Though the author states that he believes in the fluidity of the importance of definitions, his entire piece is talking about his own definition of interactivity. Therefore, my first impression is that the argument was going to be ‘wishy-washy’, not really adhering to his supposed definition of interactivity and thus making the whole argument weak. I was pleasantly surprised to not be extremely affected by his detachment from the term ‘definition’. What Chris Crawford describes seems to be more a classification and identification system rather than a concrete definition which in turn makes it more useful and in my opinion more easily understood. Especially when he concludes that this system was open to change as time progresses.
The piece itself was enjoyable as it seemed to be half scholarly argument and half extremely relatable to everyday situations. Most of his analogies made me chuckle and say “haha, yeah, true true”. Though I do not agree with the one about how the musicians do not interact with the dancing audience, what about when musician is asked for an encore or when they are able to change a set list in accordance to how the audience is reacting to the songs? Nevertheless, this relation to the everyday made his system easily understandable.