Before delving into the first chapter of Chris Crawford’s “The Art of Interactive Design”, my understanding of “interaction” was rather straightforward—I saw it as any form of engagement that elicited a response. However, learning about Crawford’s comprehensive criteria, which highlight the significance of cyclically reciprocal actions such as active listening, speaking, and thinking, has expanded my viewpoint. His idea allows for evaluation of the depth of interactivity in different mediums, which challenged my previous idea that something either is interactive or not.
Another idea that caught my attention was that interactivity is in fact subjective. This thought makes complete sense, as different users have different expectations, levels of interest, motivation and personal preferences. For instance, someone who prefers a more passive form of engagement and somebody who strikes for a more immersive experience will most likely not find something like the YouTube algorithm interactive on the same level. Another factor I considered after the reading is that interactivity can be staged; in other words, it is not difficult to make something appear interactive when, in fact, it is not. This issue arises for several reasons. First, there is often a false overuse of the term “interactive”, leading to a dilution of its meaning. This aligns with the misconception with which Crawford opens the first chapter, highlighting the need for a more precise understanding and definition of true interactivity. Second, there seems to be a common tendency to mistake participation and reaction as true interaction. While these elements are integral to many interactive experiences, they lack the deep, cyclically reciprocal engagement that Crawford’s definition of interactivity highlights.
An example that comes to mind is gamification, which involves applying game-like elements, such as points, badges, leaderboards, and rewards, to non-game activities to make them more engaging and interactive. Such strategy is often used in various apps, for example, educational applications such as Duolingo. Duolingo gained its popularity since it was perceived as highly interactive due to the visual feedback and competitive elements, but that is more or less only the surface of the application. Upon closer examination, one may realize that the core learning experience remains passive and one-directional, with limited opportunities for genuine engagement, discussion, or deep understanding of the subject matter.