“Form follows (?) function”
Chris Crawford provides valuable insights into the nature of using and misusing the word “interactivity” referring to both physical and digital spaces, without avoiding his subjective evaluation of such instances. In the context of studying Interactive Media, full understanding of what such media really mean is crucial. I agree with Crawford that interactivity should be regarded as a spectrum, yet I believe that there are certain characteristics defining strong interactive systems at least in the digital space. “Form follows function”, a long ago established design principle, can be followed (at least to an extent) – the designer should not overcomplicate the user’s experience, making the function unclear in a pursuit of a more unconventional form. Although I do not think that this principle must be implemented without exceptions, at this stage of my coding experience I lean towards making interaction with my works more straightforward for the user. Unplanned and random additions should not be forbidden, as we have already learned, but it is important to maintain a balance.
“The rule of three” proposed by Crawford in this chapter will be a helpful guideline for me while designing a truly interactive work. However, I want to experiment in my p5.js projects with expanding the degree of interactivity, not limiting the system to inputs and outputs but adding more steps of interpretation. This could involve implementation of that very randomness, development of a complex algorithm that considers a variety of scenarios, or something even more thought-provoking.