4 ms·
> I don't see any specific evidence given any that good textbook is "inconsistent," merely vague accusations cast without evidence. A straw man. Evidence from
by seanwilson 5y ago
> I don't see any specific evidence given any that good textbook is "inconsistent," merely vague accusations cast without evidence. A straw man.
Evidence from your link:
Human–Computer Interaction, Preece et al. (1994, p. 6): The authors explicitly define perceived affordances as being a subset of all affordances, but another meaning is used later in the same paragraph by talking about "good affordance."
Universal Principles of Design, Lidwell, Holden & Butler (2003, p. 20): The authors first explain that round wheels are better suited for rolling than square ones and therefore better afford (i.e. allow) rolling, but later state that a door handle "affords" (i.e. suggests) pulling, but not pushing.
- failwhaleshark 5y agoSo? An affordance affords. It's in the word. > pulling, but not pushing. Because of prior ubiquitous, universal training. Something with a place for fingers to grasp must be for pulling because pushing needs no such requirements. If you want to split concept hairs or justify common-sense, you're going to have to delve into linguistics. Have a happy weekend.
- seanwilson 5y agoI'm not debating the definition of the word. I'm saying I avoid using it where I can because I've personally found it hard to get multiple people to agree on the definition - you're proving the point by debating against your own link.
- davidivadavid 5y agoI would second that take. "Affordance" is commonly used to mean at least two different things all the time. I think Don Norman himself recommended against using the word at some point.