Even though we are studying “Interactive Media”, I didn’t ponder much about how interactivity should be defined until I read this article. Crawford’s definition, framing it as a cyclic process where two actors alternately listen, think, and speak, seemed interesting but not all-encompassing. His skepticism about labeling everything as interactive, especially in the context of books or movies, got me thinking. It nudged me to consider a spectrum of interactivity rather than a black-and-white definition.
Low interactivity, for me, could be akin to interacting with a traffic light. While it responds to user input (pressing the button to cross the street), the interaction is limited to a predefined set of responses (changing the signal). Medium interactivity might resemble using a smartphone. While navigating through apps, users can input commands, receive feedback, and customize settings. The smartphone’s interface allows for a degree of personalization and responsiveness to user actions, but it still operates within the confines of preprogrammed functionalities. High interactivity can be exemplified by AI LLM chatbots since their capacity to comprehend intricate language inputs, showcase contextual understanding, respond coherently, and even generate creative content reflects a higher level of engagement. They can generate human-like text and personalized responses yet still lack the consciousness of a human being. However, it is starting to get borderline difficult to differentiate their responses from genuine understanding with bots like Character.ai.
Furthermore, Crawford’s distinction between user interface design and interactivity design struck a chord. It made me reflect on projects where the interface might be visually appealing but lacks the holistic experience that interactivity design aims to achieve. It aligns with my belief that interactive design should engage users not just visually but also cognitively. True interactivity is like a dance of ideas, not a one-way street.