O animador Christian Brown fala sobre o marco que Minority Report representou para a interação natural, ou pelo menos para a idéia que a maioria das pessoas tem sobre isso. Ficar tanto tempo com os braços levantados manipulando o ar pode parecer interessante nos 5 primeiros minutos, mas logo já se sente falta do conforto de poder apoiar as mãos em alguma superfície. Além disso, enquanto houver problemas de calibração frustrando usuários, as superfícies multitoque continuarão vencendo, afinal quem é que quer tentar 7 vezes até que o sistema entenda em que botão imaginário você está clicando?
"It’s important, of course, to put this in context.Minority Report came out in 2002, and we had touchscreens for a long time before then. (...) Minority Report’s cleverness was not in inventing new technology from whole cloth, but in extrapolating existing tech into practical, consumer-friendly products. (...) The problem is, that sign language has gotten stuck in our cultural mind, like a particularly virulent earworm. In 2006, a year before the iPhone’s debut, Jeff Han gave a TED Talk about multitouch gestures, demonstrating the use of them to manipulate photos and globes. Throughout, he described gestures as an "interfaceless" technology, a way to intuitively zoom in and out and rotate around images without a "magnifying glass tool." This is, of course, nonsense. While touching something to get more info may be intuitive, every other gesture demonstrated is noteworthy for how NON-instinctive it is. Does pressing with one hand and dragging with another really intuitively represent rotation? Especially of a 3D object, like a globe? (...)
There are better ways to handle spatial ideas, ways which are more in line with the way our bodies are built.Human hands and fingers are good at feeling texture and detail, and good at gripping things—neither of which touch interfaces take advantage of. The real future of interfaces will take advantage of our natural abilities to tell the difference between textures, to use our hands to do things without looking at them—they’ll involve haptic feedback and interfaces that don’t even exist, so your phone shows you information you might want without you even needing to unlock and interact with it. But these ideas are elegant, understated, and impossible to understand when shown on camera.The reality is, there’s a huge gap between what looks good on film and what is natural to use. Movie computers are designed to look cinemagenic. Mostly this translates into transparent screens and huge fonts—things nobody would try and put on a phone. But touch-screen interfaces, which look great because of how easy it is to tell what a user is doing on camera, have managed to take over our lives."