It's good to keep at the music industry (the part that makes these claims downloading music is hurting the industry), but this brushes up against ludicrous! I for one REFUSE to add my purchasing habits to this database -- nice goal, but other-worldly misguided.
The evidence ALREADY exists! This isn't a problem whereby the music industry needs proof. It's a problem whereby the music industry can't interpret its business case out of a wet paper bag. They'll never get it, and while savvy new conduits for music spring up from those who do, maybe eventually, the music industry as we know it today will finally cease to exist, or at least cease to hold sway with heavy handed tactics.
However, just to add my $.02, I CAN say I've virtually stopped buying any new music anymore -- fortunately I'm old enough to have accumulated more than 1000 CD's from which I can create my own mp3 heaven, and use streaming wireless devices anywhere in my house to access my whole library. I've stopped buying because I'm so tired of tracking what the speed bumps may be (does this disc have copy protection?, etc.).
I hate when IT people put msg in subject!
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 1
I'm just checking out the first ever 'Earthrise' sequence and they are beautiful.
I know that there really isn't such a thing as a sunrise or sunset, a moonrise or moonset, since they're really just illusions caused by the rotation of earth. But I've often wondered about these "earthrise" pictures. Since the same side of the moon always faces the Earth, would this not imply there could be no such thing as an Earthrise on the moon? Wouldn't a person on the moon always see Earth in the same apparent position in the sky, and only see different phases? So, I've got to think these Earthrise pictures must be different pictures of Earth as the LEM or Command Module orbit the moon.
Your school gets its chalk from a single vendor? Well, actually, do you really know schools get their chalk from a single vendor? My feeling is, it's unlikely they do -- they get it from whomever sells it for the cheapest price.
The same company has been supplying football uniforms to your school and has a virtual monopoly? Again, how do you know this? And, again, compared to the selection in the world of computing, there are probably many more uniform vendors from which to choose.
Only one vendor is allowed to visit campus to sell senior portraits? Well, this one makes sense. Of course, once a contract/deal has been struck with a vendor to do the school portraits it would make sense they are the only one (for that year!). The difference is, each year the school can make a choice for a price/quality competitive vendor. I find it difficult to think of a way for photography vendors to lock in schools with versioning and maintenance contracts that make it difficult to change year to year. And, how many photography vendors are there across just the United States? I'm guessing lots.
All the desks in your school come from a single supplier? Ibid. (I know, it's not the appropriate use of ibid.)
If none of these bother you, ask yourself why it bothers you who supplies the PCs and software to your school? If you answer the question truthfully, you'll discover that you have a zelous hidden agenda.
And Microsoft doesn't???
..., Part of the problem is that even if you matched the admissions test results for a graduate school with individual PC or Mac preferences to discover a strong positive correlation, people would argue that the Mac users are exceptional for other reasons, that the tests don't measure anything relevant, and that it's unethical to do this in the first place ... In fact, it's pretty clear that this topic is sufficiently emotionally loaded that you'd get shouted down by one side or another no matter how you did the research; and that's too bad because a clear answer one way or the other would be interesting...
ummmm, I think the author of the article has got this covered. Your have the right to remain steamed. But, he DID cover this.
Have you ever written anything Mr. Sowell writes in the political vein? Intelligent is not the word I'd use...
And no one asks you to use the word intelligent. What Mr. Sowell writes is clearly under the heading "opinion".
I think there's a distinction to be made though. What Mr. Sowell points out is technology polluting his experience and not delivering on its implied promise for productivity, ease-of-use, etc. And, I think his point is valid. And, I think it is more tangible than identifying whether Mr. Sowell "delivers" on his promise. And, whether Mr. Sowell does or doesn't deliver is irrelevant in this discussion.
But, to momentarily digress, another huge difference is if you don't like Mr. Sowell's product (which you barely pay for, assuming you come across his columns as most of us do -- in the paper or magazine), you have other options: John Leo; George Will; Dave Barry; et al. At least you have those options. I imagine part of the motivation to dedicate a column to this screed is frustration with the constrained/limited options Mr. Sowell finds in the software market. And, I think THAT point is valid.
(at the risk of going on and on... I suppose we're buried deep enough here we don't have to worry about "trivial/redundant/troll" mods...)
No, I don't have trouble with volume/mute. I know going in what to expect because it is my world, my discipline... using/programming/desiging computers. I've come to accept that I have to re-learn each time I get a new machine where the various "features" are. (I find it interesting that, not only are things like volume/mute controls, etc., are amazingly diverse in their placement/ergonomics on various machines, but that the suite of "features" varies wildly from machine to machine.) I get that! And it doesn't bother me anymore.
