World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article
 

Affordance

The handles on a tea set provide an obvious affordance for holding.

An affordance is often taken as a relation between an object or an environment and an organism, that affords the opportunity for that organism to perform an action.[1][2] For example, a knob affords twisting, and perhaps pushing, while a cord affords pulling. As a relation, an affordance exhibits the possibility of some action, and is not a property of either an organism or its environment alone.[3][4]

Different definitions of the term have developed. The original definition described all actions that are physically possible. This was later adapted to describe action possibilities of which an actor is aware. Some define affordance as a potential resource for some (not a particular) organism or species of organism, and so while inviting the possible engagement of some species, not identified with any particular one.[5][6] The term has further evolved for use in the context of human–computer interaction (HCI) to indicate the easy discoverability of possible actions.

The word is used in a variety of fields: perceptual psychology, cognitive psychology, environmental psychology, industrial design, human–computer interaction, interaction design, communication studies, instructional design, science, technology and society (STS), and artificial intelligence.

Contents

  • As action possibilities 1
  • As perceived action possibilities 2
  • False affordances 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • Additional reading 6
  • External links 7

As action possibilities

Psychologist James J. Gibson originally introduced the term in his 1977 article "The Theory of Affordances"[7] and explored it more fully in his book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception[8] in 1979. He defined affordances as all "action possibilities" latent in the environment, objectively measurable and independent of the individual's ability to recognize them, but always in relation to agents and therefore dependent on their capabilities. For instance, a set of steps which rises four feet high does not afford the act of climbing if the actor is a crawling infant. Gibson's is the prevalent definition in cognitive psychology.

Affordances were further studied by Eleanor J. Gibson, wife of James Gibson, who created her theory of perceptual learning around this concept. Eleanor Gibson's book, An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development explores affordances further.

  • A series of slides concerning theories of vision and (incidentally) the role of affordances and some interesting optical illusions concerning affordances Aaron Sloman (March 12, 2014). "What's vision for, and how does it work? From Marr (and earlier) to Gibson and beyond" (PDF). Retrieved May 22, 2014. 

External links

  • The role of affordances in evolution and  
  • The role of affordances in agency is discussed by Rob Withagen, Harjo J de Poel, Duarte Araújo, Gert-Jam Pepping (2012). "Affordances can invite behavior: Reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency" (PDF). New Ideas in Psychology 30 (2): 250–258.  
  • Affordance and computation is discussed by AJ Wells (2002). "Gibson’s affordances and Turing’s theory of computation" (PDF). Ecological psychology 14 (3): 140–180.  

Additional reading

  1. ^ Leo van Lier (2004). "Relations". e-Study Guide for: Handbook of Psychology, Volume 6: Developmental Psychology: Psychology, Human development. Springer. p. 4.   See also a list of various definitions titled "What are affordances", p. 91
  2. ^ Don Norman (2013). The Design of Everyday Things (Revised and expanded ed.). Basic Books. p. 11.  
  3. ^ Juval Portugali (1996). "Inter-representation Networks and Cognitive Mappings". In Juval Portugali, ed. The construction of cognitive maps. Springer.  
  4. ^ Ulric Neisser (1989). "Chapter 1; Introduction: the ecological and intellectual bases of categorization". In Ulric Neisser, ed. Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. Cambridge University Press. p. 12.  
  5. ^ Edward S. Reed (1996). Encountering the World : Toward an Ecological Psychology. Oxford University Press. p. 40.  
  6. ^ For an extended discussion of views on affordances, see Anthony Chemero (2011). "§7.2 Affordances 1.0". Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. MIT Press. pp. 136 ff.  
  7. ^ James J. Gibson (1977), The Theory of Affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, edited by Robert Shaw and John Bransford, ISBN 0-470-99014-7.
  8. ^ James J. Gibson (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, ISBN 0-89859-959-8.
  9. ^ Uexküll, Jakob von (1980 [1920 etc.]), Kompositionslehre der Natur, edited by Thure von Uexküll, Frankfurt am Main.
  10. ^ Dorion Sagan (2010). "Introduction: Umwelt after Uexküll". In Jakob von Uexküll, Marina von Uexküll, Joseph D. O’Neil. A Foray Into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: With a Theory of Meaning (Joseph D O'Neil translation of 1940 ed.). University of Minnesota Press. p. 5.  
  11. ^ Anderson, S. J.; Yamagishi, N.; Karavia, V. (2002). "Attentional processes link perception and action". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269 (1497): 1225.  
  12. ^ Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, ISBN 0-465-06710-7. Originally published under the title The Psychology of Everyday Things, often abbreviated to POET.
  13. ^ Donald A. Norman (1999). Affordance, Conventions and Design. Interactions 6(3):38-43, May 1999, ACM Press.
  14. ^ Affordance, Conventions and Design (Part 2)
  15. ^ In Human–Computer Interaction, Preece et al. (1994, p. 6) explicitly define perceived affordances as being a subset of all affordances, but the meanings are intermingled later in the same paragraph by talking about "good affordance"; in Universal Principles of Design, Lidwell, Holden & Butler (2003, p. 20) first explain that round wheels are better suited for rolling than square ones and therefore better afford (i.e. allow) rolling, but later state that a door handle "affords" (i.e. suggests) pulling, but not pushing.
  16. ^ Gaver, William W. (1991). "Technology affordances". Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI '91. p. 79.  
  17. ^ "Affordances"
  18. ^ "Placebo buttons, false affordances and habit-forming"

