A little more depth on this topic: The original meaning of affordance (in the context of Gibsonian psychology) is a RELATIONSHIP. The relationship exists between an actor and the environment and/or object.
The classic example is that a chair affords sitting - but that is an oversimplification. It really about a very specific relationship meaning a specific chair, affording sitting to a certain actor under certain circumstances. The same chair that affords sitting to a small child, may not afford sitting to an adult when it collapses under the greater weight. Moreover, the existence of a relationship (affordance) is necessary, but not sufficient for the perception or ability to act on that relationship. I don't need to sit or even see the chair for the affordance of me sitting on that chair to exist. In fact, strictly speaking, the ability perceive the chair is in itself the result of an affordance. For example viewability requires a relationship between the actor (ability to detect optical information in a certain light spectrum) and the object/environment (transmitting or reflecting a specific light pattern with a particular spectrum). In practical terms, we should be careful in applying the term "affordance" too broadly. Effective design is about defining the components of the relationship and then bringing them together in the most appropriate manner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=27380 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
