the difference between interactive and digital
a stop sign is interactive.
a light switch is interactive.
a bacterium is interactive.
when i hear "interactive" i think of these sorts of mundane examples of a person, place, or thing responding to a stimulus or environment. digital, on the other hand, implies some use of technology on behalf of the source or recipient of said stimuli. obviously we don't limit interactions to purely digital means, nor is it the only way to evoke or augment a reaction or experience. not too many factors in an environment are mutually exclusive, in my opinion, though we often perceive them as such.
semantics aside, isn't tech / marketing / business / life all about the collective experience, really? (i know at least two guys that agree.)
the stop sign is a marvelous, highly successful example of an interactive experience. with a near perfect impression to conversion ratio to boot. yet [most] stop signs are not digital. and i hope (for humanity's sake) that a stop sign strategy has never been brought up for discussion.
maybe 'digital' should be treated as a segment of an 'interactive experience' rather than be used as a synonym. and interactive should be more of an abstract m.o. or objective for of all tech / marketing / business / life regardless of the medium.
brands aren't interactive.
websites aren't interactive.
communities aren't interactive.
people aren't digital; digital is a medium. people are interactive.
