Bret Victor makes the claim that the current future of Interaction Design is far too narrow minded in its approach to, well, the future. He says that the sorts of technology being invented these days relies too heavily on visual cues as opposed to tactile ones. 

I agree. I have an uncle who is blind, and, as an occupational hazard of the condition, see him struggle with everyday technology. It makes me shudder to think that we’re slowly progressing towards a self induced blindness of a different kind- finger blindness. At least my uncle’s sense of touch and spatial awareness are heightened- we, on the other hand, get no such trade offs, unless you prefer being able to swipe at a screen than manual dexterity. 

I’m not sure how well this relates to the topic at hand, but I remember visiting the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. One of Van Gogh’s paintings of sunflowers had been recreated, but not in terms of colour at all, in terms of texture. We could actually feel the painting, the brushstrokes, and this added a whole new dimension to our understanding of the painting. I think this is one of the few examples in which we see a shift from the usual skew towards the visual. Ironic that it happened in a gallery of visual art, but theer you go. I think that is Victor’s point, however, that it isn’t ONLY about visual cues or ONLY about tactile ones, but both, or rather, any that are suuited to the situation, and Pixels Under Glass is a tragically reductionist solution.