Its interesting to understand the definition of interactivity and that not everything that we interact (react) to is interactive. The writer says that a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think,and speak is an interaction. This is interesting because when asked in one of the first lessons to go out of the class and find things that are interactive, most of us came up with things that would, according to this text, not actually be interactive. For example we were going to initially choose a bench/table that several of us thought was interactive, due to need for an even number of people to be sat on it to balance it and its ability to spin, however Crawford would likely disagree. However we ended up choosing the coffee machine, which I am not entirely sure if Crawford would disagree with or not, as when we listen (seeing the options), think, and speak (choosing coffee), and the machine listens (to our request input), thinks (processes it), and speaks (prepares chosen coffee), this seems to me to be interactive due to Crawford’s logic as well.