What you're overlooking is the users who type website addresses into google, and compose entire emails in the "subject" field. Some people just require a little hand holding no matter how obvious the UI is to the power users.
Do you really think a 5 step animation is enough to overcome UI problems like navigational searching or a fundamental misunderstanding of how email works?
Those things are examples of the UI failures I'm talking about. Blaming the person using the app for doing something wrong is how "fixes" like putting in an "intro" happen. What we need is to design human-centred experiences that work the way we automatically think they should, not patching things up with instructions that'll be forgotten within 5 minutes.
This library puts the developer first (driven by thinking like "I told my users what's in the app so now they know what's there.") rather than putting the person using the app first (driven by thinking like "The users mustn't be afraid to experiment by clicking on stuff.").
> The users mustn't be afraid to experiment by clicking on stuff.
They shouldn't be, but they are. Nothing is "wrong" with non-technical users, but learning new software, especially complex software, is something they automatically believe they can't do, and so they are afraid to experiment by clicking on stuff.
I feel like Facebook's design is pretty intuitive, but I still have my mom asking how to do simple things that are hidden behind menus (for example, change privacy settings). Nothing's wrong with her, she's just afraid of breaking technology, and it's unlikely anything will change that fundamental belief. However, adding an intro could ease these types of users into the software, and perhaps even lead them to experiment a bit more.
