1) It's just been my experience, when designing and discussing user interfaces, to include "how discoverable" an application is as a factor to how "usable" they

1) It's just been my experience, when designing and discussing user interfaces, to include "how discoverable" an application is as a factor to how "usable" they are. A LOT OF FEATURES that experts can use does not necessarily make something usable. If this falls outside of the purview of what you consider to be satisfactory, that's fine by me. 2) Not really. You'd have a few context menus, and maybe an inspector window might be necessary. Obviously you're not going to represent all of the keyshortcuts but there is no good reason why I can't right click on a split and reorganize it relative to my other buffers. Or select text and hide it using whatever feature "zf" is called. Etc, etc. Maybe I have an extremely dim of the full, non plugin augmented, vim featureset but… I think it would be possible. 3) Now you're the one splitting hairs. A blog post covering a specific vim key combo… is documentation of a technical sort. C'mon now. Few people are reading that to relax after work. >The rest of vim's feature set is large enough that it will require some type of research to uncover I disagree with this. I mean, if you want to compete at vimgolf, of course you need to know the internals inside and out. But there ought to be no reason why I need to memorize five commands off the bat just to split a window. Or set a macro. Or blah blah blah blah.