Look at the following door handles. How can we use them to open doors?
From the designs of the door handles, you can guess how a door can be opened by using the handles. The features or functions of the door handles are related to the term affordance.
Affordance is a term coined by J.J. Gibson which refers to:
Now look at the following picture. What are the actual/real and perceived affordances of the tree?
Share your understanding about the real and perceived affordances of the tree by using the discussion forum on this page. Start by creating a new post with the title "Affordances of the tree". You may also give comments in the forum with a title "comments".
The perceived affordances of an object may not always be the same as the designed (real) affordances. For instance, in the following picture, obviously the sickle is not used as originally designed. However, the sickle is still useful in the given context.
![]() (Note: This activity will be done in class)
In this activity, each group chooses a tool from the list of cases, then discuss the tool based on the following questions:
List of Cases:
Attempt to include your online group member(s) in your discussion. Share your group thoughts by adding a comment below.
48 Comments
6/8/2016 11:37:14 am
1. 1. Taking notes;
Reply
Joe & Chun Meng
6/8/2016 11:37:52 am
Q1) It is mainly use as a project management tool to track and manage different tasks of the project. It also present a data hierarchy that facilitate effective project management and facilitate decision making.
Reply
WP / KC
6/8/2016 11:39:34 am
1. Knowledge creation, discussion board, collaborative learning.
Reply
6/8/2016 11:40:18 am
1. What are the actual affordances of this tool?
Reply
Nana, Melanie, Kahmun & Alex
6/8/2016 11:44:56 am
1) What are the actual affordances of the tool?
Reply
Li Huimin
1/31/2018 12:06:44 am
My understanding of actual/real affordance is that actual affordance is objective; an object’s real affordances are determined by its physical properties. On the contrary, perceived affordance is subjective; it is subjected to perceptions of its users. Dr Wang gave plenty of examples regarding the distinction of the two concepts in class. One example is mobile phones. On the surface, mobile phone is a communication device and it affords communication with other. However, it can also be used to play games, to pass time, to signal to others that the user doesn’t want to be bothered.
Reply
Pamela Low
2/6/2018 05:59:19 pm
Hi Huimin,
Reply
Li Huimin
2/15/2018 10:03:05 am
Hi Pamela,
R Vishunu
2/3/2018 11:21:08 am
Affordance is the probable action possibilities in a learning environment which are usually dependent on an individual’s ability to recognize them (Gibson, 1979). Learning environments become platforms for physical liberty which in return tends to afford various learning outcomes. I think as practicing teachers there needs to be some sort of consideration given to the not only the affordance provided by ICT, but also those provide by fellow students and other learning resources. For example, peer support in a classroom might direct students towards the aspects of ICT which may probably then become affordances (Cox, 2004).
Reply
Chu Wen Shen
2/3/2018 02:01:41 pm
The use of metaphors in program, website or app design intrigues me. There are many instances of icons designed to imitate real objects in order to communicate their uses. For example, the icon of an envelope to represent the email function or the icon of a telephone receiver to represent the call function. It is evident that designers are inspired by the physical real-world objects during the design process.
Reply
Carian Tham
2/4/2018 01:00:25 pm
Yes Wenshen, I do agree with you about the possibility of the metaphors being used becoming outdated and irrelevant. Does this mean that the icons need to be constantly updated just to follow the trend and what is socially accepted?
Reply
Manickam Sumathi
2/4/2018 12:00:39 am
We learnt about definitions about affordances. Affordance are what an object can afford, simply, without further thinking, we can immediately know what you can do with the object. This is possible as the object has properties or qualities making it clear how it can be used. Affordances are the interactive relationships as when you do something, the object will respond to your action. We also discussed about the perceived affordance. With the same object, different users can perceive the uses differently. Hence the qualities or properties of an object that are useful to one may not be useful to another one. Actual affordance determines the intended use or the functions. However perceived affordance is more important than the actual affordance because then the possibilities of its uses becomes endless, only restricted by its physical properties and one’s imagination.
Reply
Melissa Sin
2/6/2018 05:55:28 pm
Hi Sumathi, I agree with you that the perceived affordance is more important than the actual affordance of a tool as it is that which people find useful; it is the tool which serve the human afterall, and not the human to be "controlled" by the tool. And as different people could see different perceived affordance of the tool, it is beneficial for us to share and learn from others hence explore various point of view. In this way, we can achieve a wider range of goals while maximising the use of few tools.
