The main point which stood out to me from this reading was the author’s definition of interactivity as clarified by the analogy of a conversation. I found the comparison of “input, process, output” to “listen, think, speak” to be effective in conveying interactivity today (especially since the piece was written two decades ago). On this same note, I found the mention of an interactive process requiring “two actors” to be interesting. As someone who grew up with digital technology, I subconsciously tend to either view it as a tool or an extension of myself and my actions – not as a separate active party that has the agency to “listen, think and speak” in conversation with me. I feel that the only time I consider technology’s agency is when it does not cooperate with my goal as a user as, for example, oftentimes when a website does not load or is difficult to use we place the blame on it and not the interaction itself.
Another point I found interesting was the misuse of interaction in varying different contexts. More specifically, the distinction between integration and reaction stood out to me as the author strongly claims that they have nothing to do with one another. However, I do feel that there is some element of reaction within interaction (on the human side at the very least). In the aforementioned example, a poorly constructed website will surely garner a specific reaction in the user and, in turn, will affect how they interact with it. As such, I feel that in certain cases, the two are interlinked and should not be considered entirely separate processes.