Game Boy Classic
The past few weeks I’ve been getting an education in affordances. This is not to be confused with having Norman’s Design of Everyday Things assigned, followed by a brief discussion, conclusion and let’s move on. Rather, we’ve been getting into the nitty-gritty details of why affordances matter, and how they work.
Two weeks ago, we were asked to make an affordance matrix and bring it into class. We took pictures of everyday objects that afford pushing, squeezing and twisting and arranged the pictures into a matrix.
I decided that a good place to start was with the very classic and tactilely pleasing Game Boy. Yes, because I am old school.
It’s hard to find objects whose interactions rely solely on pushing, squeezing or twisting. More often, we interact with objects on a procedural basis. For example, think of a wheelbarrow. We squeeze the handles, then pull up, then continue to squeeze in order to push. We could think about the interactions procedurally, or we could think about the sum combination of interactions in terms of accomplishing the object’s desired function. This is what got me to the triad– the desire to try to introduce a new scale to our perception of affordances.
There are some problems with the triad– the concentric circles imply continuity between interaction styles, and the styles themselves are nominal. In other words, the interactions don’t flow into each other. However, if we think about the overall object in terms of task, the triad works better.
Yesterday I met with two classmates in order to brainstorm an affordance device. That is, we have to plan and build a cube-shaped device that affords pushing, squeezing and pulling and that disregards outcome. Pictures are forthcoming, pending completion of the assignment.
Update: here’s some pictures of our “affordance cube.” We chose to work with soft and tactile materials. Sponges fit the bill. Other materials we used include paint, pink duct tape, a child’s tile, and …glue!
