After reading the chapter, I kind of agree with the author’s definition of interactivity, and I liked how he used conversation as an example. I also think the author put into consideration the different perspectives on what interactivity means. I understand why some definitions may seem subjective because people find it easier to relate one meaning to another word, but by doing that, the meaning can become more vague and less accurate. This can cause people to misunderstand or misuse the word in different contexts.
One of the things that grabbed my attention was the difference between reaction and interaction. A reaction is more of one action responding to another action, while there is no real ongoing exchange between the two. For instance, the branch-breaking example in the chapter, something happens, you do another action in response, and then it ends. Interactivity, on the other hand, is a give-and-take relationship where influence is an important part of the process. The user influences the computer, but the computer also influences what the user does next.
I think to build a successful interactive system, you need to have clear guidelines so both the user and the computer can understand one another. What are they communicating? How is the computer listening to the user, and how is it responding? With all of that comes the idea of influence: how is the user influencing the computer’s behavior, and how does the computer influence the user in return? You cannot just add a random interaction and call it a day. There needs to be a purpose behind it. Are you trying to get across a message? Is the program dependent on the user’s choices? For my p5 sketches, I think I could make the interaction more meaningful by letting the user’s actions actually influence how the artwork develops, and also give the user more control over what they can influence.