Chris Crawford’s reading on what defines interactivity was both frustrating and informative. Personally, I wasn’t a big fan of the pre-internet sense of humor presented in the reading. It often felt like Crawford was overlooking levels of subjectivity and nuances regarding interactivity in mediums such as books and movies. These aspects could have been explored more thoroughly instead of being briefly touched upon. However, the reading provided valuable insights into how interactivity became part of the collective technology lexicon, how it was distorted by various products, and the potential it still holds for the future.
I agree with the idea of interactivity being just a feature of a piece of art or a product, it does not inherently imply merit, which Crawford seems to propose as well. I thought the gradient of interactivity from zero, low to high seemed fruitful, however Crawford’s inisistence on an objective understanding of interactivity was honestly frustrating, but atleast he played into the fact that i cant argue with him through the book.
I found the distinction between a user experience designer and an interactivity designer fascinating. The idea that graphic designers who primarily focus on form and then implement function are not considered interactive designers makes sense. Interactivity requires an equal level of emphasis on both form and function from the beginning in order to provide a “good” interactive experience.
Overall, I found the reading to be thought-provoking. It made me reflect on the importance of interactivity in technology and helped me define my own understanding of interactivity, whether it is “two actors that listen, think, and speak to each other,” or something different.