W10: Reading Reflection

The Future of Interaction Design

Reading this piece immediately took me back to Steve Jobs’ keynote when he unveiled the iPhone and boldly declared that we don’t need a stylus; that our fingers are the best pointing device we’ll ever have. Jobs’ vision, at that time, was revolutionary because it simplified interaction and made technology more accessible. He recognised how naturally intuitive our sense of touch is which is the same quality the author values but he focused on usability on physical feel.

While the author criticises “Pictures Under Glass” for robbing us of sensory depth, I see it as a meaningful trade-off. It allowed us to consolidate multiple tools into one, replacing the clutter of physical devices with a single screen that could transform into anything we needed. The flatness of the glass became the canvas of endless interfaces. Even if it dulled the sensation of texture, it heightened the sense of control, mobility, and creative possibility.

That said, I agree that the future can move beyond this limitation. The author’s call to embrace our full tactile and bodily potential opens an exciting direction for technology. What if screens could morph in texture, shape, and resistance depending on the app in use, a photo that feels like paper, a drum pad that vibrates ? That would merge Jobs’ vision of simplicity with the author’s longing for physical depth.

Perhaps, then, “Pictures Under Glass” wasn’t the end of interaction design but a stepping stone.

Moving forward from his response to the comments, I really agreed with the author’s take on the “iPad bad” comment. I liked how he clarified that the iPad is actually good for now. It was a revolutionary invention that changed how we interact with technology. But I also agree with his warning that if, twenty years from now, all we have is the same flat, glassy device with minor haptic improvements, then it would be bad. His comparison to black-and-white film before color photography made a lot of sense to me. It’s a reminder that innovation should keep evolving rather than settling for what feels advanced in the moment.

Leave a Reply