I'm not sure there is such a thing as an 'intuitive' interface beyond those where the physical action of the control is visible and obvious (turning the wheel rotates the gear that raises the gate type interface)
I think just about everything else requires context, which is just a fancy way of saying that someone taught them how it worked at some point or they played with it long enough to guess their way to enough breadcrumbs that they built up that context themselves.
Yes, but you can reduce the number of gestures required to use an interface. It wasn't that long ago when the only required gesture was tap, and it was quite easy for novices to figure it all out from there.
But then they added long press, so now one icon does two or more things depending on how long your finger is touching it.
Then they decided some things don't do anything at all if you tap them, only if you long press them.
Then they decided it should matter how hard you long press.
Then they decided you should memorize which quadrant of the screen you need to swipe to do something.
"intuitive" is a spectrum, and we are steadily moving to the less intuitive side. I think just giving users a bash prompt and a cheat sheet might be more intuitive at this point.
Intuitive might not be the perfect term; clear, unambiguous, predictable behavior might describe it better. There was a lot of research into such interfaces and improving functionality decades ago. But when users stopped being the customers it was quickly discarded.
I think just about everything else requires context, which is just a fancy way of saying that someone taught them how it worked at some point or they played with it long enough to guess their way to enough breadcrumbs that they built up that context themselves.