Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 210 posts

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#61

Post by seanwilson »

failwhaleshark wrote: post #59
seanwilson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#62

Post by failwhaleshark »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #15

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.

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...

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#63

Post by RheingoldRiver »

edent wrote: post #30
dr_dshiv wrote: post #15

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.

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.

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#64

Post by eitland »

gambiting wrote: post #46

I actually ran into the same problem with YouTube's interface on iOS, it made me so angry I actually recorded a video to show people how stupid this is: https://youtu.be/wGKIz0bWVVU

You ask how you are supposed to find it.

You are not supposed to find it.

Then in next iteration designers can tell management that only 0.3% of users use settings and then they can get rid of it all together.

Just like Mozilla and the settings to remove the top tab bar after you have enabled Tree Style Tabs or Sideberry.

I'm only partially joking here.

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#65

Post by intrasight »

There's a great deal of fashion over function - especially in consumer.

I used to program nuclear power plants, destroyers, air traffic control, etc. UI design by engineers not artists.

Here's an interesting question. What will people in 50 years think of today's UI fashions?

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#66

Post by failwhaleshark »

seanwilson wrote: post #61
failwhaleshark wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#67

Post by corysama »

I remember back around the time of the iPhone 1 seeing a “this is the future!” commercial featuring a lady using a tablet. She was making lots of vague gestures that didn’t correlate to anything on the screen and the tablet “just knew” to do lots of diverse actions correctly. I thought it was ridiculous.

Well, here we are. What the commercial didn’t cover was that you had to guess and poke semi-randomly to discover all the magic gestures and were never sure if you were missing something important because it’s right there, but invisible.

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#69

Post by failwhaleshark »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #2

UI affordances have been going away for a long time. FlatUI was the first nearly universal obviously-user-hostile movement. It happened out of boredom and the slow intrusion of the contempt-for-the-audience attitude of art and architecture into web design. Unfortunately, unlike art, we can't ignore architecture or UI design.

Revell (Japanese) model kit instructions: We will show you every necessary step clearly and precisely using line drawn actions to provide as much accessibility to all people as possible. Only for very complicated concerns will we use language.

Windows 95 UI: It might be fuggly, but you know where the bodies are buried.

IKEA: We will show you how to assemble this sawdust into a crappy bookcase that doesn't sit square or level using line drawings and language inconsistently.

FlatUI: Physical products should delivered as a white box inside another white box without instructions. Tech support is an unnecessary expense.

Re: Whatever Happened to UI Affordances?

#70

Post by seanwilson »

failwhaleshark wrote: post #66
seanwilson wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

> 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.
Post reply on HN