I get if you feel that aesthetics are a deliberate adoption only of those kool aid drinkers and "idiots", but that viewpoint probably just contributes to how you can't see that aesthetics and medium are a thing, that people expect but are unaware of. Because you wouldn't want to see yourself as a kool aid drinker or idiot, right. Meaning you're blind to it's effects, which I'm not saying makes you say idiot. This dynamic happens everywhere. It's similar to how people choose familiarity, over what "objectively" is better. What you said matches what I'm saying about it. People can tell when something is slow and clunky, or slick and snappy, and while they may praise, or rail, it doesn't mean they will think slick and snappy works better, or feel more comfortable using it. This is why those big softwares don't violate your implicit expectations that they are slow and clunky.
Another thing is just because people complain (about their enterprise software, or country, or house, or romantic partner) does not mean they would switch. And just because they praise your slick and snappy startup enterprise app doesn't mean it will solve their problem better, doesn't mean they'll feel more comfortable using it, and doesn't mean they'll buy it.
I think my point emphasized aesthetics too much to the detriment of the main argument, so let me rephrase: aesthetics are also important if you want a of majority enterprise users to enjoy using your product (ask anyone who has had to deal with SAP). There will always be a few who love the brutalist or "power user" UI, but I think we're in agreement that visual appearance does matter.
With all that out of the way, the example I _wanted_ to raise above (but neglected to, apologies) with the "kool-aid" drinkers is that corporate users are absolutely aware of how fast and responsive something is _in addition_ to how it looks. I think many folks have been in a screen share or training session where the presenter has to awkwardly wait for an application they're "selling" to load or respond to input. Is the presenter oblivious to this latency? I'd say they are even more aware given the audience, if not flustered. That was the thrust of "people are not idiots".
WRT why people continue to use this software, I think you underestimate the impact of top-level purchasing/procurement and the captive enterprise audience. Those making purchasing decisions are less likely to use software after the sales demo and thus are not exposed to any UX or latency issues. Again. there is no idiocy or mal-intent here either, it's just an artifact of how bigcos operate.
I think I get what you're saying. So kool-aiders are the ones who, true believers or not, need to sing praises of software foisted upon them as a captive enterprise audience by an inefficient top-level purchasing/procurement system. So, people are not idiots, means that most people, even some non-zealot kool-aiders see things don't work and could be better in such situations.
I totally agree. I think what happened with us is, as is the case in most of these things, we were talking about orthogonal or parallel things.
I'm not assuming your agreement with my belief that aesthetic, even "brutalist" or "slow and clunky", will connote quality to a certain subset of users, enterprise being one example. I think your might have took it to mean I was saying "haha, therefore I think enterprise users are idiots." Which is not what I meant, but I get how you could see that. I don't think an aesthetic preference, even one which may on the face of it seem maladaptive, means people are idiots. I don't think it's a maladaptive preference, it's a natural thing, and there's reasons for it that work. I suppose it's a form of stereotyping, that allows people to form quick judgments from limited information.
And I'm aware of the research that says that a "good UI" can hide other problems, and be easier to use. So on the face of it, that would seem to say software with "slick and snappy" UX will be more prevalent, or at least be completely wiping the floor with the "slow and clunky" competition. But it's not -- at least not at the high end of the market that I care about. So this is an idea I have about that.
Actually, my criticism, if it was with any group, was with the developers who want the new shiny above all else, and seem to fail to see the practical benefits of practices done by bigcos, even when the success of those products is right in front of them. I think such blindness is stupid. But the developers are not stupid.
My back story is I, even when I wasn't someone who valued new and shiny above all else, once thought, "all I need to do is consumer-productize" enterprise apps and everyone will love them. But that's not all that's required. So I don't underestimate the sales process, I'm just coming at it from the point of view that aesthetics are a component of that decision, albeit an implicit and probably by necessity unspoken one (otherwise: "This UI looks too fancy and the app is too fast. We can't trust these guys, but the old-reliable, clunky and 80s-looking app we've been buying for 20 years just works great for what it is." ~~ but, hey, maybe people really do say that!).
I think you can sell the unfamiliar (product, narrative) using the familiar vehicle (product, narrative, aesthetic). So if you want to do something new, the best way is to serve it to people in a package they already like and are familiar with. I believe that as a general principle. But in this more specific case we're talking about here, I just think I see the importance of aesthetics and many other people miss it.
I could be wrong...I was wrong about what's required to develop enterprise apps, but I guess I see it as something (one of my hypothesis) that should guide how I develop software. Because I figure if I do that, it will save me worrying about stuff that doesn't matter (the new shiny slick and snappy), and I can concentrate on what matters (building what they want), and maybe even hack their psychology a bit (make it look like the old style apps they are already familiar with). It's OK if you think differently about it. It's my idea after all, I was just hoping to convince you a bit about it, not to convince myself more through consensus...I don't need that, but because I like the idea that maybe you can benefit from something I figured out, and I can "invite you into the cool club" of people in the know about this secret thing, that nobody else really gets, and we can watch all the other people clamber around with their stupid ideas together and smugly go, "Heh, we know better." But yeah...It's an idea, I haven't tested it extensively (but a few of my current popular projects use slow and clunky, or identically copied from competitors UIs and they are very popular), but I'm comfortable with making my choices just based on my ideas and hypotheses. Maybe I just like the sense that I can see something in this space of developers, that many other people miss, because that lets me feel smarter than most everyone else in that way...maybe that's just compensating for a "lack of real success." But even if so, I need something to keep me going, right? Some sense of motivating self-belief. So those things, even if delusions, are useful. But I don't believe it's a delusion, and I do believe this to be true, and I'm comfortable with that.
I think that's how I think about things, so I hope that makes everything clear. But I appreciate you coming back and being nice about it, not being mean at least. That's a change from how it sometimes goes around here.
Another thing is just because people complain (about their enterprise software, or country, or house, or romantic partner) does not mean they would switch. And just because they praise your slick and snappy startup enterprise app doesn't mean it will solve their problem better, doesn't mean they'll feel more comfortable using it, and doesn't mean they'll buy it.