The author’s “Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design” and their follow-up response focuses on how much we lose by relying so heavily on touchscreens. I find their argument pretty convincing especially their critique of “Pictures Under Glass,” which, as they put it, restricts the real power of our hands. They back this up with simple but relatable examples, like the feel of turning a page or lifting a glass, where you can actually feel the weight, texture, and resistance. With touchscreens, on the other hand, all we get is this flat, “glassy” feeling, stripping away any real tactile feedback and creating a disconnect between our natural capabilities and the digital world.
In the follow-up response, the author clarifies that the original piece wasn’t meant to prescribe solutions. This distinction feels important because, often, when we discuss technological limitations we jump to solutions without fully understanding the problem. By reframing interaction design around human capabilities, the author challenges us to think about interfaces that go beyond visual appeal and engage more fully with our innate physical skills. I agree with their argument that future interfaces should not only acknowledge but amplify these natural interactions rather than reduce them to simplified swipes and taps. I still think touch screens can be beneficial and can offer other tactile sensations and experiences. Just because it’s different doesn’t mean it’s less interactive. Take the example the author gives about turning a page; sure, turning a page on a flat screen isn’t exactly the same as flipping through a real book. But the way a digital page moves, the sound effect, the visual cues. It still feels interactive and immersive in its own way. I don’t see one as being better than the other; they’re just different experiences that each bring something unique.