In this week, we have focused on affordances. Affordance is a concept or a tool that can be used to analyze functionality in objects. The analyze is about visual ques that show us what we can do with the object. In that way, the term refers to the perceived and actual proper. It is some kind of interaction or relation between a user and an object.

Our use of the term ‘affordance’ is taken from Norman (1998) within the field of design. According to Don Norman there exit a lot of design problems that result in miscommunication between user and object if the user does not know the intended way of using the object. Moreover, Norman says that there is value in when an object allows users to use the object in a way that the inventor has thought of. To find out how objects can be used, Norman suggests making a conceptual model which is comprised of affordances, constraints and mappings. Affordances are about what you actually see and how the object/design should be used – rather how it can be used. The constrains must be examined from the following: physical, semantic, cultural and logical, whereas the concept mapping refers to the relationship between affordances and constraints (Norman 1998).

It is a challenge to make a conceptual model of a computer because “it works electronically, invisibly, with no sign of the actions it is performing. And it is instructed through an abstract language, one that specifies the internal flow of control and movement of information, but one not particularly suited for the needs of the user” (Norman, 1998, p. 177-178). In this argument about the complexity of the computer and its abstract characteristics Norman set up opposites: (1) the interaction designers who are engaged on making the computer usable for users, as (2) the programmers who work on the operability of computer software. To unit these and make the object understandable Norman suggests that the interaction designers should focus on changing the design of the computer into a more perceivable design so that the user easily can use the computer on a par with other everyday things.

All this theoretical talk about affordances made me wonder about objects that are being used in a completely different way than the intention. The first thing that struck me was the affordances of an iPad. The iPad is used for many things nowadays. The traditional way of using an iPad was to be able to carry it around and surf the internet. There are so many options that we are may not even aware of. For example, the iPad is used in Denmark as a toy for children. Even all Danish children down to one year of age use the iPad to play games and watch funny videos on YouTube. Lego blocks and dolls have been replaced with a screen that children can wipe their greasy fingers in.

I find the affordance debate interesting to follow in the future, as new ways of using objects are constantly emerging. I believe that technology will make affordance even more complex, as especially digital opportunities increase the possibility of multi ability.

Norman, D 1998, The design of everyday things, Basic Book, New York (Sections: Preface vii-xv; Chapter one pp 1-13; Chapter 4 (constraints) pp 81-87; (computers) pp 177-186).

Norman, D 1999, ‘Affordance, conventions and design (Part 2)’, Nielsen Norman Group, viewed March 2019, http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conv.html.