“A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design” made several points and rebuttals to responses that I resonated with. First, the rant itself reminded me of a user testing gig that I did back when I was in New York last semester, doing my studyaway. Although I don’t think I can disclose many details, it was vaguely about swipe mechanisms that would move screens based on a thumb and tap gesture I would do in the air with a watch on. Although I think it’s slightly different from the tech that is shown in Microsoft’s video, since it involves tactile elements, it still encapsulates similar sentiments of swipes essentially being the future of human interaction with tech. Before reading this article, I had never truly considered the idea that our “future” is something we actively choose. This opening thought lingered with me and prompted a deeper reflection. I realized that my perspective on innovation was inherently capitalistic. I had always viewed technological advancements as merely profit-driven responses to market demands. I’m drawn to the idea that we, as individuals within society, are the ones who shape market demand. It’s empowering to think about the influence we hold, and it makes me want to reclaim more autonomy in how I see my role. I’d like to challenge myself to think bigger—to strive to be, or at least attempt to become, more of a pioneer in shaping the world around me.
Furthermore, his responses to the comments on his rant were very coherent. I agree that you don’t need to propose an alternative to point out when something is wrong—doing otherwise risks complacency with the status quo and undermines critical thinking. This ties into a broader issue I’ve noticed: the way technology, particularly AI, is shaping our cognitive abilities. For instance, the quote about children mastering iPads but struggling with shoelaces, or his point on how it is like understanding “Cat in the Hat” but not “Hamlet”, highlights how our tools are often designed for simplicity rather than depth. While accessibility is important, oversimplifying tools for mass appeal can lead to shorter attention spans and a decline in critical thinking. This echoes his point in the article: tools are meant to amplify human abilities, yet the trend of dumbing them down risks doing the opposite—handicapping us rather than empowering us.