Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-03T23:12:54.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Digital Artefacts and The Role of Digital Affordance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

S. Colombo ,
F. Montagna ,
G. Cascini  and
V. F. Palazzolo
S. Colombo*
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Torino, Italy
F. Montagna
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Torino, Italy
G. Cascini
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
V. F. Palazzolo
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Torino, Italy
*
samuele.colombo@polito.it

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.

This work investigates how the concept of affordance should be revised following the digital evolution. Starting from a review of the literature about affordance, the most acknowledged constructs are compared with the variegated definitions of digital artefacts. The paper proposes a definition of digital affordance, overcoming the inconsistencies identified in the literature. The study is enriched by a series of interviews to investigate the final users' perception of affordance. Finally, the paper shows the application of the proposed model with a case study related to food delivery services.

Keywords

user-centred designhuman behavioursmart products engineeringaffordancedigital design

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 11 - 20
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), 2022.

References

Bærentsen, K. B., & Trettvik, J. (2002). An activity theory approach to affordance. Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - NordiCHI ’02. 10.1145/572020.572028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. &. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. Proc. ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf, (p. pp. 155–160, Paper No. DETC2005/85017). Long Beach, CA.Google Scholar
Cantamessa, M., Montagna, F., Altavilla, S. and Casagrande-Seretti, A. (2020). “Data-driven design: the new challenges of digitalization on product design and development”. Design Science, Vol. 6, No. e27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C., Seff, A., Kornhauser, A. and Xiao, J., “DeepDriving: Learning Affordance for Direct Perception in Autonomous Driving,” 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015, pp. 2722–2730, https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2015.312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. L. (2016). “Theorizing Affordance: From Request to Refuse”. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. K. (2017). Explicating affordance: A conceptual framework for understanding affordance in 115 communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 35–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, P. & Runde, J. (2010). The Social, the material, and the ontology of non-material technological objects. Corpus ID: 17554448Google Scholar
Folkmann, M. N. (2020). Post-Material Aesthetics: A Conceptualization of Digital Objects. The Design Journal. Vol 23 (2) pp.219–237. 10.1080/14606925.2020.1717034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, K. (2002). Product variety optimization under modular architecture, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 34, Issue 12, pp. 953–965, ISSN 0010-4485, 10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00149-X.Google Scholar
Galvao, A.B., & Sato, K. (2005). “Affordances in Product Architecture: Linking Technical Functions and Users’ Tasks.” Proceedings of the ASME 2005 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Volume 5a: 17th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. Long Beach, California, USA. September 24–28, 2005. pp. 143–153. ASME. 10.1115/DETC2005-84525Google Scholar
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology Affordance. CHI '91: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 79–84, 10.1145/108844.108856Google Scholar
Gaver, W. (1992). The affordance of media spaces for collaboration. In Proc. CSCW 92. ACM Press: NY, 17–24Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Shaw, R. & Bransford, J. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ghajargar, M., De Marco, A., & Montagna, F. (2017). “Wise things”: When smart objects stimulate reflection. In Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction (pp. 233–238). Lisbon Portugal, IADIS press.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. A. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 9: 139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartson (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology. Vol.22 (5), pp- 315–338. 10.1080/01449290310001592587Google Scholar
Herikson, R. and Kurniati, P. S. (2019). Web-Based Ordering Information System on Food Store. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 662 (2019) 022010 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/662/2/022010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, S. W., Hsu, C. F. & Lee, Y. T. (2012). An online affordance evaluation model for product design. Design Studies. Vol. 33 (2), pp. 126–159. 10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.003Google Scholar
Jenkins, H. (2008). Gibson's “Affordances”: Evolution of a Pivotal Concept. Corpus ID: 28452594Google Scholar
