A person is entirely capable of learning and mastering more than one interface. All that's required is the ability to build cognitive model of how the thing wor

A person is entirely capable of learning and mastering more than one interface. All that's required is the ability to build cognitive model of how the thing works that remains coherent as they use it. Humans are actually quite adept at learning new things,, and the tendency to assume that familiarity is a necessity is one of the things that has caused interfaces to stagnate. What is telling is that for as long as we've had the familiar "full UI" of a "real desktop", many intelligent and motivated people still struggle with many of the conventions. Have you ever marveled at the fact that most desktop software in 2010 still defaults to destroying your work? And if you do want to keep your work, it insists that you give it a name, a name which must be unique and must not contain certain characters that the computer is entirely capable of understanding, and then it asks that you choose where in some invisible hierarchy you want to keep it (even though the answer in almost every case is is "where I can find it again"). All of this complicates something that might as well be done with pen and paper. These are things that everyone who uses a desktop interface has to get used to, and there are some good reasons that they are the way they are, but they aren't necessary things for the task. It is possible to safely shed all of these conventions and end up with something that still gets the job done, possibly better than the traditional desktop way.