Whenever someone asks me: “what projects do you do as an IM major?”, I reply by saying: “I mean.. a big part of the projects is about that interaction between humans and what we develop. We develop cool interactive stuff?” Now I don’t know how much this description is consistent, but I actually sensed this description in Crawford’s arguments about Interactivity.
Basically, the chapter emphasizes the importance of interactivity in modern technology and entertainment. Crawford argues that interactivity is not a mere add-on but a core element of design, making it distinct from other forms of media. He highlights the unique ability of interactive media to engage users actively and elicit responses.
An important concept Crawford introduces is the concept of the “reactive mind”. He explains that interactivity relies on users’ ability to perceive and respond to changes in the system. He also discusses the role of user actions and system responses in creating a dynamic interactive experience.
It might be because of my Physics background, but just like Crawford, I’m too technical and direct with my definitions, which is why I agree with the points he talked about. One may think he is biased because he didn’t think of the internal interaction that occurs inside your brain when you open a fridge, but please? It’s hardly convincing to say that a fridge is interactive unless it has interactive elements in it (does the fridge open with a tactile button? does it answer when you say I want milk?). Same for a book, a cupboard, a rug, a static artwork.. You do not interact with what I just listed and it’s okay, it does not change their value. They are just not interactive. I feel like there is a very thin line that can be easily blurred between Interactive and Immersive. The first one concerns the actual interaction and the effect it elicits in the user, and the second one only concerns the engaged reaction of the user to anything, which doesn’t require the object or the work to be interactive.