The first chapter of “The Art of Interactive Design” by Chris Crawford lays out the foundation for understanding what interaction is in the first place. On the other hand, Crawford distinguished between interaction and mere reaction by insisting on the two-way process of communication and stated that a cyclic process is necessary where two actors listen, think, and speak alternately. Crawford’s definition makes one start to question the extent to which the present technologies achieve real interaction versus offering sophisticated forms of reaction. For instance, if we look at voice-activated assistants or chatbots, how much do these systems actually engage in a listen-think-speak cycle, and how much is it just a pre-programmed set of responses to user input? The key question comes up here: can artificial intelligence, as it exists and will in all future products, actually ‘interact’ as Crawford has described interaction, or is it by necessity delegated to the simulation of interaction through a series of complex algorithms?
There are key lines of inquiry related to the ethics of designing for interaction. What, therefore, when the essence of interaction is meaningful exchange? How is it that designers ensure technologies really foster such positive interactions without the manipulation or exploitation of the user? This issue becomes very pertinent in the context of social media platforms in which interaction design can radically impact user behavior and mental health.
Moreover, Crawford’s focus on interaction as something cyclic challenges us to reason about user feedback loops in design. And his differentiation between interaction and reaction raises serious questions of how we categorize and value forms of digital engagement. This prompts us to critically reflect on whether, indeed, our daily engagements with technology are two-way interactions, that is, if as much as we respond to them, devices and platforms themselves also engage and respond to us—or whether, indeed, we are only responding to slick cues, designed by others.
I believe these questions are crucial for both designers and users as we navigate the increasingly complex landscape of interactive systems.