A Rant about Hands and iPads

I recently caved and sort-of joined Twitter. (I'm sorry, self-respect).

It was almost worth selling my soul, though, to find a tweet from landscape architect/good friend @bethanyrydmark. She shared an excellent essay with her followers by Bret Victor, titled "A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design." (Link to full piece below).

Victor puts into words a sentiment that I've felt for a long time, but lacked language to express. Contemporary visions of the future (he highlights a particular ad campaign) portray the future of interactive design as a world where humans manipulate images under glass.

The problem? "...This vision, from an interaction perspective, is not visionary. It's a timid increment from the status quo, and the status quo, from an interaction perspective, is actually rather terrible."

This "terrible-ness" centers on the lack of biological interface that such technologies promote. All tools contain both a part to "fit the problem" and a part to "fit the person." It's a bad tool if it doesn't meet both needs.

Our hands are some of the most intuitive, capable instruments on the planet, but the actions of an "under glass" touch screen future limit our abilities to digital finger painting. Victor is right, this is the status quo, NOT the "visionary future" we're being sold. The future of design will not be more screens for us to drag and poke. At least it ought not to be.

The future of design should be technology integrated three dimensionally, with an emphasis on the flesh-and-blood person as much as on the problem.

Victor's full piece is well worth your time and thought.

Why does this all matter? Because the tools we shape, in turn shape us. It's comforting to hear a designer say that our "visionary" world of touch screens and life-apps may be a little shortsighted. What will it be? Let's take some time to think about that.
I for one, am not interested in sacrificing my biology for technology.