Listen (input) – Think (process) – Speak (output)
One thing that Chris Crawford mentioned at the end really enlightens me: have the right form for the right function. Despite that user interface design and interactivity design are two different things, their should be an inseparable link in between. For my week 2 assignment, I added an if statement to trigger the background changes whenever the mouse moves to a specific area. This is a last-minute changes to the generative work I have already done with the pure intention of increasing interactivity. Looking back to it, I realize that it breaks the balance between the wave in the foreground and the single-tone background. Although the degree of interactivity seems to rise, the important code I wanted to highlight is interrupted.
The above reflection brings me to the second point i’d like to discuss: what determines the degree of interactivity, listening, thinking, or speaking? Though Crawford uses book and movies as examples of forms that have low interactivity, I remember reading books that direct you to different sections of the page based on the choices you made for the protagonist. In 2018, Netflix also launched its first interactive film Bandersnatch on their streaming platform with more to come in the following year. These innovations create a conversation between the audience and the actors. However, do these innovations turn the medium into something they are not? Do these books and movies become a game? What more can be done to increase the interactivity of these mediums while not ruining their fundamentals?