dbreunig asked: A question/thought inspired by your iPad piece:
When designing for malleable devices like the iPad and iPhone (or piece of software really) we tend to use metaphors from the physical world to suggest function and usage. In Apple's design guidelines for the iPad, they heavily suggest designers continue this habit. Certainly, context has been chiseled away from the iPad and more than most software, it needs a wink and a nod from the outside world to clue its users into it's function.
Do you think that in a few generations that kinetic, physical interfaces with moving parts will live on only as metaphors? In some ways they already have: for instance, on smartphones you click names, not numbers, to dial.
Further, what 'clues' do you think designers will use to hint at function when these metaphors are forgotten? (a generation or so down the line)
I’m no UI expert. I just have a set of inferences that feel correct to me with no statistical or professional data to back it up.
As a user of technology, I think it makes sense to continue the analogy of referencing physical objects. I think a malleable interface allows us to do this easier, but even more so the multi-touch technology. Now, when you see a button, you can actually push it with your finger, just like a real button.
I don’t think clicking on a name to call a person on a smart phone is even more of a metaphor. To me, a phone number is a greater abstraction. I think having a name to push to talk to that person is more parallel with intent than dialing a series of digits.
