In this excerpt from The Art of Interactive Design by Chris Crawford, I disagreed with the base definition of the text: “a cyclic process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak.” (Crawford 8) This definition does not take into account that multiple objects can interact at the same time and with each other, as it limits the interaction to only taking place between two “actors.”
For example, when a class and professor are having a discussion, this is not a simple two-person conversation. All the students (who are engaged and participating) are listening both to the points of the professor and the other students, and are building their contributions to the discussion from the participation of others along with their own opinions/thoughts. The conversation is driven by more than two people listening, speaking, and thinking.
This three step definition also excludes various interactions as it is a very human-centric definition. It rules out interactions with pets that cannot speak, and humans interacting with the environment.
Lastly, I found the style in which the text is written hard to take seriously. While it tried to be lighthearted and funny, I did not enjoy the interruption of the text with the author’s email and note from the editor. The author also tended to put in a lot of disclaimers on his opinion, which I found made him less credible. If I am going to publish a book of my opinions and definitions, I will stand by them fully.
Source:
Crawford, Chris. The art of interactive design: a euphonious and illuminating guide to building successful software. No Starch Press, 2003, intro17fall.nyuad.im/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/chapter1_crawford.pdf.