The readings made me rethink what interaction design is and what it could become. Bret Victor’s main idea that computers should help people think, not just react stood out to me the most. It made me realize that many of my own projects focus on simple interactions, like clicking or triggering events, rather than supporting deeper understanding. This distinction between reactive systems and thinking tools feels important, especially for someone studying interactive media.
Another key idea is visibility in design. Victor argues that systems should show how they work instead of hiding their processes. I strongly relate to this from a learning perspective when I can see changes happen in real time, I understand concepts much faster. This connects interaction design with education, suggesting that good design is not just about usability, but also about helping users learn and explore. At the same time, I found myself questioning some of Victor’s ideas, especially about using the full human body in interaction. While designing for human capabilities is powerful, it can also exclude people who are not able-bodied. I agree with my peer’s point that accessibility should be central to design. Technology exists to expand access, not limit it. For example, devices like the Meta Quest offer adjustable and inclusive features, showing that immersive design and accessibility can coexist.
I was also interested in discussions about touch and sensory interaction. Technologies like haptic feedback and VR controllers show how physical sensation can enhance digital experiences. The example of devices that simulate textures or resistance demonstrates how interaction can go beyond screens and become more embodied. However, these ideas still feel experimental, and it is unclear how widely they can be applied in daily life.