Chris Crawford’s idea of interactivity as a conversation between two participants came as a novelty to me. Before reading this, I assumed that any program that reacted to user input was interactive in its nature, but after reading this I was convinced that an interactive system must possess these three elements; listening, thinking and responding/speaking.
I feel like Crawford’s example of the refrigerator light was brilliant, it made me rethink what it means for a system to be truly interactive. I began examining the apps and websites I use every day and noticed that many of them only react to user input without actually processing information in a meaningful way. They operate on predefined rules, responding to clicks and taps but not truly engaging with the user. This made me question whether these systems, despite their responsiveness, can really be considered interactive in the way Crawford describes.
This reading also made me reflect on how I can make my own p5 sketches feel more interactive. Right now, they mostly respond to simple inputs like mouse clicks, but what if I could design interactions that feel more like a two-way conversation?
Instead of just reacting instantly, the system could analyze patterns in user input, adapt its responses based on context, or even introduce an element of unpredictability to keep the interaction dynamic. For example, it could recognize different drawing styles over time and subtly adjust its behavior to match the user’s preferences. Of course, achieving this level of interactivity would likely require more advanced tools than p5.js (Maybe use of LLMs/AI).
I would love to create something beyond basic cause-and-effect responses and explore ways to create a more engaging.