Much controversy about "direct law" and "roll control".
But think about it ...
Direct law (or direct control linkage) :
Right stick, proportional right aileron up.
Assuming no secondary effect (or secondary effects being properly corrected) : right aileron up => roughly proportional roll rate to the right.=> Roll rate in proportion to stick defection in normal conditions.
Airbus "roll control" law :
Right stick, proportional right roll - whathever secondary effects might happen. Perhaps the electronic processing of the signal would take a few milli seconds?
I see no reason, in theory, for a lack of manoeuvrabilty due to the Airbus "roll law" ...
Stick to the right = roll to the right - looks like a very pleasant feature!
Now, if the same computer can also garantee that "rudder to the right" = yaw to the right ... then the aircraft remains a "stick and rudder" flying machine ...
Actually, the Airbus recomandations for crosswind landings are quite close to the flying technique that is recommanded for a Piper or a Cessna.
But ... are we sure that we remain "stick and rudder" pilots?
Some years ago, I had to check out a F-16 fighter pilot on a C172 ... Obviously, that guy was no longer proficient whith the use of the rudder, and totally unable to properly land a small aircraft in any crosswind.
He was a good pilot and he quickly caught the trick. But the fact is that he was instructed never to cross controls on the F-16, in order "not to confuse the computers" - his own words.
I would suggest, maybe ...
that airlines pilots, from time to time, take a refresher course in handling a Piper Cub in some crosswind ... ? Just to make sure they remember that there is a rudder overthere ...