> This is just giving UX a bad name.

It's a question if UX already isn't an orwellian term for "be cheap on UI" or "target lowest common denominator of users". I don't know, but you should ask that question yourself.

If you're more interested in name than substance, it might be an indicator.

> There cannot exist the best UX for regular users.

Categorical claims of non-existence require extraordinary amount of evidence.

> Every case is different and not simple.

That might be the thing. UIs (and usability) in the 90s focused on consistency. But then interactive websites ("applications") became a thing and the consistency (for example in the looks) was thrown out the window.

So everybody has to target the lowest common denominator (aka "regular users") now, because of the mess that this artistic explosion created. (There are other factors, too, such as that touch screens by definition lead to worse UIs.)

I don't entirely lament the mess (the artistic explosion is nice). But please, don't claim that we made progress in usability.

> But you can't really say there are UX trends.

I would say UX itself is a trend. As someone already noted, it had a name before - ergonomics. It's really similar to "data scientist", which is largely a modern trend of how to call a statistician.

"UX" already has a bad name, and it's entirely justified. When several decades of solid usability research are thrown away largely due to aesthetics over functionality, resulting in poorly usable, inefficient and confusing interfaces, it's a net loss. Oh, but the experience is better! No, it really isn't. This lawsofux website is IMO an ironic parody of just how out of touch these "UX experts" are, though no doubt they find it wonderful, and it keeps them all in cushy jobs, which is no doubt the main reason for it even being "a thing".