On 06/03/2008, alex <alex_at_lurk.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think there are a lot of problems with the idea of tangible
> interfaces, it just seems to be a strange buzzword for interfaces of no
> depth. I don't think the reactable is tangible interface anyway,
> certainly no more tangible than a screen, keyboard and mouse.
Wait, are there actually people who feel the keyboard isn't a "tangible
interface"? I think it mainly becomes a strange buzzword (and I agree it
does) because it's applied as meaning "tangible where we aren't used to it
being tangible". So far car-manufacturers and martial-arts classes aren't
advertising tangible interfaces as new and exciting.
It seems hip right now to turn these things around, like the Reactable and
touch schreen on the Iphone. Perhaps most strikingly with "force-feedback"
in steering-wheel controllers so people can feel immersed in the car
games.... featuring cars that all have powered steering in real life.
Oh, well, some experimentation can't hurt, I think it means we are
collectively moving from "hey, look, it works!" to "how can we make it work
pleasantly?" which in many cases was about time, IMHO.
> I guess you could use a space where one of the dimensions was 'chorus'?
I think so.... but then can we also have a space where one of the dimensions
is "while-loop"? When I wrote that I meant it as a sort of joke but now it's
starting to sound like a actual good idea to me. "Parallel processing in
non-euclidean space", it somehow sounds like asking for trouble but I'd
really like to see this trouble!
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 18:59:02 GMT