Lately, I've been thinking a lot about tangible interactions (because of the wii and certain projects here and there). Wired News also addressed that issue, focusing on some very important questions:

But do such physical motion-sensing controllers really signal the beginning of an emerging trend?

"The big question is whether folks can design compelling games using them," said MacIntyre. "Motion-sensing controllers really capture people's imaginations, but no matter how mundane traditional game controllers are, they have the advantage of precision and lots of simultaneous channels of input, whereas the others can only sense a smaller number of relatively crude and imprecise channels. The former makes for great demos because anyone can pick it up, but the games often lack depth because it's hard to support skillful play. The latter, on the other hand, are hard to learn but support expert play really well." (...) "Look at the two tennis games -- AR Tennis and the Wii tennis game. I don't think either make for good games for folks who want to play for many hours; AR Tennis is using a tiny screen that you have to hold still and not move too fast, and the Wii game doesn't appear to let you do much more than swing. It doesn't track position, just motion, so you wouldn't be able to move your character or control things like volleys. Perhaps sports games are not the right target, since such games make people want to 'play the sport,' and require lots of input. (Dance Dance Revolution), for example, is quite good and is based on the four foot buttons. (The game's developers) manage to simulate the essence of dancing and even let people appropriate the game for 'real' dancing.

Why do I blog this? because tangible interactions still need to be explored in terms of their use/the grammar of actions that would be appropriated for engaging users in playful and usable interactions.