“Norman separates ‘real’
affordances (the physical properties of the world) from ‘perceived’ affordances
(subjective representations in the mind), and is more concerned with the
perceptual properties of affordances rather than the actual properties of real
objects themselves. (…) The strength of Norman’s version of how perception and
affordance work is that it attempts to solve the problem of how to explain the
role of knowledge in understanding the world around us. However, the problem
with Norman’s version of affordance is that it abandons the unique contribution
of Gibson’s ideas in bridging the gap between the object and the subject.”
(p51)
Annotation
Prof.
Don Norman classifies different forms of affordances into those that are
properties of the physical world (real), and those that are in the mind and are
representative and subjective (perceived).
It is the perceived
affordances that Norman is more interested in and in doing so he distances
himself away from Gibson’s original affordance concept. Lately Norman has
refined his ideas on affordances now, unfortunately, referring to them as
signifiers. In doing so he has moved affordances closer to semiotics but also now
muddied the clear separations between the two. Affordances are about
communicating potential action while semiotics defines how the visual communication will communicate the call to
action. An example could be a water tap. An affordance would communicate how to
get water from the tap. Whether the water is hot or cold is communicated
through the semiotic
signs of red or blue. The outcome of the semiotics isn’t the pouring water, but the communication
of the expected temperature. The outcome of the affordance is how the tap is
operated to access the pouring water. Both help in the ultimate outcome of
accessing water but perform different tasks.
No comments:
Post a Comment