Thanks, I think I better understand the point he is making. I would call that the “why don’t we have flying cars” kind of thinking, and the restaurant example

Thanks, I think I better understand the point he is making. I would call that the “why don’t we have flying cars” kind of thinking, and the restaurant example feels the same to me. To the “that's a technological problem we'll only solve if we have a vision for those kinds of experiences in the first place.”, that’s a valid point. I think were I stray from that is I don’t feel the appeal of the vision. A restaurant giving me complex “a choosing experience” instead of presenting the traditionally “flat” list and menus is not an improvement from my perspective. In general, I think we’re at a stage where interface that make more sense physically are still physical. For instance cars are completely electronically driven but we (still) have physically optimized controls. My oven is a computer, but I have nobs and buttons that click. My “smart” lights have rotating controls to adjust brightness, etc. These interfaces are well into the world and I feel they’re not in the article because the author (and you perhaps ?) take it for granted.