interactivity
Out of context: Reply #1
- Started
- Last post
- 23 Responses
- mg330
Not much research, but I think that the word "interactive" has lost meaning over the years because it quite simply applies to EVERYTHING.
Flash sites were being called "interactive" after HTML sites had been around for years, yet if you get down to it, HTML sites are interactive just the same.
The degree of interaction and amount of value on the user experience is where I feel the word actually has it's meaning.CNN.com, in many of their articles, features "interactive" pop-up windows, yet some of them are interactive, and some are called interactive but are a static graphic: Click Interactive: National Assembly under Governing Iraq. (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/200...
Some, though, are interactive.
Scroll down to Special Report, Transition of Power on the right side of the article and click Interactive: Iraq's Population
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me…Interactivity can by all means be as simple as a person reading something they have clicked, obviously. But I think we've taken the term and attached it to sites with loads of bells and whistles, personalized log-in features, buttons available to enhance site navigation, etc. etc.
I think also that because of really great stuff from Yugop, and even the just posted Moock site, we also might feel like true interactivity relies on a visual representation of the other viewers on a site in real time. Maybe it's just in the mind, but I guess I've always felt situations like that are more interactive because you may be "interacting" with actual people and you're not all alone. It in some ways represents a chat room, which is probably the most interactive aspect on the web.