Response: Revisiting the definition of physical interaction

In my first post about physical interaction, I defined it as "two-way communication...between an object's physicality and/or the physical senses" used "in meaningful ways to achieve some end." Looking back, I still think this definition makes sense, but I have gained more insight into the nature of the interfaces providing this interaction.

Tom's theory that "nothing is intuitive" is important to me because it eliminates absolutism from interaction design.  Good design pushes boundaries in ways that can be adapted to rather easily, and it is in the design that the "user manual" should be coded implicitly.

Given this new take on what we are capable of, both as designers and users, I will continue to feel more confident in proposing design decisions that may not be classically accepted, as long as the user can learn in a way that recalls past experiences.  I am also optimistic that we as a technology-producing society will be freer to experiment with nontraditional paradigms that will speed the rate of advance in interface design.