110 likes | 361 Views
Human Factors Psychology. Aside on Affordances. PSY-4340/PSY-5340, Dr. William Langston, MTSU. Example 1. Consider this example: (Downloaded from http://sunburn.stanford.edu/~nick/compdocs/, click on Practical HI Examples.pdf). Example 2. Someone sent me a list of things like this:
E N D
Human Factors Psychology Aside on Affordances PSY-4340/PSY-5340, Dr. William Langston, MTSU
Example 1 • Consider this example: (Downloaded from http://sunburn.stanford.edu/~nick/compdocs/, click on Practical HI Examples.pdf)
Example 2 • Someone sent me a list of things like this: • Tesco’s Tiramisu Dessert: • Do not turn upside down (printed on the bottom of the box). • Unrelated, but my favorite: • Japanese food processor: • Not to be used for the other use.
Example 3 • You’ve seen this one before. • (Downloaded from http://www.baddesigns.com)
Examples 4 & 5 • Two more from the same source. • (Downloaded from http://ww.baddesigns.com)
Affordances • What do all of these have in common? I would argue that they all afford an action that isn’t intended. • Gibson (e.g., 1950) proposed a theory of direct perception. A caricature: • Light is structured into an ambient optic array. Each point in this array carries potential information. • This information takes the form of affordances if a particular organism happens to be there to pick it up. • Information pick-up is direct.
Affordances • Perceiving affordances: • If I’m looking for a place to sit, sit-on-ableness will be perceived by me in objects that have that property. If I need something to throw, that will be afforded. • It’s kind of like an automatic process in that there isn’t conscious mediation. The affordance is just there.
Affordances • Evidence: • Warren (1984) had people look at various configurations of stairs to rate climbability. • There’s an optimal configuration for minimum energy expenditure, people preferred stairs that fit this configuration. • People could accurately perceive climbability (based on a biomechanical model) from looking at the stairs.
Affordances • The implication: • When people are interacting with a machine/device, what it affords will have a big impact on what they do. • Our examples: • A pull handle affords pulling, not pushing. • A label affords reading. (I know it’s a stretch.) • A urinal shaped device affords pee-in-ableness. • A drawer handle affords pulling. • A path affords walking (even if it’s not explicit).
Affordances • Why now? • In the context of controls, I think there are important relations between design and affordances. • Things you push should look like things to push, etc. (watch me work a new shower). • There could be a high level interaction. If my goal is to turn it down, a control that affords pull-down-ableness is more likely to hit me than an arbitrary control. • Remember that affordances are a function of the user’s body. If something is supposed to afford a particular action, it needs to be designed for all possible users. • I’m sure we could do more.
References Warren, W. H., Jr. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 683-703.