Remember last week when I mentioned that this week we were going to discuss affordances? (Yes, you do!)
Well today’s the day folks! Strap yourselves in, because this concept is pretty central to lots more of the course, and I’m sure lots more of my blog posts.
First of all what is an affordance?
Well, the term affordance was originally coined by Gibson as a psychological term; describing actionable relationships between people and the world around them.
But what does that even mean?
Well we can also think of affordances as the properties of things, in relation to how they are used.
This video gives a bit of an explainer if you’re interested!
Like the video suggests, affordances are also thought to provide strong clues to the operations of things.
But there is a difference between affordances and perceived affordances. This comes down to the intention of the creator.
Simply:
-perceived affordances (how the inventor thought/wanted the product to be used)
-actual affordances (how the users picked it up and what the users did with it)
It’s important that designers don’t confuse their perceived affordances of what they’re inventing with its actual affordances. A great example Nash gave was that Gmail was designed as technology for safe sharing. But in actual fact, it has sometimes been used for terrorism acts.
If affordances suggest the range of possibilities, than constraints limit the number of alternatives.
“The thoughtful use of affordances and constraints together in design lets a user determine readily the proper course of action.” (Norman, 1998).
Let me give you some real-world examples of what constraints are. Reading these helped me to understand constraints as the limitations to affordances.
Semantic constraints rely upon our knowledge of the situation and the world. After doing something a number of times, we begin to associate it with meaning. As in traffic lights, red means stop, green means go. You don’t see explicit signs, it is a semantic reality we have embedded in us from a very early age – when we witness our parents driving.
Cultural constraints rely upon accepted cultural conventions, even if they do not affect the physical or semantic operations of the specific. Basically, you try to avoid things that would insult most people’s sensibilities. This then feeds into social constraints, which are based on acceptable behaviour frames (like how we act in a restaurant in a way that is deemed socially acceptable).
Logical constraints are based on a logical relationship between the spatial or functional layout of components and the things that they affect or are affected by. Sound confusing? Logical constraints use REASONING to determine alternatives.
and lastly…
Physical constraints simplify our encounters with them everyday things. With doors and switches for example; poor design causes unnecessary problems for their users. Yet the common problems have simple solutions, which properly exploit affordances and natural constraints.
(Norman, 1998)
Let’s think about this all in regards to Instagram, the social media site of interest this semester.
-An affordance might be that filters can be added! (Instagram also favours quality and beauty or this “experience-based aesthetic”, filters can help with this)
-A physical constraint might be that videos can’t exceed 60 seconds – so you can’t upload anything longer.
-A cultural constraint might be that given the ways text has to be formatted, a certain vernacular or way of getting a message across has developed- use of emojis, and “link in bio”.
I hope that all made sense to you – I know it took me a while to wrap my head around it all.
Next week we’re going to discuss social media, so get hyped for that!
-Bethany 😀