Just because you move the user interface off the screen and into physical space doesn't make it "Zero UI". People have been designing ways to interface with machines in physical space ever since somebody figured out how to put a handle on a rock and make it a hammer.
It is more out of ignorance than anything else. User Interface never necessary meant "screen". It is just that the author knows nothing about the subject he is talking about and only writes that stuff because of a "buzzword" that sounds good, he has a very narrow definition of the word User Interface at first place, which makes his definition wrong. A bit like the "No Server" folks who think that there is no server just because they are not managing it themselves and just uploading a js file somewhere on AWS ...
I have no clue if "zero ui" is actually a good thing or whatever, but I know that your comment and the rest like it add nothing new to the conversation.
It silo's people and ideas that should be cross pollinating. It raises the barrier to entry to newcomers, and probably worst of all it feeds into the cult of 'newness' where no idea or concept is worth learning if it's older than say, 12 months ago.
I'm not being crabby, I'm pointing out that there are over a 100 years of research and knowledge that are useful to help solve these problems which tend to get thrown out when you decide to invent a new term for things that exist already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_design#3D_Physical...
The interactions we have with technology are far worse than they should be, by and large and I believe that a good portion of the reason is that rather than standing on the shoulders of those who've gone before us, we become seduced instead by new and unpolished ideas, never stopping to let the old ones inform us.
I think this is part of the reason our tools for creating things with computers still aren't as useful (in my opinion) and intuitive as this software (from 1963):
https://youtu.be/57wj8diYpgY?t=176
And if new ideas are good, they won't be harmed by a crabby comment or two, they will be improved upon and become stronger as a result.
Anyhow, I hope that at least communicates a little better the intent behind my comment. In any case, I appreciate the feedback so thank you for taking the time to comment.
"Zero UI" is nothing, it doesn't mean anything, because it goes against the definition of UI.
Even worse, it kind of creates some confusion as to what is a UI at first place. And then uninformed people (journalists) will start thinking "when there is no screen, there is no UI", which is straight out false, and spread that lie.
There is nothing new here, only people that take advantage of the ignorance of others for marketing purposes, labeling something old as brand new. That's dishonest, at best.
So yes, this "Zero UI movement" is pure bullshit, and it needs to be called out for what it is. The only invention here is the buzzword.
This is pixel-centric, and has nothing to do with a lack of a UI.
> [i]s the first to admit that the Zero UI name isn't meant to be taken literally. "It's really meant to be a provocation," Goodman admits. "There are always going to be user interfaces in some form of another, but this is about getting away from thinking about everything in terms of screens."