Exploring the concept of Interactivity

Freire, Maria da Graça

Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisbon/Portugal

Abstract

Interactivity is a fragmentary concept that refers to the user, the document and the system. The interactive experience becomes possible when the medium allows the interaction between these elements in a develop of its internal States change and ensure the exchange of information (Cook, 2001). However, the fundamental of this issue cannot move away from Mark around which are the properties of the concept of interactivity that relate to the subjective experience (e.g., needs the technology answers), then and only then, we will be face to face with an interactive experience mediated by the new media.

1-The concept

The concept of interactivity can still consider themselves rooted in the Greek term διαλεκτική: the art of arguing by interactive questioning which requires  perr relations. Is this property perr relations that establishes the difference of interactivity. The argumentation of Socratic maieutics proposed this interactivity, by which two (or more) subject argued an argument founded in questioning that entailed, as a condition of possibility, interaction, it say the interactivity. Thus, we have that the very concept of interactivity belongs to a cultural acquisition that has roots in classical antiquity. Today, we use interactivity as property of a particular technology: the mass media,  that reclaiming the tradition of his membership in the particular satisfaction of needs involved. In parallel, we will take the array of modern thought to be involved in a technological apparatus interactivity, in particular, the mass media.

The reflection around the interactivity in place raises three strands of analysis technology: interactivity between users user-user (user-user – the system is the vehicle), with documents (user-documents) and user with the system (user to system – which analyses the interface). With MacMillan (2002), we believe that the three forms of interactivity refer to three types of control models, namely: relational or interpersonal, and content of a resale process.

2- The interactivity between users (user-user) The interactivity between users call to reflection concepts such as feed-back (Wiener, 2001), interpersonal communication (Fiske, 1990) or symbolic communication (Goffman, 1967). The confirmation of (possible) existence of mutual discourse between different subject users does not imply, inevitably, the promotion of an original form of interactivity. Before, involves the potential for different Mediation of mass media which, however, does not diverge from the interactivity that is already configured in pre-existing media (McQuail, 2000). What distinguishes the new technologies of the previous is the type of control of messages generated (MacMillan, 2002) and the implicit in its use. Ludicity.

3- User interactivity with documents (user-documents)

Interactivity with content becomes essential to any medium at two distinct levels, namely: interaction with content and creators and the affective production of contents (Damasio, 2007). In the context of mass media, interactivity – while interacting with content – corresponds to the interaction, face-to-face with individuals represented by medium (Sudweeks & Rafaeli, 1997) and becomes a legitimate associate it the urge to fill social interactions (William et al, 1994). In other words, the new technologies of communication and information exponentiated the type of interactivity that settles between subject and content, even if not yet created a new dimension of this interaction. Before, reinforce the active role of receptors, as potential content producers as well, depending on the processing of communication channels, the transposition of the threshold of one for many in a new level of communication ability of many to many (Rogers, 1986, Looms, 1993), while calls to the distinction between technological development and technological ownership, which, the limit, would refer to both between profile and/or underlying potential, each technology as a determinant of its property (ability, desire and interest of the subject in relation to a particular technology). That is, being that the technology is established from the point of view of the subject (user) seem to be completing the same for interactivity.

4- The interactivity between the user and the systems (User to System)

Interactivity is the intrinsic property of certain technologies and which highlights the experience/relationship subject-thus surpassing the root machine, Greek questioning  perr relations.

The current interactivity (technological) exceeds the relationship subject-subject and focuses as subject and object, however, reciprocity is not abandoned each time interactive experience is conditioned by satisfying certain needs (of the subject), as a response to the execution of a set of features in the context of the technological apparatus. It is essential that the experience of interactivity makes a change in the State of the subject (before and after each interactive experience). Interactivity becomes a participative reinforcement provided to users (in digital media , the interaction can be local, hidden or chosen), which reflect the shape and function of the media taking as support. In other words, the vehicle determines the representation, that is, the form and contents reveal the media in that Lodge, therefore, the threshold, the content is the way and, thus, is to involve the user behaviours and system, each time the form determines the wealth of media appreciated by you (MacMillan, 2002). The form determines the richness of the media for the way the system facilitates communication (reveals his presence) with users (Burke, 1999), by which the function of systems includes directions and the level of control that the system allows and that if you did this to new media: users controlling (temporal, local, recipients and direction) of their communication experiences. IE: the system has the ability to create a meaningful representation aimed at satiating the interactivity and ease the user control in your experience of interaction (Damasio, 2007). perr relations (users) dialogue established by mobile communication for co generation and sharing documents, with games and RPL with systems capable of adapting to the user and allow transparency in interaction with the systems. This can be established in direct communication (Shneiderman, 1998) in which the interaction is controlled by the subject that you access through tools, manipulating the system (e.g. interaction in programming) or transmission continues information (Webster & Trevin, 1992) – the most advanced in the system is completely transparent to the user (e.g., virtual reality). Adaptive interaction assumes the computer is who owns the process control (e.g., graphic adventure games, collaborative applications for educational purposes).

References:

Damasio, j. (2009). As Tecnologias da Informação e da Comunicação  e o Processo Educativo.Vega, Lisboa.

Curtice, Judee k., Bonito, Joseph a., Bengtsson, Bjorn, Ramirez Jr., Artemio, Dunbar, Norah e., and Miczo, Nathan. (2000) ' Testing the Interactivity Model: Communication Processes, Partner Assessments, and the Quality of Collaborative Work ', Journal of Management Information Systems,16 (3): 33-56.

d'Ambra, John, and Rice, Ronald e. (1994). ' MultiMedia Approaches for the Study of Computer-Mediated Communication, Equivocality, and Media Selection, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,37 (4): 231-9.

Kay, Alan. (1990). User Interface: A Personal View. In b. Laurel (ed.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design (pp. 191-207). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Kirsh, David. (1997). ' Interactivity and MultiMedia Interfaces ', Instructional Science,25: 79-96.

McMillan, Sally j., and Downes, Edward j. (2000). ' Defining Interactivity: A Qualitative Identification of Key Dimensions ', New Media and Society,2 (2): 157-79.

PLATÃO. Teeteto - Crátilo. In: Diálogos de Platão. Tradução do grego por Carlos Alberto Nunes. 3a. ed., Belém: Universidade Federal do Pará, 2001, p. 45

Sheizaf Rafaeli and Sudweeks,,, Fay. (1997). ' Networked Interactivity ', Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2 (4): Available: http://www.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html.