>> Imagine taking someone who is so passionate about UX that they made a career out of it, making them use their worst nightmare as their daily driver, and then giving them zero institutional power to fix any of it because of the n-dev years problem.
And if the UI they're designing sucks so humongously that these poor "passionate about U"I designer snowflakes can't even deign to use it... Then whose fault is that? Whom can they blame for this, if not -- the designers of the UI they're designing, i.e. themselves?
Assholes, that's what they are. (And what kind of person defends assholes?) Of fucking course it sucks, when the assholes who designed it don't even have to use it, so they'd get to suffer if it sucks. They're getting away with inflicting the suffering only on others, while they themselves avoid it. No wonder they don't give a shit!
This is precisely what "eating your own dogfood" (aka "dogfooding") is all about. Look it up.
If they're building software for Windows??? Duh, WTF else are they supposed to look at? "Hey, my mockups of our Windows-only software look great on my Mac, so what's the problem?" is about the stupidest thing that designer could possibly say.
And if what they're designing is not just software for Windows, but Windows itself, it's ten times worse. Which is what's under discussion here.
> Imagine taking someone who is so passionate about UX that they made a career out of it, making them use their worst nightmare as their daily driver, and then giving them zero institutional power to fix any of it because of the n-dev years problem.
Yeah, that might be a fascinating hypothetical to discuss some other time, but this discussion is about the problem of designers "so passionate about UX" that they insist on making stuff look "good" at the cost of usability and consistency being given all the institutional power to break it despite the n-user-years problems this causes. The exact opposite of what you are imagining.