Hacker News Reader

Comment by dr_dshiv | Hacker News Reader

Sorry for this pedantic comment, but he is asking for signifiers not affordances. He wants affordances to be more perceptible. See Design of Everyday Things.

View on HN

I upvoted your comment because the blog author even references that book, and the book goes into great length to make this distinction between the two. So I think it's only fair to point it out.

And yet, all the upvotes showered on nitpicks again prevent HN from using the top comment for substantive discussion on the subject of the article.

That's a very fair comment. I must go back and read the book again some day.

The difference in terminology depends which edition of the book you read. In the second edition he includes a long passage explaining that a lot of readers of the first book misunderstood the word "affordances" and so he was now introducing a new term, "signifier," which means what people thought "affordance" meant.

In short, the app already affords you the ability to scroll to the right to view more options, but there's no signifier telling you this.

Is there a more intuitive word for "affordances" or similar? I find its definition is always debated or confused in the comments so I prefer to avoid it where possible.

Nope, that's the nomenclature and it means something very specific in the cases of architecture and UX. Affordances "afford" cues to the viewer that something has perceived action possibilities. It's the opposite of a hidden passageway door or a flat rectangle that doesn't have any cues to indicate that it's a button.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance

From the link:

> The different interpretations of affordances, although closely related, can be a source of confusion in writing and conversation if the intended meaning is not made explicit and if the word is not used consistently. Even authoritative textbooks can be inconsistent in their use of the term.

I don't see any specific evidence given any that good textbook is "inconsistent," merely vague accusations cast without evidence. A straw man.

Affordances have a specific meaning in design. Affordances themselves are subjective because they depend on prior user training. Signifiers are nonessential, supportive adjuncts to affordances to reduce cognitive load (fewer uncertainties and more clarity).

"PUSH" sign on a door that already had a door crash bar facing the observer. A crash bar already indicates it is both a door and opens outwards. A further signifier for a clear wall and door would be a faux door-jam around the perimeter of the door so that people can tell where the door is more easily. If a door blends-in completely to a wall, then any indication of it is an affordance.. it's additional, supportive cues that would signifiers. Putting bright orange around a "PUSH" sign or some aspect of an opaque doorway would likely make it a signifier.

> 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.

So?

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.

I'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.

I 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.

The affordances of an object are with respect to the observer-- the object affords opportunities to the observer. It's like "resonance", which is not in the object or the perceiver but describes the relationship. Signifiers are on or in the object.

In what settings do you find these words useful though? Where do they save time and increase clarity?

If you present me with a completely blue screen, there are no affordances.

If you present me with a blue rectangle on a black screen, it's still confusing and cognitively-loading what the hell it's for or if it does anything. There are no affordances, only questions.

If you present me with a blue rectangle with an outset, stippled border on a black screen, it's clearly a button. Without that border that meshes with familiar previous training, there's no way to know it was a button. That's an affordance.

If a highlight or animation were added to the blue rectangle that already had an affordance, that would be a signifier.

Affordances are major indicators of action potential while signifiers are minor, helpful reinforcers of affordances.

The messy, subjective discussion is: what happens when all signifiers are thrown away, and then affordances too? Baby/bathwater defenestration.

https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/94265/whats-the-diffe...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com