The web article entitled “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design” evokes a range of emotions in its readers. Initially, the video produced by Microsoft appeared flawless and aligned with the reader’s expectations of the future. However, the subsequent discussion on tools and interaction components prompted a reevaluation of what constitutes an improvement. The author effectively illustrates this point by comparing a hammer to human interaction, emphasizing that our hands are the primary component in tangible interactions. The author argues that despite the underlying technology, our interactions have slightly improved. This argument is supported by the concept of “tactile richness.”
While I generally agree with the author’s assertion that corporations often exaggerate the advancements in their products, I find the notion that tactile richness can be fully extracted from non-tangible elements to be flawed. Furthermore, the development of haptics and sensors like gyroscopes has enabled the creation of products such as smart glass, which have revolutionized human-computer interaction by incorporating gestures like head tilts, voice commands, and other active inputs. These advancements significantly surpass the limitations of traditional touchscreens. Consequently, I believe they contradict the author’s claim that tangible improvements are not being made.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge that in terms of manipulation and tactile richness, the emphasis on branding and hype may not accurately reflect the actual level of advancement.
Regarding the other reading, it sent me into a frenzy full of laughter. The majority of the disagreements and counterarguments I had, such as the use of gestures, voice, and tangible-non-tangible elements, were addressed in this follow-up response. I acknowledge that the writer possesses a distinct perception and perspective, and how they employ certain claims to support their arguments, such as densely nerve-covered finger tips and their correlation with brain development. However, I firmly believe that it ultimately reduces to the concept of interpretivism. How we define technology. For someone completely unfamiliar with the concept of a stylus, they would likely find little to utilize or develop with. In their eyes, a transition from a stylus to an OLED glass display would appear more advantageous and innovative. Personally, I grew up with a Nintendo DS that came with a stylus. The next generation of PS-Vita captured my attention, and since then, I have never touched that Nintendo. The tool we use to amplify certain phenomena—for some, the desired amplification may vary. Therefore, I firmly believe that our responses differ. Furthermore, considering the significant advancements in technology since the publication of this article fourteen years ago, I suspect that the author may simply be making certain exceptions.