zlacker

>>sohkam+(OP)
I find it interesting how Dunlop was trying to solve the same kinds of problems Engelbart was, with the added constraint of preserving the shifgrethor of the top IBM executives. The fact that late-20th-century businessmen viewed such things as typing to be subordinates' work has had a more profound effect on the adoption of computer technologies, their development, and their marketing that we in modern times could guess without having known.

I'm also reminded of the Ashton-Tate software package Framework, which is one of my favorites from the 1980s. It's what they used to call "integrated software", which was a package of several productivity applications: word processor, spreadsheet, maybe a communications program or database or graphing capability, bundled together and sold as a unit. Unlike, say, Microsoft Works or DeskMate, Framework featured powerful versions of these tools and the ability to create composite documents, as well as a programming language with Lisp-like semantics to automate workflows. Because of this, Ashton-Tate pitched Framework as an executive decision-making tool, which was quite a bit different from how competitor programs like Lotus 1-2-3 were marketed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQMc0yIbvDg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIx-TGUkiSg

>>bitwiz+sl
Executives still consider being able to tell subordinates what to do in person more important than the work itself. See Back to Office vs Work from Home.