Is there anybody or anything out there?

Every day we use different web sites. Each of these has its own policies and its own rules that one needs to understand and respect to receive the optimal user experience.
Depending of the purpose and the site policy the interactivity of the site is also designed. In some cases the interactivity is promoted and supported, and in some not a lot of attention is given to it. I believe that Sally J. Mcmillan in her article "A four part model of cyber-interactivity" in which she present this new model and applies it to a research of site interactivity has designed a very good theoretical model. Feedback, Monologue, Mutual discourse and Responsive dialogue describe in my opinion in a very good way the different types of two way communication. The problematic part for me is that the author has a very idealistic ideal of what the ideal communication is supposed to look like. The fact is that Mutual discourse is difficult to achieve in any kind of communication and that the author of the sites are very aware of the power that they have on their sites and are not willing to give it up. The possibility to post comments for example may appear as a tool that enables interactivity, but the problem is that the author of the site and of the comment are not equal. These kind of equality can be found only between different article authors or between comment authors. The site editor has always the power to remove or ban a comment from the site or deny its publication. It is in this editing power inequality and the status between the publisher of tha article and the commentator where i see the problem with the site interactivity. In most cases even the users help mails would be responded to by a computer and not by a person, so just like we can leead virtual lives the interactivity in many cases is only virtual. So in my opinion the true way to messure interactivity is not only by mesuring the satisfaction of the user but if he had communicated with a person or a human beeing.

Jan Orsic