What is Interactivity? from “The Art of Interactive Design” - Response

Crawford’s idea of interaction as a back-and-forth process, where two actors take turns listening, thinking, and responding, highlights the need for active participation. I see interactivity as a dynamic relationship, where each participant affects and is affected by the other. It's not just about responding but about shaping the experience together. This idea captures the essence of real conversation and engagement, whether between people or with technology.

I agree with Crawford’s definition, especially his distinction between interaction and reaction. True interaction requires both sides to actively contribute, rather than one simply reacting to the other. Without mutual engagement, the experience becomes one-sided, limiting the potential for deeper understanding or creativity. For example, if one person in a conversation is just nodding without processing the other’s ideas, the conversation loses its depth and flow.

It’s helpful to have different ways of explaining how things work because different systems, both human and technological, require different approaches. In technology, explaining processes as input, processing, and output can make things clearer for designers, allowing them to focus on functionality. In human conversations, using terms like listening, thinking, and speaking captures the complexity of emotions and thought. Tailoring our explanations to fit different contexts helps us understand and engage with systems in more meaningful ways. This flexibility in explanation can lead to more effective interactions, whether we are dealing with machines or people.