Those are not (just) displays of a difference in maneuvering but thrust itself, the technology discussed in the article has little to do with that it seems.

The central mode of user interaction is reading from top to bottom along a left justified vertical axis. There are specific rules about line width and even word count per line because we experience them as awkward and hard to follow if they approach a rather horizontal orientation.

Books are vertical interfaces.

Some people want something different from what they think they want, and most would not even consider that what they want and what their subconscious wants are two different things.

You want what you want because you're human and it is largely hardwired, that's why millions are poured into user analysis. If you actually knew what you wanted, Google would pay you 50 bucks to tell them and call it a day.

That's not to say that there isn't ample room for critique on modern design trends, but to reduce it to "it was better in the olden days!", just brings pictures of Abe Simpson. A lot of the interface designs we see these days are a result of studies that show us what works, so there is a lot of improvement. There's just a very low entry to interface design these days, and the internet made us deal with all kinds countless times more than we did before, so we just see a lot more crappy ones as well.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with that. UX is essentially understanding human behavior, to argue that it doesn't exist or that we don't need to take it into account when designing interfaces suggests that you have a poor grasp of the subject, rather than the subject being pointless. No offense. You've also worded your opinion rather poorly so it's hard to understand what exactly you mean.