Hi Don,
Just so I’m clear on your use of the term signifier, can you confirm the quote below taken from: https://jnd.org/signifiers_not_affordances/ is your current position.
If it is, then my critique stands.
--------
The signifier is an important communication device to the recipient, whether or not communication was intended. From the purpose of surviving in the world, it doesn't matter to an individual whether the useful signal was deliberately placed there or whether it is incidental: to the recipient, there is no necessary distinction. Why should it matter whether the flag was placed as a deliberate clue to wind direction (as is done at airports or on the masts of sailboats) or whether it was there as an advertisement or symbol of pride in one's country (as is done on public buildings): once I interpret the flag's motion to indicate wind direction, it does not matter why it was placed there.
----------
Thanks,
David
Professor David Sless BA MSc,
CEO
• Communication Research Institute • researching and sharing good practice
https://communication.org.au
Mobile: +61 (0)412356795
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
On 16/10/19, 2:36 pm, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in on behalf of Don Norman" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
(keeping to my rule that responses should be short)
Thanks, David
I agree that "I think your original use of affordances contained the seeds
of what followed."
It is no surprise that I disagree with the rest. I still think that the
separation of signifiers from affordance is important and helpful. As for
whether the word "signifier" has problems in the field of semiotics -- i
don't care. I appropriated it for design and gave a clear definition of how
it should be understood and applied by designers. As for what you call
hypothetical mental states, well, that's what I have long been studying:
perception, mental models -- yes, theoretical constructs, but well
supported by data.
I think your comment demonstrates that we have different perspectives and
world views on this topic. Nothing the matter with that: In my opinion,
science makes the most progress when people disagree intelligently, where
they (and others) try to gather evidence that supports one view, or the
other, or better yet, finds a way of merging the two.
Don
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 6:50 PM David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi Donald
>
> My apologies for citing out of date work. Mea maxima culpa. I suffer from
> many defects of character and sensibility.
>
> I will keep this short, as you have suggested: a good rule for
> responding.
>
> I think your original use of affordances contained the seeds of what
> followed. I think each successive revision fails, finally landing on
> signifier: a deeply problematic notion in semiotics and semiology. At the
> heart of this is a confusion about the proper units of analysis in
> communication research–separating people's actions from hypothetical mental
> states. There is a lot packed in that last sentence.
> For those of you with a direct interest in this have a look at how I treat
> this subject in:
>
> Learning and visual communication (now available as an e-book)
> In Search of Semiotics (we are working on a new version)
>
> David
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|