Reading the first chapter of Chris Crawford’s The Art of Interactive Design really made me stop and rethink how I’ve been using the word “interactive.” Honestly, I realized I’ve been throwing that term around for years to describe anything with a screen and a few buttons. Crawford’s metaphor of a conversation — a tight, messy loop of listening, thinking, and speaking—sets a much higher bar than I ever considered. It hit me that most of my “interactions” with technology are actually just reactions. Like his example of dodging a falling branch, I’m often just responding to a trigger rather than engaging in a real exchange. This definitely challenged my assumption that user agency automatically equals interactivity.
However, as much as I appreciate the clarity of his model, I couldn’t help but feel that Crawford is being incredibly restrictive — almost to the point of being a gatekeeper. By insisting that a system must “think” (process data in a complex way) to be interactive, he’s basically dismissive of a huge chunk of digital art and media that I love. I thought about atmospheric games or simple creative tools where the “thinking” is minimal, but the emotional impact is huge. Does a digital instrument not count as interactive just because it doesn’t deliberate before making a sound? This rigid, almost elitist definition feels like it prioritizes computer science logic over the actual human experience of a medium. It makes me wonder if he’s so focused on the “cycle” that he misses the beauty of simple, high-quality reaction.
One passage that really stuck with me was his critique of the “gauchely techie” replacement of human terms with “input, process, and output.” It’s a bit ironic because, while he wants to keep the human element (the “conversation”), his requirements for what qualifies as “thinking” feel very mechanical. This leaves me with a lot of questions: Has my own definition of interactivity been too lazy, or is Crawford’s just too narrow for the modern world? This reading didn’t just give me a new framework; it actually made me more defensive of the “simpler” digital experiences that he seems to look down on, while also making me want to strive for more depth in the things I build myself.