Chris Crawford’s explanation of interactivity as a conversation between two actors really made me think differently about interactive systems. Before reading this, I thought any program that responded to user input was “interactive.” But Crawford’s idea that true interactivity needs both sides to listen, think, and speak challenged my assumptions.
Example of the refrigerator light made me laugh, but it also got me thinking – how much “thinking” does a system need to do to be truly interactive? I started looking at apps and websites I use daily in a new light. Many of them just react to clicks without really processing or responding thoughtfully. Are they really interactive by Crawford’s definition?
I found myself agreeing with Crawford’s point that good interactivity needs both actors to do all three steps – listen, think, speak – well. Based on those ideas I think the key characteristics of a strongly interactive system are: good listening, thoughtful processing, and clear communication. Those characteristics reminded me of frustrating customer service chatbots that clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. Even if they respond quickly, the interaction feels hollow because the “listening” and “thinking” parts are weak.
This reading has me wondering how I can make my own p5 sketches more deeply interactive. Instead of just reacting to mouse clicks, how can I build in more “thinking” to create a back-and-forth with the user? Maybe I could track user behavior over time to generate more thoughtful responses. Crawford’s ideas have inspired me to push beyond surface-level interactivity in my work.