But from the user's world (non-geek types) it's a nightmare. I think you mentioned the extension to Sowell's automobile metaphor. You pointed out that it really ISN'T as simple as turning a key and going. You pointed out he has to put gas in it, change the oil, etc.
But I would submit that your point actually supports my position -- the notion of putting gas in the car, changing the oil is numbingly transparent. Why? Because it is extremely "portable". If you know how to put gas in one car, you know how to put gas in another. There is nothing portable about the various presentations of user-space in software. There is nothing consistent about it (do I double-click here, or single click?, or do I drag and drop?)...
As for my mother and her violin... yes it does require a certain amount of competence to play. But she can play her Guarneri violin with the same look and feel as the Kaye violins of her students (though certainly not with the same quality of sound). She doesn't have to learn a new interface simply because she's using a different violin.
Obviously, these metaphors twist and skew the original points and discussion, but they're grist for thought. I agree with you: there is a difference between making a user interface simple and making it so absurdly dumbed down that it is equally unusable, but I sometimes thing the technical community isn't trying hard enough, or just isn't aware enough of just how hard it CAN be to use a computer.
I kept asking myself, "How could the developers be so LAME as to assume they know what I want to accomplish more than I do?"
I agree! It is the height of condescension for software (developers) to assume they know what I/you/we meant to do and override it for us as the default behavior. You're experience illustrates what happens to others and costs them (and me) time when they have to "learn" how to make the software behave neutrally. The default behaviour SHOULD be neutral -- if the "extras" are that cool, and that good, and that necessary, use of those features will catch on by word of mouth. (an example of uncool "extras" is the entire obtuse suite of MS keyboard shortcuts... while they qualify as shortcuts, they certainly fail the usability test -- I've been using them for over 10 years, and I still haven't come up with a mnemonic system to make them common everyday experience -- let alone trying to make them understood by others -- could you imaging a world where the default behavior of windows was to be able to navigate ONLY by keyboard??? and point and click was something you had to activate?)
You make very good points. It is nigh impossible to design a computer to be something you just turn on and it'll do what you want it to. But I think from the user community's standpoint, that's the undelivered promise. For heaven's sake, Bill Gates virtually promised in 1999 (I made note of this predicition, it was one of his silliest) that within a couple of years people would simply talk to their computers to do their work and the computer would know what to do.
I don't know if it's over-optimism on the part of the technical community or insensitivity. (In Gates' case, I think it's ongoing PR to perpetuate his dynasty... "No, really, this time it'll work!" (as an aside, I've always thought of the MS juggernaut as very much like Lucy in the Peanuts cartoon where she promises each time to Charlie Brown she will NOT pull the football away when he kicks it -- and each time....)).
I DO think there is room for improvement. As a matter of fact I think we've evolved the wrong way and each day we have MORE room for improvement. It's cool to have the gee-whiz features, but I think even complex software can have a soft place to land for 90% of its functionality. My favorite software (if it qualifies for that description) is google... It can be amazingly complex to use, but for more than 90% of the user community's experience it's basically as simple as typing a couple of words into an input box and hitting ENTER. (For the complex stuff, read the "100 Google Hacks".... good stuff....
This is exactly the attitude that perpetuates (and widens) the gap between the geek community and their "clientelle". There are many highly intelligent people out there who don't know "our" language, and don't care to -- they just want to do work that was promised to be easier and faster by using a computer -- a promise rarely delivered.
It sounds to me like what Thomas Sowell really needs to do is learn how to use the VOL and MUTE buttons on his laptop. If he's unlucky, it requires some FN-key combination.
If he's "unlucky"?!? Then that would be about 90% of the experience -- My experience has been that I must figure out for each machine what it takes to turn down the volume or mute the sound. It's seemingly different (and obtuse) on each machine. And, you've only addressed ONE of his problems/complaints. He isn't asking how to turn down the volume on his computer -- he's pointing out how "noisy" the world of computer software is; noisy in the sense of interference.
I used to blame the idiocy of the users, their laziness and reluctance to learn until I bought a computer for my parents. One is a concert violinist, the other is a Doctor -- both IMHO of genius caliber intelligence (familial bias of course). It has been an ongoing struggle to introduce them to the metaphors I use daily -- our world of techdom is just that. OUR world... We need to overcome our hubris and live the experience through users' eyes.
