It doesn’t need to be any better to satisfy this user. I also pull it out 2-4 times a year and am happy that everything has more or less stayed the same for 8+ years.
This is the message I hear very consistently about Inkscape. The people who love it most are the occasional users. It's good enough for small, infrequent work.
They seem to keep pushing it as a professional alternative to Adobe Illustrator, but no matter how many individual features they add, it just doesn't seem designed for that kind of user.
That was my point. Sure it could be better, but at a cost (design+dev'p, and alienation of users). It seems big/commercial softwares love to take that cost.
Because they have paying and active customers who want improvements even if it means that one has to relearn some things here and there.
Not enhancing UX because some users might have already gotten used to the current setup is rather shortsighted (relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1172/ ). What about all the people you don't get on board because the UX is terrible compared to all the other tools?
> they have paying and active customers who want improvements
My experience is that when software reaches a certain level of maturity, major 'improvements' to the UI are driven very much not by the users.
> Not enhancing UX because some users might have already gotten used to the current setup is rather shortsighted
Perhaps. It depends proportion of 'some'. 1%..99%, it depends doesn't it. You're pushing for change with no quantification of the value of it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, so first find out if it's broke.
