I found this article by Bret enlightening. The expectation, though, that Engelbart's legacy could be communicated clearly by the New York Times in the obituary

I found this article by Bret enlightening. The expectation, though, that Engelbart's legacy could be communicated clearly by the New York Times in the obituary is too high. The headline reads like this: > Douglas C. Engelbart, Inventor of the Computer Mouse, Dies at 88 Imagine, then, if the headline read: > Douglas C. Engelbart, Augmenter of Human Intellect, Dies at 88 The former is much clearer and understandable, especially taking into consideration the audience of the New York Times. Bret's article has the luxury of expounding and explaining to an audience that is sympathetic to his values; I myself was ignorant of Englebart's contributions as well as his personal ideology when it came to this life mission, and so greatly appreciate Bret's writing. But, while the NYT article might seem untrue or ignorant to those who knew Engelbart and understood him, for most people, the appreciation for Engelbart comes out of the more 'mundane' things that were the side effects of his vision: the mouse, hypertext, etc. Most can appreciate the significance of these inventions, though the value of Engelbart's core works might escape them.