*egregious
Anyway "intuitive" is not a top priority if you're designing for power users.
It is.
But when you're designing for power users, sometimes it's more worthwhile to trade intuitive design for deeper functionality.
But intuitive design should always be the top priority, IMO - making something less intuitive in order to achieve power-user goals should be the exception, not the rule.
Just my $0.02, and you're free to tell me why I'm wrong. I'm not a designer, I just like using well-designed tools; and more often than not, the best tools behave exactly as you'd expect them to, and communicate intent pretty clearly and intuitively.
But don't you think that even power users desire some system of quick learn-ability? Or do they simply enjoy reveling in their hard-to-come-by knowledge that would deter the average user? I'm hearkening back to Final Cut 7 days here.
Sure, it would probably help. But it's not that important - I mean the product isn't going to succeed or fail on the basis of its intuitiveness. For example, look at all the pinches and swipes that Apple products support. Those aren't intuitive. They made sure to run TV ads for months showing the pinch-to-zoom feature so that people would know how to use it.
If you consider command line as an interface, the number of people who just don't "get it" is huge. POSIX compliance and similar exist for a reason, and yet we have garbage utilities where help, --help, -help, ?, -?, "", info, --info, $1 help, help $1, etc all exist and do effectively the same thing. "Power" users need love, too.
Looking at you, systemd folk.
'Good design' is sooo much more than the world view laid out in the article. For an organisation like MS, 50% of the job is defending a proposal against 'design by committee' and navigating group politics.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good article but only half the battle, if that!
One note has promise but it's clear that a lot of the design intent got ambushed as the product made it's way out the door.