I think Sowell "gets it" more than the technical community does. I think the camera analogy is apt -- make whatever product as sexy and complex as you want (WORD?), but make it transparent to do the most common tasks. Kind of like an appliance. Like a toaster... if you just want toast, you drop the bread in the slots, press the lever and you get toast. Any other "cool" features should be accessible but not overlaying the 90% use functionality.
I do technology for a living, and I STILL pull what's left of my hair out just trying to figure out how to make word stop putting bullets and numbers in front of my "paragraphs" every time I indent (please, no advice -- I haven't used WORD for years -- it's an illustration).
Because they are NOT a monopoly! Microsoft can do anything they want to, as long as it is NOT abusing their position of monopoly to unfairly skew the playing field for their advantage. Plain and simple.
you are wise to ask questions. And you are not only correct the movie ABM seemed to put schizophrenia in a best scenario light, it put it in an unbelievably inaccurate, and misleading light (what else would one expect from a movie directed by Opie?). I suggest you do research, and read research by some respected experts. You might start with some of the research by Kay Jamison, while she specializes in manic-depressive research, her insights into the mind are fascinating (she has personal experience, she has grown up an extreme manic-depressive).
You might ask Michael Moore, the guy who is religous about "America", you know, the one who exposed the large corporations that were shipping jobs out of the United States to foreign countries?
Our local news station recently did a piece on him -- apparently he has hired out the work to create and support his web site to a small firm in Canada. So, he should know about the advantages of taking jobs to a different country...
Look for major shifts in disruptive technology and be prepared to ride the wave ahead of the opponent
GUI in this case, WP missed it and couldn't play catchup quick enough
Don't forsake backward compatibility
Apple did it with IIe to Mac, WordStar did it in this article. It gives people the opportunity to re-evaluate a leveled playing field when they are already pissed at you.
Personally I think it's great that they recognize talented individuals and reward them well.
This sounds similar to the argument "customers LIKE Microsoft and feel they are getting a good deal", which of course, is not the point. The point is Microsoft CAN DO these things largely because of their monopoly position and their abuse of that position. If my company had $50B in the petty cash fund (it doesn't) we could equally afford to go after all of the world talent.
I respectfully disagree with the thesis that ease of use and security are somehow directly related. They are IMO, at best, indirectly related.
Moreover, I think a lot of the MS Windows XX security issues stem more from derivation and ancestry than simplicity to use (the discussion of whether Windows is simple to use is a whole 'nother discussion!). That is, the roots of Windows is the PC, with the emphasis on "P", i.e., "PERSONAL". When Windows was spawned, the notion of multi-user was non-existent. Even Windows NT, XP, etc. is not really a multi-user environment. Soooooo, when Windows had to come up with "multi-user" architecture, the groundwork had been laid, and the whole multi-user framework has been layered on top of the "P", with all of the convenience functionality mostly intact (default root access to directory structures (anyone can download and install software)), e-mail's launching executables for those users with, by default, root privelege, etc.
Yes, these are artifacts of "ease of use", but the insecurity is not because of ease of use, but more because MS chose not to go back and re-craft the "single user" framework.
Sigh. I'll grant you yours and me mine. (I did not know you are not a programmer -- an assumption made (maybe unfairly) that/. readers are.)
I agree if one were unknowingly dropped into vi, it wouldn't be obvious what to do to get out. (I'd also argue that to be true for virtually any piece of software, depending on the background of the user -- it becomes relative -- my father would have not a clue what "^X" means in pico...., and I would describe him (with some familial bias) as a genius -- he makes violins from scratch as a hobby.)
So, a truce, and good luck with your continued editor experiences...:-)
Well then, you're interest "level" really sums it up. A bit unfair to be so critical without showing enough interest to research.
For the record, vi can be configured to support:
real-estate hogging menus in text mode (just not a desirable thing)
color syntax
builtin interaction with shell
builtin scripting
split windows
multi-file editing
plugins for perl, python, etc.
much more...
Regardless, I'll keep an eye out for you -- I don't think I would want to work on a project with an engineer lacking intellectual curiousity enough to do a little research before knocking the legs out from under good software (mixing metaphors).
And, yes, I've researched and used, and even contributed code to various editors including, but not limited to: emacs, xemacs, vi, vim, gvim, pico, medit, nvi, virtually every IDE editor, jedit, and many more. I used many of these editors extensively, but vi still holds the title of best in class.
I get that, I know what you're saying. But, in any tool, application, thing, etc., you are experiencing for only the first time, by definition, you are going to have to look for EVERYTHING!, help included.
