After reading the text, I now understand interactivity a bit more. Initially i thought it was just a simple exchange between two parties, but now I see it more as a back and forth and continuous effort from both parties to keep the exchange going. I really like the idea of interactivity having three main components: listening, thinking and speaking. Though there is a debate on what counts as interactive or not, I do think that the three components make good factors to consider when classifying them into the degrees of interactivity.
I love how the light inside a refrigerator was mentioned, because when I was younger it really did serve as a form of entertainment to open the fridge, see the light turn on, and then slowly close it, not fully, but just enough so that I can see the light eventually turns off. Even though Crawford concluded that this system has ‘low level interactivity’, to younger me it was a fun little activity that until now, I would still occasionally do for fun; so in that sense, I would consider the lights on refrigerators to be a high level interactivity (though this is a highly biased and personal take).