Thinking of interactivity in general, I understand it as an object or device that actively responds to the user, allowing engagement, or as the word mentions, interaction. However, reading the first chapter of The Art of Interactive Design made me realize how much deeper this concept can be. Although I sometimes found the author too critical, especially when they seemed to give less importance to actions that are not considered interactive, the examples used in the text to demonstrate what is and is not considered “interactive” expanded my understanding. The idea that interactivity involves listening, thinking, and responding helped me better grasp the characteristics of a strongly interactive system. Such a system should not simply respond, but rather fully process what the user is inputting, without disregarding any part of it, correctly fulfill the demands, and respond in a complete and effective way.
One part of the text that strongly made me connect to my own work stated, “The designer does a slam-bang job with two of the three steps but blows the third step … But one weak area in an interactive product is like a weak link in a chain. The chain breaks regardless of the strength of the rest of the links.” This made me think of how I could avoid similar weaknesses in my own code. When considering how to enhance the degree of user interaction in my future P5 sketches, I began thinking of ways to ensure that my code can accept a wider range of user input and respond effectively. Some ideas I would like to try include allowing users multiple possible commands rather than limiting their options. As well as ideas such as incorporating audio interaction, whether responding with sound or responding to the voices of the users, or using cameras to influence and engage with the sketch. I now understand that a strong interactive system depends on multiple well-developed elements working together, and I hope to be able to create work that reaches that level of interaction.