Fishkin’s taxonomy does not capture TUIs where the input is remote from the output. For example, the Materiable TUI that we saw in class. In this TUI, the user gives input to the square pegs and then the output is reflected on the square pins, but in a remote location. Fishkin’s taxonomy, on the embodiment axis includes ‘distant’, but the Materiable input/output doesn’t fit in this category because the user conducting the input isn’t shifting their gaze to the output at some distant location, but rather a second user is receiving the output in an un-seeable, remote location. I would add ‘remote’ to the embodiment scale in the taxonomy.
Additionally, Fishkin claims that TUIs that are at higher levels of embodiment and metaphor are ‘more tangible’. Yet, a TUI can be multiple levels on the embodiment scale at once (ex: ‘environmental’ and ‘full’), indicating that they the levels are not hierarchical. This flaws the logic of thinking about the two axes as scales. I agree that a TUI can be multiple of these levels, so I wouldn’t change that in the taxonomy, but I would more simply talk about them as categories and a TUI can fall into multiple categories along one axis.