Reply
Manickam Sumathi
2/4/2018 12:04:18 am
In class we raised some issues of clarity on the uses of artefacts and how we need to be aware of the affordances of the tools. The actual affordances should be consistent with the perceived affordance. The physical context may restrict the user reducing the quality of the usage. We also learnt that the instructions, signs and symbols used in the artefacts have to be clear enough to be perceived by the user to achieve the intended use. Otherwise the artefact can even be misused by the user who misunderstands the actual function diminishing the purpose of the artefact.
Reply
Aishwaryaa Kumar
2/4/2018 05:08:09 pm
Hi Sumathi! My question is, does the actual affordances really have to be constant with the perceived affordance? I truly feel that if its consistent with each other, that is when the use of the tool is being restricted. I do agree that the perceived affordance will raise any misuse of the tool, but what could actually go detrimentally wrong when the user is simply just expanding the usage of the tool. And maybe by doing so, the designer of the tool is more aware of their own tool and will enhance the features of the tool to make it more user-friendly for other users of the tool. Seems to me like a win-win situation.
Reply
Carian Tham
2/4/2018 01:46:49 pm
From the point of view of an educator who uses ICT quite regularly for ICT based lessons, I see the importance of knowing the definition of affordances and perceived affordances.
Reply
Manickam Sumathi
2/5/2018 09:29:23 pm
Hi Carian! Interesting example of google doc. This is one example of ICT tool that we take it so easily for granted during our lessons and is underutilised. For a good ICT lesson, we need to be able to explore as many affordances as possible. Are we limited by our knowledge? Are we able to perceive even what are the actual affordances? When the actual affordance is consistent with the perceived affordance, it is perceptible affordance. What is perceived is what is acted upon (Gaver,1991). Educators need to explore how this gap can be addressed otherwise it will always remain hidden affordance in crafting ICT lessons.
Reply
Chu Wen Shen
2/10/2018 09:47:21 am
Hi Carian, great analysis of Google Docs as a cognitive tool in teaching and learning!
Reply
Aishwaryaa Kumar
2/4/2018 05:08:38 pm
When it comes to affordances of a tool, it usually seems to bag another question, “what is reality and what is perception?” Hence, from last week’s lecture, I have realised that cognitive tools can be categorised into two types of affordances, affordances as an actual property and affordances as a perception. Affordances as a tool can be used to challenge one’s thinking as to whether the user needs to think about how and when to use the tool or does the tool respond to the user’s action – whether there is a feedback given. Therefore, one user may use a tool as a perceptive tool and another as an actual reality tool whereby certain functions in the cognitive tool may be useful to some and not for the rest; the designed function of a tool may be useless to some and hence they adapt it to their own perception of the tool and make it as a useful perceptive tool.
Reply
Aishwaryaa Kumar
2/4/2018 05:09:59 pm
We are all well aware of the actual affordances and perceived affordances of a cognitive tool. As an educator who taught coding to students, I fully relied on ICT tools and I could list a whole chart of actual affordance and perceived affordance of a tool.
Reply
Melissa Sin
2/4/2018 05:15:07 pm
The lesson on ‘Affordance’ was an insightful one for me as till then, I didn’t really think about the difference between actual and perceived affordance—the former exists independently i.e. the original use(s) of an object while the latter embodies the relationship between the object and its user; perhaps this is due to my limited perspective of an object hence the term “perceived”. Although with the same object there would be different perceived affordance due to different users, but with an ICT tool the actual and perceived affordance often overlap as we tend to download programs and applications based on our needs; in this way, our knowledge of the tool might also be limited to our original intention for the tool and in turn, limit our capabilities with it. As such, it is all the more important for us to share and also actively seek to know how others utilise the tools to their advantage and widen our horizons.
Reply
Patricia Sin
2/5/2018 10:18:34 am
Hi Melissa, I agree that our choice of ICT tools for learning may become quite restricted as we tend to only choose those tools that matches our needs, and only see it as having that one affordance. However we do have to take into account that other users may perceive it another way which may be more effective than ours for us to learn more. For example, using microsoft word's comment tracking function for pupils to do peer editing, instead of just using microsoft word for typing documents. Moreover for just one purpose, there are also many ICT tools available, such as padlet, linoit, stormboard etc, all for brainstorming and posting ideas. So then, what makes one more effective over the other? This is where as an educator, it is necessary for us to take into account the individual needs of our classes and explore as many tools as possible. We should more importantly, think about its affordances, especially in terms of how our pupils may perceive them too, in order to sift out the most direct and effective tool to enhance our pupil's cognitive thinking.
