Characterising affordances : the descriptions-of-affordances-model

Artefacts offer opportunities for action, ‘affordances’, that can be described on various levels, from manipulations (‘pushing a button’) to social activities (‘dialling a friend’). However, research in design into affordances has not investigated what an ‘action’ is, nor has it distinguished those levels. This paper addresses the question of which kinds of descriptions can be applied to affordances. Its main claim is that different descriptions can apply to a single affordance. On this claim a descriptions-of-affordances-model is built that shows how these levels are connected, and that specifies what knowledge the artefact user would need in order to perceive affordances under each kind of description. The paper also shows several ways in which the descriptions-of-affordances-model can contribute to affordance-based design.

[1]  E. Reed.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[2]  Georges M. Fadel,et al.  A Comparative Study of Quantitative Scales to Populate Affordance Structure Matrices , 2009 .

[3]  William W. Gaver.  Technology affordances , 1991, CHI.

[4]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[5]  Ch Kees Dorst,et al.  Design and use as plans: an action-theoretical account , 2002 .

[6]  J. Searle.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1997 .

[7]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[8]  T. Schack.  The cognitive architecture of complex movement , 2004 .

[9]  D. Davidson.  Essays on actions and events , 1980 .

[10]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  Actions Versus Functions: A Plea for an Alternative Metaphysics of Artifacts , 2004 .

[11]  Peter Kroes,et al.  Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: some conceptual problems , 2006 .

[12]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1999 .

[13]  Robin R. Vallacher,et al.  What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. , 1987 .

[14]  The planning and execution of everyday actions. , 2001 .

[15]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Affordance, conventions, and design , 1999, INTR.

[16]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[17]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts , 2010 .

[18]  H. Rex Hartson,et al.  Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design , 2003, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[19]  C. Michaels.  Affordances: Four Points of Debate , 2003, How Shall Affordances be Refined? Four Perspectives.

[20]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[21]  Georges M. Fadel,et al.  Affordance based design: a relational theory for design , 2009 .

[22]  Andrea Scarantino,et al.  Affordances Explained , 2003, Philosophy of Science.

[23]  Peter Kroes,et al.  Modelling infrastructures as socio-technical systems , 2006, Int. J. Crit. Infrastructures.

[24]  J. Norman.  Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[25]  Kuohsiang Chen,et al.  Applications of affordance and semantics in product design , 2007 .