1. We use screens.<p>2. Screens are flat.<p>3. Gorilla arms.<p>4. Typing remains preferred for text input (I'm using an external keyboard on a tablet as I write this).<p>5. Speech interfaces seem to be the current hawtness, though they're still of limited suitability. Privacy and unauthorised / unwanted inputs (and surveillance) are all issues --- keyboards offer specificity, intentionality, and a pronounced limitation on unwanted information capture (though keylogging remains a concern).<p>6. If information-enhanced systems become more widespread, I expect to see predictive systems (anticipating needs from behaviour), standardised interfaces (discovery is expensive, especially for widely-used / high-traffic systems), a return to physical or at least physically-indicated interfaces (same reasons), and the like.<p>7. VR is <i>immersive</i> but also <i>exclusive</i> --- the individual wearing a VR headset (googles, earphones) is <i>isolated</i> from the environment they're physically present in. VR is not locally sharable in the way that other technologies (screens, whiteboards, dashboards, keyboards, voice inputs, audio outputs) are. Yes, you can share a VR environment <i>with others present within it</i>, but that makes use <i>in a given physical space</i> more cumbersome and limited.<p>8. What informational problems are you actually hoping to solve?<p>One of the key strengths of MOAD was that it actually did demonstrate useful activities. Novel, yes, but <i>useful</i> and familiar in terms of their nondigital analogues. And in that context --- reading and creating texts, email, communications, interacting with graphics --- MOAD anticipated virtually all our present use-cases. Principle changes have been <i>scale</i>, <i>performance</i>, and <i>ubiquity</i>, where scale applies both to the size of computing systems and their number. Pervasive computing --- carrying the Internet in your pocket --- has been the big change of the past decade. For better ... or worse.