Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Interactivity
Interactivity
2. Manovich questions the usefulness of the term interactivity, suggesting that "once an object is represented in a computer, it automatically becomes interactive. Therefore, to call computer media 'interactive' is meaningless – it simply means stating the most basic fact about computers." In contrast, in "What exactly is Interactivity?" Chris Crawford proposes a much stricter definition of interactivity. Compare these differing views, with reference to your own experience of interactive media systems.
Seemingly contradictory, Manovich and Crawford's idea of interactivity is actually very similar. Interactivity is a subjective concept (mostly dependent on the end user) and should be measured on a relative scale (i.e. the degree of interactivity).
I concur more with Crawford's narrower definition of interactivity, in terms of a (metaphorical) conversation: a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak, where the quality of each individual step determines the overall interactivity of the conversation.
In addition, I feel that the degree of freedom and choice also determines the degree of interactivity (which ironically compromises the narrative aspect). As a simple example, a more interactive character would be able to walk right, left, forward and backwards, instead of just forward.
I would also like to think of interactivity as having an element of surprise. In an engaging conversation, there is a sense of free play as I would certainly not be able to predict the responses I would receive. In the case of some computer media, what happens is merely an instructional process (the computer merely reacts in accordance to my instructions). This is akin to a one-way conversation: me talking to myself. Definitely mininal interactivity there.
  |
||||||
|