Dear Jude,
You might try to look at the work done by (the very sadly late) Kees Overbeeke and his research group over the past 10 or more years. Several of his students took a Gibsonian/ecological approach to interaction design, one of which (Joep Frens) redesigned the digital camera within that perspective.
However, my understanding of the Gibson's notion of affordances would suggest that it is not the concept you are looking for to make the distinctions you're talking about. Affordances are (as I read Gibson) a component of an attempt to describe 'natural' relationships in terms of physical fit. An animal's capacities for perception and motion are determinative of what any physical environment might afford it—shelter, camouflage, running space etc. On my reading, Gibson was aiming at underscoring a pre-conceptual, pre-theoretical, even pre-social account of the 'natural' relationships that obtain between organisms and objects/environments. So a log might afford sitting, but not posing as Rodin's thinker. Your interest in how something like a camera can be interpreted, re-conceived, used (for social consequence or criticism) etc. would be among the things that Gibsonian affordances are (as I understand) not supposed to be doing.
However, as you and Klaus have suggested (and Don in a paper back in the 90s, if I remember right), affordances have since come to mean many things to many people, and many of their current employments bear little familiarity with Gibson, so perhaps its meaning has since changed.
Not sure how helpful this is.
Kind regards,
Ben
On Feb 8, 2012, at 2:42 AM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> jude,
> in my semantic turn, you find the terms elaborated. to me it comes with a certain epistemology that is not always appreciated by mere users of the word. to get to it, read pieces of j. gibson, who originated the word in connection with his ecological theory of perception.
> klaus krippendorff
>
|