For me, a strongly interactive system is one that goes beyond just reacting. Crawford’s point about how books, movies, or even a refrigerator light don’t really “interact” stuck with me; true interactivity for me now, means both sides listen, think, and respond. It isn’t enough for a system to grab attention or look slick; it has to feel like a conversation. That’s why I think of interactivity less as a switch (on/off) and more as a spectrum. The strongest systems respect the user: they acknowledge input in meaningful ways, they adapt, and they make the user feel like their actions actually matter.
When I think about my own p5 sketches, I realize they often stop at reaction. They respond to a click or a key press but don’t really “listen” deeply. To push them toward stronger interactivity, I could design them to recognize patterns in user input, remember past actions, or even surprise the user with responses that aren’t strictly predictable (sort of something we did for the production in week 2; baby steps but still). For example, instead of a sketch where shapes simply follow the mouse, I could create one where the system builds a visual “memory” of how the user has drawn before and adapts its behavior over time. Though that sounds ambitious, it would turn it from a basic reaction into more of a dialogue.
Ultimately, I think the goal is to make my sketches less like a refrigerator light and more like a partner in conversation. The best interactive systems respect the user’s role, and if my work in p5js can manage to give users that sense of being heard, then I’ll know I’m moving in the right direction.