After reading this text, it seems to me that there are two views on interactivity. The first is the overused, underunderstood meaning of interaction or interactivity, which Crawford criticizes. In that definition, interactivity bases itself on the premise that any person or object coming into contact with another object forms an interaction. The “interactive” rug, for example, is fitting, because the child logically “interacts” with the rug. Yet, the rug doesn’t return anything. That is the same for the fallen tree. In fact, in those cases, humans act or react, but do not interact. The other meaning of interact, which Crawford defines, claims that both entities should “listen, think, and speak” (that is, literally or metaphorically). But even when the two entities are capable of doing so, it doesn’t mean that they are doing it well. So, can “bad” interactivity be disregarded as interactivity altogether? Though bad, doesn’t it warrant already that the interactivity is present?
Another point that follows is that of interactivity design. Based on the aforementioned definitions, it is interesting to think about the role of the interactive designer. The latter, in “interactivizing” their design, acts on a computer. But then, can that be called interaction? Or is the interaction merely the exchange between the viewer and the final design? I believe that in a lot of cases, yes, we can say that the designer creating the design forms an interaction with the computer, but are there cases in which one of the three components of interaction lack?