Gemini does not have UX, so it isn't "bad". That is better than having bad UX. Some client software might have bad UX, but that depends which client software you are using.
It doesn't have a UI but it definitely has a UX - TLS required, no embedded images or videos, very basic support for user input, etc.
Theoretically a client could choose to ignore some of that but it's not really a Gemini client anymore.
Straight from the FAQ, emphasis mine:
> Rather than trying to decide whether Gemini is about turning the clock forward or backwards, it's better to think of it as trying to deliver a particular online user experience that its fans think of as not being old fashioned, out of date, or obsolete, but not modern, cutting edge, or innovative either.
O, OK, I suppose I made a mistake, thank you for correcting me.
> TLS required
I don't like this I think it should be optional and a different URI scheme should be used for TLS vs non-TLS. The same port number could theoretically be used (due to the format of the TLS initial data, it cannot be confused with a valid Gemini request), but as far as I know the existing software (e.g. stunnel) does not do that.
> no embedded images or videos
I think it is good to not have embedded images and videos. You could have a user setting to display embedded images for local files only or to not display embedded images at all (I think this is similar to what the Gempub specification says).
> Theoretically a client could choose to ignore some of that but it's not really a Gemini client anymore.
I think it still can be Gemini client if it is still Gemini protocol and file format just as well.
