In “What Screens Want”, Frank Chimero makes the case for why careful consideration of interaction and motion when designing interfaces for screens is good design. The aesthetic of what is presented on screen is secondary to its behaviour. Good web design is intuitive motion design, where the transitions between fixed states inform users about its relationship and what they are. Chimero argues that design can shape technology, which in turn shapes the use of that technology, and eventually the way the users do everything in the human world. Consequently, design can distort and damage but, utilized responsibly, also enrich and elevate.

I agree with a number of Chimero’s supporting points for this idea, but also occasionally feel that he contradicts himself structurally in the article. For example, Chimero states that:

“Much like wood, I believe screens have grain: a certain way they’ve grown and matured that describes how they want to be treated. The grain is what gives the material its identity and tells you the best way to use it. Figure out the grain, and you know how to natively design for screens”,

which suggests that screens prefer a certain way of design, a design evolved from its origins, and that this way of design should inform the design for screens. Designs that go against the grain would not be native design. After identifying that the screen’s “grain” is motion/change/animation=flux, Chimero declares that it's not about what screens want, but what users want, and that “you shouldn’t say you made things look a certain way because the screen cared one way or the other”. At no point does Chimero actually specify or show data about what users actually want, only his personal examples of what good design might look like. Finally, he deemphasizes the functional aspect of design and claims that what is more important is the values and vision of technology that good design promotes.

I wish Chimero explored how design might operate in future contexts or maybe touched on designing for a broader variety of screens, such as in VR or AR, where even flat design will come across as three dimensional, and where interfaces that move may not be as preferred as interfaces that are fixed.