I think that a classification scheme for interactivity is very necessary, and this paper goes a long way in this direction.
A few questions/comments on the 11 categories used:
Do you think that Hyperlinked Interactivity is an example (or subset) of Object Interactivity?
I don't think Support Interactivity needs to be a separate category. I think it is likely to fit into the Hierarchical Interactivity or Object Interactivity category depending on the method of delivery.
Do you think Construct Interactivity, Simulation Interactivity, and Non-Immersive Contextual Interactivity are actually a continuum, with system control over the goals at one end and complete freedom to explore the environment at the other end?
A few comments on Harry's and Tom's comments:
[quoting Davis, 11 Nov 95] I wish to offer a challenge to this group. We talk a good game, but can we produce a practical application for all this theorizing? I propose that we INTERACTIVELY construct what we're talking about to serve as a model for others. How to do this? There is a Website set up by Paolo Tosolini that allows a person to distribute an interactive PC application (using MMToolBook).
Charles Padgett pointed out the problem for Mac users if a platform specific environment like Toolbook is used. In answer to his question, there are platform independent environments that allow similar things to be done, Director and Authorware to name a couple.
The problem with all of these tools, however, is that it is difficult to use them to produce some of the "higher" levels of interactivity described by Rod.
[quoting Reeves, 12 Nov 95] But let's not forget that reaching the levels of interactivity inherent in some of Rod's "higher" levels is not simply a matter of better instructional design or more creativity--there are enormous theoretical and cybernetic gaps yet to be bridged.
I don't agree with Tom here. All of the types of interactivity described by Rod are already possible. (Although the hardware for Immersive Virtual Interactivity is prohibitively expensive for most). The problem is that you need to be a programmer well versed in the latest programming techniques to produce software using these "higher" levels.
I think it's true to say that most Multimedia Developers and specifically Instructional Developers currently use tools like Hypercard, Toolbook, and Authorware, which are primarily designed for the development of "Instructivist" software, using the simpler forms of interaction.
I think that the lack of "Constructivist" authoring tools is one of the major problems of our field.
(I am currently undertaking a Masters, the major component of which is an attempt to firstly specify what these tools should be like, and secondly develop prototypes of them).