> Of course, there is indeed no shame. There is also no pride.

But there's is "pride" in making tools people actually use without issue

> There is also no pride.

Is the pride not in solving the users' problems?

> nobody talks about it, treats it with interest, or pays above market rate to work on it.

Definitely needs a citation for this one. For so many products the user isn't paying for standout design. They're paying for insight, leverage, velocity, convenience, whatever. The market definitely supports this by paying above market salaries.

Good design can be a useful differentiator but it isn't the only way for a tool or product to "spark joy" and often _fancy_ design (not good design) is used as a crutch for a subpar product.

I don't take pride in having an original UI for most tasks: I take pride in having one that's easy to use and gets the job done. I am not disrespecting people who are making a creative/artistic UI: That adds fun and life to the world. But it's not required for every project.

> There is also no pride.

Respectfully disagree.

You should feel pride when you deliver the easiest-to-use system that the hospital lawyer has ever used. When you get them in and out of the system quickly because it's intuitive and has an appropriate architecture.

I think many companies need a UX professional to stop developers from deploying bespoke interfaces and forcing them to follow whatever idioms and patterns the users are most familiar with.

>> Of course, there is indeed no shame. There is also no pride.

I disagree completely. The pride should come from the value that is delivered. Specifically, this:

>> Useful, probably optimal and will be around for decades to come.

Is something to be proud of, full stop.

agree that fancy ≠ good. some of the most satisfying tools i've used look like they were designed in 1995.