For me, Crawford’s take on interactivity cuts through the hype, offering me a clear framework for what true engagement should look like. His breakdown of listening, thinking, and speaking makes me reflect on why so many so-called “interactive experiences” can feel unsatisfying. The example of yelling at a movie that doesn’t listen resonated with me — it highlights how real interactivity isn’t just about reaction, but about meaningful, adaptive engagement. A system isn’t truly interactive if it only delivers pre-programmed responses; instead, it should feel like a conversation, where user input shapes the experience rather than just triggering pre-set outcomes. This reminds me of choice-based games, where decisions genuinely alter the course of the experience rather than funneling players down a predictable, linear path.
Reflecting on my p5.js sketches, I see areas for improvement. Right now, they react in simple, binary ways — a change in speed, color, or position based on mouse movement, but nothing deeper. This reading pushes me to think bigger. How could I implement real-time feedback loops or adaptive behaviors that evolve based on user interactions? Maybe I could introduce patterns of response, where the sketch remembers past inputs and gradually modifies its behavior, making the experience feel more alive. Crawford’s perspective forces me to ask: Am I designing true interaction, or just a glorified switch? If I want meaningful interactivity, I need to think beyond cause and effect and design systems that feel more fluid, responsive, and dynamic, creating experiences that engage users in a richer, more participatory way.