While it sounds like you have little interest in giving vi much more of a chance, if you DO decide at some point to reconsider, you might look at, install, and test "gvim", which is a nice gui version vi -- with familiar "things" in familiar "places" for people who might be more used to editors like Notepad (e.g., pull down menus, mouse interaction, et. al.).
I think your example is like saying a 1st-Grade Reading Primer is more learnable AND more usable than the novel "Moby Dick".
There is virtually nothing to learn to be reasonably adept at editing simple text with Notepad, but a user who has complex editing needs, and sophisticated manipulation tasks of a text file will immediately run out of tricks in Notepad.
vi is eminently learnable, but the key here is the word "learnable". The rules are amazingly consistent (upper case does "upper case" versions of commands, etc.), and vi's power to this day continues to amaze me.
While and troll if you will about notepad vs. vi, but you only show your willingness to learn, not the learnability and objective comparison of 2 very differently-targeted tools.
Slashdot Mirror
The evidence ALREADY exists! This isn't a problem whereby the music industry needs proof. It's a problem whereby the music industry can't interpret its business case out of a wet paper bag. They'll never get it, and while savvy new conduits for music spring up from those who do, maybe eventually, the music industry as we know it today will finally cease to exist, or at least cease to hold sway with heavy handed tactics.
However, just to add my $.02, I CAN say I've virtually stopped buying any new music anymore -- fortunately I'm old enough to have accumulated more than 1000 CD's from which I can create my own mp3 heaven, and use streaming wireless devices anywhere in my house to access my whole library. I've stopped buying because I'm so tired of tracking what the speed bumps may be (does this disc have copy protection?, etc.).
see subject
I know that there really isn't such a thing as a sunrise or sunset, a moonrise or moonset, since they're really just illusions caused by the rotation of earth. But I've often wondered about these "earthrise" pictures. Since the same side of the moon always faces the Earth, would this not imply there could be no such thing as an Earthrise on the moon? Wouldn't a person on the moon always see Earth in the same apparent position in the sky, and only see different phases? So, I've got to think these Earthrise pictures must be different pictures of Earth as the LEM or Command Module orbit the moon.
Well, actually, do you really know schools get their chalk from a single vendor? My feeling is, it's unlikely they do -- they get it from whomever sells it for the cheapest price.
Again, how do you know this? And, again, compared to the selection in the world of computing, there are probably many more uniform vendors from which to choose.
Well, this one makes sense. Of course, once a contract/deal has been struck with a vendor to do the school portraits it would make sense they are the only one (for that year!). The difference is, each year the school can make a choice for a price/quality competitive vendor. I find it difficult to think of a way for photography vendors to lock in schools with versioning and maintenance contracts that make it difficult to change year to year. And, how many photography vendors are there across just the United States? I'm guessing lots.
Ibid. (I know, it's not the appropriate use of ibid.)
If none of these bother you, ask yourself why it bothers you who supplies the PCs and software to your school? If you answer the question truthfully, you'll discover that you have a zelous hidden agenda.
And Microsoft doesn't???
(from the article:)
ummmm, I think the author of the article has got this covered. Your have the right to remain steamed. But, he DID cover this.
Third, if you live in the USA, it is quite bovious that someone who can afford a Mac, may more likely afford good education.
it isn't that bovious to me!
And no one asks you to use the word intelligent. What Mr. Sowell writes is clearly under the heading "opinion".
I think there's a distinction to be made though. What Mr. Sowell points out is technology polluting his experience and not delivering on its implied promise for productivity, ease-of-use, etc. And, I think his point is valid. And, I think it is more tangible than identifying whether Mr. Sowell "delivers" on his promise. And, whether Mr. Sowell does or doesn't deliver is irrelevant in this discussion.
But, to momentarily digress, another huge difference is if you don't like Mr. Sowell's product (which you barely pay for, assuming you come across his columns as most of us do -- in the paper or magazine), you have other options: John Leo; George Will; Dave Barry; et al. At least you have those options. I imagine part of the motivation to dedicate a column to this screed is frustration with the constrained/limited options Mr. Sowell finds in the software market. And, I think THAT point is valid.
No, I don't have trouble with volume/mute. I know going in what to expect because it is my world, my discipline... using/programming/desiging computers. I've come to accept that I have to re-learn each time I get a new machine where the various "features" are. (I find it interesting that, not only are things like volume/mute controls, etc., are amazingly diverse in their placement/ergonomics on various machines, but that the suite of "features" varies wildly from machine to machine.) I get that! And it doesn't bother me anymore.
