This week, in Introduction to Physical Computing, we read a few pieces including the first couple of chapters of Chris Crawford’s Art of Interactive Design. I found Crawford’s definition of interactivity somewhat challenging – not so much the broad metaphor of interaction a conversation between two parties (broken down into listening, thinking, speaking), but rather, the consideration of what counts as thinking or even processing. It is easy to see how interactions between two human parties involve thinking followed by (hopefully) meaningful speech. But, I’m cautious about discounting kinds of thinking that occur on different timescales or in different forms (or at least, privileging one kind of “interaction” over others).
That being said, I appreciated that Crawford introduced that notion of a continuum of interactivity. This, I found to be an effective framework for thinking through the issue. And to temper my earlier statement regarding privileging certain types of interaction, I can certainly see why that would be necessarily within the context of our Physical Computing class (rather than in an philosophical consideration of the term) to look at more robust forms of interactivity.
The more pleasurable forms of interactivity allow for a certain amount of serendipity. It is not necessarily a satisfying interaction if you can predict its likely outcome. Somewhat along those lines, it is more interesting when an interactive object or experience builds upon earlier interactions – which is to say, it is not enough that the conversation involves mere processing. Ideally, it involves a form of memory, to allow the parties to build on earlier interactions.
A question I would like to continue pursuing through this class is whether an experience can be interactive in a way that is different from an object (think interactive plays versus a mad-lib book). What are the ways in which even “robust” interactivity (for example, failures to communicate in human conversation) misses the mark? And is interactivity in the eye of beholder?