Interaction Design
Bret Victor’s critique of the current state of interaction design grabbed my attention because I hadn’t really delved into thinking deeply about existing interaction designs before, nor had I formed a strong opinion on the matter. According to Victor, the current approach lacks boldness and visionary thinking, urging a shift beyond established norms to cultivate a more ambitious perspective for the future. While I agree with his viewpoint, transitioning from familiar interaction patterns to something entirely different is not a simple task. People need time to adapt to new lifestyles and products, so changing how we interact with technology may require considerable effort and adjustment.
Considering the evolution of current interaction technology, it becomes apparent that what we have today likely originated from visionary ideas but underwent gradual enhancements over time. As I understood it from the subsequent response, Victor’s vision revolves around the concern that contemporary and future technology might limit our mobility. I believe that the trajectory of people’s vision for interactive technology has remained somewhat consistent. Victor’s frustration with incremental changes to existing products resonates with me, as I think we need to strike a balance. Some technologies, like iPads and iPhones, are user-friendly and effective, but there’s a need to transition to more actively interactive technology and something that involves more of our senses that we are naturally utilizing without fully realizing and without compromising physical health. Achieving this shift would require engaging brainstorming, diverse suggestions, and expertise from various fields to make it both interesting and feasible.