I do hope that we'll never see an interface like that! I think it's very unlikely though, because unlike "static" art, user interfaces have to be interacted with and have to be learnable, comfortable, and useful. Even in the most interfacey example you listed, interior design, interaction can be limited: a lot of the wildly different designs are still more visual art than they are functional pieces.
If I had to hazard a guess I would think that UI will become more kinetic. We already see this with things like the bounce at the end of a scroll on OSX and phones, as well as with window animations, but it can probably be taken further. The interface could become more like a living, breathing thing than just a piece of paper with some rectangles on it.
Think of a cat: they all have the same basic pieces, they have fairly consistent behavior traits, but they all have different fur and eye colors. The computer could become something of a useful pet.
But that's just my pie-in-the-sky vision, predicting the future is a mug's game.
> I do hope that we'll never see an interface like that!
Oh, it's already happened.[1] I couldn't actually find one with christmas lights but I'm sure one existed at some point. Ten years ago there were millions like this. Some of the wildest stuff came out of Japan where there was a plugin that let you completely rearrange the layout of the windows. (They were tricky to find back then, pretty much impossible now.)
Developers pushed back against rampant customization a few years ago when they got tired of people complaining about problems caused by buggy skins. But some apps such as Firefox[2] still have limited themability that could one day make the fad start up again.
I think you're exactly right. What makes an interface enjoyable to use is how easily you can process the information it tries to convey so if you're going to remove certain cues for aesthetic reasons you have to compensate for the loss of clarity in other ways.
Movement cues and allowing more 'harmless' interactivity in interfaces is a great way to make them more clear while keeping their static visual appearance ultra-minimalist.
I think UI design is one of those case where competition does not foster growth. Companies feel insecure and try to out-fashion their rivals with stylish designs, forgetting the true purpose of interfaces through passionate and radical opinions that make great blog posts but really don't translate well to such a concrete and down-to-earth trade.
I don't want to see one that rough either. But a little rougher visually would be nice. People do play with this space in typeface but rarely computer typeface.
Computer-displayed text tends to be a lot smaller in practice (in arc-seconds on the eye.) A flyer's 96pt masthead might have be scanned from arm's length; a 20pt paperback page might be read rested against one's chest. Right now, though, I'm reading this page zoomed out on an iPhone 6, at the same visual distance as I would with a book—the text ending up at most 1/3rd the perceptual size it would on the book. The backlight-powered contrast makes it legible nevertheless, but I can't imagine how the text could be styled such that I'd notice, while retaining its legibility.
If I had to hazard a guess I would think that UI will become more kinetic. We already see this with things like the bounce at the end of a scroll on OSX and phones, as well as with window animations, but it can probably be taken further. The interface could become more like a living, breathing thing than just a piece of paper with some rectangles on it.
Think of a cat: they all have the same basic pieces, they have fairly consistent behavior traits, but they all have different fur and eye colors. The computer could become something of a useful pet.
But that's just my pie-in-the-sky vision, predicting the future is a mug's game.