First and foremost, I completely agree with Crawford when he said that “the term interactivity is overused and under understood.” I believe it becomes under-understood because it has been made a universal term when in reality it can be interpreted in many ways, thus becoming subjective, as discussed on page 6. That’s something I don’t necessarily like, especially considering the word “Interactive” in our university’s “Interactive Media” program. In this sense, it has been underestimated and has affected many opportunities for students, including myself. To be more specific, the term has been underestimated in many ways. When people hear “Interactive Media,” they often disregard “interactive” because it’s an adjective and then proceed with “oh, so like media, like social media” or “oh yeah, like TV hosts and stuff.” I find that very frustrating because what we do is much more. With that, I have a love-hate relationship with the term “Interactive Media.”
Furthermore, on page 11, the author states, “Interactivity designers do not deny the hard-won lessons of the past; they seek to incorporate them in a wider perspective, which, in turn, requires some rearrangement.” He follows by saying that incorporating the wisdom of older fields plays an important role in this so-called “rearrangement.” I wonder what exactly he means by rearrangement, and to what extent should we apply it. In addition, on page 12, the author says, “Once interactivity becomes established in our culture, the academic will get a hold of it, and then you’ll have more ‘high-quality’ definitions than you ever thought you needed.” But what about the non-experts in the field who tend to have authority in recruiting? Will they ever understand what “interactivity” is, or more specifically, what “interactive media” is? Overall, I’d say it was an interesting read, but I had a lot of contrary ideas, part of the reason being that I will be carrying that name with me throughout my academic career.