The article written by Kiousis focuses on the issue that has troubled me many times, when trying to academically define what an interactive “something” is. While in the previous post I stated out interactivity as a meaning, it still is pretty un-academic for my research to implement on.
For example one example that always rises in my mind when talking about interactivity, is the existence of one. For example while teletext for television has been thought to be an interactive solution, a RDS capable-radio station is still a linear channel.
In that sense I greet Kiousis notion where “major limitation with some experimental inquiries is that a condition is often called ‘interactive’ without considering multiple levels of the variable, let alone defining its meaning.“ Over the years more and more troubling will it be for academics to define the existence of interactivity. It simply will be implemented to everything. In that sense the study of interactivity might one day be like the study of matter – our subject exist everywhere but has just different peculiarities.
As a firm believer of this tendency (the borderless widespread of interactive everything) I greet the focus put forward by Kiousis to further investigate the levels or dimensions of interactivity, leaving the questions, whether interactivity occurs or not, out of the way. A television set is interactive as it cannot be totally linear or one-way (there’s an option to change the channel for example). The same might be in the case of printed books – whether it is choice-based story-telling or a fairy-tale with movable pictures. These examples do have a minor level interactivity, which exist for example in a medium deemed to be highly interactive – internet. In the case of the before-mentioned book, a web-based e-card offers the same functionality.
For the time being the capable method of defining interactivity surely can be the one formulated by Kiousis: “… definition of interactivity that includes the following as major dimensions: (1) the structure of a medium (Steuer, 1992); (2) the context of communication settings (Rafaeli, 1988); and (3) the perceptions of users (Wu, 1999). “
Source:
http://rcirib.ir/articles/pdfs/cd1%5CIngenta_Sage_Articles_on_194_225_11_89/Ingenta866.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment