For this reading, I agree with the author on the limitation of the types of interaction we are using today. He criticized today’s digital device for only limited to “pictures under class”. Of course this type of interaction only allow the hands to feel and receive limited signals. The “pictures under class” leaves out the potentials of texture, weight and multiple other factors, for example, playing piano on a screen does not have the same satisfying feelings as playing on the real piano with hands interaction feedback.
However, I disagree with the author in two main points. The reading focuses too much on the capability of humans but does not take into consideration how we can use that capability to fit our needs. Of course we can have a more dynamic medium, but would that be better than the functionality of the Iphone? Iphones are designed compact and multifunctional, which I think can only achieved best through the “pictures under glass” interaction type. The second thing is that even though our hands are magnificent in many ways, other body parts can create interactions that are not less interesting. For example, the eyes can calculate the distance between objects, recognizing colors, emotions, etc. The “picture under glass” fits well to this capability of the eyes. Hence, I think it’s not a bad medium, it’s just a medium that makes use of other human capability.