License: GPL
What is an appliance? A refrigerator is a prime example: I can walk to a refrigerator in Hong Kong, and know how to use it: I open the door, put in my beer, and after passage of time, it becomes cold. Open door, take out now cold beverage. Done.
A simple Axe, on the other hand, is a tool. One needs to learn how to use it — in experienced hands, an axe can splinter a match stick. In inexperienced hands, on the other hand, an axe hitting at the wrong angle can bounce off the wood you are chopping and take off your foot. Please note that there is nothing complicated about an axe — so mere complexity is not what distinguishes a tool from an appliance.
An axe is a versatile tool, though. It can be used to fell trees. Firefighters use it to rescue people by going through doors. Dwarwen warriors use it as a weapon of war. It come in versions that can be lightly thrown, or wielded two handed for telling effect. And remember, the term hacker comes from those who created furniture using axes.
Tools need to be learned. However, mastery of a tool can lead to wondrous creations — think furniture (I have never heard of any significant refrigerator-fu, I fear).
This brings us to interface design. I use my computer as a tool of my trade. It is what I do, and I have invested effort in leaning how to use it effectively. I understand there are people who want to use computers as a typewriter appliance; and proclaim they have no desire to invest time required to master computers as a tool. Please understand that this has nothing to do with novices; a apprentice may well be uninitiated in the intricacies of a tool at the inception of his career, but can still be committed to mastering it.
For the most part I can accept the view point of the people who want to use computers as appliances — though I personally feel that is a waste of a general purpose computer. I have no interest in catering to that viewpoint. Unfortunately, there is a vast difference between user interfaces for people who want appliances, and those who want a versatile tool — and I fear the user interfaces are being hijacked by people belonging to the former set. (Anecdote: I used to go to a travel agent, using Sabre software — each keystroke was bound to some kind of macro,and she could scan through several alternatives through multiple airlines faster than orbitz can. Using a menu driven UI wold take me half an hour to do what she did in seconds). I see applications getting bloated with user interfaces designed for the infrequent user, with little care being given to the needs of the people who are intent on speed and ease of operation, not on flattening the learning curve down to nothing.
Update: As Tollef Fog Heen points out, the critical distinction is frequency of use: for items one uses frequently it is worth paying the cost of climbing the learning curve, and flexibility and ease of operation count for far more than the cost of learning to use the tool. For items used but infrquently, one has pay the cost of the learning curve many times over; and thus it would make sense to minimize the curve. Not all interface design ought to cater to the sentiment that these programs are used but infrequently. And, in the old days, I could learn the use of a program that best suited my needs, figure out common command switches, and script them, and never really have to re-climb the curve.
Thanks for listening.