Rethinking Interactivity
After reading Chapter 1 of The Art of Interactive Design by Chris Crawford, I started to see how we often talk about interactivity as if it is all or nothing. You either have it or you do not. In my opinion, it is not that simple. There are levels to it.
Crawford draws a clear line between reaction and interaction. He says that a reactive system only answers a user action with a single output. An interactive system listens, responds, and listens again. It becomes a loop between the user and the system. I agree with this idea, but I still think even simple reactions sit on the same scale, only at the very bottom.
A fridge light turning on when the door opens is a good example. It changes based on what the user does, so it is not completely passive. Still, it does not take in new information after that first moment. There is no ongoing exchange. It is interactive in a very low way.
What separates the two is the direction of the flow. A reactive system goes from input to output and then stops. An interactive system keeps the conversation going. It listens to the user, gives feedback, and then listens again. The more complex the loop becomes, the higher the interactivity feels.
Thinking of interactivity as a spectrum makes design more interesting. It helps us see why some systems feel alive while others feel flat. It also shows that even simple actions can be part of a larger idea when we look at them in context.