Week 1 Reading- Crawford's definition of interactivity is very engaging and seems to be pretty good. His tone is a bit glib sometimes, but his main point about what is and what isn't interactivity is very compelling. He also made me think about how important it really is to have all the elements (listen, think, and speak) together to make something not only interactive, but also to have those elements well balanced so the interactivity is interesting and engaging. As Crawford states Interactivity should be a strong combination of both form and function and I believe that there are a myriad of options that can be realized for intereactivity combined with new technology. His examples of how interactivity became better with computer software programs such as VisiCalc? were probably a good example of interactivity at the time of their inception, but I don't know if I consider that a great example now of being interactive. At least not in the sense of completely enthralling you as Crawford has described interactivity being able to do.
|
|