As I searched for the definition of “interactivity,” I found two distinct meanings placed side by side: (1) the process of two people or things working together and influencing each other, and (2) the ability of a computer to respond to a user’s input. In The Art of Interactive Design, Chris Crawford claims that the term “interactivity” is commonly “misused and misunderstood” due to the prevalence of the second definition. He challenges this misinterpretation by outlining three essential criteria for true interaction: (1) listening, (2) thinking, and (3) speaking. Importantly, Crawford argues that all three principles must be equally present in both “actors” of the interaction, with no trade-offs. This helps to clearly differentiate between interaction and mere reaction (such as reading a book) or participation (like dancing to music), which, as I agree, are not truly interactive activities.
While I found the text enjoyable overall, some examples provided by Crawford were based solely on his personal assumptions (for instance, his discussion of performance art and the extent of interaction involved). This led me to reflect on a question posed at the beginning of the chapter that remained unanswered: what is the role of subjectivity in interactivity? How much of interaction depends on the perspective of the individual interactor?
From the text, I gathered that there is some subjectivity in interactivity, which Crawford acknowledges. However, he also emphasizes that an objective foundation for interactivity exists as well, rooted in the essential definition of interaction. I agree with this view and also concur that defining interactivity merely as “the ability to respond to input” is a misuse. Such a limited definition can constrain designers. Therefore, in my future artworks, I plan to implement Crawford’s “rule of three” when assessing the interactivity of my code.