>Such a philosophy makes computer far less accessible than they are. It would be: "if you don't know who to use it, don't touch it", and make exploring an application much more difficult. We've all been faced with a certain option that we couldn't figure out what it did just by the it's name, so we've tried it, and when it asked "are you sure you want to do blah blah blah?", we realized it's definitly not what we wanted, so we told him "No".
>
>Sorry, but I am certainly not going to read that book!

Now I am actually wanting to read it, re-think most of the ideas it elaborates on, and get some really good reasons to keep doing as I'm doing already. I mean, the whole idea of re-thinking the interface at times is not bad at all, but then we may obviously come to very different conclusions. Who knows, I may get some ideas.

Analogies are no proof - computers are just a different medium, and forcing them to behave like books, typewriters or washing machines will probably lead to failure or bad design. The "need to save" may be just the point where this difference is visible.

Take the car - it's full of counter-intuitive controls. How many gear shifts have you seen where you have to pull to go forward, and to push to reverse? Or, the door handle you have to lift, while for all the other doors in the world you have to turn it or press down. Or even worse - there are chairs in all cars, but no tables.

p.s. I'm still amazed at phones having no Enter... ooops, Tab key