I agree with Chris Crawford’s definition of interaction as being a cyclical exchange where output, levels of absorption and response are essential. This implies a change in both participants (person and technology) as a result. I think the level of transformation is a large factor in describing how interactive it is.
Victor’s argument of “pictures under glass” technology forsaking our amazing and complex hand capabilities, could be a helpful viewpoint to incorporate in the quest to strengthen true interactivity. The interaction could become more profound and attractive when our innate strengths are factored into the design further. The technology becomes more human as opposed to people becoming more robotic. This is one factor that makes for “good” physical interaction, even when we want to interact with tech, we still want it to feel as natural as possible. When we are faced with a technology that is meant to bring us out of our comfort zone specifically, some sense of familiarity, or safety, is helpful to prime the participant to be open to an expansive experience. As was mentioned in class, incorporating elements of fun and play are very helpful to ease inhibitions as well.
A good examples of digital technology that is very engaging but isn’t interactive is VR 360. EEG Biofeedback is an example of a non-interactive technology that interacts with your physiology, with the potential of causing positive transformation in the participant, but does not complete the interactive circuit because the user is not also transforming the technology.