> when I see people using something in a way it wasn’t intended (...), my question is: how is this UI failing them?
This is a legitimate question, but not the only one in that situation. Another view, more in line with the unix philosophy, is that "using something in the intended way" is a meaningless concept. A tool must work always, no matter how it is used and abused.
Thus, instead of asking "how is this UI failing them?", you could be more pragmatic and ask "how can I optimize the UI so that this usage works correctly?"
As a non-programmer, this seems like an odd philosophy. If I use the claw side of a hammer to strike a nail, I’d expect that it is t going to work well. It seems like there’s a limit on “make the tool work regardless of the use case.”
A better comparison would be: Hammers are designed for striking nails, but some customers have figured out they work well for cracking walnuts, so as a hammer manufacturer we should avoid using toxic ingredients such as lead.
This is a legitimate question, but not the only one in that situation. Another view, more in line with the unix philosophy, is that "using something in the intended way" is a meaningless concept. A tool must work always, no matter how it is used and abused.
Thus, instead of asking "how is this UI failing them?", you could be more pragmatic and ask "how can I optimize the UI so that this usage works correctly?"