In my opinion, a strongly interactive system should effectively incorporate all three aspects the author mentions in The Art of Interactive Design: listening, thinking, and speaking. I think that video games are a good example of an interactive system, hence to illustrate these characteristics, I will use a recent game I played, It Takes Two.
Regarding listening, It Takes Two, like many storytelling games, implements this by “listening” to the user’s input. In other words, the game adapts its narrative based on what the participants choose or want to experience. It Takes Two tells the story of a couple on the verge of breaking up, who are brought back together by their daughter-a very relatable story that touches on the theme of family.
The second aspect is thinking, which, in my view, is not always the best metaphor for interactivity when applied to machines. The concept of thinking is vague, and we usually associate it exclusively with humans. Despite that, I interpret “thinking” as the system’s ability to process information, or the mechanisms the designer employs to create meaning. In games, I see thinking as the game mechanics. For example, It Takes Two requires tasks to be completed by two players, which demonstrates how the system accepts input and processes it.
The last aspect is speaking. It Takes Two uses the adventure through the couple’s old possessions to retell their past, implementing “speaking” by showing how the interaction unfolds. This aspect prompts the user to react to the machine.
When discussing interactive design, I think most people tend to focus on the speaking aspect-the demonstration-more than on the other two factors. However, for an interaction to be well-executed, all three aspects need to work in harmony. I often fall into the trap of focusing solely on demonstration. In future projects, I want to focus on incorporating more meaningful interaction mechanisms and exploring how they can better convey the story.