> Intuitiveness is just what you are used to at this point.
No, it is not. The word "intuitive" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "readily learned or understood" and "knowable by intuition". If the UI is not one of these things, then it is not "intuitive" in the general sense of the word.
I think their point is that what is readily learned or understood (and one's own intuition) are both informed by what they're already used to.
So many of us are used to the UI of one or more ecosystems that you're going to report on the subjective intuitiveness of any UI based on what we're already used to.
For all intents and purposes intuition is subjective and so is "intuitive".
There's value in building things that are "intuitive" to people who are used to existing UIs/systems _even if those existing UIs are bad_. There is also value (harder earned, for sure) in ignoring those existing patterns and bringing something truly better to the table...but you'll have people CORRECTLY pointing out that it's counter intuitive along the way.
I disagree. Both of those are relatively simple mechanisms with one, perhaps two degrees of motion, and provide immediate feedback when operated successfully. Take an alien who’s never been to Earth and give them ten minutes to master each of those, and they’ll be able to.
No, it is not. The word "intuitive" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "readily learned or understood" and "knowable by intuition". If the UI is not one of these things, then it is not "intuitive" in the general sense of the word.