Interactivity is an alternately thought out exchange between two parties.
Chris Crawford defines interactivity as a cyclical pattern of two actors that alternately listen, think, and speak. He also has a more tech definition replacing listen, think, and speak with input, process, and output. The first one is based off the simplest form of interaction between people which is having a conversation while the latter is geared more towards the interaction between human and computer. I think that the first one is more acceptable to a general audience but the listen, think, and speak become metaphorical once you go beyond simply having a conversation. The latter is more widespread but also more technical and dry.
the only thing I can dispute about this blog is the fact that interacting with a computer is dry and technical. Take this for example, two people are talking to each other but directly but rather through a forum or Skype. The computer is just merely another form of communication. you might what about just a computer and no one else? Well say you play a game on the computer, the core of the game is supported by the design of many artists and programmers. they are one who actually communicated with you. The team that made the game made the whole more meaningful and dryless. Every action you made in the game is responded by the team's process. (Programmers' lines of code.)
ReplyDeleteTrue but the problem is that it's not just technical. The technical term works when technology is involved but how about when it is just between two humans. Also keep in mind that while this makes total sense to us because of what we're studying. Terms like input and output processing might not describe it best for a general audience. The shortcoming to going with the alternative is that it's not broad enough without getting metaphorical. It's a conundrum.
ReplyDeleteSo according to your definition, is it possible for two computers to interact? Also can more than two parties interact?
ReplyDeleteMaybe one day with AI but parties is more general because it can be more than just two people. I feel that it's no different than using actors. I should have said two or more parties. Group discussions are interactive.
ReplyDelete