But from the user's world (non-geek types) it's a nightmare. I think you mentioned the extension to Sowell's automobile metaphor. You pointed out that it really ISN'T as simple as turning a key and going. You pointed out he has to put gas in it, change the oil, etc.
But I would submit that your point actually supports my position -- the notion of putting gas in the car, changing the oil is numbingly transparent. Why? Because it is extremely "portable". If you know how to put gas in one car, you know how to put gas in another. There is nothing portable about the various presentations of user-space in software. There is nothing consistent about it (do I double-click here, or single click?, or do I drag and drop?)...
As for my mother and her violin... yes it does require a certain amount of competence to play. But she can play her Guarneri violin with the same look and feel as the Kaye violins of her students (though certainly not with the same quality of sound). She doesn't have to learn a new interface simply because she's using a different violin.
Obviously, these metaphors twist and skew the original points and discussion, but they're grist for thought. I agree with you: there is a difference between making a user interface simple and making it so absurdly dumbed down that it is equally unusable, but I sometimes thing the technical community isn't trying hard enough, or just isn't aware enough of just how hard it CAN be to use a computer.
It's been very nice chatting with you...
I agree! It is the height of condescension for software (developers) to assume they know what I/you/we meant to do and override it for us as the default behavior. You're experience illustrates what happens to others and costs them (and me) time when they have to "learn" how to make the software behave neutrally. The default behaviour SHOULD be neutral -- if the "extras" are that cool, and that good, and that necessary, use of those features will catch on by word of mouth. (an example of uncool "extras" is the entire obtuse suite of MS keyboard shortcuts... while they qualify as shortcuts, they certainly fail the usability test -- I've been using them for over 10 years, and I still haven't come up with a mnemonic system to make them common everyday experience -- let alone trying to make them understood by others -- could you imaging a world where the default behavior of windows was to be able to navigate ONLY by keyboard??? and point and click was something you had to activate?)
I don't know if it's over-optimism on the part of the technical community or insensitivity. (In Gates' case, I think it's ongoing PR to perpetuate his dynasty... "No, really, this time it'll work!" (as an aside, I've always thought of the MS juggernaut as very much like Lucy in the Peanuts cartoon where she promises each time to Charlie Brown she will NOT pull the football away when he kicks it -- and each time....)).
I DO think there is room for improvement. As a matter of fact I think we've evolved the wrong way and each day we have MORE room for improvement. It's cool to have the gee-whiz features, but I think even complex software can have a soft place to land for 90% of its functionality. My favorite software (if it qualifies for that description) is google... It can be amazingly complex to use, but for more than 90% of the user community's experience it's basically as simple as typing a couple of words into an input box and hitting ENTER. (For the complex stuff, read the "100 Google Hacks".... good stuff....
This is exactly the attitude that perpetuates (and widens) the gap between the geek community and their "clientelle". There are many highly intelligent people out there who don't know "our" language, and don't care to -- they just want to do work that was promised to be easier and faster by using a computer -- a promise rarely delivered.
It sounds to me like what Thomas Sowell really needs to do is learn how to use the VOL and MUTE buttons on his laptop. If he's unlucky, it requires some FN-key combination.
If he's "unlucky"?!? Then that would be about 90% of the experience -- My experience has been that I must figure out for each machine what it takes to turn down the volume or mute the sound. It's seemingly different (and obtuse) on each machine. And, you've only addressed ONE of his problems/complaints. He isn't asking how to turn down the volume on his computer -- he's pointing out how "noisy" the world of computer software is; noisy in the sense of interference.
I used to blame the idiocy of the users, their laziness and reluctance to learn until I bought a computer for my parents. One is a concert violinist, the other is a Doctor -- both IMHO of genius caliber intelligence (familial bias of course). It has been an ongoing struggle to introduce them to the metaphors I use daily -- our world of techdom is just that. OUR world... We need to overcome our hubris and live the experience through users' eyes.
I do technology for a living, and I STILL pull what's left of my hair out just trying to figure out how to make word stop putting bullets and numbers in front of my "paragraphs" every time I indent (please, no advice -- I haven't used WORD for years -- it's an illustration).
