tp, let me answer your last question first:
I do fly, but no big iron, so I guess the correct answer to the intended question is no.
Also, I have never said that there were no such pitfalls in a Boeing. To the contrary, I've stated multiple times that I had no reason to prefer one over the other. I actually wished there was a way to contrast the Airbus system without spelling "Boeing", but they are the two antipodes out there, at least in some aspects.
Actually, if you don't mind me digressing for a bit, actually, I'm pretty amazed how manufacturer sensitive (manufacturer patriotic?) many here seem to be. It's almost as bad as a Windows vs. Mac flamewar where you also cannot mention one without being flamed for bashing the other (or hyping it, depending on the slant of your posting). It's never a good thing to be pro or con something on an emotional basis (other than your g/f or b/f maybe). It gets in our way when we're looking at the thing's faults.
Never found them confusing myself. No need to move your hand to another set of levers - what could be less confusing?
Hmm... you know what? Probably the crew in this accident never found it confusing either at any time before.
My point is: the thrust levers on the Airbus are overloaded (no negative term, a technical term meaning that they serve several purposes) with a) condition presets (IDLE, CLB etc) b) max N1 (or EPR?) in AT, c) manual thrust setting if AT is not active and d) activating reversers. Those are all functions that deal with the same system, the engines, but still they're rather different functions. I think an argument can be made that overloading controls bears a risk of mishandling them due to mode confusion. (not necessarily what happened here).
On the approach N1 vs. ground idle, the whole thing might be irrelevant if (put any other airplane's manufacturer's name here where the TLs are actually moving, this clause inserted to avoid the "B" word) does not use the TL position to inhibit the ground spoiler / brakes logic.
pj