> In the name of usability, we have practically neutered these computing machines.

Except usability is getting worse too. There is now less and less content on the average screen and more and more whitespace and "design chrome". Buttons no longer look like buttons, hamburger menus are legion, and many new features are found behind undiscoverable gestures that must be mastered.

I have a theory that by optimizing for the UI/UX of a First time user, things have gotten worse for the power user. In the past when most of our apps were desktop apps, there was a hidden assumption that the user would be using the apps for years and therefore had the time to build up muscle memory, currently when bulk of the apps on App Store are not downloaded and those that are, are barely opened twice, it makes sense to optimize to make the whole thing easy for the FT User. That by definition makes it harder for the power user. Notice that the really responsive websites are ones that cater to a group of people who by definition are more likely to be power users: HN, Github etc

There is a big dose of fashion and fad-following in usability. The things you mention are manifestations of poor decisions made in the name of usability, but actually in the interest of being pretty.

I think even making the right decisions in terms of usability, tethered to a few short-sighted user stories, will result in this situation. Usability should be in service of a higher purpose, which should be enabling the user to understand how to use something powerful and flexible that does not constrain them only to what is envisioned by the developer or the UI architect. That's what has happened here with Maps. You can perform User Story #1 or #2 with zero friction. But there is no way to do what @gravislizard wants to do, which wasn't anticipated by Google or specifically designed for.

Not only is there a lot of fashion and fad-following, but there is a distinct lack of measurement and metrics. You want this animation or to change the color on this control? Fine--show me the empirical data that demonstrates that it improves usability or any of our KPIs. None of this, "I'm an artist and I subjectively feel this will be good for users." That's total BS. Show me the measurement that justifies your design request, or let's A/B test it.

> I think pretty much everything in computing is like this.

But then there's Dwarf Fortress, Blender, Vim, Emacs, ...

Accounting for Sturgeon's Law, things aren't quite so bleak.

Did we forget how Emacs used to mean "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping?"

Saying that as an Emacs User for almost 20 years now. Even today there are things that can bring Emacs crawling to its knees. The moment you start adding auto-complete to a big project, or if you have your files hosted in some NFS server, you're SOL.

The autocomplete is somewhat easy to fix in principal. Just offload to a daemon for the autocompletes, for example.

No, I haven't bothered with it. :( I did setup GLOBAL, which is quite nice. Though, many languages nowdays would benefit greatly from a presentation compiler. Which seems silly, at the extreme. It isn't like projects have gotten more complicated in scope. They have ballooned in implementation complexity, though. :(

But vim/emacs are ancient, and even Blender is from the nineties. I would say the situation is pretty bleak if we need to rely forever on these ancient beasts because we can't make good software anymore.

Ancient,yes. Still actively developed and maintained. Maybe if contributing into projects was more of a thing, then trying to reinvent, we had better sofware.

Yes, exceptions are exceptional.

I simply cannot agree with the take that making things easier to use "neuters" them. Enabling people to actually use these things makes them more powerful, not less.

I think far too often, people get caught up with the false machismo of, "This is hard to use, yet I can use it, so I'm a badass and you're not."

I agree with you about false machismo. I'm trying not to say that hard-to-use tools are essentially good. I am saying that some essentially good tools are not very new-user-friendly, and that worrying excessively about the new-user experience has been detrimental overall.

One reason for that is the "new user experience" for a more powerful system will imply learning some things that are not directly relevant to whatever problem you are trying to solve. Excel worksheets, layers in Illustrator, "command mode" in vi and Blender, etc., are more like gas/brake pedals than they are like "do you want directions to this destination?" I don't see how you can avoid thrusting some learning on new users of a powerful system. Powerful systems are going to have powerful metaphors that are probably not totally intuitive at first.

You can do more stuff with Illustrator than Omnigraffle. It's a more powerful tool. That brings with it a longer or steeper learning curve. But, if you just want to make a few charts, Omnigraffle is easier to use.

I do feel that, over time, we have become very gun-shy about making complex applications that have richer models like this though, preferring to make applications with simpler UX that aim directly at smaller problems. And I think this is partly because UX is more straightforward for smaller problems.

But that depends on easier for whom; the issue is that is a system is very easy for beginners it will be crap as an expert and vice versa. This is the reason a lot of applications used to have a beginner/expert mode switch. When I use a mobile app, it is usually beginner only, so every time I have to go through the same steps and explanation wizards. I don't want that; most of these things, for experts, would be one form while for beginners they are 20+ pages. Literally.

Error messages are very generic and are passed immediately to support (more work, more time for an expert who probably would understand the real error).

Nothing wrong with that but it is not easier to use for me once I am an expert; it is harder and more annoying.

I would like expert mode in many apps.