I think it is interesting that even now, hundred years later in academic world, in its institutional practice the ergonomic context for any kind of creative activity is considered totally irrelevant. By ergonomic context I mean the orientations of our physical expressivity as they are defined by technologies and practices. Despite this in the academic world the concept of body is a popular issue. But in practice it seems that nobody in academic world is really researching it. I would call this research ergonomics of thinking.
Lets go back to the distorting mirror and computer as a distorting mirror.
The distortion that Rokeby is referring to operates in the level of representations. But more fundamentally this reflection defines possibilities of action. The interface defines the range of possibilities of physical action of the user. This would mean that the design of interface is design for the ergonomics of thinking. I am trying to consider the question of interface as a question ergonomics of thinking.