A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design:
When I was reading Bret Victor’s “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design” I thought about how I perceive technology and design. I realized how easily I accept “innovations” like touchscreens as the peak of progress, even though, as Victor argues, they often limit our potential rather than expand it. His critique of “pictures under glass” especially resonated with me, because I use my phone and laptop every day, but I rarely think about how numb those interactions actually are. There is no real feeling, no texture, no sense of connection between my hands and what I’m creating.
I think, this reading challenged me to imagine interfaces that feel alive, that respond to our touch and movement in meaningful ways. Victor’s idea that tools should “amplify human capabilities” made me wonder whether I am designing for convenience or for human expression. I started thinking about how interaction could involve more of the body, maybe through gestures, pressure, or sound, so that users could experience technology in a fuller, more emotional way. I also liked Victor’s reminder that “the future is a choice.” It gave me a sense of agency and responsibility as a future designer. Instead of waiting for big tech companies to define how we interact, I can be part of shaping alternatives that are more tactile, intuitive, and human-centered. This reading did not just critique existing designs, it inspired me to dream bigger and to treat design as a way of expanding what people can truly feel and do.
A follow-up article
These responses challenged the way I think about technology and its relationship to the human body. His insistence that our current interfaces are “flat and glassy” made me realize how limited most digital experiences truly are. I started questioning how often I accept these limitations without noticing them. The idea that our tools should adapt to us not the other way around feels both radical and necessary.What I found most striking was his defense of our hands and bodies as essential to understanding and creativity. It made me see touch not as something trivial, but as a form of intelligence. The thought that we could lose part of that richness by constantly interacting with lifeless screens feels unsettling.
As someone studying Interactive Media, I see this as a call to design technologies that reconnect people with the physical world. Instead of chasing the newest gadget, I want to think about how digital experiences could feel more alive, how they could move, resist, or respond in ways that make us aware of our own presence. The reflections did not just critique modern design, they opened a space for imagining interaction as something deeply human, sensory, and expressive.