I cannot give you a specific example in this case, because I don’t know the feature, use case and problem… which is kinda the issue at hand. But the claim that

I cannot give you a specific example in this case, because I don’t know the feature, use case and problem… which is kinda the issue at hand. But the claim that “users are familiar with other apps, we should give them the exactly same features if they ask for it” is not very sound: first of all, not all users will be familiar with other editors. Those familiar might have had a very hard time learning them at first. And, in general, it’s good to ask “why do you want that? Show me how you use it and why you think it’s important, and we can test multiple design alternatives until we found something that works for you”, instead of “let me add feature X from editor Y” (both because there would be no innovation, but also no reason to change editors). For the article, the relevant part was: “ In general, a researcher will first ask a customer to walk through how they currently solve a particular problem. As part of this investigation, they will probe at the user’s pain points and existing workarounds”. What is the hard wrapping used for? Maybe there’s a better way of solving the same problem to begin with, and hard wrapping is just a band-aid instead of the proper solution to the underlying goal? By the way, UX research doesn’t claim that designers cannot get anything wrong or that users can never get anything’s right - that’s a silly simplification of course. But I don’t think the the BBEdit author was trying to promote such an absolutist view.