom lines. In all cases I have no idea how to use it.

Do I complain about intuitiveness etc? Of course not. I don't know how to do something. That's my problem. Not theirs.

> And why exactly should free software prioritise someone's first five minutes (or first 100 hours, even) over the rest of the thousands of hours they might spend with it?

Well, if people fail at that first five minutes, the subsequent thousand hours most often never happens.

The inverse is also true. If you prioritize the first five minutes, your software is worthless in any industry that matters.

And that's why designers are using Photoshop and not Microsoft paint.

See, I feel this is where programmers just don't "get" good UI design.

Photoshop is good UI design. A normie can use photoshop the same way they use MS paint.

Albeit it just loads slower.

A normie doesn't need all the bells and whistles. They can just use photoshop like a glorified MS paint.

You can't do that with GIMP. It's actually really fucking annoying, if you try to use GIMP to do a MS paint job.

Clearly this is not true. Photoshop is difficult to use. I have opened it and tried to use it many times. Its UI is super complicated. There are endless buttons and I have no idea how to do anything.

There are heaps of Photoshop tutorials on YouTube, which wouldn't be necessary if what you said were true.

I used GIMP to do MS paint stuff years ago when I used it fairly regularly.

GIMP is always a whipping boy for UI design on forums like this and I think it is pretty unfair. It is a pretty good program comparatively. If you want to see bad UI design a much better example is something like Visual Studio. What a mess.