I take the author's point that if something requires a user to undertake extensive training (or at least an extended period of familiarization) in order to beco

I take the author's point that if something requires a user to undertake extensive training (or at least an extended period of familiarization) in order to become proficient with it, then it is not, and never was, intuitive, and also that the mouse, when introduced, was not familiar. Is not the latter, however, why it is called intuitive instead of familiar? Is it not useful to have a word to describe something that is not familiar, but which, after minimal experience, becomes so? (In this case, on account of taking advantage of many things that are familiar.) If not 'intuitive' (or 'intuitable'), then what? I am not convinced that 'intuitive' is being abused to the point where we should drop it. If the author's customers are confused by the difference between 'familiar' and 'intuitive', conflating them is not going to help.