I find Chris Crawford’s argument regarding the definition of interactivity to be somewhat rational. He argues that there are many things that people consider interactive, but they are not. I enjoyed the difference he made between interactivity and responding to something because it is a crucial difference. I do not fully agree that computers are not interactive. If we think of his definition of interactivity and its three aspects: listening, thinking, and speaking, individuals can engage in these aspects with computers, often simultaneously. Crawford’s distinction between the user interface and interactivity design was interesting, for interactivity design has a thinking aspect to it, and it considers form and function.
I tend to view interactivity in degrees of a spectrum. In that spectrum, some things are highly interactive, on the other they are not, and in between are different degrees. Not everything requires full interactivity some things like reading, and painting in a sense require a degree of interactivity. From Crawford’s argument, I got the sense that he was talking about things whose mere purpose is interactivity, which means they are at one end of the spectrum and cannot be between (i.e. interactive design). I honestly thought of PC and VR games where people do the 3 components of his definition.
Then I realized that he was talking about interactivity in the digital world, especially when he made the distinction between user interface design and interactive design. If we think of interactive design, one must make it engage because that is the mere purpose of it. As a result, the three components of his definition must apply.
I agree that interactivity requires a back-and-forth interaction and that if one of the conditions is broken the experience won’t be as memorable; however, I think it still has some form of interactivity. This leads me to question whether interactivity means the experience should be positive. In the reading, I sensed this was the case, especially when he compared interactivity with conversations we won’t forget. In contrast, maybe the whole purpose of a project is for it to not be good.
I think the idea of interactivity is way more complex than what Crawford argues and encompasses a wider scope and purposes.