You said 'We're just used to it'

I called it a manufacturing convenience that conserves the Win3.1 interface approach. We're just repeating it. That doesn't mean it is a bad thing. It may mean that we have not really considered alternatives.

I believe users are smart and have a great deal of common sense. I also believe that a work flow can be implied more efficiently than it is with the Win3.1 motiff.

I am talking about more than background colors and button sizes and delay loops in progress bars :-)

We get instructions with gadgets we purchase all the time. From device to device, the instructions can look pretty standard, But sometimes, we get a gadget that needs very little in the way of instruction or we get instruction that require very few words, yet make very much sense.

What we do now is a result of what we know. Tomorrow will be completely different. I see interfaces in sci-fi movies that make a lot of sense. We have "transparency" in XP (and other OS too). Will the form always be a flat rectangle. Could it it be three deminsional - could future forms spin on an axis? Will forms even be part of the interface. As we work to reduce the decisions users need to make on the interface, the interface will evolve.

So are our users. Why put them through a learning curve if we don't have to?
This assumes that a learning curve is to be expected with any GUI solution. I am doing nothing more than challenging this assumption.