Dear Klaus, David and Don - and all,
Thank you for expanding my understanding of affordances.
I have a question...
On the Wikipedia page on affordances (and implicit/explicit in this
discussion on phd-design) makes a distinction between:
'Affordances' as the activities that are made possible by a
defined/bounded situation or entity.
And
'Perceived affordances' as the activities that an observer or participant
perceives are made possible by that defined/bounded situation or entity.
With the set of 'affordances' being greater in number than the set of
'perceived affordances' (excluding those that are erroneously perceived).
If this assumption is true....
There a set of 'not perceived affordances' that in number and content is the
difference between the set of 'affordances' and the set of 'perceived
affordances'.
The only evidence is that this set can be perceived....
Q. How does one perceive the set of 'not perceived affordances'?
There seem to be two obvious ways past this problem.
One is time based: that things that are not perceived now might be perceived
at a different time later. In which case, theories relating to the use of
affordances would be expected to have a foundational time element in them -
which I haven't seen to date.
The second is that of different participant groups: perhaps things can be
perceived individuals in some (expert) group that are not perceived by
individuals in a (not so competent) group. In which case, theories relating
to the use of affordances would be expected to have a foundational
sociological and expertise element - which I also haven't seen to date.
Are there others ???
The answer is of special interest to myself and many others how to readily
identify 'affordances that cannot be perceived'... :-)
Advice is welcome.
Regards,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI, MAISA
Director
Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
www.designoutcrime.org
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Krippendorff, Klaus
Sent: Thursday, 17 November 2016 1:16 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Affordances and meaning (sorry folks, forgot to remove our
logo!)
just to register my agreement with david's articulations.
to me the affordance of an object is the set of interactions that something
supports. this applies not just to designed artifacts but also to phenomena
found in nature, even to the objects of physicists' theorizing.
an affordance does not invite anything. a text does not speak for itself. an
object does demand a behavior. what invites a particular use is the
conceptualizations that people are encouraged to bring to it.
gibson's theory of perception concerns largely the condition of humans in
the state of adaptation to their environment, a condition that seems so
natural that there is hardly any doubt so that one starts believing that one
sees what actually exists. this is why gibson called his theory of
perception ecological.
however, it is not in common that people's conceptualizations are not
afforded and the interface they expect to engage in takes unexpected turns
or in heidegerian sense breaks down.
in my view - and this motivated my writing of the semantic turn - designers,
by definition, introduce innovations, i.e. artifacts that people are not
accustomed to. it is therefore especially important to design artifacts that
afford the conceptions and actions that potential users can bring to
designed artifacts or can acquire during interactions with them, minimizing
breakdowns or harming the user.
while this account describes affordances on the level of user interfaces,
however, the affordance concept is fundamental to larger socio-political
considerations as well.
klaus
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 9:01 PM, David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> Gunner wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that a term having been used in one context precludes its
use by others in other contexts?
>
> Not at all. What I'm saying is that within the context of Gibson's
> theory, affordances make sense and are useful
>
> In the design context, you are left with having to explain something not
covered by the term affordances and that rather defeats the point of using
the term; you still have to explain in some other way the problem you
started with, you've just added another term to your vocabulary.
>
> I think Keith explains it rather well. A handle is a case in point. We
have created rules about things we find useful. I know how to use a hammer
because of its handle. I can quickly apply that to learning how to use an
axe. But I need to apply a different though similar type of rule to using a
chisel.
>
>> the handle on a beer mug seemingly inviting grasping it to pick up the
mug.
> Handles do not issue invitations. We recognise the handle as a means of
grasping hold of something because we have done it with other handle like
things before.
>
> The notion of rules is more useful in design than affordances because
affordances requires you to focus on the characteristic of the thing,
itself. As if the meaning of something we use is inherent in the object
itself. Rules are things-ways of doing, ways of thinking, that we apply to a
number of things. Rules are malleable and we can change them. To me this is
better way of trying to understand what people do in the world-a mutable
constantly changing world to which we continually attach new ways of
relating to that world.
>
> Thus we attach certain meanings to objects with certain characteristics.
Architecural ornamentation is an example of retaining features of objects
which have long since lost their function and original meaning, but none the
less work in orientating us to our surroundings.
>
> I have just read Keith's excellent post. I shall say no more on this
subject.
>
> David
> --
>
>
>
> blog: http://communication.org.au/blo
> <http://communication.org.au/blo>g/
> web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO . Communication Research Institute . . helping people communicate
> with people .
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (03) 9005 5903
> Skype: davidsless
>
> 60 Park Street . Fitzroy North . Melbourne . Australia . 3068
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
> studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
