Whenever I have a conversation with somebody not studying Interactive Media, I’ve never been able to explain the term “interactive” in a way that does justice to what it really means. It almost got me thinking that maybe there is no good definition, but rather just an understanding you develop once you’ve been exposed to the field. In this regard, reading “The Art of Interactive Design” by Chris Crawford was an eye-opening experience. I really liked how he broke down interactivity into three parts (listening, thinking and speaking), while also giving the example of a good human conversation to make sense of this meaning.
Crawford’s emphasis on degrees of interactivity, rather than just “interactive” or “not interactive,” really gave me a lot to think about. It reminded me of past projects where I thought I had created something highly interactive, only to watch users quickly lose interest. Now I’m wondering if I unintentionally created the equivalent of a “refrigerator light game” – technically interactive, but lacking depth. This reading also gave me ideas for improving my p5.js sketches, like using better algorithms to create more dynamic responses to user actions. But it also leaves me with the question: How much “thinking” does a system need to do before it feels truly interactive to users? Can we ever create digital interactions that match the richness of human conversation? In the end, can a system be truly interactive if it lacks purpose or understanding of the interaction, or is the perception of interaction by the user enough? These are questions I’ll be thinking about as I approach my next project, aiming to create something that goes beyond simple input-output and engages users in a more meaningful way.