Jensen quotes a Newsweek article from 1993 where the term interactivity was described as follows:
... a huge amount of information available to anyone at the touch of a button, everything from airline schedules to esoteric scientific journals to video versions of off-off-off Broadway. Watching a movie won’t be a passive experience. At various points, you’ll click on alternative story lines and create your individualized version of “Terminator XII”. Consumers will send as well as receive all kinds of data ... Video camera owners could record news they see and put it on the universal network ... Viewers could select whatever they wanted just by pushing a button ... Instead of playing rented tapes on their VCRs, ... [the customers] may be able to call up a movie from a library of thousands through a menu displayed on the TV. Game fanatics maybe able to do the same from another electronic library filled with realistic video versions of arcade shoot-’em-ups ... (Newsweek, 1993:38).
In 2008, Michael Wesch (an anthropologist), presented his speech titled "An anthropological introduction to Youtube" at the Library of Congress (US). This video is probably the best way to introduce how the things Jensen wrote about, have become a reality.
Kiousis came to a conclusion that there's no point in refining a single definition. He felt very strongly about combining various definitions of interactivity to form one that encompasses all the possible characteristics of the term at hand. He proposed a conceptual definiton:
Interactivity can be defined as the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many), both synchronously and asynchronously, and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency). With regard to human users, it additionally refers to their ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase the awareness of telepresence.
I agree that this may, in fact, be the best academic approach so far. But I would take this approach even further. Since interactivity (the term and the consequent reality) is in a constant state of flux, we cannot escape the need of redefining everything after a short while. Be it a new technology, a new platform for interaction or a change in legislation.
From a scientific perspective, one must always seek to narrow down the focus of any problem at hand. So, it's imperative that we discuss the term interactivity in relation to specific categories. But how would one define or list these categories? My guess is that interactivity should not be perceived as something that is limited by anything.
In 2010, Mark Zuckerberg stated that they "are building a web where the default is social" (read more about it here: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/21/zuckerbergs-buildin-web-default-social/). What it means, is more interactivity. Everywere.
Let's analyze the status quo (e.g. my current level of interactivity):
- Skype
- Gmail & Google Talk
- Blogger
- Facebook
- TechCrunch
These are the webpages/applications currently active in my laptop (on a quiet evening). On any given day that list would be a bit longer. One might find open sessions of MSN Messenger, Mashable, NY Times, WSJ, HBR, eBay, Youtube and many more sites/apps/forums on my computer screen.
So, there you have it, every type of interaction from an asynchronous Youtube video playback and online commentaries to instant messaging and real time video/voice chat. We have it all and we don't even notice it anymore.
I would argue that the main concept of interactivity has remained unchanged, but it's application has become more diverse.
No comments:
Post a Comment