Besides “slopsquatting”, another tech term I ran into recently, this time describing a phenomenon in the AR/VR world, is “rectangle-pilling”. My colleague Tony brought this gem back from Siggraph. It identifies a tendency among designers to repeatedly recreate 2D design metaphors in spatial computing scenarios. For instance, you’ll notice that while Apple is exporting its glass visual metaphor from the AVP to its other devices (yay!) it still emphasizes windows layouts on the AVP. Originally this seemed like a good way to help users of other Apple devices quickly learn how to use the AVP, but instead of being a bridge, it seems now to be sticking around as a core element of their spatial design language. As AndroidXR rolls out, it is rolling out with Google’s “Material Design 3” design language, which is also a flat-design metaphor.
The trend is commonly known as 2D-in-3D. The term “rectangle-pilling” describes the way in which designers who believe in promoting 2D-in-3D currently dominate AR/VR companies, shoving out those who point out that instead of using old media metaphors, it would be better to explore “true” 3D design.
How did the 2D-in-3D crowd come to dominate? To answer this, it is worth pointing out that “digital design” became a big thing in the 2000s as people with artistic leanings found they could earn exciting livings as web developers. Digital design got its curriculum from print design and created a culture in which all one’s knowledge and status came from understanding how fonts, borders, and images fit onto a rectangular space — and applying the golden ratio at every step. In 2007 there was a brief movement toward isomorphic design with the rise of smartphones but this was quickly reversed and “flat design” ascended again.
Architects, on the other hand, are natural spatial designers. They think in 3D and are constantly converting 3D spaces into 2D instructions and back again.
But when AR/VR companies start hiring designers — the sorts of people who other designers feel have design chops — they go to the pool of digital design people rather than the pool of architects. And the design culture in these companies will end up reinforcing this notion that 2D-in-3D is the right way to do things.
Which leaves people who natively think in 3D feeling like they’ve just been “rectangle-pilled”.
There are, of course, good reasons to have 2D elements in spatial computing, like legibility when surfacing information. But for people who feel they’ve gotten “rectangle-pilled”, there is the sense that 2D-in-3D has become a crutch rather than a bridge to something new.
Potentially, constantly seeing 2D design elements reinforced in VR and AR makes people wonder what the point of VR and AR really is. Do I really need to read a 2D webpage in my VR headset? Can’t I just do that on my tablet?
