Modern Affordance?

September 9, 2009

This Lazy teapot was designed by Lotte Alpert and it has a very interesting concept and in away play different idea with Gibson’s affordance. It is natural for us to think that we need  to lift the pot in order to pour the tea, which is what Gibson is talking about in his affordance theory. However, this design made the following motion of using teapot in visually and functionally possible though its design. It’s interesting how small the changes that he made that totally changed the way we interact with our daily object “teapot”. I feel that Lotte Alpert took very different way of our original thoughts on objects and transfer his imagination though his design.



September 9, 2009

I have to be honest that I had a very hard time understanding and visualizing the theory that was behind of Gibson and Normam’s affordance. But I will try my best to tell you what I got out of it.

Gibson’s theory was involving the transition between perceptions of the environment to some sort of action that follows the perception. Meaning when I see a pen, I will think that needs to do something with writing as an action.

The visual or graphic elements can make us understand about how they function, not only as 2D object but thinking the 3d action. Which can be very helpful when object interacts with humans and visualization of an object and more.

Norman’s affordance was little different from Gibsons.
It was thinking or perceiving something that perhaps does not actually or physically exist but still produce clues to tell the user to how to use the objects.

Personally it’s hard for me to understand these concepts without seeing examples of how it uses them in our everyday life. Any thoughts?