References

See also

This means that, when affordances are perceptible, they offer a direct link between perception and action, and, when affordances are hidden or false, they can lead to mistakes and misunderstandings.

  • A false affordance is an apparent affordance that does not have any real function, meaning that the actor perceives nonexistent possibilities for action.[17] A good example of a false affordance is a placebo button.[18]
  • A hidden affordance indicates that there are possibilities for action, but these are not perceived by the actor. For example, it is not apparent from looking at a shoe that it could be used to open a wine bottle.
  • For an affordance to be perceptible, there is information available such that the actor perceives and can then act upon the existing affordance.

William Gaver[16] divided affordances into three categories: perceptible, hidden, and false.

False affordances

The different interpretations of affordances, although closely related, can be a source of confusion in writing and conversation if the intended meaning is not made explicit and if the word is not used consistently. Even authoritative textbooks can be inconsistent in their use of the term.[15]

Norman later explained that this restriction in meaning of the term had been unintended, and that he would replace the term by "perceived affordance" in any future revision of the book.[13][14] However, the definition from his book has been widely adopted in HCI and interaction design, and both meanings are now commonly used in these fields.

Norman's 1988 definition makes the concept of affordance relational rather than subjective or intrinsic. This he deemed an "ecological approach", which is related to systems-theoretic approaches in the natural and social sciences. The focus on perceived affordances is much more pertinent to practical design problems from a human-factors approach, which may explain its widespread adoption.

In 1988, Donald Norman appropriated the term affordances in the context of human–machine interaction to refer to just those action possibilities that are readily perceivable by an actor. Through his book The Design of Everyday Things,[12] this interpretation was popularized within the fields of HCI and interaction design. It makes the concept dependent not only on the physical capabilities of an actor, but also the actor's goals, plans, values, beliefs, and past experiences. If an actor steps into a room with an armchair and a softball, Gibson's original definition of affordances allows that the actor may throw the chair and sit on the ball, because this is objectively possible. Norman's definition of (perceived) affordances captures the likelihood that the actor will sit on the armchair and throw the softball. Effectively, Norman's affordances "suggest" how an object may be interacted with. For example, the size and shape of a softball obviously fit nicely in the average human hand, and its density and texture make it perfect for throwing. The user may also bring past experiences to bear with similar objects (baseballs, perhaps) when evaluating a new affordance.

As perceived action possibilities

Anderson, Yamagishi and Karavia (2002) sought to determine whether visual attention or affordance forms the basis of the motor signals generated by many everyday graspable objects. By examining how the properties of an object affect an observer’s reaction time for judging its orientation, they provided evidence to indicate that directed visual attention (not affordance) is responsible for the automatic generation of many motor signals associated with the spatial characteristics of perceived objects.[11]

[10]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.