> but it shows the lack of discoverability that happens when the list of settings gets long and you have to dig for them.
how many users is this in proportion of the silent majority which has no trouble finding what they want in the menus ? you can't base a judgment on complaints alone
Nor can you assume that the users who are are NOT complaining are happy. They may just be enduring the crappiness until they can jump to something that's better.
"Discoverability" is perhaps not exactly the right word here.
Just because something is "there" (SOMEWHERE) doesn't mean it's discoverable. The users might have completely different vocabulary to describe features that are are present but which have an unexpected name. Or they might have a workflow in mind that doesn't give a name to what they need, but which is nonetheless there.
I think this is hard problem.
With any "complex-enough" tools, one just needs guidance or straight-up training. Fusion-360 comes to mind. It's a very popular and rather nice CAD tool that has enormous, wide-ranging capabilities. Autodesk has a never-ending stream of training videos and courses dedicating to showing users how to do things with it. Without these, its just too difficult for people to "discover" how to use the thing.
Agreed, which is why user studies are (or should still be) a thing. You can't just add telemetry and hope A/B testing will surface the real struggles people have with your products. Likewise, you can't remove the 1% case of "restore backup after critical failure" feature because it's used rarely. It'd be like removing seatbelts from cars or fire extinguishers from kitchens.
how many users is this in proportion of the silent majority which has no trouble finding what they want in the menus ? you can't base a judgment on complaints alone