I think there's limits to these kinds of effects if it's actually a thing you interact with on what I'll call (for lack of a better term coming to mind) a blue collar basis.
My reasoning (story time):
I got hired to fix up a piece of custom-built software that was essentially the core business function for a series of medical clinics. They'd spent quite a bit of money to replace an older DOS system with a fancy new .net app. It was flashy, sleek looking, but also slow, buggy, and hard to use for the staff who did 99% of the work within it. Part of my analysis involved looking at the software they were using before the new .net app they paid for, which was something they'd kept alive probably a decade past its best before date by running old versions of Windows or running it on Dosbox.
The staff loved the ancient thing and hated the new modern thing because the new modern thing made everything about their jobs harder, despite being much easier on the eyes and displaying a lot more information on-screen. The old DOS app was built to be used keyboard-only, so it was much faster than using a mouse for 99% of data entry things, which was the bulk of what people were doing with the app. By contrast, the development house that built the .net app to replace it didn't seem to even know what tabindex was for. Literally you couldn't tab around any screen in the app in any kind of sensible workflow way.
It took a while to fix it up but the thing that always stuck with me about that job was just how much one particular front office staff member thanked me profusely because she could now use the keyboard for everything again. There was a valuable lesson in it for me about the pitfalls of shiny vs functional.