Grizzled
The perceived existence of a problem with instrumentation or displays misses the point. Humans have been misinterpreting instrumentation since it started being used and with any redesign (which may indeed be welcome) you will find that someone will find a way to misinterpret it. Can it be improved? - well, yes, everything can always be improved. Will it eliminate accidents like this one? - highly unlikely. It's just this, know what you are using and what it tells you.
One must also be careful not to attribute any negative connotation to the term 'panic' which was used in a purely technical sense. The nature of the state of panic and of acute stress disorder (shock - which are what I believe happened to the PF) include a form of tunnel vision in which almost every other stimulus or input is excluded except that which the person in the situation chooses to focus on. This kind of reaction shuts down verbal cognitive channels pretty effectively. It can be countered by reliance on procedures - following the procedures is a very good way of getting out of the state. The other option is training. If you are well trained you are less likely to be prone to this type of reaction (Hard training, easy execution).
With the PF though I am very sceptical that improved or different displays would have changed his reaction though this can never be known for certain. Knowing his machine more thoroughly and following the SOPs coupled with sound CRM would have been more likely to help the crew avoid the accident. Flight deck management procedure strikes me as a bit too casual. The cultural issues that arise though are much more complex - the physics or aviation issues are fairly easy to understand. However, the human factors need much more careful consideration than I believe they have been given by AF (I do believe we are on the same page on this).
Whatever the level of automation, the pilot is the person responsible for his aircraft and needs to understand and react appropriately. The airline needs to ensure that the pilot is given the support and training to do so and the CPD (Continuing Professional Development) throughout their career. The automation logic employed by Airbus is to my mind perfectly logical and suited for the environment it operates in. In certain circumstances it does remove itself but those are conditions for which it would be inappropriate. It is designed as an aid not as a replacement but it does look as if some pilots and some airlines are treating it as the latter not the former. This I need hardly mention is dangerous.