{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020127118644067795, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006355932203389831, 'mean_word_length': 5.3389261744966445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary: Making Interactivity Meaningful for Contemporary HCI

In their article “The Meaning of Interactivity—Some Proposals for Definitions and Measures” (2017), Janlert and Stolterman work toward a systematic analysis of the notion of increasing interactivity through exploring possible interpretations of what it might mean and providing conceptual tools to aid discussion of issues that arise about increasing interactivity. When I (John) first read the article as a reviewer, I appreciated the authors’ ambition to throw light on the concept of interactivity in a world in which the growing ubiquity of interactive technologies may create opportunities and challenges for both users and designers. However, I was perplexed by the methodological choice made to center analytical work on the artifact, and I was disappointed at a relatively ahistorical appropriation of formal methods in human–computer interaction (HCI), a lacuna that is reflected in Dix’s commentary, which accompanies this one. So I am glad of this opportunity to reflect again on these issues in the context of the finished article and, in part to guard against a simple restatement of my review, I have asked my long-term collaborator Peter Wright for a view on the article. A short commentary is probably best written around a single organizing principle—a clear point, carefully developed to give readers an opportunity to consider a complementary or contrasting perspective. Given the focus of our collaborative work from our first book in 2004, Technology as Experience, to our 2010 book, Experience-Centred Design, it should be clear that, for us, any pragmatically useful analysis of artifacts is inseparable from an analysis of the values and experiences of those who use them or feel their effects, or indeed from the values and experiences of those who design them. Understanding and transforming this