After reading Chris Crawford’s perspective on what is considered interactive, I still don’t believe it changed my definition of interactivity. Yes, his idea of interactivity, including listening, speaking, and thinking, was striking; however, it wasn’t enough to change my idea of interactivity. Throughout the text, I was feeling confused about what his true definition of interactivity is. Initially, he mentioned listening, thinking, and speaking; then he went on to describe ideas beyond that scope, and I was left confused. The only thing I would say changed in my perspective is that now I expanded my understanding of the word interactive, and things I wouldn’t have considered to be “interactive” now are (such as conversations).
Yes, I think the fridge lights turning on once the fridge is opened is an interactive element. Perhaps I do agree with Crawford that there are extents to interactivity, since the fridge light turning on and off is not necessarily an intentional interactive element. With that being said, my definition of interactivity is a reciprocated exchange between two parties, and how striking it was to both of them.
In my opinion, I would improve the interactivity of my p5 sketches through expanding the users’ ability to choose exactly what it is they are interacting with. For example, in my balloon-popping sketch, I would like for the users to choose exactly which balloons they want to pop.