“The Art of Interactive Design” by Chris Crawford goes in-depth refining a buzzword – interactivity – that we might be using often without understanding all the intricacies of the interface that allows users to design dynamic interactions for the users. According to the author, it’s not just an additional layer of programming but its core aspect. This has also been true in my experience since I have worked on several projects and oftentimes it’s the interactive layer that makes a difference between a solid or lacking experience. For example, making everything user-friendly, and easy to understand but also dynamic enough so that the user does not get bored of repeating the same action again and again.
He makes a clear divide between interaction and reaction and how the cyclic nature of having two systems defines if something is interactable or not. While I understand his idea of having two actors, I don’t think that the branch example is only about having one actor. Even though it’s an inanimate object, it still plays a major role. The better distinction is that the branch while being an actor, is not necessarily something that can modify its behavior based on our (first actor’s) actions.
Nevertheless, in the following paragraphs, the author gets more concrete in his definition and I have to agree, that having two living organisms interact is much more authentic than any kind of computer interaction we are trying to imitate in real life.
The author further continues to define different levels of interaction and how it is a variable that might have different strengths based on how many components it has and how advanced they are (ability to think, speak, listen, etc). I would argue, however, that it is important to define individual aspects, since while something may be interactive based on all those definitions, a user (who is good at listening, speaking, and thinking) might still find something interactive to be lackluster based on their personal experience. For example, imagine an app that teaches you some skills. On paper it is quite interactive, the user listens, speaks, and inputs answers after deliberate thinking. The app, in turn, responds, speaks when needed, and analyzes answers. However, if the user is already fluent in such skills, this interaction component will seem trivial and more of a hassle unless the app is designed to be tailored to their fields of interest or their behavioral patterns.
I agree with his book example, (there is more of a reaction than interaction). However, some movies can indeed be interactive. For example, Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is a 2018 movie where users can make a choice based on which different scenarios will play out. Even here though, you can argue that this is not true interaction since those scenes have already been pre-shot and there is nothing an individual can do to change the script of those scenes.
His final consensus lies in differentiating user experience designer versus interactivity designer. The latter is less concerned about technical aspects but more about how a function makes the user feel. As such, there is the integration of “form with the function”.
All in all, the author was very forward-looking with his statements. Crawford emphasizes its core role in user experience, distinguishing between interaction and reaction. The science of interactivity has advanced a lot after writing this book, especially with the rise of VR where new definitions can be formed every day based on discoveries and new ways to create immersive experiences. Ultimately, his work serves as a good foundation in this ever-evolving field.
Skip to content
