My opinion on what makes a system truly “interactive” has completely changed. I was struck by Crawford’s argument that the term has been overused to the point of meaninglessness (which was my first time actually coming across this), and I found his own definition incredibly useful. For me, I’ve always thought that an interactive system is one that the user asks and the system gives back a reaction. Crawford, however, frames strong interactivity not as a simple reaction as I thought, but as a genuine conversation, a conversation where two actors (the user and the computer) take turns listening, thinking, and speaking. It’s not enough for the system to just respond; it must listen intently, process the input thoughtfully, and then “speak” back in a way that continues the dialogue. This distinguishes a true interaction from a “mere” reaction.
This immediately made me rethink my own p5.js sketches and how I could elevate them from simple reactive toys to more engaging conversational partners. To make a sketch a better “listener,” it could analyze not just that a user clicked, but how they are moving the mouse; for example, is the gesture slow, or fast? For the crucial “thinking” step, I want to build sketches that have a sense of memory, allowing them to evolve based on the entire history of a user’s actions, not just the last input. I believe this creates a much deeper and less predictable experience. As illustrated in the reading, I believe a sketch can “speak” more eloquently by doing more than just showing a result–it can pose a new visual question or change its own rules (yes!), inviting the user to listen and respond in turn. The ultimate goal for me the next time is to move beyond making a tool and instead create a small world that feels alive, one that truly engages in a dialogue with the user.