> And you have to admit that the screenshots are so 20th-century,
	> so retro-noir.
	
	I'm curious how you'd describe, say, Windows, by that measure.

Not in polite company.

	The 20th century was only a year or so ago - I don't think we've
	had time to establish a 21st century aesthetic yet.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding the smiley key on this keyboard.

I was actually referring to the black "melted" look of some of the
fictitious devices.  I found some of the screen shots quite depressing
to look at.

	One issue to keep in mind was that a number of these devices used touch
	screens or very, very poor pointing devices,

which is one reason why screen space spent on decoration makes such an
interface harder to use, even if it seems prettier.

	another was that we found a
	substantial number of users, typically older folks, were simply unable to
	either see or use little widgets, let alone understand their function.

And THAT is perhaps the most important reason why photorealism is not such
a wonderful idea.  I personally would find large text much more appealing
than cutesy-cutesy pictures.  Does the interface still work when all the
text is in 24pt or larger type?  The photographs of people were *exactly*
the kind of thing that an elderly person might have trouble discriminating;
is/was there any way to blow them up to full- or at least half- screen size?

	One has to understand what this system was for - it was not a replacement
	for Windows for normal personal-computer-type work.  They were for devices
	that sat next to your favorite TV-watching chair in the den, or in the
	kitchen near to or instead of the telephone, provided some simple web
	browsing and email, with some shopping, news, and other stuff thrown in.
	The devices themselves were sexy, and the interface was sexy too.
	
Sexy gadgets get *bought*.  And then they get put in the garbage, just
like exercise machines.  Telephones aren't sexy, but they get *used* a lot.
Kitchen knives aren't sexy, like food processors, but in the handful of
households I know about the food processor mostly stays in the cupboard
and things get chopped with a knife.

What you want for an interface that people will use a lot is one that is
so simple people have a hard time noticing that it *exists*.  I don't know
how to make an interface like that.  How can you make an interface that
is as boring as a notebook, but as useful as a notebook + telephone +
newspaper + ...  hang on, how do you make a Dynabook?

For a device that sits next to the TV chair, in the kitchen, &c,
it may be more important that the device survive repeated dropping onto
an uncarpeted floor and repeated investigation by young children (including
determined tapping on the screen and wedging things into any visible
crevices) than that it have a sexy interface.

	Exobox was what it was, good or bad - and I think it's a shame
	we won't know which.  I guess the world's going to be stuck with
	MS's adopted vision of UI.
	
I can agree heartily with that without actually liking the screenshots.