Reply
Melissa Sin
2/4/2018 05:54:47 pm
In this “modern” age, we see an influx of designs that are minimalistic and gives a clean aesthetic—from furniture to clothing to our technological gadgets and their interface. With exceptions of those nostalgic or conservative withstanding, we see an increasing number of programs which aim to be more user-friendly and intuitive by doing away with cluttered toolbars and an excess of add-ons on its interface. Personally, this is good as it presents the use of the program-tool at a more generalizable level and doesn’t tie it to a singular purpose; it leaves room for the user to be flexible and use the tool creatively. On the other hand, this may also “scare” away novice users as he/she might not even have sufficient prior knowledge and experience with ICT to understand various functions at one look of the icons or a short explanation. Someone from the “age” of HTML language and era of blogs might be more familiar with the “embed” function in Youtube than the “share” function (especially if they do not have a social media account)— this doesn’t mean that the person is not IT literate (since he understands coding language). In contrast, the “youngsters” of today would be able to understand easily and use the “share” function yet not necessary the term “embed”. This led me to wonder about the difference(s) the context of an individual makes. As a teacher, it is important for me to understand the background of my learners (like the SES of his/her family) and with that in mind, design my lessons accordingly not only to their intellectual level, but also (and no less important) to their scope of life experiences up till their age. Should an ICT tool be used frequently in later lessons, it is crucial for the teacher to lay the foundation in the introduction of that tool and highlight commonly used functions with some time for practice before starting the task proper. By delving straight into the lesson content from the start, teachers will in fact waste more time unravelling mistakes along the way and still not have the task completed. And like the freedom of individualism people strive to achieve through minimalism, we should also keep in mind the inherent curiosity of our young learners and encourage creativity by not providing too much scaffolding and give them the freedom to explore on their own once the basics have been covered.
Reply
Patricia Sin
2/5/2018 09:59:00 am
It was brought up in class today that affordances can include actual and perceived affordances, and perceived affordances are seen as more worthy than actual affordances. I agree with this statement because it is what gives real significance to the tool/object that is being used. Even when a designer designs something with an intention, it is still based on his own perspectives, on what he has experienced, which may not necessarily align with the majority. Sometimes the initial design may not even make sense to people that it prompts redesigning to improve on it. Take for example, the paper clip. Although the actual affordances of the initial design and intent was to hold papers together, it still did not work as effectively as other people wanted in a rectangle/triangle shape. This perceived affordance of the first paper clip to be not as functional and practical by others, then inspired them to improve on the design by making it rounded with one more loop to become the final product we use widely today. Therefore, I think it is also interesting how the gap between an object’s actual affordance and perceived affordance can encourage cognitive thinking in reinvention when people have to consider how best to use an object/tool.
Reply
Pamela Low
2/6/2018 05:39:46 pm
I refer to Conole and Dyke (2003) paper: What are the Affordances Risk of Information Communications Technologies? There has been a rapid growth in online learning environment and the tools available to “facilitate” information management and assimilation. Some good examples are Blackboard and WebCT where the learning environment is integrated to facilitate communication and content presentation. However, despite a rapid growth in such tools and portals, I agrees with the author that there is a problem here where it is not evident that the right information is disseminated to the right users in a timely and quality assured fashion (Conole, 2002) given that the usage of the tools available rarely get past basic information dissemination and administration (Thomas and Wyatt, 1999). This could be due to the fact that little understanding has been given to the affordances of these technologies and how these properties could be exploited in particular learning and teaching contexts. I feel that there is a need for the designers of the tools to convey the affordances of these ICT tools to educational stakeholders so that they can be better informed about the effects using such tools will bring about and hence devise clearer methodology approaches.
Reply
Lynette
2/1/2019 11:13:37 pm
My takeaway from the session on the affordances of cognitive tools is how the intended purpose of the chosen tool is important in supporting cognition. All ICT tools can either be used both as a cognitive tool and a productive tool (Microsoft words) when used in the appropriate context. For example, in the use of the platform Facebook the actual affordance when it was designed was for social networking, but the hidden affordance is that it can also be used as a collaborative tool for learners to discuss and voice their opinions on a given idea. My rise above from the discourse on the affordances of cognitive tools is the value of a well-designed tool and the affordances beyond what it is originally designed for. In the article by John & Sutherland (2005) the actual affordance should be consistent with the perceived perception which leads to effectivity. Effectivity and cognitive construct is dependent on the learners perception and in designing a lesson with the support of a well-designed ICT tool affords a more accurate perception.
