A Brief Rant on The Future of Interactive Design
I partially agree with the author about the vision of the future of interaction. I do agree that the picture under glass interactivity narrows our capability in terms of hand usage, but it is wrong to just identify it as such. First of all, why was “picture under glass” chosen as a primary interactivity of the modern times in the first place? The main reason was because it is simple, therefore making the interactive process much more easier. Due to its simplicity, people can interact with it more efficiently, making it less time consuming. Other interactive designs that demands the user more hand capabilities may be interesting or more diversified but ultimately, they are inefficient in comparison to “picture under glass”.
Another point is inclusivity. The author talks about various capabilities of the hand, but what about those who are incapable of them? As an interactive product, they must be as inclusive as possible, otherwise it is difficult to classify it as a good design. “Picture under glass” utilizes touch and drag, which could be argued as one of the simplest actions that human can take, therefore making it much more inclusive than other interactive designs. As seen from the responses as well, the author completely dismisses this situation.
Another point in the responses section was about Dr.Seuss and Shakespeare. Maybe Shakespeare’s work is regarded as a marvel but when you think about who can understand it, Dr.Seuss has much wider range of people. Shakespeare’s works, while literary masterpieces, are certainly exclusive on who can understand and who cannot. This leads to the point of vision. The advancement of technology and the vision for interactive design always had inclusivity and ease of use in mind, which is why better tools appear in the end. Some tools will make life easier compared to other tools, therefore making it better. Making tools that requires higher level of capabilities would only encourage segregation, which is definitely unnecessary.