Bret Victor – A Brief Rant on the Future of Interactive Design
My initial instinct upon reading Bret Victor’s article was to push back and think, “But you’re not really improving anything.” This reaction softened after reading his direct responses to these criticisms. Victor’s defensiveness, in some ways, protects his vision—arguably so. But even beyond that, the true point of his article lies in his challenge to our current conception of interactivity. He questions why we’ve limited ourselves to “single-finger” interaction, arguing that we’re barely scratching the surface of what interactive technology could become. I found myself agreeing, especially when he mentioned that if, 20 years down the line, all we had were glorified iPads, it would be a sign of stagnation. Now, over a decade since the article was written, we’ve indeed developed more advanced interfaces—like VR, AR, and even some early-stage holographic tech—but these technologies haven’t become mainstream, and they haven’t revolutionized interaction to the degree Victor imagined thus proving his point to a degree.
Reflecting on his perspective today, it’s clear he raises valid points. For the field of interactive design to truly evolve, we need critical voices like his, highlighting what’s lacking and pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. Yet, while I appreciate his vision, I also think it’s worth noting that the demand for fully immersive tech isn’t universal. Not everyone wants full-body interaction, and realistically, innovations often emerge only if there’s sufficient market interest. While technologies like VR and AR are groundbreaking, they remain largely inaccessible to many—especially those in marginalized or economically disadvantaged communities. In contrast, iPads and similar devices, while more limited, have found a place even in lower-income communities. Victor’s perspective is compelling and reminds us of the potential for interactive design, but it also underscores the need for accessibility and practical applications.
Thoughts on the Video:
The video accompanying Victor’s article showcases futuristic and visually stunning technologies, like transparent phones and computers. These concepts seem efficient, fast, and intuitive, presenting a vision of an accessible tech-forward society. But this vision quickly becomes complicated when you consider the societal implications. The choice to illustrate this world in a city like Johannesburg, for instance, inadvertently sidelines the broader realities of poverty and inequality. The technology depicted is only accessible to specific demographics, creating an illusion of widespread accessibility that falls short in practice. Can such tech really deliver on its promise of happiness if it only deepens capitalist divides?
Moreover, there’s an unsettling irony in the interactions depicted in the video. People engrossed in advanced technology appear disconnected and isolated, as though their devices detract from meaningful social interactions. This tension isn’t new; many feared that the rise of technology would eventually isolate us, even as it ostensibly connects us. The video seems to highlight this concern, making me reflect on whether such advancements genuinely enhance human happiness or merely serve to reinforce certain fears about a tech-saturated future.