> Is it generally accepted that affordance can work in a negative way as > well? I occasionally come across a web site that mixes in some > sort of > salient text (usually colored and underlined) that fools me into > thinking > they're links, when in fact, they aren't.
> I agree with David's definition, but given the frustrating > experience I > described, I may tweak it to read: > > "A property in which the physical characteristics of an object or > environment allude to a function." Wikipedia has a reasonable definition: An affordance is a quality of an object, or an environment, that allows an individual to perform an action. JJ Gibson's original use of the term focused on human activity as well as on the physical characteristics. When we orient ourselves to our environment we perceive ways in of acting in that environment; what can be manipulated, walked upon, thrown, etc., what can be dangerous and what can be used beneficially. The physical characteristics afford these opportunities for being acting upon, whether or not the designer of an artifact intended that us. Rob Tannen's link to a Corte77 posting (http://www.core77.com/reactor/ 03.07_parallel.asp) provides excellent examples of how affordances can suggest unintended, and often creative, uses of an object. In this framework I would not consider colored/underlined text as affording navigation or click-ability. Yes, its a learned association and yes, it can be used inconsistently, but I think Gibson's intent was to identify something about the relationahip between the physical world and humans that was deeper than context- specific learned associations. There is nothing intrinsically clickable about underlined text as opposed to bold or regular text, but small round physical objects afford throwing in a way that transcends context. There was a interesting study of remote controls conducted years ago in which a candy-bar shaped TV remote was compared with a spherical TV remote. The candy bar shaped remote tended to be held by one person, and occasionally passed to another; the sphere was more spontaneously thrown from one person to another. There might be novelty effect here, but in the context of this discussion, the two two shapes afforded different sorts of interactions. ________________________________________________________________ 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
