The Future of Interaction
Reading this article really made me rethink how I interact with technology. I’ve always been fascinated by touchscreens and their simplicity, but I never stopped to consider how limiting they actually are. The author’s critique of “Pictures Under Glass” really hit me, especially when they described how flat and numb these interfaces feel. It’s true—I use my phone every day, but when I think about it, the experience of swiping and tapping feels so disconnected compared to how I interact with physical objects.
One part that really stood out to me was the comparison to tying shoelaces. It reminded me of when I was little and struggling to learn how to tie mine. My hands learned by feeling, adjusting, and figuring things out without needing to rely on my eyes all the time. That’s such a natural way for us to interact with the world, and it’s crazy to think how little that’s reflected in our technology today.
The section about making a sandwich was also a moment of realization for me. It’s such a simple, everyday task, but it involves so much coordination and subtle feedback from your hands—how the bread feels, the weight of the knife, the texture of the ingredients. None of that exists when I swipe through apps or scroll on a website. It made me wonder: why do we settle for technology that ignores so much of what our hands can do?
This article really inspired me to think differently about the future of technology. I agree with the author that we need to aim higher—to create interfaces that match the richness of our human abilities. Our hands are capable of so much more than sliding on glass, and it’s exciting to imagine what might be possible if we started designing for that.
Responses: A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design
I found this follow-up just as thought-provoking as the original rant. The author’s unapologetic tone and refusal to offer a neatly packaged solution make the piece feel refreshingly honest. It’s clear that their main goal is to provoke thought and inspire research, not to dictate a specific path forward. I really appreciated the comparison to early Kodak cameras—it’s a great reminder that revolutionary tools can still be stepping stones, not destinatione.
The critique of voice and gesture-based interfaces resonated with me too. I hadn’t really considered how dependent voice commands are on language, or how indirect and disconnected waving hands in the air can feel. The section on brain interfaces was particularly interesting. I’ve always thought of brain-computer connections as a futuristic dream, but the author flipped that idea on its head. Instead of bypassing our bodies, why not design technology that embraces them? The image of a future where we’re immobile, relying entirely on computers, was unsettling but eye-opening.
I love how the author frames this whole discussion as a choice. It feels empowering, like we’re all part of shaping what’s next. It’s made me more curious about haptics and dynamic materials—fields I didn’t even know existed before reading this. I’m left thinking about how we can create tools that actually respect the complexity and richness of human interaction.