Before reading The Art of Interactive Design, I used to think that once we receive a reaction from another thing, that automatically defines the concept of interactivity. When I came across the example of the Nintendo refrigerators on page 11, I immediately felt that it was an example of interactivity. Crawford, however, raised the idea of whether interactivity is subjective or a fixed concept of its absence or presence. After giving his argument careful thought, I believe that interactivity is subjective because it depends on how engaged the user is with the system. The same design might feel highly interactive to one person and mostly reactive to another, depending on how much input and attention they give. Drawing from his analysis and interpretation of interactivity in conversation, both parties must play their part to have a meaningful exchange. This is what I believe is the characteristic of a strongly interactive system: “input, process, and output from both ends must be very strong.”
Comparing that to the interactivity of a design, one user might find a design not interactive based on a low level of engagement on their part, while another user might find it highly interactive. Crawford really got me thinking when he highlighted the subtle difference between reaction and interaction. I have now realized that my p5.js sketches are mostly reactive and not interactive, since they respond to pre-programmed rules without requiring meaningful input from the user. Moving forward, I want to experiment with ways to make my sketches more interactive, such as allowing users to influence patterns, colors, or motion in real time, so the system becomes a collaborative experience rather than just a reactive one.