The concept is fabulous, and I do agree that there were some gut-kick reactions. Any tool that can help a writer progress their craft is a welcome addition, as far as I am concerned, but there are consequences that probably even the creator did not think about. Tools are never used the way the creator envisioned. Being "cool" is not a reason to embrace. I can see both sides, but I really did not understand how the tool worked, and until I do....I am going to struggle with which side of the fence to land.
I read it as the post is simply pointing out something that a large percentage of the population was not even aware about. I don't think it goes any deeper than that.
The book comes across as being very anecdotal....it is easy to mold anecdotes to whatever point of view you are trying to get across. In their zeal to find hard facts to back up their theories, did they play hard and fast with the rules?
Favorite line in this entire article....sums up the thought very nice and answers the "why" when I have to explain why modify components is not a good idea.
Ambiguity means less certainty about what the piece of UI is, how you interact with it, and what effects taking action on it will cause. The more you deviate, the more confusing things get.