The Myth That People Are “Bad With Technology”

We often say that someone is “bad with technology” when what we really mean is that the technology was not designed for them.

A lot of modern interfaces rely on shared assumptions. Designers assume users already know what certain symbols mean, how certain gestures work, and what is expected at each step. These assumptions are rarely stated out loud, but they shape almost every screen we interact with.

For people who grew up using computers, phones, and apps, those assumptions feel invisible. For someone newer to technology, they can be a wall.

Icons Are Not Universal Language

Icons are often treated as self explanatory. In reality, most of them are learned symbols, not intuitive ones.

A power button is usually a circle with a line through the top. Many of us recognize it instantly. But that recognition comes from repetition, not logic. There is nothing inherent about that shape that means “on” or “off” unless you have seen it before.

The same is true for a gear icon meaning settings. A magnifying glass meaning search. Three horizontal lines meaning menu. A cloud meaning storage. A floppy disk meaning save, even though floppy disks are no longer used.

These symbols make sense only if you have already been taught what they represent. Without that background, they are abstract shapes with no obvious instruction attached.

When designers say an interface is intuitive, what they often mean is intuitive to people who already share the same digital history.

Familiarity Is Doing Most of the Work

Many usability studies are conducted with participants who are already comfortable with technology. This skews results. Features test well because the users already understand the conventions being used.

For someone new to smartphones, tablets, or apps, there is no mental map to rely on. They are not confused because they are incapable. They are confused because the interface assumes prior knowledge.

This is especially visible with gestures. Swiping, pinching, long pressing, or double tapping are rarely explained. They are expected. If you do not already know they exist, you may never discover them.

When someone struggles in these situations, the blame is often placed on the user rather than the design.

Labels Feel Old Fashioned, But They Work

Clear text labels are sometimes avoided because they are seen as cluttered or inelegant. Icons are viewed as cleaner and more modern.

But labels remove guesswork. They reduce anxiety. They allow someone to proceed without fearing they will press the wrong thing.

For people who are tired, distracted, aging, or simply new, clarity matters more than minimalism. A screen that explains itself is not unsophisticated. It is considerate.

Good design does not rely on people already knowing what to do. It tells them.

Assumptions Create Exclusion

When interfaces are built on unspoken assumptions, they quietly exclude people. Older adults. People returning to technology after a long gap. People with cognitive fatigue. People using assistive devices. People who are stressed or overwhelmed.

None of these users are broken. The system simply was not built with them in mind.

Once someone has a few confusing or frustrating experiences, they often decide the technology is not for them. That decision makes sense. Why continue using something that makes you feel incompetent?

Designing Without Assumptions

Designing without assumptions does not mean oversimplifying or removing all features. It means questioning defaults.

Does this icon need a label?Is this gesture discoverable? What happens if someone presses the wrong button?Is there feedback that confirms what just happened?Can someone use this without instruction?

When designers ask these questions, interfaces become calmer and more humane.

The goal is not to teach users how to think like designers. The goal is to design in a way that respects how people actually approach unfamiliar tools.

The Problem Is Not the User

When someone struggles with technology, it is tempting to say they are not good at it. That framing is convenient, but it avoids responsibility.

Most people are capable of learning. What they need is clarity, patience, and systems that do not assume they already know the rules.

Technology does not fail because people are bad at it. It fails when it forgets that not everyone started in the same place.