The proposed models presented in figures 1 through 3 offer a way of organizing and making sense of the many different perspectives and definitions of interactivity. If ‘interactivity’ is to move beyond its current status as a widely used but poorly conceptualized term, we must recognize that there are three fundamentally different types of interactivity. Scholars and others who use the term should indicate whether they are focusing on user-to-user, user-to-documents, or user-to-system interactivity or some combination of the three.
Within each of these types of interactivity, an important factor to consider is the locus of control. As control shifts among senders and receivers and between humans and computer systems, the nature of interactivity shifts. Studies that focus on user-to-user interactivity should also carefully consider the direction of communication between and among senders and receivers who interact in computer-based environments. Studies that focus on user-to-documents interactivity should carefully consider the audience: how active do members of the audience wish to be? And studies that focus on user-to-system interactivity should focus on the human-computer interface: how transparent can and should that interface be?
These models may provide direction for scholars who seek to explore specific aspects of interactive communication. For example, studies of role taking in interactive environments are probably most appropriately based in the user-to-user literature while studies of interactive fiction are probably centered in user-to-documents literature and studies involving virtual reality center on user-to-system issues. However, these classifications should not be viewed as either mutually exclusive or all-inclusive. For example, virtual reality studies need to incorporate human communication factors from the user-to-user model and content creators who are considering how users interact with documents also need to address interface issues from the user-to-system model. And some forms of interactivity and new media may not fit into any of these categories at all.
In sum, when approaching interactivity at the surface level we may be able to ‘know it when we see it.’ But we can understand it better if we recognize that it is a multi-faceted concept that resides in the users, the documents, and the systems that facilitate interactive communication.
Figures
|
Direction of Communication
|
|
|
One-Way
|
Two-Way
| Level of |
High
|
Feedback
|
Mutual Discourse
| Receiver Control |
Low
|
Monologue
|
Responsive Dialogue
|
S = Sender, R = Receiver, P = Participant (sender/receiver roles are interchangeable)
Figure 1 – Four Models of User-to-User Interactivity
|
Nature of Audience
|
|
|
Passive
|
Active
| Level of |
High
|
Content-On-Demand
|
Co-Created Content
| Receiver Control |
Low
|
Packaged Content
|
Content Exchange
|
S = Sender, R = Receiver, P = Participant (sender/receiver roles are interchangeable)
Figure 2 – Four Models of User-to-Documents Interactivity
|
Interface
|
|
|
Apparent
|
Transparent
| Center of |
Human
|
Human-Based Interaction
|
Flow
| Control |
Computer
|
Computer-Based Interaction
|
Adaptive Interaction
|
S = Sender, R = Receiver, P = Participant (sender/receiver roles are interchangeable)
Figure 3 – Four Models of User-to-System Interactivity
Share with your friends: |