When I first read that activities like reading or dancing are not really interactive, I was confused. I always thought that simply reacting to something counted as interacting, so I had to question my own assumptions. Crawford explains that strong interaction requires three elements: listening, thinking, and speaking. Listening is when the system notices what the user does, thinking is when it figures out how to respond, and speaking is when it actually shows that response. I realized that many of my sketches are more reactive than interactive. They respond to clicks or mouse movement, but they do not really “think.” Without all three elements, interaction feels one-sided or unsatisfying. Thinking about this helped me see that interactivity is really a two-way conversation, where the program and the user are both active participants. The reading also made me reflect on the balance between predictability and surprise. If the sketch always responds the same way, it quickly becomes boring. If it responds randomly without logic, it can feel confusing. Strong interactivity happens when the user feels like their actions truly matter, but the system also has its own personality and reasoning.
For my p5 sketches, I want to build this type of interactivity. In my most recent mosaic-style sketch, the program could listen to which shapes the user clicks or where the mouse moves, think by changing the lines, colors, or arcs, and speak by updating the patterns on the canvas. I also want to add keyboard functions so pressing keys can change the color of something or the layout. By including randomness or subtle variations, each interaction would feel unique while still making sense. This way, the user is not just observing the sketch, they are influencing it, experimenting, and finding out how different interactions can lead to different outcomes. Adding these layers of responsiveness would make the sketch feel alive and engaging, showing the strongest form of interactivity that Crawford describes.