Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 13–27 | Cite as

Affordance based design: a relational theory for design

Original Paper

Abstract

After reviewing current approaches to design theory, which are based on the transformative concept of function, we argue that this basis in function limits the scope of design problems and explanatory power of current design theories. As an alternative with greater potential for explanatory power and a framework for solving a wider array of design problems, we propose that a relational theory of design is needed. Such a relational theory should mirror those currently developed in mathematics, physics, computer science, and even philosophy. We develop a relational theory for design based on the concept of affordances from perceptual psychology. Affordances help to explain the entanglement between designers, users, and artifacts—relationships that are not currently handled by function based approaches to design. Affordance based design, as developed in this paper, does not offer a radical new approach to doing design, but rather a shift in design thinking. Our focus in this paper is therefore on the explanatory power and potential innovation fostered by this change in design thinking, as illustrated through several examples, and not on specific methods.

Keywords

Affordances Affordance based design Design theory 

References

  1. Akiyama K (1991) Function analysis: systematic improvement of quality and performance. Productivity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertalanffy Lv (1969) General systems theory: foundations, developments, applications, rev edn. George Braziller, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham GP (2000) Events (like objects) are things, can have affordance properties, and can be perceived. Ecol Psychol 12(1):29–36. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bush DJ (1989) Body icons and product semantics. In: Vihma S (ed) Semantic visions in design: Proceedings from the Symposium on Design Research and Semiotics. 17–18 May, 1989, University of Industrial Arts, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown DC, Blessing L (2005) the relationship between function and affordance. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Longview, CA. Paper no. DETC2005-85017Google Scholar
  6. Chandrasekaran B, Josephson JR (2000) Function in device representation. Eng Comput 16:162–177. doi:10.1007/s003660070003 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennett DC, Haugeland J (1987) Intentionality. In: Gregory RL (ed) The Oxford companion to the mind. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixon JR (1966) Engineering design: inventiveness, analysis, and decision making. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Flach JM, Hancock PA, Caird JK, Vicente K (eds) (1995) The ecology of human–machine systems. Lawrence Earlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  10. Forrester JW (1968) Principles of systems. Pegasus CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaffney ES, Maier JRA, Fadel GM (2007) Roles of function and affordance in the evolution of artifacts. In: Proceedings of ICED’07, Paris, France. 27–30 August, 2007. Paper no. 592Google Scholar
  12. Galvao AB (2007) Design relationships: integrating user information into product development. VDM Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Galvao AB, Sato K (2005) Affordances in product architecture: linking technical functions and user requirements. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Long Beach, CA. Paper no. DETC2005-84525Google Scholar
  14. Galvao AB, Sato K (2006) Incorporating affordances into product architecture: methodology and case study. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Philadelphia, PA. Paper no. DETC2006-99404Google Scholar
  15. Gaver WW (1991) Technology affordances. In: Proceedings of CHI’91. New Orleans, LA, 28 April–2 May, 1991. ACM, New York, pp 79–84Google Scholar
  16. Gell-Mann M (1994) Complex adaptive systems. In: Cowan GA, Pines D, Meltzer D (eds) Complexity: metaphors, models, and reality. Addison-Wesley, New York, pp 17–29Google Scholar
  17. Gibson JJ (1979) The theory of affordances. In: The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Hopewell, pp 127–143Google Scholar
  18. Gibson EJ (2000a) Perceptual learning in development: some basic concepts. Ecol Psychol 12(4):295–302. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1204_04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibson EJ (2000b) Where is the information for affordances? Ecol Psychol 12(1):53–56. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gödel K (1931) Metamathematics. van Nostrand, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Guralnik DB (ed) (1984) Webster’s New World Dictionary. Warner Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartson HR (2003) Cognitive, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behav Inf Technol 22(5):315–338. doi:10.1080/01449290310001592587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hazelrigg GA (1996) Systems engineering: an approach to information-based design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  24. Heft H (1989) Affordances and the body: an intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. J Theor Soc Behav 19:1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00133.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirtz JM, Stone RB, McAdams DA, Szykman S, Wood K (2001) Evolving a functional basis for engineering design. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. Paper no. DETC2001/DTM-21688Google Scholar
  26. Hirtz JM, Stone RB, McAdams DA, Szykman S, Wood K (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Res Eng Des 13:65–82. doi:10.1007/s00163-001-0008-3 Google Scholar
  27. Jensen T (2000) Function integration explained by allocation and activation of wirk elements. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Baltimore, MD. Paper no. DETC2000/DTM-14551Google Scholar
  28. Kim YS, et al (2007) Affordances in interior design: a case study of affordances in interior design of conference room using enhanced function and task interaction. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Las Vegas, NV. Paper no. DETC2007-35864Google Scholar
  29. Koffka K (1935) Principles of Gestalt psychology. Harcourt Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Krampen M (1995) Semiotics in architecture and industrial/product design. In: Margolin V, Buchanan R (eds) The idea of design. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 89–103Google Scholar
  31. Krippendorff K (1989) Product semantics: a triangulation and four design theories. In: Vakeva S (ed) Product Semantics ‘89: Proceedings from the Product Semantics ‘89 Conference. 16–19 May, 1989, University of Industrial Arts, Helsinki, pp a1–a23Google Scholar
  32. Krippendorff K (1995) On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that ‘Design is Making Sense (of Things)’. In: Margolin V, Buchanan R (eds) The idea of design. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 156–184Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn TS (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  34. Lintern G (2000) An affordance-based perspective on human–machine interface design. Ecol Psychol 12(1):65–69. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maier JRA (2005) Foundations of affordance based design. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634Google Scholar
