“Any idea worthy of my attention is probably too big and too complicated to be reduced to some schoolmarmish formula.” I was quite shocked when I read this sentence. Not because I disagree, but because I feel like the whole world should read this sentence. I have always thought that society tries to package thought into neat definitions and slogans, which is not only convenient but, in my opinion, shallow. This line reminded me that oversimplification can actually strip an idea of its essence, turning something profound into something hollow. This reading overall was peppered with ideas that made me question most of what I knew about interactivity. Examples include the idea that many things typically labelled as ‘interactions’ are actually ‘reactions’, that interactivity could be a subjective concept that exists in the eye of the interactor, and that two strong factors cannot, in fact, outweigh the weakness of the third (a principle I personally used a lot).
All this combined, I think there are a few characteristics that would define a strongly interactive system. Firstly, I think the level of interactivity should be “high”. In terms of the metaphors used in the text, that would mean strong listening, speaking, and thinking simultaneously. Secondly, adaptability needs to work both ways. The system should be able to adapt to the user and the user to the system. Thirdly, I think it’s important that the user feel in control, rather than fighting the system, which is what happens when ‘interactive’ systems are built without proper understanding of what interactivity is. Finally, and this may sound vague, but a system is “strongly interactive” when the user’s “interaction” is so absorbing that it makes them not want to stop. When the author brought up movies, it reminded me of the interactive story game apps that were popular a few years ago, where the user played a part in how the story moved forward. Maybe this is a “low” level of interaction, but it seemed to really have people hooked at the time. That said, I would agree with Crawford that interactivity is more of a spectrum, and it’s important to maintain its balance in artworks.
Through these ideas, I thought about how the user can have the chance to influence my p5js sketches. Maybe this could be through having a say in the color palette or the illustration style, or by having buttons that change the nature of the sketch completely. Maybe clicking on the canvas can add more of already existing elements, or cause different elements within the sketch to interact with each other. The possibilities are endless.