I didn’t realise how overused and misunderstood the term interactivity was until I read this text. At one point I did wonder whether the author was maybe over-complicating the definition of interactivity and making it more complex and unavailable than it has been for an element of exclusivity. Nonetheless, he stated excellent points and revealed distinctions that I would not have thought of. One of my favourite points was on the subjectivity of interactivity. He gave an example that when the refrigerator door opens, a light turns on. Though some people will not be entertained by this game, small children find the refrigerator light more entertaining and interactive. Subsequently, as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, does interactivity exist in the eye of the interactor? I also liked how instead of referring to interactivity as a black or white subject (ex. there is either interactivity or no interactivity), he explained it as a subject with relative measures (ex. high interactivity or low interactivity). My favourite part was when he made distinctions between interactivity, intense reaction, and participation, as I always saw blurred lines within those definitions. I also appreciated the author’s humbleness in terms of admitting that the idea of interactivity is too complex to fit some reduced, limited defition, and therefore the definition may not be appropriate. At one point I started to question as to why it feels like we are aiming for interactivity, what is so special about it? Why is it better than intense reaction or participation? The author did not say explicitly it was any better, but he did imply it was. For instance, when he stated that smaller class sizes increase interactivity between student and teacher, and the student-to-teacher ratio is one of the best simple indicators of the quality of a school, he implied an increase in quality can be achieved through interaction. Nonetheless, it was a fascinating text to read.