Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:44:27.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three methods for identifying novel affordances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2015

L.H. Shu ,
J. Srivastava ,
A. Chou  and
S. Lai
L.H. Shu*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
J. Srivastava
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
A. Chou
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
S. Lai
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*
Reprint requests to: L.H. Shu, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King's College Road, Toronto, ON M5S 3G8, Canada. E-mail: shu@mie.utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe three approaches to identify novel product affordances: affordance of absence; insights from lead users, specifically do-it-yourselfers (DIYers); and natural-language searches. While these approaches were separately pursued, we show their connection to each other in this paper. We begin by describing the affordance of absence, inspired by insights on affordances arising from a lack of resources. For example, in the absence of specialized tools, more general tools are used to accomplish similar tasks. Such absence clarifies how other tools could be modified to add relevant features and identifies critical features of the absent tool. In addition, the temporary removal of physical features and objects enables user interaction in ways that may not emerge in their presence. Affordance of absence has the potential to more fully specify affordances for a given object and to help overcome functional fixedness. For the second approach, we describe insights from DIYers obtained from the “IKEA hackers” online community. We consider DIYers lead users for seeking out and exploiting product affordances, often transforming product functions dramatically. We also discuss their projects through the lens of affordance of absence. For the third approach, we outline our natural-language approach to affordance extraction, beginning with consumer product reviews provided for Canadian Tire, a major Canadian retailer. We describe efforts toward automatically identifying less common affordances, and the use of cue phrases to highlight insightful DIY transformations from the IKEA hackers community. Finally, we comment on the potential value of this work for product design in general.

Keywords

AbsenceAffordanceLead UsersNatural-Language SearchNovelty
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 29 , Special Issue 3: Affordances in Design , August 2015 , pp. 267 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping Technology/Building Society (Bijker, W.E., & Law, J., Eds.), pp. 205–225. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. (1975). The Oregon Experiment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borghi, A.M., & Riggio, L. (2009). Sentence comprehension and simulation of object temporary, canonical and stable affordances. Brain Research 1253, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burlamaqui, L., & Dong, A. (2014). The use and misuse of the concept of affordance. In Design Computing and Cognition DCC'14 (Gero, J.S., Ed). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2005). Young children's rapid learning about artifacts. Developmental Science 8(6), 472–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chou, A., & Shu, L. (2014). Towards extracting affordances from online consumer product reviews. Proc. ASME IDETC/CIE, Paper No. DETC2014-35288, Buffalo, NY, August 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs 58, 1–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galvao, A., & Sato, K. (2005). Affordances in product architecture: linking technical functions and users' tasks. Proc. ASME IDETC/CIE, Paper No. DETC2005-84525, Long Beach, CA, September 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaver, W.W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, April 27–May 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E.J., Riccio, G., Schmuckler, M.A., Stoffregen, T.A., Rosenberg, D., & Taormina, J. (1987). Detection of the traversability of surfaces by crawling and walking infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 13(4), 533–544.Google ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E.J., & Walker, A.S. (1984). Development of knowledge of visual–tactual affordances of substance. Child Development 55(2), 453–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Glăveanu, V.P. (2012). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances. Journal of Creative Behavior 46(3), 192–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, T., Rehg, J.M., & Bobick, A.F. (2013). Decoupling behavior, perception, and control for autonomous learning of affordances. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, Karlsruhe, Germany, May 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, S., Hsu, C., & Lee, Y. (2011). An online affordance evaluation model for product design. Design Studies 33(2), 126–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, D., Venkatraman, A., Kazemi, M., Bagnell, J.A., & Stentz, A. (2013). Perceiving, learning, and exploiting object affordances for autonomous pile manipulation. Proc. Robotics: Science and Systems Conference, Berlin, Germany, June 24–28.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.S., Hong, Y.K., Kim, S.R., & Noh, J.-H. (2013). User activity analysis for design for affordance, DS 75-5: Proc. 19th ICED, Design for Harmonies, Seoul, South Korea, August 19–22.Google Scholar
Lai, S., & Shu, L.H. (2014). Do-it-yourselfers as lead users for environmentally conscious behavior. Proc. 21st CIRP Conf. Life Cycle Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, June 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Shaping Technology/Building Society (Bijker, W.E., & Law, J., Eds.), pp. 225–259. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lu, J., & Cheng, L. (2013). Perceiving and interacting affordances: a new model of human–affordance interactions. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 47(1), 142–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maier, J., & Fadel, G. (2006). Affordance based design: status and promise. Proc. IDRS, Seoul, South Korea, November 10–11.Google Scholar
Maier, J., & Fadel, G. (2009 a). Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design 20(1), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J., & Fadel, G. (2009 b). Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign and reverse engineering. Research in Engineering Design 20(1), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2007). Identifying affordances. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (ICED07), Paris, August 28–31.Google Scholar
Myhill, C. (2004). Commercial success by looking for desire lines. In Computer Human Interaction, pp. 293–304. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resilient House. (2013). SUSTAINABLE.TO. Accessed at http://www.sustainable.to/index.php/projects/detail/resilient-house on February 3, 2015.Google Scholar
Srivastava, J., & Shu, L.H. (2013 a). Encouraging resource-conscious behavior through product design: the principle of discretization. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 135(6), 061002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, J., & Shu, L.H. (2013 b). Affordances and product design to support environmentally conscious behavior. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 135(8), 101006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, J., & Shu, L.H. (2014). The affordance of absence. Proc. ASME IDETC/CIE., Paper No. DETC2014-35285, Buffalo, NY, August 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Still, J., & Dark, V. (2012). Cognitively describing and designing affordances. Design Studies 34(3), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoytchev, A. (2005). Behavior-grounded representation of tool affordances. Proc. 2005 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, April 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teufel, S., & Moens, M. (1997). Sentence extraction as a classification task. Proc. ACL, 97, pp. 58–65, Madrid, Spain, July 11.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Seering, W.P. (1990). Function sharing in mechanical design. Design Studies 11(4), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeek, P.P. (2006). Materializing morality design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values 31(3), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar