I find the concept of interactivity pretty interesting. The author of the book chapter made it very clear that he despises how the meaning of the word has been skewed recently, and I agree with him. The thing is though, at what point is something just my reaction vs at what point am I actually interacting with the thing? I’m wondering because I believe the writer is correct in his assumption that a lot times when people refer to interactivity, they actually mean normal reactions. However, are interactions and reactions not connected in that sense? Reaction is a form of engaging with something you see, not at the level of actual interactivity the author is seemingly looking for, but still, you are engaging with the material in some matter.
When it comes to movies are you just reacting or are you interacting with the creator. If it is just your reaction, then, does that inherently mean there wasn’t a degree of interactivity even through the reaction ? Again, I am not saying the writer is wrong in what he claims, but I just can’t help but wonder what’s the line between reactions and interaction. Does interaction have to entail the characters in the story should hear you when going in a scary house? Is part of the interactivity not your own reaction? Looking beyond the characters of the screen, could we not say there was a level of interactivity when it came to audience and the creator’s hope in bringing in causing your anger and fear to happen?
When I think of strongly interactive systems, I tend to think of systems in which your input can actively change what is happening in a piece of media. Additionally, I think a good way to improve user interaction in my p5 sketches is by having the use play into the piece. Maybe by giving them something to click or by having their addition change the piece in some way.