Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:00:07.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Review of Affordances and Affordance-Based Design to Address Usability

Part of: Design Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Nafiseh Masoudi ,
Georges M. Fadel ,
Christopher C. Pagano  and
Maria Vittoria Elena
Nafiseh Masoudi*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, US;
Georges M. Fadel
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, US;
Christopher C. Pagano
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Clemson University, US
Maria Vittoria Elena
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, US;
*
Contact: Masoudi, Nafiseh, Clemson University, Mechanical Engineering, United States of America, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Maier and Fadel pioneered Affordance-Based Design (ABD) based on Gibson's revolutionary theory of affordances and Norman's deployment of the concept in his book, “The Design of Everyday Things”. Gibson (1979) introduced the affordance concept into the discipline of Ecological Psychology to address the interactions between an object and an agent. The Ecological approach includes the direct perception of affordances for the user along with a consideration of the users’ biomechanics. However, as the concept of affordance was imported and utilized in different disciplines, including engineering design, some important aspects of Ecological theory were omitted.

This paper is an attempt to review the definitions and different utilizations of the affordance concept focusing on the design of usable products to identify the different views and the missing elements. After addressing the divergent viewpoints of affordances, we provide recommendations to improve the usability aspects in ABD by considering direct perception and ergonomics. We claim that a design (based on affordances) that fails to address both criteria may result in a product that is less usable.

Keywords

User centred designHuman behaviour in designAffordance based methodsDesign cognitionAffordances
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1353 - 1362
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Anon (1998), “ISO/IEC. 9241-14 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s - Part 11 Usability guidance”, 1998.Google Scholar
Bennett, J.L. (1984), “Managing to Meet Usability Requirements: Establishing and Meeting Software Development Goals”, Visual Display Terminals, Prentice-Hall, pp. 161–184.Google Scholar
Bingham, G.P. and Pagano, C.C. (1998), “The necessity of a perception–action approach to definite distance perception: Monocular distance perception to guide reaching”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 145–168.Google Scholar
Burlamaqui, L. and Dong, A. (2015), “The use and misuse of the concept of affordance”, Design Computing and Cognition DCC, pp. 295–311.Google Scholar
Cesari, P. (2005), “An invariant guiding stair descent by young and old adults”, Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 441–455.Google Scholar
Dainoff, M.J. and Mark, L.S. (2001), “Affordances”, International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, pp. 1080–1083.Google Scholar
Fajen, B.R. (2007), “Affordance-based control of visually guided action”, Ecological Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 383–410.Google Scholar
van Galen, G.P., Liesker, H. and de Haan, A. (2007), “Effects of a vertical keyboard design on typing performance, user comfort and muscle tension”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 99–107.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1966), The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1979), “The Theory of Affordances”, In The ecological approach to visual perception, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Gould, J.D. and Lewis, C. (1985), “Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 300–311.Google Scholar
Greeno, J.G. (1994), “Gibson's affordances”, Psychological Review, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 336–342.Google Scholar
Hansen, J.P. (1995), “Representation of System Invariants by Optical in variants in Configural Displays for Process Control”. In Local Applications of the Ecological Approach to Human-Machine Systems, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 208–233.Google Scholar
Hartson, H.R. (2003), “Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 315–338.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2006), “Affordance-based design : Status and promise”, System.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2009a), “Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign and reverse engineering”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 225–239.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2003), “Affordance-based methods for design”, in Proceedings of DETC'03 ASME 2003 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference Chicago, Illinois, USA, September 2-6, 2003. Chicago, IL, USA: ASME, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2001), “Affordance: The fundamental concept in engineering design”, in ASME IDETC/CIE 2001. pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2009b), “Affordance-based design: a relational theory for design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
Mantel, B., et al. (2015), “Exploratory movement generates higher-order information that is sufficient for accurate perception of scaled egocentric distance”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D.J. and Mayhew, D. (1999), The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner's Handbook for User Interface Design, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
McGrenere, J. and Ho, W. (2000), “Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept”, in Proceedings of GraphIcs Interface. Montreal, pp. 179–186. Available at: http://teaching.polishedsolid.com/spring2006/iti/read/affordances.pdf.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. (1994), Usability Engineering, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1988), The Psychology of Everyday Things.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (2013), The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and expanded edition, Available at http://elibrary.vahlen.de/index.php?doi=10.15358/9783800648108.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. and Draper, S.W. (1986), User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1999), “Affordance, conventions, and design”, interactions, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar
Pagano, C.C. and Day, B. (In Press), “Ecological Interface Design Inspired by ‘The Meaningful Environment’” In: Wagman, J.B. and Blau, J.J.C. (Eds.), Perception as Information Detection: Reflections on Gibson's Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Psychology Press, New York.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (2013), Engineering design: a systematic approach, Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, L.D. (2011), See what I'm saying: The extraordinary powers of our five senses, WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1996), The sciences of the artificial, MIT press.Google Scholar
Srivastava, J. and Shu, L.H. (2012), “Affordances and environmentally significant behavior”, in Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2012. Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Turvey, M.T. (1992), “Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology”, Ecological Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 173–1871.Google Scholar
Vicente, K.J. and Rasmussen, J. (1990), “The ecology of human-machine systems ii: Mediating “Direct Perception” in complex work domains”, Ecological Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 207–249.Google Scholar
Warren, W.H. (1995), “Constructing an econiche”, in Global perspectives on the ecology of human-machine systems. pp. 210–237.Google Scholar
Warren, W.H. (2005), “Direct perception: The view from here”, Philosophical Topics, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 335–361.Google Scholar
Warren, W.H. (1984), “Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 683–703.Google Scholar
Warren, W.H. (2006), “The dynamics of perception and action”, Psychological Review, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 358–389.Google Scholar