A significant part of the reading that stood out to me was where Crawford uses the example of a person dodging a tree branch to describe the difference between reactive and interactive. When I think of interactive elements within my programs, I would consider whatever happens on screen as a result my input counts as interactive. However, what the author is arguing is that this reactive element only becomes interactive, if it does something meaningful. The author defines interactivity through a metaphor of conversation, consisting of listening,thinking and speaking.
I believe that the author’s metaphor works quite well in describing what we would want to see within an interactive system. For example, the user interface of the system must be easy to understand and use, as opposed to being filled with technical jargon, which may hinder your experience with the system. I believe another important aspect of interactivity is the response we get from the system or computer following an input from the user. Interactivity is undermined when the response doesn’t match well or isn’t suitable for what the user inputted.
To improve my interactivity within my future p5 sketches, I want to incorporate more meaningful interactive elements, but more importantly, I should try to improve the aesthetics of my interactive elements. Currently, all my descriptions of interactivity are not within my sketch, which could be difficult if there wasn’t a guide to the interactive elements of my sketches.