Comments on L. Ross Raszewski's article on User Interfaces
<P>
 On the whole, the article seems to have few technical flaws, and the detail with which it maps the terrain of user interfaces is impressive.  Frankly, though, I have my doubts about the content.  I realize that this is a taxonomy, but if the goal is really just to catalogue different UI elements, some kind of tabular format would probably convey the information more succinctly.
 What I think would really flesh out the article nicely is an at least partial evaluation of the EFFECTS of these UI concerns on the medium as a whole, and on the experience of playing invidual games.  That is, although you've clearly stated WHAT the UI differences are, I'd be interested to know WHY an author might choose one UI over another, and HOW different UIs affect the player's experience.  Without this crucial element, much of the (abundant) information in the article seems to fizzle, unfocused.
 The carefully-constructed nomenclature for UI elements seems for naught, since the article never seems to have a need to refer back to previously described components; why go to the trouble of carefully defining textual and single-character input, for example, if you're never going to examine the meaningful differences between the two?  As it is, I'd say this article really belongs in the History section rather than the Craft section, because it doesn't go beyond a bare description of who did what when.  Also, while I'd be willing to deal with the technical, dense style if there were more substance behind it, it's somewhat frustrating to have to tackle this kind of tone just to be told (for instance) what the default interpreter colors usually are.  Some more specific comments:
<P>
 "The lower half of the pane is filed" -- should be "filled".
<P>
 There are some slight inconsistencies in tense throughout the article.  This may be too minor a point to bother with, but I'm just noting the difference between things like:
"Separating graphics into a distinct window appears earlier in IF history (presumably because of the difficulties involved in formatting text around images), with the addition of inline graphics becoming popular with HTML-TADS"
 and 
"However, the move toward graphical interfaces was slower in some parts than
others"
 This isn't incorrect per se -- in fact, I think it's actually perfectly correct -- but it's somewhat awkward, and it might be better to adopt a more consistent frame of reference.
<P>
 "Following Infocom convention, many interpreters defaults to" -- should be "default".
<P>
 There hasn't been an official release of TADS 3 yet, just an in-development version.  Also, I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that "the release of [...] TADS 3, sparked the IF community to begin small-scale use of graphics", in that only one game has been released in TADS 3, and the language hasn't yet had the kind of wide use that would provide a basis for claims about its effects on the medium.
<P>
 "Andrew Plotkin's [...] a turns/score counter, his next game [...]" -- comma should be a semicolon or period.
<P>
 The name of the game is "Arrival", not "The Arrival".
<P>
 The real author of "Stick it to the man" is Brendan Barnwell.