Interactivity

I really liked the reading on the concept explication. I think Kiousis is right on track by identifying technology and user perception as components in the overall look at interactivity instead of exclusive elements. He cites a part of a definition by Newhagen (1995) that really hits at the core of it in my opinion. “Interactivity is a variable that fluctuates across individuals and media.” This shows the need for the scale that Kiousis describes in which each component (structure of technology, communication context, and user perception) has its own set of variables that sit at different degrees to form the understanding of interactivity.

Downes and McMillan’s qualitative research comes to the same conclusions regarding how hard it is to pin down an actual definition for the term and it shows how even 10 people can each have varying ideas and perceptions of what they consider to be interactive. The one thing they all seem to have in common is that they realize that technology provides the ability to interact and on what level is usually determined by the user.

Last semester I wrote my research methods paper on a content analysis I performed on Internet advertising formats. My literature review dealt a lot with interactivity and the levels associated with the different formats. It seems like, when attempting to define interactivity, researchers want to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. However, I also do not think that the term can be pinned down to one variable that will accurately and appropriately provide the context needed to research the topic.

My definition would be much like Kiousis’ description. I think there is absolutely a technological component because it provides the restraints for the degree of interaction. That could be interaction between a computer and person or even a telephone and a person. On the other hand, interactivity requires participation on both sides; therefore, the user’s perception and ability has to factor in. That being said, I think Kiousis is on the right track by looking for a mathematical way to quantify interactivity. It would account for the fluctuations in different variables and leave room for adjustments when newer technology is developed with different or more advanced interactive capabilities. I would, though, give more weight to the technology than the user’s perception. It’s more about the capability of the interaction to occur, not necessarily the user’s ability or desire to take full advantage of that interaction.

In regards to The Long Tail theory, the underlying idea is customization and providing things for a consumer that they would most likely not seek out their own either because they were not aware of it or because it would be too difficult to obtain otherwise. The user chooses a certain genre of music or books and is then directed to other music and books that could fit their interests. The technology of iTunes or Amazon gives the consumer the ability to interact with anything in their database while the user still has control over what to view and what to buy. Since both of these online retailers, so to speak, have been extremely successful in their use of recommendations, I don’t see why future business models couldn’t benefit from its use. However, I think it highly depends on what type of business we are talking about. If it’s not online, it most likely won’t be as successful given the cost of housing such a variety of items that are not top sellers in every store. Just the basic profit margin issue here.