The concept of affordance was first introduced by psychologist James Jerome Gibson in 1977. That same year, Robert Shaw and John Bransford published the book Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, which included Gibson’s chapter titled The Theory of Affordances.

That work introduced the concept of affordance, which Gibson would later develop in his book The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. It can even be said that his earlier research in the psychology of perception allowed him to mature this idea until he articulated his own theory.

What we mean by affordance

An affordance can be understood as the set of actions a person is able to perform with an object in their environment. From another perspective, it refers to the properties of objects that invite interaction or facilitate use. It can also be defined as the set of conditions necessary for a person to interact with an object.

We are therefore talking about perception, properties, context, and environment. Depending on the starting point, the definition of affordance may vary slightly, but it always sits at the intersection between the object, the person, and the use situation.

From Gibson to Norman

In 1988, Donald Norman revisited the concept of affordance and brought it into the field of human-computer interaction. Unlike Gibson’s original framing, Norman emphasized the need for affordances to be perceptible to users. For Norman, design should make visible the possible actions of objects and interfaces.

At the time, I considered “disposition” as a possible translation of the term affordance, and I still stand by it. It is not only the object, the person, or the environment in isolation, but a combination of all these factors, activated by a specific need.

There is a disposition on the part of the observer, the object, and the environment to generate a construction that is not only perceptual, but also cognitive and emotional. This construction makes it possible to enable immediate recognition, meaning, and functionality to what we interact with.

Invisible affordances and unintended uses

This reflection becomes especially meaningful when we think about unintended uses of objects. Uses that were not anticipated by designers, that are not perceived by all users, and that arise in response to a particular need that alters context or environment.

Could these situations be defined as invisible affordances, even if the term sounds contradictory? They could even be understood as new dispositions that emerge from unforeseen projections of affordances that had been imperceptible until that moment.

In the world of physical objects, it is easy to find examples of this type of behavior. However, when we think about digital interfaces, the range seems to narrow considerably. Perhaps because the meanings and the perception of the elements we design are too tightly tied to very specific situations.

Could it be that we are closing ourselves off too much and working with rigid interfaces, difficult to adapt to new perceptions, environments, or contexts of use?

Intuitive behaviors and design

Jane Fulton Suri, at IDEO, addressed this question under the concept of Thoughtless Acts. From her book Thoughtless Acts?: Observations on Intuitive Design, she gathered numerous visual examples that show how people interact with a world that is not always designed for them.

These intuitive behaviors can be grouped into different types:

  • Reacting: we interact automatically with objects and spaces we encounter.
  • Responding: certain qualities or characteristics induce us to behave in a particular way.
  • Co-opting: we take advantage of opportunities present in our immediate environment.
  • Exploiting: we make use of physical or mechanical qualities we understand.
  • Adapting: we alter the purpose or context of things to achieve our goals.
  • Conforming: we learn behavior patterns by observing others within our social or cultural group.
  • Signaling: we transmit messages and signals both to ourselves and to others.

Observing these seemingly trivial acts helps us understand how new affordances emerge and how design can facilitate, or limit, the appearance of unintended uses.