Chris Crawford’s approach to redefining interactivity challenged my previous understanding. Before reading his work, I had simplistically viewed “interaction” as any engagement that elicited a response. However, Crawford’s detailed criteria, emphasizing cyclically reciprocal actions like active listening, speaking, and thinking, expanded my perspective. It dawned on me that interactivity is not solely objective; it also involves subjective assessments of its degree. This revelation prompted me to reconsider instances I’d deemed interactive but didn’t align with Crawford’s definition. This reevaluation applies to the concept of participation as well. My initial interpretation had primarily focused on the term “interact,” which, as I realized, is distinct from “interactivity” and represents two surprisingly different notions.
To illustrate this point, consider social media platforms. We often think of them as interactive because users can like, comment on, and share posts. However, these platforms are primarily built around interfaces for content presentation and interaction with other users. The core design is about presenting information rather than fostering deep interactivity. Another example is YouTube. While viewers can like, comment, and subscribe, the core design revolves around presenting videos and ads. It offers interaction elements, but they don’t necessarily facilitate the deep, cyclically reciprocal engagement that Crawford’s definition of interactivity suggests. So, interactive design can indeed transcend traditional interface design, encompassing a wide range of digital experiences that may appear interactive on the surface but don’t fully align with the rich criteria Crawford outlines for true interactivity.