لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Defining Interactivity
Perhaps even more than "design" and "systems," debates over the term "interactivity" have run rampant. Interactivity is one of those words that can mean everything and nothing at once. If everything can indeed be considered interactive, then the concept loses its ability to help us solve design problems. In corralling this runaway word, our aim is to try and understand it in its most general sense, but also to identify those very particular aspects of interactivity that are relevant to games. To this end, we look at several definitions of interactivity.We begin with a general question: What is "interaction?" Here are some basic dictionary definitions:
interaction: 1. intermediate action; 2. mutual or reciprocal action or influence;
interact: to act on each other; act reciprocally
interactive: reciprocally active; acting upon or influencing each other; allowing a two-way flow of information between a device and a user, responding to the user's input.[1]
In the most general terms, interactivity simply describes an active relationship between two things. For our purposes, however, we require a slightly more rigorous definition, one that takes into account the particular nature of games. Instead of asking about interactivity in the abstract, what does it mean to say that something is "interactive?" More specifically, how does interactivity emerge from within a system?
Communications theorist Stephen W. Littlejohn defines interactivity this way: "Part and parcel of a system is the notion of 'relationship'…. Interactional systems then, shall be two or more communicants in the process of, or at the level of, defining the nature of their relationship."[2] In other words, something is interactive when there is a reciprocal relationship of some kind between two elements in a system. Conversations, databases, games, and social relationships are all interactive in this sense. Furthermore, relationships between elements in a system are defined through interaction. Following this definition, digital media theorist and entrepreneur Brenda Laurel brings the concept of representation to an understanding of the term: "…something is interactive when people can participate as agents within a representational context. (An agent is 'one who initiates actions.')"[3] Laurel's model emphasizes the interpretive component of interactive experiences, framing an interactive system as a representational space. In an alternative definition of interactivity, theorist Andy Cameron builds on this interpretive dimension by stressing the idea of direct intervention. In his essay "Dissimulations,"Cameron writes that
Interactivity means the ability to intervene in a meaningful way within the representation itself, not to read it differently. Thus interactivity in music would mean the ability to change the sound, interactivity in painting to change colors, or make marks, interactivity in film…the ability to change the way the movie comes out." [4]
Cameron suggests a connection between interactivity and explicit action, a key feature of games and meaningful play. In some sense, it is these moments of explicit action that define the tone and texture of a specific game experience. A final definition comes from game designer Chris Crawford, who metaphorically defines interactivity in terms of a conversation: "Interactivity: a cyclical process in which two actors alternately listen, think, and speak. The quality of interaction depends on the quality of each of the subtasks (listening, thinking, and speaking)." [5]
While his definition hearkens back to Littlejohn's relational model, Crawford's definition stresses the iterative quality of interactivity. He uses the following example for emphasis: A conversation, in its simplest form, starts out with two people, Joe and Fred. Joe says something to Fred. At this point, the ball is in Fred's court. He performs three steps in order to hold up his end of the conversation: Step One: Fred listens to what Joe has to say. He expends the energy to pay attention to Joe's words. He gathers in all of Joe's words and assembles them into a coherent whole.This requires an active effort on Fred's part. Step Two: Fred thinks about what Joe said. He considers, contemplates, and cogitates.The wheels turn in his mind as Fred develops his response to Joe's statement. Step Three: Fred expresses his response back to Joe. He forms his thoughts into words and speaks them. Now the tables are turned; the ball is in Joe's court. Joe must listen to what Fred says; Joe must think about it and develop a reaction; then he must express his reaction to Fred.This process cycles back and forth. Thus, a conversation is an iterative process in which each participant in turn listens, thinks, and speaks.[6]
Each of these definitions provides its own critical way of understanding interactivity: it takes place within a system, it is relational, it allows for direct intervention within a representational context, and it is iterative. Yet none of the definitions describes how and where interactivity can take place, and none of them address the relationship between structure and context, two key elements in the construction of meaning. These questions of the "how,"where," and "by whom" are critical to anyone faced with the challenge of designing interactivity. In other words, none of these definitions resolve the question of whether or not all media, or even all experiences, are interactive. If interactivity is really so ubiquitous, can it possibly be a useful term for understanding games? [1]<dictionary.com>.
[2]Stephen W. Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1989), p. 175. [3]Brenda Laurel, Computers as Theater (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1993), p. 112. [4]Andy Cameron, Dissimulations: Illusions of Interactivity (MFJ No. 28: Spring 1995), <http://infotyte.rmit.edu.au/rebecca/html/dissimula-tions. html>. [5]Chris Crawford, Understanding Interactivity (San Francisco: No Starch Press), 2002, p. 6. [6]Ibid; p. 7.
