Q: Why bother with new interfaces? Isn't the Macintosh interface - which you helped design - good enough?

A: First of all, this is not a Mac issue. It's not a Wintel or Linux or Sun issue, either. It's a human issue. I have yet to meet a computer user who is happy with the way computers treat them. And most of their pain is caused by bad interface design. That includes overcomplex software, nonexistent manuals and help systems that themselves need help. It's been 22 years since I started the Mac. And a lot more is known now than nearly 30 years ago when Xerox Parc [Palo Alto Research Center] was first using [Douglas] Engelbart's mouse and inventing windows, with a small w. Forcing users to still work with current interfaces is like giving them the old 640-by-480-pixel screens and slow processors we used back then.

Q: What benefits would users derive from improved interfaces?

A: Anytime you make a system faster to use, easier to learn and less frustrating, there are psychological benefits to the individual user and bottom-line productivity benefits to the enterprise. There are also physical benefits: an interface that takes fewer keystrokes and less "mousing around" creates less repetitive stress injuries.

Q: Will users bother with new interfaces?

A: You can't imagine how many times I was told that nobody wanted or would use graphics-oriented interface widgets when I was creating the Macintosh, and I kept on hearing that even after it was released. Now, flawed though they might be, everybody uses them.

Q: How do you think interfaces should evolve during the next five to 10 years?

A: That's a huge question. In general, present interfaces overuse the mouse and icons and rely on methods that we know now to cause users to actually make errors. Also, we turn the Web into a maze of little rooms with opaque doors called tabs [the tabbed navigation bar in use at many e-commerce sites today] and URLs, so that you can't see where you're going.

Q: What about recent forays into adaptive interfaces, such as in Microsoft Corp.'s Office 2000 menus?

A: Adaptive interfaces are a disaster. When an interface "adapts," it changes without warning, and you suddenly have a new interface where things work differently or the menus are mixed up. Windows 2000 has some adaptive features, and every user report I've seen says that they are a nuisance. What people want is a stable environment that works well from the get-go, doesn't crash, doesn't lose your work or even lose your place, and which doesn't change.

Q: Does Linux offer hope of interface salvation?

A: That's a big disappointment. I like Linux, but the developers keep designing what are, at best, puerile improvements on standard GUIs [graphical user interfaces]. You cannot design interfaces in a piecemeal way.

Q: Will new interfaces somehow replace the need to learn new programs?

A: The new interfaces I've designed do just that. In my current interface designs, everything you need is laid out for you. You just zoom in, and as soon as you can read the text or see the graphic details, you can work on them. Then there's no need for windows, which you are forever opening, closing, moving or fooling with.

Q: Don't different software applications require different interfaces?

A: Well, it is possible to integrate all applications into one uniform structure that you'd learn quickly and then never have to relearn or unlearn. You almost never use all the features of an application. I doubt if there are 10 people on the planet who know every command in Microsoft Office. One part of the solution is to be able to add just the commands you need and not have to pull in a gargantuan application.

Q: How has your zooming interface fared with users?

A: The user testing we've done shows that people learn these interfaces in minutes and come to love them very quickly. They also find that it's hard to go back to a stodgy old Mac or Windows GUI, which is why I know that once the new interfaces get out there, they will eventually take over.

Q: How will radically new interfaces come to market?

A: It's not the kind of thing where you can make dinky, evolutionary changes, unfortunately. It will take a company as bold as Apple used to be to introduce a new interface idea. On the other hand, it is one of the few opportunities that a company would have to become a billion-dollar player in the PC, PDA [personal digital assistant] and other information appliance game.