Crawford posits that the contemporary understanding of interactivity is frequently imprecise, leading to its misapplication and devaluation. To counter this trend, he proposes a definition rooted in the metaphor of a conversation, wherein “interactivity [is] a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak.” This definition moves beyond simple stimulus-response models, highlighting the dynamic and reciprocal nature of genuine interaction. Crawford clarifies this concept by differentiating interaction from mere reaction. He uses the example of a refrigerator light to illustrate this distinction, arguing that while the refrigerator responds to a user’s action (opening the door), it lacks the capacity for purposeful thought and communication, and therefore does not engage in true interactivity. A key contribution of Crawford’s work lies in his articulation of “degrees of interactivity.” Rather than conceiving of interactivity as a binary attribute, Crawford proposes a continuous spectrum, ranging from zero to high.
A strongly interactive system, according to the principles outlined by Crawford, possesses several key characteristics. First and foremost, it facilitates reciprocal communication between the user and the system. This implies a dynamic exchange where both entities actively participate in the interaction, rather than a simple stimulus-response relationship. Secondly, the system exhibits effective listening skills. This involves accurately interpreting user input, understanding the intent behind their actions, and processing the data in a meaningful way. This requires robust input mechanisms. Thirdly, the system demonstrates meaningful thinking capabilities. The system has to engage in meaningful thinking to produce a desirable output. Finally, the system communicates via clear and understandable speaking. It provides output that is informative, easily comprehensible, and tailored to the user’s context and level of understanding.
To enhance the degree of user interaction in my p5 sketches, I would focus on several key areas. First, I would implement more sophisticated input mechanisms beyond basic mouse and keyboard interactions. This could involve libraries for gesture recognition, voice input, or data from external sensors. Incorporating input validation and feedback would also ensure the system accurately interprets user actions. I would improve the clarity and expressiveness of the system’s output. Visual cues, animations, sound effects, and dynamic text elements could be used to provide richer feedback to the user. Exploring different output modalities, such as auditory feedback, could further enhance the immersive and engaging experience.
To note, Crawford’s approach is not without its limitations. The requirement of “two actors” may prove overly restrictive when applied to certain complex human-computer interactions. In addition, the subjective nature of terms such as “good” listening, “good” thinking, and “good” speaking introduces potential challenges to the consistent application of the framework.