- the foundational conflict, is it only an affordance if I notice it? (quoting from 📝 The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games out of all places) (⌣ science war?):
Gibson originally conceived of affordances as independent of a person’s ability to recognize them, that is, there may be a relationship between the property of an object and a person’s latent capability to use that property, but a person may not perceive that relationship. Nonetheless, there would still be an affordance.
- as opposed to Norman (2013):
A chair affords (“is for”) support and, therefore, affords sitting. Most chairs can also be carried by a single person (they afford lifting), but some can only be lifted by a strong person or by a team of people. If young or relatively weak people cannot lift a chair, then for these people, the chair does not have that affordance, it does not afford lifting.
- OG paper is probably: 📝 The theory of affordances:
- > The medium, substances, surfaces, objects, places, and other animals have affordances for a given animal. They offer benefits or injury, life or death. This is why they need to be perceived.