Reading Chris Crawford’s The Art of Interactive Design reshaped the way I think about interactivity. Crawford defines interactivity not as a simple feature or function but as a conversation, a cyclical process of listening, thinking, and speaking. What really drew me into this reading the most was his insistence that many things we casually call “interactive” are not interactive at all, because they lack a genuine back-and-forth exchange. Clicking a button or watching an animation play is not enough if the system does not “listen” and respond with meaningful output that takes the user’s input into account. This shifted my perspective away from thinking of interactivity as a checklist item and toward understanding it as a measure of quality and how deeply the system engages with its user.
One passage that stood out to me was Crawford’s description of the conversation between Gomer and Freedgund, where both must listen, think, and respond to create a true dialogue. It made me question: How do we measure good listening in a digital system? Algorithms process data, but does that count as “thinking” or “understanding”? This question feels even more relevant today, with AI systems claiming to “converse” with users. Crawford’s argument suggests that the test of interactivity lies in whether the user feels heard and whether the system’s response prompts further exploration or reflection.
Reflecting on my own work with p5.js sketches, I realize I have often stopped at surface-level interactivity: a mouse click might trigger a color change, or the position of the mouse might move a shape. But these interactions rarely invite deeper engagement. A strongly interactive system, in my view, should encourage curiosity, creating an open-ended dialogue where the user feels like a co-creator. Moving forward, I want to implement more engaging interactivity for example, using the speed of the mouse movement to alter the size or complexity of generative patterns, or incorporating audio could be an interesting way of engagement. Adding unpredictability by using randomness is also a key factor that could make the experience feel more alive. Ultimately, I want my sketches to feel less like static art pieces and more like evolving systems that “listen” to the user and respond in a way that makes them want to keep interacting.