Reply
Nazrah
2/2/2019 04:38:06 pm
I think that in this time and age, it is necessary to adopt an ICT tool to enhance learning. In fact, sometimes teachers do not realise that are already using it on a day to day basis. Teachers often perceive that using ICT tool need to be something fanciful like using a special app using ipad, using a new device, new software and so on. However, even showing a simple power point slides with visuals and links to Youtube videos is already a powerful tool to enhance learning. More importantly, the question is how teachers can shift the attention from just using ict tool to present the information to using ict tools to promote thinking and discussion among students and faciliate demonstration of learning.
Reply
christina peh
2/4/2019 10:09:55 am
Hi Lynette, I struggled with finding the right ICT tools for teaching too. Sadly, there’s no one size fits all tool for teaching. Hence, it brings us back to the question on whether should cognitive tools be generalizable tools or not, I guess it is clearly a no here. I agree with Nazrah that it is necessary to adopt ICT to enhance students’ learning but it is more of how we can make use of its affordances more effectively. Just to share my personal experience, I have once conducted a Science lesson using datalogger but was told by my RO that it is just an ICT tool and the lesson I have conducted is not an ICT lesson. This is
Reply
Lynette
2/7/2019 08:22:46 pm
Thanks Nazrin and Christina and I agree with both of you on the point you made that choosing the right ICT to enhance the learning and there is no ICT tool out there that fits all learning. I read about your choice in using datalogger in your science lessons and am I right to say that such an application would be considered as a cognitive tool in that it provides the students the affordance of deepening thier decision making skills.
Nazrah
2/2/2019 05:25:04 pm
All tools has an actual affordance which is the intended use from the designer's perspective. There can also be a perceived affordance based on the user's perspective on how the tool can be used. An interesting example that I would like to share is on augmented reality (AR). It is an interactive experience between objects in real world which can be 'augmented' or changed to produce something more interesting and is usually a multisensory experience.
Reply
Teng Hang Chuan
2/3/2019 06:23:48 pm
Yes, I agree with Nazrah. In fact, another useful application for AR is in medicine. Where doctors used it for training in an operating theatre, or I think it was also used as a treatment to help patients who have a phobia for cockroach. In fact, there are many more applications where "offline" training or maybe even superimposed "live" AR
Reply
Lynette
2/7/2019 08:55:46 pm
Hi Nazrah, yes I believe that AR has both its actual affordance and perceived affordances and I recall back to our prior first session on cognitive tools and the cognitive load theory where an important affordance of a cognitive tool such as AR would be in presenting information in a way that optimizes intellectual performance by reducing the extraneous load (extra load beyond intrinsic cognitive load). In doing so the learners working memory only has the inherent intrinsic load (the skill) and the germaine cognitive load (process that contributes to the learning) therefore pose less risk of cognitive overload and leading to a greater potential for learning. I hope this makes sense!
Reply
K Pavitra
2/3/2019 11:36:01 am
The main takeaway I have learnt from this topic is the differences between actual and perceived affordances.Gibson(1979) has argued that actual affordances are the actionable properties between the user and object.It is independent of the user’s knowledge.However,Norman(1999) has argued that perceived affordances is dependent on the user’s knowledge and how to use the object.I agree that although the tool used can be the same but the way to use differs from different users and it depends on past experiences of users.For example,actual affordance of Youtube is for watching music videos and movies but teachers can use Youtube song videos and clippings to support teaching and learning in classrooms to arouse interest of learners.The videos can also be used at the end of the lesson as a consolidation.It is important for teachers to choose the correct ICT tools for learning tasks designed.The actual affordances have to be consistent with perceived affordances.We have to make sure that the affordances are not misused and the context do not restrict affordances.One example would be Nearpod application.It is used to help teachers to create interactive lessons within a short period time and as a formative assessment to increase learner’s motivation.However,teachers need to pay for some lessons and internet connection can be slow in classrooms when using the Nearpod application.It can also down the learners’ engagement.Teachers also need to take some time to look through the lesson materials and select according to their class learners.Therefore,it is necessary for users to distinguish between actual and perceived affordances and to select the correct tools for teaching and learning.
