I'm going to write an essay saying "screens are old news, let's use free-floating holograms like in Iron Man!" with no indication how that would even be possible, and see if I can get on HN.
Yes, that's why I called it a rant, not an essay — it describes a problem, not an idea. (And FWIW, that's not the sort of thing I typically publish, or want to.)
The solution isn't known, and I didn't think making stuff up would help.
The point of the rant was that the solution will be discovered through long research, and that research won't happen without an awareness of the problem. My intent was to hopefully coax a few potential researchers and funders into tangible interfaces, dynamic materials, haptics, and related fields that haven't been named yet. If that happens, then mission accomplished.
http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesi...
I must admit I find BV's writing to be really facile... like he'll compare a piano app on the iPad with a real piano and shit on the entire idea of the iPad... without addressing the obvious point that an iPad can be a million things other than a piano.
> shit on the entire idea of the iPad
That's not at all what he's doing. He's saying the iPad was the Vision of the Future in 1968. Now the iPad is here. It's no longer part of the Future, and we should stop talking about it as if it is, because we need to reach beyond it.
> I don't think you should get points for saying "we should do this impossible thing, that would be better."
When the other contenders at visionaries are saying "we should do this thing that has already been done", saying "we should do this impossible thing" is worthwhile.
Sure they do. At Dynamicland there are turn tables that can be manipulated, joysticks on springs, books with pages that turn, and pieces of paper that are manually rearranged on surfaces by groups of people. All of that involve physical devices, and using hands for something other than sliding on a 2d surface.
Does it solve all the issues he raises here? No, of course not. But it's clear that he's working on it, and providing rich avenues of exploration for other people.
I think you're missing the point. He's saying we should work toward creating a new kind of technology where the ipad would really feel like a piano when you're on the "piano app", but feel very differently for other apps.
What you're saying is that you don't think that such technology could ever exist; BV thinks otherwise and he's working toward that vision. He's also saying that we shouldn't take the future for granted as if a technology will just suddenly appear. It takes hard work, funding and a clear vision.
I can think of a few ways about how we could add tactile touch to a dynamic interface (I.e. turning a piano 2D screen to a real experience). VR is going in that direction (to see 3D from a 2D screen) and you can imagine some sensors at the tip of your fingers where depending where you touch you'd feel something different. Again, that's just an idea, there are many ways it could be achieved.
I don't think you should get points for saying "we should do this impossible thing, that would be better."
When everyone else seems happy to accept that a picture of a piano is a piano, maybe you should get points for pointing out that the Emperor's New Clothes are lacking many important features.
"We are inventing a new computational medium where people work together with real objects in the real world, not alone with virtual objects on screens."
So there you go.