However, the story is clear to establish that television interactivity remains in the experimental phase. Manly writes, "Still, there are plenty of hurdles to clear before these new offerings become the norm. Some are technological. Some are habitual: for example, can multitasking viewers handle yet another task? And there's the question of whether customers even want these newfangled options. Television may never have been just a boob tube, but it's unclear just how smart people really want it to be."

Part of what Manly is pointing out is my emphasis from earlier in the piece as well--people do not want technology or interactivity for interactivity's sake. They only want to use those options that directly impact their behavior. Anything else is just noise. It is sort of like all the possible products available to the Internet user from Web 2.0. One should sign up with Technorati and Digg and Flickr and create a social network and del.icio.us and on and on and on. For most people aside from early adopters, taking on these new technologies becomes purely pragmatic, jumping into Web 2.0 only when the need arises. People don't care about what's available--they care about solving their needs when those needs pop up.

Manly's story also briefly traces a few anecdotes as to the history of interactive television, including write-in and call-in campaigns. And, of course, reality television provides a vibrant example of interactive television, as does VOD and pay-per-view, in an extremely limited idea of interactivity. (See WWE's Cyber Sunday for a double dose of interactivity, a wrestling PPV that allows viewers to vote on the matches). Some would say that the very act of channel flipping demonstrates a profound interactivity with television in creasing one's own line-up, aside from the DVR or VCR. Then, there is the interactivity of active engagement with complex or fascinating television programs.

The question is how interactive television can go from being a gimmick to a story enhancer and the limits that most viewers would want place on the degree to interactivity when it comes to the autonomy of authors. In other words, in fictional programming, most people prefer that the authors still retain some degree of autonomy. The wisdom of the crowds may often be that, while they want their voice heard, they also enjoy and bolster the idea of being told a story at the same time. Having the ability to interact doesn't necessarily mean turning to a communally written piece of entertainment that does not reward and expect individual textual mastery. Such a limited conception of interactivity relegates it to marketing gimmicks and reality TV voting only and does not acknowledge or reward the vast number of ways that viewers want to communicate with creators. When it comes to fictional fare, interaction should not be equated with "choose-your-own-adventure.

Thanks to Lynn Liccardo for sending this story along.