The Future of Interaction

 In the last chapter of our book "Things That Keep Us Busy - the elements of interaction" we spend some time on what the future of interaction might be. We tried to do it by extrapolating the analysis that we had done throughout the book. We did to be real and not too speculative. If we are right or wrong is up to you to decide. 

I have included the first page here and the rest of the chapter can be found if follow the link.

11 Full Speed Ahead

We would like to believe that a deeper examination of interaction and

interactivity would make us better equipped to imagine and approach the

future of interactivity. Obviously we cannot reliably predict what will happen,

but our examinations, conceptual developments, and terminological

emendations should at least improve our ability to explore different possible

futures. We have already engaged in explorations of some ongoing

or imminent developments by extending our understanding of interactivity

with ideas such as faceless interaction, the growing relevance of the

expressive-impressive thought style, and a changing view on control and

complexity. But in this final chapter we will indulge in some more speculative

ideas about the future, some lines of possible developments that we can

imagine, optimistic opportunities, and probable problems.

Let us assume that our society indeed is steaming full speed ahead with

regard to interactivity (partly because it is possible, partly because people

want it). Can we slow down? Not likely. Can we steer? Possibly. Clearly,

things can be done at the level of particular artifacts, systems, and designs.

They can intentionally be designed to move toward a certain imagined

future. And some things can probably be done at a higher level of design

insight and foresight. But a large part of the development might still be a

matter of large-scale systemic effects beyond any designer’s control. This

does not mean that explorations of what lies ahead are a waste of time: on

the contrary, by reflecting on potential futures, by formulating scenarios,

by naming trajectories, by defining emerging phenomena, by analyzing

consequences, we are not only exploring, we are also making potential

futures more, or less, possible and probable.

--------------------------------------

Ref:

Janlert, Lars-Erik, and Erik Stolterman. Things That Keep Us Busy : The Elements of Interaction, MIT Press, 2017. 

Going back to Bruno Latour and the role of "things"

Over the years I have returned to the writings of Bruno Latour. Every time I do that, it excites me in different ways, sometimes because his ideas are extraordinarily creative, sometimes because they are overwhelmingly complex and rich and, of course, because they always provoke and challenge me.  

Today I re-read his article from 2004 called "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern". It is a long and complex text with highly delicate argumentation and reasoning. As always when reading Latour, he forces you to think and tricks you to believe that he is arguing for one position while in the next paragraph he turns it upside down.

I will not go into what the text is about or his arguments. But briefly, it is about the confusing situation that many "constructivists" found themselves in when they realized that their attempt to "deconstruct" facts and truth had similarities with the work of those who advocate conspiracies and those who (for other reasons) claim that there is no truth. Latour lays out a complex argumentation that leads to what can be seen as a new form of critique and a reconsidering of the meaning and role of "things". Challenge yourself and read it.

Latour, Bruno. "Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern." Critical inquiry 30.2 (2004): 225-248.