Of course Pawson has went on to develop his own framework for his Naked Objects pattern, namely Naked Objects and more specifically Naked Objects MVC for . Personally, I don't think that application posture is as applicable today as it once was; today's end users don't just use software as a job tool, but as a medium that is part of their day-to-day social interaction.
As a result, their expectations are higher and sub-consciously or otherwise, the expectation (no matter if they use it 7 hours per day or just in passing) is not just on how it looks, or what functionality it offers but how it actually behaves (usability).
By contrast Naked Objects neither requires, nor permits, the specification of Controllers: all business behavior must be encapsulated as methods on the domain entities.
This makes Naked Objects one of the most 'opinionated' frameworks in existence!
We argue that all three of those pieces of information are natural properties of the domain object, scattering that information across multiple screens and/or controllers is a bad idea.
By placing it where we have the information is picked up and interpreted by any of the different UIs in a form that fits that style of UI.
All you need to do is provide a property (actually just a setter) for the type of service that a domain object needs access to and Naked Objects will inject an instance of that service type whenever the domain object is brought into memory.
For example: As stated earlier, Naked Objects includes two alternative user interfaces: a rich-client ('Drag and Drop') UI and a pure HTML UI.
If the UI generated by the framework is rigid in structure and not intuitive to users, this could limit the adoption of Naked Objects frameworks such as Naked Objects MVC.
My previous observation of having a sound domain model and not necessarily having a good UI should be qualified by the times in which this software was written.