I do agree with the author that interactivity is a two-way process. It is something I interact with, and something that interacts with me. However, does it have to include all three components the author mentions—speaking, listening, and thinking? Are we really interacting with computers in the same way? They do not think the way humans do. They are trained using mathematical equations and algorithms, yet they can sometimes outperform human thinking.
In my opinion, a strong interactive system allows me to manipulate things in real time—for instance, typing on a computer right now or playing a virtual reality (VR) game. There is not necessarily a listening, speaking, or even thinking component. According to the author, this would not be considered interactive. But for me, interaction means getting a reaction to my actions.
One example the author gives is an interactive rug, which I would not consider interactive from the rug’s side because it does not interact with me in the same way I interact with it—I simply play with cars on it. However, I would consider rugs that teach prayer through step-by-step instructions, or similar designs, to be interactive because I interact with them and they interact with me.
In the future, I would add things that get the user more involved in my p5 sketches, creating a real interaction between the user and the sketch. For example, I could use ml5 and other machine learning libraries to make the sketches respond to gestures, sounds, or movements. I think a strong interactive system should give feedback to the user, so their actions actually change what happens on the screen in real time. This way, the interaction doesn’t need to include thinking or speaking like the author says—it’s still interactive because the sketch reacts to me. I also wonder, though, does a system need intention or intelligence to be truly interactive, or is responsiveness enough?