Chris Crawford’s analysis of interactivity in his article offers a thought-provoking perspective that challenged my traditional notion of what it means to interact with something or someone. His assertion that true interactivity encompasses listening, thinking, and speaking as key components highlights the depth and complexity of human engagement. The analogy of a conversation between the two people Fredegund and Gomer effectively illustrates the dynamics of these elements, emphasizing the importance of active participation and mutual understanding when we are creating a meaningful interaction.
Before reading Crawford’s insights, my understanding of interactivity was rather simplistic, limited to the idea of reacting or engaging with external stimuli. However, his examination reveals that interactivity is far more intricate, existing along a spectrum with different degrees of engagement. Inspired by this perspective, I can also see a connection between human behavior and design, as he underscores the need for designers and creators to consider the diverse levels of interactivity in their work, recognizing that each level offers unique opportunities for communication.
However, I also find myself wondering the extent to which his framework fully captures the richness of interactive experiences. Are there additional dimensions or elements of interactivity that deserve consideration? Furthermore, while the example of conversation illuminates certain aspects of interactivity, it may overlook other forms of interaction that occur in non-verbal or non-linear contexts.