If you compare the leap from war2 to war3 to the one from sc to sc2 , i think warcraft brought more progress. At least for now it looks that way, but SC2 has nice mechanics and completely new very interesting user interface, that appears better than the one in warcraf3.
Althought SC2 probably dosn't even have mercenary camps (neutral buildings on the map where you hire special units) i think they brought great enough innovation to the game. They still have those observer towers on some maps, right? That is a completely new strategy element.
Sc1 was more about a button mash, having so called macro! >_>
I still remember reading some forum comments complaining about Sc2 being more automated, people wanting to keep the old CLICK CLICK CLICK system instead of a more organized newer control system such as war3 has. I am sure they added some new extra key functions to better control over the units + i remember some new formations for battle.
As for micro-intensivity, from what i seen in the videos, it does look like it compared to sc1, but if i still decide if i buy the game or not depending on how well they got rid of the silly mass towering (example humans in war3) and mass units (example hunts+spiders in 2v2) strategies. If the game dosn't strongly discourage those type of no thinking tactics, i will just play the campaign and obviously won't even suggest to others to buy the game.
No matter how good the interface, the bad gameplay can negate everything and get the entire value of the game way below zero. Kind of like alteil with shiny cards, but imbalanced stuff ...