In the first chapter of The Art of Interactive Design, Crawford attempts to define the word interactivity, which he feels is misunderstood due to its popularity. Instead of defining it in technical terms such as ‘input, process and output’, Crawford sees the more human side of interactivity: listening, thinking, speaking. For him, interactivity comes from reciprocal action between two actors, an action that, in his words, has blood in its veins, or one that imitates life. He draws a distinction between the degrees of interactivity, claiming that it is more like an ever-changing variable than a boolean property; there are high interactivities and low interactivities. For it to be classified as high interactivity, it should perform all three steps, namely listen, think and speak. If it fails in any one of these steps, it falls short and falls under the category of low interactivity. Crawford also differentiates between interactivity and reaction, arguing that mere reaction to forms of media such as books and films fall short of the true definition of interactivity since they do not carry out all of the three steps.
Crawford points out the different approaches to solving a problem by ‘user interface people’ and ‘interactive design people’, mentioning how the ‘user interface people’ seem to be concerned more with the objective side to the solution while the ‘interactive design people’ bring to the table an artistic way of solving the problem. Crawford attempts to unite the two peoples by suggesting that good interactivity design integrates form with functionality, and that they are far from being mutually exclusive.
Crawford is self-aware of how his definition might not resonate with everyone and acknowledges that he cannot claim to provide a definition that truly encompasses everything interactivity is about. His ideas prompted a reconsideration of what I define interactivity as. However, I do think that the degree of interactivity does not matter as much as the thought behind it – which, essentially, is an unspoken understanding between the artist and the beholder, a conversation that might never have been had if not for the interactive art. After all, why, as long as it listens, thinks and speaks, should one compartmentalize the degree of art at all?