Reply
K Pavitra
2/3/2019 12:26:27 pm
In our daily teaching and learning ,we do come across many ICT tools to support learning and to make our lessons engaging.I believe that it is important for us to take note that actual affordances of an object or tool are consistent with the perceived affordances.One example I would like to share is Twitter where the main function is to post,like or retweet.However,Twitter can also be used in classes to post questions or comments regarding the lessons and can be used as exit tickets(formative assessment).The main function is not compromised of posting,liking or retweeting. Teachers can chose to reply the questions at one time or one by one.The actual affordances is consistent with the perceived affordances. Another example I would like to share is Google Earth’s main function is to view and explore directions easily.Google Earth can also be used in class for virtual reality lessons and field trips where students get to explore different countries or places in Singapore without travelling.Main function of the tool is supported by perceived affordances and not compromised.Students will also get to construct knowledge and think critically when using the tools.This topic has also enhanced my thinking of learning different affordances and will allow us to think critically of the tools before using in our classrooms.
Reply
Christina Peh
2/3/2019 05:49:38 pm
This week, we used zoom to do online discussion with one of our groupmates. It is my first time using web conferencing for group discussion. After using this collaborative tool, I ponder about its affordances and how I can use it to support teaching and learning in class. Some affordances that we can make use of is that it can be used to connect to guest speaker during lesson or hold classes even though lecturer is out of town or to support group discussion outside class. On the flip side, the constraint of such web conferencing tool is that the response is delayed at times. It took a while for our groupmate to hear what we were discussing and also was difficult for us to hear her due to noise interference. I can foresee more technical issues if we go online individually. Well, we ended up typing our comments using the chat function. In my opinion, this online collaborative tool is more suitable to be used in tertiary education whereby the students are more experienced and matured to troubleshoot technical issues themselves than primary or secondary students.
Reply
Kasni
2/4/2019 08:34:06 pm
Hi Christina, I do agree with you that the zoom application which we explored this week was awesome. However, there could be some connection problems encountered if the connectivity is slow. This tool may take a while for its users to get use to. Nonetheless, it is a great tool for people to communicate and maybe be involved in a collaborative learning. The affordance of this tool as a cognitive thinking tool was evident when we used it to discussed on the topic of affordance. This further widens the learning space and provides an opportunity for teachers to use it in a more meaningful and effective manner.
Reply
Teng Hang Chuan
2/3/2019 06:05:21 pm
We used zoom in our discussion with another member of the group this friday. It was refreshing and interesting. The sound quality was clear. I thought it would be muffled. The video quality was also good. There was not much of a lag. I remember using video call or skype conference call a couple of years ago for a course and was disappointing. This Zoom is good. I would recommend to my colleagues to use it in the future. It could also be used for multiple users at the same time. I'm impressed by that. I think the affordances for Zoom is great, probably, we need a few more rounds to get used to it. Just like cycling! :)
Reply
Teng Hang Chuan
2/3/2019 06:12:53 pm
I quite like the idea of studying the affordances for cognitive tools, apps or anything to do with IT stuffs. I do agree with many of the course mates on the confusion of whether the affordance is from the perspective of the designer or users. I'm sure there will be discrepancies. And I guess that's the whole idea! The diversity of people who use an apps is huge and definitely many of us don't think like computer programmers or designers. That's also the reason why there's always updates in software and even operating systems! The designers are always keeping a look out on how the users are using their products and better service the crowd. That also means competition. I remember we used to use Word Perfect software for word processing many years ago. I was amazing by its features, until we saw Microsoft word. I'm pretty sure, there would be competition in the future to push for more robustness in software programming and even in cognitive tools.
Reply
Kasni
2/4/2019 08:10:31 pm
The topic on affordance provides a in depth continuation on the purpose of using ICT as a cognitive tool in teaching and learning. The topic on affordance presents an opportunity to uncover two different perspective of the purpose of the ICT tool between the teacher and students. This means that the ICT tool may have been intended to be use by the creator for specific purpose. It may not be intended to be use as a tool for learning. However, It is the way teachers can use it to support teaching and learning that can promote collaborative learning and cognitive development which makes it an effective mindtool. In this way, the opportunity to use it effectively can be further enhanced to promote motivation among users. An example that was shared during the lesson was the use of facebook. Facebook is intentionally use as a social networking tool. However, educators can leverage on this app and use it as a mindtool by using its collaborative feature to get students to comment on certain concepts and topics to be discussed. At the same time, data collected can be reviewed and analysed and presented in a concept map format. This is great for learning
Reply
Kasni
2/4/2019 08:21:46 pm
The use of zoom app to connect with our fellow classmates who were at home made me realize that connectivity made it possible for learning to take place almost everywhere. The role of IT in learning has become part of our daily lives conscious or unconsciously. Thus, the presentation made by our classmates through the zoom app was successful and the intent of the whole idea of the presentation was achieved. Through this activity i feel that we can link this tool to the topic of affordance whereby the use of it as just a communicating tool can be enhanced to include collaborative effort among group members in a discussion that promote cognitive thinking. Any clarification could be addressed through the use of its chat function besides using the audio and visual features. I believe more application which are intentionally meant for social networking can be used as a collaborative tool for teaching and learning in class. This has made cognitive thinking process to be conducted in a more meaningful and innovative way.
