>
We don't expect people to know very much about what's going on under the hood of a car to drive one. It's enough to know how to turn the thing on, put it in gear, press the accelerator and steer. Knowing how to use the brake is also useful. <g> The user interface of a car is many times easier to use than the user interface of most software. In addition, there's tremendous consistency from one car to the next. There are essentially only two major interface models to learn - automatic transmission and manual. Nobody would ever think of reversing the position of the gas and brake pedals "because it might look better that way." The variations that exist are minor ones - one manufacturer might have the gas pedal further up off the floor. (There are also variations when you come to less important controls and they're annoying when you rent or borrow a car.)
>
We Don't!? I would hope that everyone who drives has a basic knowledge of how a car operates as well as all of the rules of the road! It's obvious that everyone doesn't (just look at the number of deaths on our roads) but the people who don't know how to use that tool shouldn't drive how that tool is designed.

Things should not be "DUMBED DOWN" to the lowest common denominator to accommodate a few on the fringe. If the few can’t learn to use the tool should we scrap the whole thing? I think not.

The "USERS" of a piece of software are not necessarily the ones fitting the bill for it, so it may not be the case that what the user thinks is the best UI design is what should be programmed. In many cases whether or not the interface allows for heads down entry is not nearly so important to the company paying for the development as whether or not something can be accomplished. We as developers do have an obligation to make our designs as user friendly as possible but that obligation is subservient to the obligation to reach the customer’s goals.