"key engages pins in lock" is missing some steps - like the atoms push against each other and stuff...

Why do I care about the pins? I don't. They do their job without me telling them what to do. With menus it's not that simple - I have to engage them; I have to obey them.

The comparison here is not to a menu system, but to a wireless keyfob. Contrast pin engagement with keyfob signal decryption.

If your car door has menus, then yes, that's a huge usability problem, but no one's arguing in favor of that.

The comparison holds. But this is not what I meant. Lots of comments here expose interface details from hacker's perspective and forget that they don't matter. Users dont care if its a keyfob or a key if it does the same thing with the same effort.

My point is that any interface has some abstractions beyond which you get only hacker delight in knowhing their inner workings.

For usability purpose you don't need to know there are pins or bits - just that they work. When on the other hand, you artificially expose inner workings (menus) and _force_ the user to make note of them - you should not be allowed anywhere near a design table.

Designer's job is to make users life easier not to shout at them "you stupid you who don't know how to exit my maze"

I don't really disagree with what you're saying. I just don't see the relevance of your references to menus. The conversation in this comment thread is centered around wireless keyfob complexity vs key complexity, and you jumped it with a non sequitur about menus.