Reply
seah lee chean
2/4/2019 10:50:03 pm
I totally agree! The zoom app has shown us how technology has evolved since we were all students. Should we leverage on technology or should we work to embrace them? I think the answer is clear. Technology is constantly evolving and if we continue our traditional way of school, we would definitely create the generation gap and greater divide between our students and us. We should instead leverage on its potential to help our students become better and more critical learners.
Reply
seah lee chean
2/4/2019 10:43:53 pm
What one perceives may be oblivious to another and what one interprets may differ from another. The affordances of the varied forms of ICT tools have offered users a buffet of tools that they can use at their disposal, regardless if it is google site, blog spots, wiki or etc. The tools, in my opinion, are not important. Rather, how the tool is used for teaching and learning and as a cognitive tool, to enhance thinking and learning is far more important. As teachers, we hoped the tool could bring about desirable cognitive engagement and enhancement while users would expect the tools to be both interesting and engaging, tugging their hearts at every twist. How do we leverage on technology to achieve both needs? Or can we review the affordances of technology in a radical manner that meet both the demands of teachers and the users at mid-point?
Reply
K Pavitra
2/5/2019 10:40:21 am
I agree with you Lee Chean that although there are different ICT tools, as teachers,we would need to select the necessary tools to support in our teaching and students' learning.In a Journal paper written by Paul and Ruth(2008) on using interactive whiteboard as a tool for primary students,teachers were able to use interactive whiteboard as a tool to teach subjects and allow for collaborative learning in class.The learners were engaged and able to construct knowledge effectively during the lessons.The interactive whiteboard was utilized fully for group discussions and students participated actively.In Hongkong(Elson & Annie,2013),Youtube videos were used in different education levels and it was a teaching tool to provide information and construct meaning of the content learnt.When teachers learn and use different ICT tools in their teaching,they can develop themselves professionally.At the same time,learners are able to use different ICT tools in class to support in their cognition and provides ample opportunities to work with peers effectively.
Reply
Lynette
2/7/2019 09:20:23 pm
Yes Lee Chean I like where you say its not about the tool but how the tool is used in teaching and learning. From a practical perspective, are we as designers equipped with the competencies to even find let alone use an "appropriate'' ICT tool for T&L? I personally have used the "trial and fail" approach and it can get frustrating without the right technical support and infrastructure.
Reply
Duan Jingjing
2/5/2019 11:14:48 pm
Teachers use technologies as cognitive tool to trigger students think and learn, and Teachers need to think about the real affordances and the potential affordances of the tool. As in the commercial world, very few tools are primarily designed for teaching purposes. When we think about the real affordances and the potential affordances, Teachers can think outside the box and be more Creative with the technologies in hands. Meanwhile, with the potential affordances of the tool to help students to learn, students will also be impressed about the way of teaching, get involved and have more chances to access more rescources to expand their learning, and be moltivated.
Reply
Tammy Ng
2/7/2019 11:41:15 pm
I think that it is interesting how the perceived affordance of a tool can be different from the actual affordance of the tool. A memorable example that I can apply this theory is in this video:
Reply
Jih Heong
2/8/2019 11:25:28 am
Affordance has two properties. Actual properties and perceived affordance. These properties have interactive relationship and it links back to the cognitive tools as a concept. A way of thinking about using ICT and other technology. When we look at any tools, we must try to think of ways that the tools can be used. i.e. the perceived affordance. The affordance of the tools determines how the tools could be used. However, they are ways to make a tool more perceivable. One could use metaphors, i.e. icons, or include textual information to help to user understand the affordance more readily. The affordance of cognitive tools should allow the ease of cognitive construct. i.e. it should be easy to use (social affordance) and not distract the user from its intended purpose.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |