The reading has challenged the way I usually think about the word “interactive.” Before this, I used this term in a very loose way, often assuming that anything involving a computer or screen was automatically interactive. The author argues that true interactivity is more related to a meaningful conversation, when both sides listen, think, and respond within a cycle. This idea made me reflect on my own previous experiences with technology. Many apps and websites that are “interactive” actually feel very one-sided; they simply just deliver information rather than genuinely responding to the user. In my own creative coding projects, I sometimes try to focus more on visual effects than on whether how the program is actually engaging and having meaningful exchange with the user. The author’s definition helps me see why some digital experiences feel alive and others feel dead. I can think of examples from my classes where a project looked impressive but offered little real interaction, hence supporting the author’s argument that interactive is more about quality of exchange, not just the use of buttons or animations.
At the same time, I noticed that the author seems somewhat biased against newer interactive. He writes being confident that his definition is the correct one and dismisses other common uses of the term as misunderstandings. While I find his argument persuasive, I wonder if he overlooks the fact that interactivity might exist on a spectrum rather than a strict category. For example, using simple interfaces can create emotional or imaginative engagement, which might also count as a form of interaction. The reading changed my belief that interactivity is actually a technical feature as I now see it more as a communication process. However, it also raises questions for me such as Who gets to decide what really can be seen as a meaningful interaction? Can a passive experience still be interactive if it affects the user’s thinking? And in art or design, should emotional response matter as much as logical back-and-forth exchange?