I resonate with the interaction that the author proposes. Interaction is a “cyclic process” in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak; it’s a back-and-forth listening, thinking, and speaking process indeed. The key is more than one, irrefutably. But I entertain his idea that we should think of interactivity as a “variable with relative measures.” Sometimes, defining whether an object as either interactive or non-interactive seems reductive and regressive. Things are more than what they seem and they certainly belong in the grey area of interactivity definition. Aiming to discuss the degree of interactivity seems to be a legitimate approach.
The author thinks that movies are non-interactive. However, in today’s context, this is not true entirely anymore, given the rise of interactive content on streaming platforms such as Netflix, with shows or movies like Carmen Sandiego: To Steal Of Not To Steal, Black Mirror Bandersnatch, etc.. Sure, the end result is pretty much very pre-determined, these programs are scripted anyway, but the concept and operation of the interactivity is successfully implemented. Pretty soon in the future, there will be interactive movie made for VR glass devices such as the newly released Apple Vision Pro.
I also find the idea about the contention between user interface and interactivity design to be fascinating. User interface from what I understand is all about front-end and the interactivity design back-end. But I’ve never thought about the tense relation between the interactivity designers and the user interface designers who detest the intrusion of interactivity designers into their work. I’ve always thought that each of these two aspects cannot exist without the other!