Talk:Affordance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Affordance as an uncountable noun

I disagree with the edits made by Roconnell2580 on 23 January 2007 at 04:59 (see changes here). The change note was "Corrected the use of the plural ('affordances') and added an explanation for usage of the term."

Roconnell2580 writes:

While the term "affordance" is a noun, it is not a 'thing'—it is essentially an attribute of a thing. Therefore one would not refer to the 'affordances of a web page' when speaking of navigation or behavioral elements like links and buttons. One refers to the links and buttons as elements which have either poor or excellent affordance.

I don't think this is correct. The uncountable noun "affordance", signifying an attribute, is an additional meaning for the word, derived from Norman's countable use of "an affordance" meaning "a perceived action possibility". Gibson's use as a synonym for "an action possibility" is also countable.

The paragraphs edited/added are now inconsistent with the section about Gibson's original definition. The section about Norman's term is also made incoherent because it seems like a global search-and-replace was used, without fixing the grammar of the sentences.

I'd like to suggest reverting those changes but adding a paragraph mentioning the uncountable use of the noun.

Any objections?

Forlornturtle 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds perfectly reasonable. The article certainly needs work. Also, does anyone else find the last paragraph unclear? --Ronz 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the paragraph that starts with the quote I used above, I see what the author is saying, but it only makes sense within the context of one of the meanings of the word "affordance". Also, I don't think it is very objective; the design advice given could be argued both for and against, depending on your design philosophy. Forlornturtle 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article based on my above suggestions on 3 March 2007 at 19:22. Cheers. Forlornturtle 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much a HCI perspective?

However, the definition from his book has become established enough that both uses have to be accepted as convention.

I do not think this statement is right in all fields. I think in cognitive science, the term affordance is perfectly acceptable, as referring to the term affordance as coined by Gibson. I would suggest changing it into: "... established enough in the field of Human Computer Interaction that both ...". Any better suggestions? Maybe it even better to have a subparagraph dealing with Affordances as something with a slightly different meaning in HCI. I would prefer to have the description here more closer to the original term, and less emphasize on Norman's error. - :murb: 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I've edited the sentence accordingly, and added a clarifying sentence at the end of Gibson's definition. However, I think it's important to keep equal focus on both meanings and to reflect on the discrepancy, in order to clear up any confusion and avoid misunderstandings. Forlornturtle 10:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 158.36.83.173 on April 30, 2007.

The change made to the introductory sentence seems to ignore the dual-meaning of the word affordance, focusing only on Norman's adaptation. The previous, now-restored version uses an intentionally ambiguous definition in the first sentence, leaving the full explanation of both meanings until later. Please read the sections History & Definitions and Consequences of the duality of the term. If anyone can think of ways to make the situation clearer in the introduction, please do try to improve it. Thanks. Forlornturtle 12:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Example on analyzing using affordance"

I'd like to suggest removing this section, because, apart from its essay-like style, I don't think it adds much value to the article. The example under "History and definitions" involving the recliner and the softball, although not as elaborate, serves the same purpose and is, in my opinion, sufficient to illustrate the idea. It also covers both Gibson's and Norman's "affordances", while this section disregards the duality altogether. Any thoughts? Forlornturtle 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Forlornturtle 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is an affordance really an action?

The article starts, "An affordance is an action that an individual can potentially perform in their environment." Is that true, that an affordance is an action? According to Gibson, an affordance is a possibility, and according to Norman, an affordance is a property. (See http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/affordances.html) Both of these are categorically different from the Wikipedia definition. ("Walking" would be an action; "walkability" would be an action possibility) So it seems to me that Gibson and Norman have two different definitions, and the Wikipedia definition doesn't match either of them. Billgordon1099 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Article changed accordingly. --Lockley (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit of 23:42, 23 February 2010, Roberto the Benevolent has changed it back to the old and questionable definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Affordance&action=historysubmit&diff=345982933&oldid=345982406 I've changed it back to the version before this edit. --118.109.96.176 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted "Further reading" section (for now)

The only links that seemed both authoritative and general enough (by Gibson) were broken.

This section should not be a catalogue of affordance-related papers, which are often quite specialised and/or present novel ideas whose merit is yet to be proven. It should point to authoritative sources where you can read more about the general subject. Forlornturtle (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add a section with current formalisms

The first would be Turvey (1992) Affordances and Prospective Control: An Outline of the Ontology. The agreed on portion is that they are relational in the sense that an affordance is what refers to both the animal and it's surrounding environment. Affordance = <<Aniaml, Environment>> in a sort of tuple. Turvey makes a fair start, and Chemero(2000&2003) and Stoffregen(2000) carry the torch. Alenarcic (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]