Jung, H., Wiltse, H., Wiberg, M., & Stolterman, E. (2017). Metaphors, materialities , andaffordances: Hybrid morphologies in the design of interactive artefacts. Design Studies, 53, 24–46.Google Scholar
Kallinikos, J. A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artefacts. MIS Quarterly (37:2), 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. (2012). Affordance in HCI: toward a mediated action perspective. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’12. Pp. 967–976. 10.1145/2207676.2208541Google Scholar
Kawsar, F., Rukzio, E. and Kortuem, G. (2010). An explorative comparison of magic lens and personal projection for interacting with smart objects. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services. Pp. 157–160. 10.1145/1851600.1851627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the study of socio materiality. Information and Organization, 23(2), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C., Mirosa, M. and Bremer, P. (2020). Review of Online Food Delivery Platforms and their Impacts on Sustainability, Sustainability. Vol. 12 (14), pp. 1–17. 10.3390/su12145528Google Scholar
López, T.S.; Ranasinghe, D.C.; Patkai, B.; McFarlane, D. Taxonomy, Technology and Applications of Smart Objects. Inf. Syst. Front. 2011, 13, 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J, Fadel, G (2009) Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign, and reverse engineering. Res Eng Des 20(4):225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. A. & Draper, S. W. (Editors) (1986) User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Book (2013) The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and ExpandedEditionGoogle Scholar
Norman, D. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions. 6(3), 38–42.Google Scholar
Overbeeke, C.J., Djajadiningrat, J.P., Hummels, C.C.M. and Wensveen, S.A.G. (2002). Beauty in Usability: Forget about Ease of Use! In Green, W.S and Jordan, P.W. (Ed.), Pleasure with products: Beyond usability, pp. 9–18, London: Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
Parchoma, G. (2014). The contested ontology of affordance: Implications for researching technological affordance for collaborative knowledge production. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pols, A. J. K. (2012). Characterising affordances: the descriptions-of-affordances-model. Design Studies, 33(2), 113–125. 10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. E., and Heppelmann, J. E. 2014. “How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition,” Harvard Business Review (92:11), pp. 64–88Google Scholar
Pucillo, F., Cascini, G., Milano, P., Giuseppe, V., & Masa, L. (2014). A framework for user experience, needs and affordances. Design Studies, 35(2), 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, A. & Cena, F. (2015). Affordance for self-tracking wearable devices. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (p. 2). ISWC ’15. 10.1145/2802083.2802090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskos, K., Brueck, J. and Lenhart, L. (2017). An analysis of e-book learning platforms: Affordances, architecture, functionality and analytics, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, Vol. 12, pp. 37–45, 10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.01.003.Google Scholar
Rossit, D. A., Tohmé, F. and Frutos, M. (2018). Industry 4.0: Smart Scheduling, International Journal of Production Research. Vol. 57 (12) p. 3802–3813 10.1080/00207543.2018.1504248Google Scholar
Scarantino, A. (2003). Affordance Explained. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 949–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, H. & Hart-(2014). Binding the material and the discursive with a relational approach of affordance. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (p. pp. 3533–3542). 10.1145/2556288.2557185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trupthi, B., Rakshitha Raj, R., Akshaya, J. B. and Srilaxmi, C. P. (2019). Online Food Ordering System. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering. Vol. 8 (2), pp. 834–836 10.35940/ijrte.B1156.0782S319Google Scholar
Vitali, I., Arquilla, V. & Tolino, U. (2017). A Design perspective for IoT products. A case study of the Design of a Smart Product and a Smart Company following a crowdfunding campaign. The Design Journal, 20, S2592–S2604. 10.1080/14606925.2017.1352770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, C. A., & Hsuan, J. (2009). Service architecture and modularity. Decision Sciences, 40(3), 541–569Google Scholar
Vyas, D. C. (2006). Affordance in interaction. Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics Trust and Control in Complex Socio-Technical, (p. 20–22).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, C. Y., McFarlane, D., Zaharudin, A. A., and Agarwal, V. (2002). “The intelligent product driven supply chain,” IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 6 vol.4-, https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2002.1173319.Google Scholar
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O. and Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems. Research. Information Systems Research, 21(5): 724–735. 10.1287/isre.1100.0322Google Scholar