In “The Art of Interaction Design”, Crawford discussed a definition of “interactivity” and introduced the idea of interactivity as a continuous variable. The author applied three factors of a conversation to an interactivity, considering that they should follow the processes of listening, thinking, and speaking.

I agree to Crawford in the point that interactivity requires two actors, and I think both of them should respond to each other in order to interact. From the reading, the author does not count dancing to the song as an interaction between the dancer and the music. I also think the same. However, if one day music can respond to human action by changing its beat concurrently while people are dancing, that would be an interaction in my viewpoint.

I think interactivity needs a response as feedback. When we press a button and see a pop-up, it’s a program’s respond. The program gets data from us pressing a button, analyzes the data, and communicates back as a pop-up. Based on that point, I actually agree with most part of the reading, since this example also aligns with the three factors of conversation that the author referred to. So, for me, a physical book is not interactive, as same as the sketches. Although they could spark new ideas and encourage people to do something to them, it’s a one-way action. However, just like what Crawford stated in the reading, people may define ‘interactivity’ differently based on one’s experience and background, which always leads to meaningful discussions that creates different possibilities for the future of interaction design and interactivity.