  36. Maier JRA, Fadel GM (2001) Affordance: the fundamental concept in engineering design. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA. Paper no. DETC2001/DTM-21700Google Scholar
  37. Maier JRA, Fadel GM (2002) Comparing function and affordance as bases for design. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Montreal, Canada. Paper no. DETC2002/DTM-34029Google Scholar
  38. Maier JRA, Fadel GM (2003) Affordance-based methods for design. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Chicago, IL. Paper no. DETC2003/DTM-48673Google Scholar
  39. Maier JRA, Fadel GM (2005) A case study contrasting german systematic engineering design with affordance based design. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Long Beach, CA. Paper no. DETC2005-84954Google Scholar
  40. Maier JRA, Fadel GM (2006) Understanding the complexity of design. In: Braha D, Minai A, Bar-Yam Y (eds) Complex engineered systems: science meets technology. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Maier JRA, Fadel GM (2007) Identifying Affordances. Proceedings of ICED’07, Paris, France. August 27–30, 2007. Paper no. 591Google Scholar
  42. Maier JRA, Ezhilan T, Fadel GM (2007) The affordance structure matrix—a concept exploration and attention directing tool for affordance based design. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Las Vegas, NV. Paper no. DETC2007-34526Google Scholar
  43. Maier JRA, Fadel GM, Batisto D (2008) An affordance based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Des Stud (submitted)Google Scholar
  44. Mark LS, Baillet JA, Craver KD, Douglas SD, Fox T (1990) What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance for sitting. Ecol Psychol 2:325–366. doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0204_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGrenere J, Ho W (2000) Affordances: clarifying and evolving a concept. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000. 13–17 May, 2000. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp 179–186Google Scholar
  46. Murphy RR (1999) Case studies of applying Gibson’s ecological approach to Mobile robots. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 29(1):105–111. doi:10.1109/3468.736365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Norman DA (1988) The design of everyday things. Currency Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Norman DA (1999) Affordances, conventions and design. Interaction 6(3):38–43. ACM Press. doi:10.1145/301153.301168 Google Scholar
  49. Otto K, Wood K (2001) Product design: techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  50. Oudejans RRD, Michaels CF, Bakker FC, Dolne M (1996) The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: perception of catchableness of fly balls. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22:879–891. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, vol 3. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Pickering J (2000) On the proper treatment of affordance: formality or mutuality. Ecol Psychol 12(1):71–77. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pittenger JB (1995) Some assembly required: biased speculations on the future of human factors design. In: Solso RL, Massaro DW (eds) The science of the mind: 2001 and beyond. Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Riccio GE, Stoffregen TA (1988) Affordances as constraints on the control of stance. Hum Mov Sci 7:265–300. doi:10.1016/0167-9457(88)90014-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodenacker WG (1970) Methodisches Konstruieren. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  56. Roth K (1986) Modellbildung fur das methodische Konstruieren ohne und mit Rechnerunterstutzung. VDI-Z, Berlin, pp 21–25Google Scholar
  57. Sanders JT (1997) An ontology of affordances. Ecol Psychol 9:97–112. doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0901_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Sheridan JG, Kortuem G (2006) Affordance-based design of physical interfaces for ubiquitous environments. In: Proceedings of Ubiquitous Computing Systems; Third International Symposium, UCS 2006, Seoul, Korea. LNCS 4239, pp 183–199. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  60. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, vol 3. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  61. St. Amant R (1999) User interface affordances in a planning representation. Hum Comput Interact 14(3):317–354. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1403_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stoffregen TA (2000) Affordances and events. Ecol Psychol 12(1):1–28. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1201_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Suh NP (1990) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Suh NP (2001) Axiomatic design: advances and applications. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Turing AM (1959) Can a machine think? Mind 59:236MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  66. Turvey MT (1992) Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecol Psychol 4:173–187. doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0403_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ullman DG (2002) The mechanical design process, vol 3. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Warell AV (1999) Introducing a use perspective in product design theory and methodology. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Las Vegas, NV. Paper no. DETC/DTM-8782Google Scholar
  69. Warren WH (1984) Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10:683–703. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Warren WH (1995) Constructing an Econiche. In: Flach J, Hancock JP, Caird J, Vicente K (eds) Global perspectives on the ecology of human–machine systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  71. Wegner P (1997) Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. Commun ACM 40(5):80–91. doi:10.1145/253769.253801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wegner P (1998) Interactive foundations of computing. Theor Comput Sci 192(2):315–351. doi:10.1016/S0304-3975(97)00154-0 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  73. Vicente K, Rasmussen J (1990) Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 22(4):589–606. doi:10.1109/21.156574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. You H, Chen K (2007) Applications of affordance and semantics in product design. Des Stud 28(1):23–38. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.002 Google Scholar
  75. Zebrowitz LA, Collins MA (1997) Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: the affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1:204–233. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0103_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization (CREDO) Laboratory, Department of Mechanical EngineeringClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations