It is unlikely that AR is a catalyst for huge new interface paradigms (or maybe I need to be more creative...) but my argument here is that we have so much progress to make with how we can manipulate pixels in a rectangle first.
- Hm actually counter, will instantly coded objects and digital gadgets make sense?
- Will your UI just suddenly generate in a "digital tool" that is best suited for the digital world to help you achieve a task. There is such a thing as a spanner, what is the digital spanner exactly when you need it. Examples include:
- Keys highlighted on the piano when you need them is better than an app on an iPad sitting on the music stand.
- Table tennis when you only have a table but no balls or rackets.
- Skiing route history, see your line from last run.
- Will your UI just suddenly generate in a "digital tool" that is best suited for the digital world to help you achieve a task. There is such a thing as a spanner, what is the digital spanner exactly when you need it. Examples include:
These are all use cases that are data + new paradigm that didn't exist before. The big benefit is rich data and a more clean direct place to put it.
Limited by the rectangle
I guess we are sort of limited by how much information we can put in a rectangle. And most people don't actually live inside their rectangles that much. And they're definitely not synced. Most people just prefer to live within the walled gardens of a few websites. Because those have been curated and cultivated more than just the larger operating system stuff that we have. Vision, AR, augmented reality: is the catalyst for being able to interact with these things better?
So what gains do we actually have to make with pixels in a rectangle?
See The hyperobject.