Because they are NOT a monopoly! Microsoft can do anything they want to, as long as it is NOT abusing their position of monopoly to unfairly skew the playing field for their advantage. Plain and simple.
you are wise to ask questions. And you are not only correct the movie ABM seemed to put schizophrenia in a best scenario light, it put it in an unbelievably inaccurate, and misleading light (what else would one expect from a movie directed by Opie?). I suggest you do research, and read research by some respected experts. You might start with some of the research by Kay Jamison, while she specializes in manic-depressive research, her insights into the mind are fascinating (she has personal experience, she has grown up an extreme manic-depressive).
Good luck, God's speed with this.
You might ask Michael Moore, the guy who is religous about "America", you know, the one who exposed the large corporations that were shipping jobs out of the United States to foreign countries?
Our local news station recently did a piece on him -- apparently he has hired out the work to create and support his web site to a small firm in Canada. So, he should know about the advantages of taking jobs to a different country...
If you read (actually, watch) this article, you'll find google was using 15,000 linux servers as of the year 2002....
"how google does it"
...
Hmmmm, formatted in WORD?
This sounds similar to the argument "customers LIKE Microsoft and feel they are getting a good deal", which of course, is not the point. The point is Microsoft CAN DO these things largely because of their monopoly position and their abuse of that position. If my company had $50B in the petty cash fund (it doesn't) we could equally afford to go after all of the world talent.
Great! Now there's no use for that one strange friend who for some reason ALWAYS the name of that one song!
I respectfully disagree with the thesis that ease of use and security are somehow directly related. They are IMO, at best, indirectly related.
Moreover, I think a lot of the MS Windows XX security issues stem more from derivation and ancestry than simplicity to use (the discussion of whether Windows is simple to use is a whole 'nother discussion!). That is, the roots of Windows is the PC, with the emphasis on "P", i.e., "PERSONAL". When Windows was spawned, the notion of multi-user was non-existent. Even Windows NT, XP, etc. is not really a multi-user environment. Soooooo, when Windows had to come up with "multi-user" architecture, the groundwork had been laid, and the whole multi-user framework has been layered on top of the "P", with all of the convenience functionality mostly intact (default root access to directory structures (anyone can download and install software)), e-mail's launching executables for those users with, by default, root privelege, etc.
Yes, these are artifacts of "ease of use", but the insecurity is not because of ease of use, but more because MS chose not to go back and re-craft the "single user" framework.
Just my $.02.
Sigh. I'll grant you yours and me mine. (I did not know you are not a programmer -- an assumption made (maybe unfairly) that /. readers are.)
I agree if one were unknowingly dropped into vi, it wouldn't be obvious what to do to get out. (I'd also argue that to be true for virtually any piece of software, depending on the background of the user -- it becomes relative -- my father would have not a clue what "^X" means in pico...., and I would describe him (with some familial bias) as a genius -- he makes violins from scratch as a hobby.)
So, a truce, and good luck with your continued editor experiences... :-)
Well then, you're interest "level" really sums it up. A bit unfair to be so critical without showing enough interest to research.
For the record, vi can be configured to support:
Regardless, I'll keep an eye out for you -- I don't think I would want to work on a project with an engineer lacking intellectual curiousity enough to do a little research before knocking the legs out from under good software (mixing metaphors).
And, yes, I've researched and used, and even contributed code to various editors including, but not limited to: emacs, xemacs, vi, vim, gvim, pico, medit, nvi, virtually every IDE editor, jedit, and many more. I used many of these editors extensively, but vi still holds the title of best in class.
I get that, I know what you're saying. But, in any tool, application, thing, etc., you are experiencing for only the first time, by definition, you are going to have to look for EVERYTHING!, help included.
While it sounds like you have little interest in giving vi much more of a chance, if you DO decide at some point to reconsider, you might look at, install, and test "gvim", which is a nice gui version vi -- with familiar "things" in familiar "places" for people who might be more used to editors like Notepad (e.g., pull down menus, mouse interaction, et. al.).
I think your example is like saying a 1st-Grade Reading Primer is more learnable AND more usable than the novel "Moby Dick".
There is virtually nothing to learn to be reasonably adept at editing simple text with Notepad, but a user who has complex editing needs, and sophisticated manipulation tasks of a text file will immediately run out of tricks in Notepad.
vi is eminently learnable, but the key here is the word "learnable". The rules are amazingly consistent (upper case does "upper case" versions of commands, etc.), and vi's power to this day continues to amaze me.
While and troll if you will about notepad vs. vi, but you only show your willingness to learn, not the learnability and objective comparison of 2 very differently-targeted tools.
I keep hoping, but so far Verizon says my neighborhood doesn't qualify for homing pigeons, and they have no immediate plans to upgrade. Sigh.