Even in the early desktop era when it was popular, many non-enthusiasts probably just didn't know how to use a UI control like that. It just didn't cause a problem because most people didn't use computers much.
I would bet that most internet users today have never even used a UI where that control is popular.
Never done tech support I take it!
It makes me think when I'm designing things. If I have problems with stuff like that, how can I make it better.
Then there's the way styles are so different, especially on the web. Horribly user-hostile. How does this site mark something as important, assuming it bothers in the first place? Who knows. And if I'm only planning to be on it for 30s, I'm not going to learn that.
It's a standard UI control and it is used pretty often.
Or you could just use a better control.
Many users don’t even know you can use a key shortcut to copy/paste.
The less you encourage learning and self-improvement, the less it will happen.
Don't blame designers for that, blame VCs and Silicon Valley.
"‡ On a phone or tablet or whatever, ignore us, we're just confusing you."
And it's also completely not discoverable. I only know how it works when I read from HTML book back in the day.
Just because it was the standard doesn't mean it's easily learned.
If you absolutely have to put words in my mouth, please make them at least a little less stupid ones. Maistuivat vähän paskalta.
Now, if you wanted to say that HTML's standard widgets should be allowed to reflect the platform-native look-and-feel (for example, adding a "selected" checkbox on touch-screens, or supporting long-press to select items, or whatever) instead of being tied to Windows 95 appearance and behaviour by backwards-compatibility concerns, then yeah, I'd agree with that.