Coincidentally, Sam showed off the EyeToy tonight in Perry's class and we had a discussion about the merits of these "new" interface devices. Perry made the point that these devices are not new at all, Myron Krueger's work in the 70's with expressive interfaces is obviously an influence.

Even worse in my opinion is both the gimmicky implementation and the narrow range of application for new interfaces. The first problem can surely be solved: develop compelling content. Okay, that's our challenge. The second problem is tougher: a lot of times the device is so specific to its bundled application that it seems unlikely it can transcend the original intended use. But say we get past that too, then we have to consider the how the users will adapt to a new interface. Sure, keyboard and mouse is clunky and difficult to learn, but how does introducing a glut of new interface devices make interaction simpler and more intuitive for the public that already struggles with ATMs and credit card terminals? One could argue that if all interfaces were elegantly designed then the public wouldn't even recognize that they are adapting because it would happen at an unconscious level. But that is fantasy. Reality is much more sobering.

I'm not suggesting some sort of interface Luddism... after all, I'm a geek too. In an arcade I am drawn to the cabinets with the most outlandish controlers (Silent Scope is disturbingly a personal favorite). However, arcades are clearly a niche market populated by users who thrive on the challenge of mastering new and unique interfaces. Gimmick game controlers for consoles have always been around and they will continue to pop in and out of existence. They will be fun for a few of us and maybe even creative tools for others. Sadly most of us will have to go back to our keyboards and mice: ubiquitous, impersonal and inefficient. But a necessary evil for the moment because as Perry said tonight, "they're what we use when we have work to do."