Chris Crowford’s “The Art of Interactive Design”, was certainly an interesting read. He takes a rather more strict approach to interactivity, perhaps due to the blatant misuse of the word on things undeserving to be called interactive, which in turn potentially makes it more useful, especially as the meaning is easier to grasp. By distilling it into 3 clear parts (listening, thinking, and speaking), it makes it easier for designers to assess where their piece could potentially perform better.
Although it seems a bit controversial, to be honest, I quite agree with his definition, but I can easily see how others might not. Many common forms of interactive media are dismissed by him, but he backs it with a point I liked, a distinction between “interactive” and “intense reaction”, which can so often be blurred.
Another point I really liked was “No Trading Off”. Previously, I would’ve assumed that if 2 parts of his interactive design’s defintion were done really well (while it wouldn’t be the same as all 3 being done well), it would come pretty close. However, he claims this is not the case, and it is a logical thing to believe.
Ultimately, I feel like his definition is most relevant to us in helping us better plan the components of our design, ensuring that it “listens”, “thinks”, and “speaks” well. This is something I could really use, as I often spend too much in the “thinking” and “speaking” part, designing something technically incredible, but ultimately, not as interactive.
One off-topic point, I like his style of writing, as it’s less formal / more personal, which makes it more enjoyable to read (particularly things like his explanation on books & films not being interactive, or the questions).