This brief note is a precursor to a full essay, but so I don't forget...

You're always hearing about metaphor in interface design, the desktop metaphor, the window metaphor, clipboard, paste, etc. The question is, at what level should the metaphor be implemented?

To use the desktop metaphor as an example, modern windowing systems, like KDE for example, while still sharing a very similar look and feel with Windows and MacOS, is gradually divesting itself of 'desktoppy' items in key ways, such as making it more difficult to save items to the (for lack of a better term) 'desktop'. This results in a more action-oriented space instead of a file-structure space.

To show extremes, General Magic's MagicLink, amongst others, tried to create a 1 to 1 mapping between the desktop and the screen, such that you see an actual desktop on the screen, complete with drawers, an alarm clock, a filing cabinet behind it, a door and a window. You could navigate the space in an RPG-like fashion, strolling outside to see the storefronts (post office, AOL, etc) and interact with the stores. (In the full version I'll go in to why this is awful and was one of the downfalls of the system)

OSes like WebTV and TiVo abandon the desktop metaphor completely, resulting in what I'll call an 'appliance' OS. The realization here is that interactions with these appliances and consequently their OSes, is not a completely immersive experience. These items are tools and you're using them in a greater context. They exist primarily of modal, full-screen views, and they don't attempt to be everything to everyone.

Well, I've gotta run, but I will write more on this later.

Adieu!