First of all, I found it very interesting that ‘A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design’ and its follow-up article were written in 2011. In these readings, the author ‘rants’ about a ‘handheld device’ that ignores our hands, advocating instead for a dynamic medium that we can see, feel, and manipulate. It was intriguing how the author ranted about things that have now become a reality. When I first saw the article, I was surprised at how much the video entitled ‘Microsoft- Productivity Future Vision,’ which the author was quite skeptical about, resembles our present.
Both readings made me reflect on all my interactions with the ‘picture under the glasses.’ At the start of the article, I found myself disagreeing with the author’s argument, as I thought that all those simple interactions that the picture under the glasses offers are the ultimate form of interaction. As the author states, interactions with these devices do numb my fingers. However, I had never considered them numbing my tactile sense before reading this article.
Then, the sentence stating ‘My child can’t tie his shoelaces, but can use the iPad’ struck me. I perceived this sentence as a clear illustration of the consequences of tactile numbing while utilizing those ‘pictures under the glasses.’ While tying shoelaces isn’t a hard task, it does require tactile sensation. To young children, who are accustomed to iPads, they might not develop the tactile richness they should have. This could mean that these ‘pictures under the glasses’ might hinder people from developing the capabilities they ought to have.
As stated in one of the readings, I believe that a good tool should address human needs by amplifying human capabilities. However, in the case of those ‘pictures under the glasses,’ can we say that these are good tools in terms of interaction if they hinder us from realizing our full capabilities? Can they even be considered human-centric if they neglect the need for our hands to feel things?
These questions arose for me. Then, I came to realize that we tend to overlook the importance of considering holistic sensory engagement because of our pursuit of technological advancement and convenience. All those ‘pictures under the glasses’ technologies are indeed good tools in terms of their functionalities. They simplify and ease our lives and do amplify human capabilities. However, we have to sacrifice all the tactile richness of working with our hands, as the author said. Overall, reading this article made me realize that it is nearly impossible to have an ultimate tool which can be considered a ‘good’ tool in all aspects as there is always a drawback.