I thought the way Crawford wrote this paper was really interesting because it was structure in relaxed and reflect-based mannerism to describe what interactivity means. To Crawford, his definition of interactivity was a spectrum of based on the principle of two parties listening, thinking, and speaking. Initially, I was a bit taken aback by his definition especially when he brought up the examples of books and dancing, but towards the end of his article I came to an understanding and agreement with his argument. I feel interactivity should invoke an experience for the individual and the program itself should react to what the user has input, whether it be through speak or physical action.
When reading his paper, it reminded of modern popup art instillation where individuals could walk through an exhibition and the art itself was what the user created through pressing button or generated through movements. I feel like interactivity has definitely come a long way and to me it seems like artists are starting to take notice and incorporate it into their design. Also, through his structure of writing, it almost felt intentional because he wanted the article to be interactivity by suggesting the reader to contact him by email and leaving a personal touch with the reader.
As such, I feel a strong interactive system has the ability to connect with the user and make them feel something emotion when they are experiencing the project. At the same time the use is also able to control the environment around them and change how they perceptive the project. In my project, I hope to improve the degree of user interactions by hopefully having a “wow” factor when the person first sees my project, and after that experience, they’re able to explore more and have the ability to interact with the system.