from interactivity to back-channel (1/3)

The last weeks I had gather A LOT  of food for the though, or  perhaps my brain is strangely configurated since my basics. I will try to process all these ideas  before express them out in here step by step. Today’s turn is of “INTERACTIVE”. (Thing I will research after my PhD, as now I am running out of time).

Interactive is a powerful and complex concept, that I do not have on clear. In the dictionary as a second definition of this adjective we find Interactive in Computer Science: Of or relating to a program that responds to user activity.  But the first definition is: Acting or capable of acting on each other. (source: the free dictionary).

Interesting…. as we always focus on the tool (in here any computer and/or machine) and superficial layer of understanding, we think and/or assume that a system is interactive if it makes noises, changes the graphics on the screen, or do something correlated to the “input” we are given to it. In other words we consider that a system responds to our activity if we can perceive without effort a “change” just by looking at it, or smelling it, or touching it or hearing it. Hence, the system is interactive. My question: if something does not “react” or “respond” according to my expectations then it is not interactive ???

To make my post shorter, then I will stop here, continue with the second part…




Credit of image:



Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.