First and foremost, this was one very interesting read.
One of the biggest challenges I ever faced since university started is probably explaining my major to my family. “Interactive Media.”… “But what is interactive?”… “How is media interactive?”… “Aren’t all medias interactive?”, till it lead me to wonder myself, “What is interactivity really?”
To see Chris Crawford’s take on this subject was very entertaining; his arguments and engaging form of writing made me think deep about interactivity. In this chapter, he describes it as “a cyclic process in which two actors alternatively listen, think and speak”. Initially, I was a bit taken aback by this definition, and his arguments on how certain things like reading or film weren’t really interactive, just engaging or participative. But after reading the whole chapter, I began to understand this take on interactivity more.
A strongly interactive system should definitely have these three characteristics. It should be able to receive our input, to process our reaction, and produce meaningful engaging output, stimulating a conversation between the two actors. I also think there should be a concept of control in the hands of both actors; something which can continue the interaction meaningfully, influencing the outcome. I also think that the interactions itself should be quick; one could argue that reading and film are interactions between the writer/producer and the viewer, just an extremely slow one. I also think that it should be adaptive to the user’s preferences and behaviours over time.
To increase the degree of user interaction in my p5js sketches, I think I can utilise the skills we learned in class, like mouse events and user defined functions. I can add more interactive elements like responsive animations, maybe try implementing hovering effects. The world of interaction is open to explore, experiment and implement.