Paul Walters’s point, as I understand it, is not “technology-push” and is in fact user-centered. As I understand him, he was simply suggesting that Tinderbox is not complex or hard to learn; it’s simply large. Taking things step by step — going slowly — is a common strategy for mastering large things.
I, on the other hand, have been a fairly open advocate of “technological push,” and so I’m a more appropriate target for your criticism. With respect to this, Tinderbox is designed to take advantage of specific technical affordances — the surfeit of computational power and the plenitude of fast memory characteristic of modern personal computing — and to harness these in the service of everyone’s everyday knowledge work.
Rather than maximize the number of users, I try in Tinderbox to maximize its contribution. Much of Tinderbox is experimental, built because a user needed a facility to solve an important problem, or because I myself thought the facility would be interesting. Some of those facilities turn out to be widely useful, even though only a tiny number of users thought they wanted them; I’m not a fan of focus groups.
As I said: videos are in production. Stop by the Saturday meetup and you can help!