I find this reading very interesting because it was not until now I realized that interactivity is related to interaction. It never occurred to me that one-way interaction might not even count towards being interactive at all. When I actually think about it, I realize how reasonable the author’s claims are. If anything that moves when you interact with it is interactive, then anything could be interactive. You could potentially pick up a rock, throw it away, and say it is interactive. Then, there would be no meaning to the word “interactive.” The author’s definition of interactivity really gave me a lot of new insight into the term”interactive media.” This framework clearly separates and distinguishes interactive media from traditional media. Being interactive requires the media to somehow respond to the audience and improvise. Regarding media, it could only be done with algorithms and sensors, which traditional media doesn’t include.
Another thing I find interesting is the distinction between interactive design and traditional interface design. I always thought that interactive design is based on interface design and that there must be an interface basis to implement interactivity on top of it. It only occurred to me now that interactivity design could be much broader than interface design. There is much more to play with in interactive design, not just thinking about the aesthetics and alignment of elements on the page.