Reflection on “The Art of Interactive Design” by Chris Crawford:
After reading Crawford’s work, I found myself thinking about how interactivity is often misunderstood. Crawford compares interactivity to a conversation, where both parties listen, think, and speak. This analogy helped me understand that for interaction to be meaningful, both parties need to actively participate. Crawford also talks about how interactivity is often misused and misunderstood. (Pg 5, 6)
However, I had some questions about Crawford’s perspective. He criticizes traditional media like books and movies for not being interactive enough. But I believe these media still have value because they make us feel and think, even though they don’t interact with us directly. Crawford also seems biased towards interactive design over human factors engineering, which focuses on making tools more efficient for workers.
Another question that came up for me was about the limits of interactivity. Are there times when traditional media offer experiences that can’t be replaced by interactive designs? Overall, reading Crawford’s work made me rethink what interactivity means and how it affects design. It made me consider the importance of both form and function in design processes.