From the reading, I understood interactivity as a cyclic process where two actors continuously listen, think, and speak. I would say that I agree with his idea he explains the full idea in the reading clearly and uses relevant examples when introducing a new phrase or concept and I found myself easily understanding what he was saying and connecting it to my own works for example in my assignment 3 I responded to The idea of interactivity by allowing the users to generate new stars which fast like a small version of the listening and speaking and thinking cycle Crawford describes.
I really liked Crawford’s examples and his use of scenarios because they helped me visualize his concept instead of just reading a definition. His conversation example, especially the moment where “Step One: Fredegund listens to Gomer, paying close attention to Gomer’s words…,” made the idea much easier for me to grasp. The refrigerator door example also challenged one of my assumptions; before reading this, I probably would have called anything that reacts “interactive,” but now I see the difference between low interactivity (technically responsive but shallow) and high interactivity (meaningful and thoughtful). What stood out most is that strong interactivity requires all three parts to work well with no trading off. It reminded me of how frustrating it feels when someone “responds” to me without actually listening. A step in the reading I think would be hard to implement in my coding would be making the sketch respond in a meaningful and impactful way. While I can handle simple outputs, creating a system that truly “listens, thinks, and speaks” without weakening any part is more complicated than it sounds, especially as someone still new to code.
One thing that surprised me while reading was how much Crawford’s ideas made me reflect on my own life and experiences, both in coding and in everyday communication. I realized that I naturally focus on the part producing something visually interesting without fully thinking about how well my sketches are actually listening or thinking. It made me more aware of how limited my interactions can feel when the system only reacts in a basic way. But at the same time, that doesn’t make them any less satisfying.
Crawford’s refrigerator example reminded me that even simple reactions can feel rewarding when they respond at the right moment. Kids opening and closing a fridge door aren’t experiencing deep interactivity, but the responsiveness still feels good. That idea felt almost self contradicting at first, but it helped me understand that my sketches don’t need to be extremely complex to feel interactive they just need to respond in a way that feels intentional and connected to the user. That shift in perspective helped me appreciate the small interactions I’m already creating, while also motivating me to push them further.
To improve my sketch, I want to increase the “level” of conversation between the user and the system. Crawford’s idea that interactivity depends on how well something listens, thinks, and speaks made me realize that my sketches mostly stop at the listening stage. Since I’m still new to coding, the hardest part for me is creating a response that feels thoughtful rather than mechanical. One idea I’m excited about is having the sketch interpret the user’s “words” in a more complex way. For example, I want the code to listen to sound input and translate different volume levels into different colors, creating an evolving color palette. This would make the sketch feel like it’s actually responding to the user’s presence and energy, not just reacting to a single input. It’s a small step toward completing the “thinking” part of the cycle, but it feels like a meaningful way to push my work closer to the kind of interactivity Crawford describes.