Sure, many nations adopted carriers, but that's not the same as grasping their impact or significance. There were still many skeptics in the naval command staffs of Japan, Britain, and the US who underestimated aircraft carriers and felt that naval encounters were won by battleships, including Winston Churchill and a number of the IJN officers, many of whom still followed the older doctrines that viewed battleships as the most critical pieces as part of "decisive battles."
Admiral Yamamoto, however, was a big believer in aircraft carriers, which is why six were deployed for Pearl Harbor and he was disappointed that US aircraft carriers were not in harbor. Pearl Harbor definitely was a game-changer, but that's also the primary reason why the US naval task forces were primarily carrier-centric: those were really the only major pieces undamaged after Pearl Harbor.
Consider this, the first time that aircraft sunk a battleship in a sea battle was not until 1942: Naval Battle of Malaya. The first time that aircraft carrier battle was also not until 1942: The Battle of the Coral Sea. So while aircraft carriers were around since the 1910s, it would not be until about thirty-years later before their impact could actually be observed in the context of actual naval warfare.
Fair points all.
OTOH, the sheer expense of aircraft carriers means they wouldn’t have even been built in the numbers they were by the 1930s with at least a plurality of those in command of the military- or at least, of the major policy and tactics influencers- seeing their potential, and convincing their governments to foot those bills.