Lévy, Pierre. Cyberculture. Electronic Mediations, V. 4. Minneapolis, Minn.; London: University of Minnesota Press, 2001.

‘In this brief chapter, Lévy address the topic of interactivity, including the problem of defining it, and the various levels of interactivity. For example, even an individual seated on a c ouch, watching television is interacting with that medium to a certain extent. To help measure the degree of interactivity of a device, Lévy suggests that a significant factor one can look to the possibility of material reappropriation and recombination of the message by a receiver. For example, a relatively low-interactivity device like the television could have that level increased with particular changes.

With television, digitization could further enhance the opportunities for reappropriating and personalizing the message by shifting editorial functions to the user: choice of camera, use of zoom, shifting between image and commentary, selection of commentators.”

In 2001, when this text was published, such possibilities may not have existed; however, such options are becoming available online in different manners. For example, NASCAR races are now streamed online and a viewer (for a nominal fee) can select the camera view he or she wants to view. Many online videos are now offering many display option beyond the standard volume, pause, rewind, and fast-forward, such as sizing (full-screen, expand/shrink to full window, screen resolution), pop-out (opening the video in its own window), closed caption, lower/raise lights (dimming the rest of the screen), and the ability to embed, rate, and share it through social media means.

Lévy offers a chart (pg. 65) of interactivity levels to which I have added an OVC column.

Different Types of Interactivity

Communication System

Linear message, not modified in real time

Interruption and reorientation of the information stream in real time

Involvement of the participant in the message

One-way distribution

Press
Radio
Television
Cinema
  • Multimodal database
  • Static hyperdocuments
  • Simulation without immersion or the ability to modify the model
  • Single-participant video games
  • Simulation with immersion (flight simulators) but without possible modification of the model

Dialogue, reciprocity

Mail correspondence between two people
  • Telephone
  • Videophone

Dialogues that take place through virtual worlds, cybersex

Multilogue
  • Correspondence networks
  • Publications systems in a research community
  • E-mail
  • Electronic conferences
  • Multiparticipant teleconferences or video conference
  • Open hyperdocuments accessible on-line, written and read by a community
  • Simulation (with the ability to act on model) as a medium for community debate
  • Multiuser role playing in cybespace
  • Multiparticipant video games in “virtual reality”
  • Communication through virtual worlds, continuous negotiation of participants with their image of their shared situation

Unlike the chart from my preceding post, it is not logical to insert into this chart a column or a row for the OVC. Rather, it makes more sense to consider where the OVC fits into this interactivity types structure. The OVC, being asynchronous, never allows for interruption or reorientation of information in real time. Therefore, the center column does not apply. The OVC can provide a one-way linear message in that the instructor–when the OVC is applied in the asynchronous online classroom (AOC)–provides one-sided updates to the class in video form. While this communication situation does offer the opportunity for student response, it is treated as more of a one-many delivery and, in my research, students did not ask questions of these videos in video form, rather, they resorted to asking any questions of the weekly update videos via email.

It could be seen as resembling a mail correspondence between two people, since messages between instructor-student or student-student can be exchanged in this way. However, more often, the OVC in the AOC serves as more of a correspondence network with individuals posting responses to a conversation among multiple people. Each individual is granted his or her say without and censorship nor fear of interruption.