Before this reading, I thought anything that reacted when I touched or clicked it was automatically interactive. Crawford’s example of the refrigerator light made me reconsider that idea. I agree that a strong interactive system should do more than give one automatic response. It should understand the user’s input, process it in a meaningful way, and give a useful response. Video games support his argument because they react differently depending on a player’s choices, while a movie continues in the same way no matter what the viewer says or does. However, I think Crawford is slightly biased because his definition is very strict. Even simple interactions can still be enjoyable or helpful, especially for beginners or children.
For me, a strongly interactive system should respond quickly, provide clear feedback, and make the user feel that their choices matter. The response should also change depending on what the user does instead of repeating the same result every time. In my future sketches, I could improve interaction by using the mouse and keyboard to let users control objects, change colors, create new shapes, or remove items from an array. I could also make objects react differently depending on where the user clicks. The reading made me wonder whether a simple response can become strongly interactive if it leads to many different choices over time.