Crawford’s interesting yet reasonable definition on interactivity really convinced me with the solid stand point of the “three-step chain”, it is really something lucid and clear about the topic and I believe I can never go wrong with interactive design as long as I stick with the “three-step chain” rule. Therefore rather than coming up with my own definition of interaction, I would just follow Crawford’s opinion, and when come cross whether a good physical interaction, it is really about how to maintain each steps in high quality so that the entire chain will be strong and smooth.
Bret Victor kindly warned us when we are ready to build something “interactive”, it is like a caution note on the floor before people are entering a watery and slippery area. It is always good have some voices like that before it is too late, since the technology develops rapidly and we really don’t want to see something not interactive but defined as interactive. Lastly, technology is just a tool.
For me I believe sometimes being interactive is not essentially necessary, I even feel people are exaggerate “interactive”. Personally I sometimes view Technology and digital creations as a myth, their existences are already something we could celebrate, adding more human interactions may weaken its glamour. Who creates those? Who give the power to the creators to create those? I keep asking myself those questions and create a personal immersive environment that all the technology and digital inventors are something magnificent and mysterious.