If our field is “to advance”, we must – without displacing creativity and aesthetics – make sure our terminology is clear.

Once the product’s task is known, design the interface first; then implement to the interface design.

What I proposed was a computer that would be easy to use, mix text and graphics, and sell for about $1,000. Steve Jobs said that it was a crazy idea, that it would never sell, and we didn’t want anything like it. He tried to shoot the project down.

I hate mice. The mouse involves you in arm motions that slow you down. I didn’t want it on the Macintosh, but Jobs insisted. In those days, what he said went, good idea or not.

As far as the customer is concerned, the interface is the product.

I am confident that we can do better than GUIs because the basic problem with them (and with the Linux and Unix interfaces) is that they ask a human being to do things that we know experimentally humans cannot do well. The question I asked myself is, given everything we know about how the human mind works, could we design a computer and computer software so that we can work with the least confusion and greatest efficiency?

I hate mice. The mouse involves you in arm motions that slow you down. I didn't want it on the Macintosh, but Jobs insisted. In those days, what he said went, good idea or not.

When you have to choose among methods, your locus of attention is drawn from the task and temporarily becomes the decision itself.

If I am correct, the use of a product based on modelessness and monoty would soon become so habitual as to be nearly addictive, leading to a user population devoted to and loyal to the product.

If I had not studied music, there would be no Macintosh computers today.