Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:15:18.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Affordances and use plans: An analysis of two alternatives to function-based design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2015

Auke J.K. Pols
Auke J.K. Pols*
Affiliation:
School of Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
*
Reprint requests to: Auke J.K. Pols, School of Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, IPO 1.09, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: A.J.K.Pols@tue.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Function-based design approaches have been criticized for being too narrow to properly guide design. Specifically, they are said to be unable to cope with nonfunctional considerations, such as cost or maintenance issues without invoking other concepts, such as constraints. This paper investigates two alternative conceptualizations of the design process: the practical affordance-based design approach, as elaborated by Maier and Fadel, and the more theoretical use plan approach by Houkes and Vermaas. This paper compares function-, affordance-, and use plan-based design approaches. It highlights strengths and weaknesses of each approach and proposes a definition of the function of an artifact in terms of its affordances.

Keywords

AffordancesFunctionPhilosophy of DesignUse Plans
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 29 , Special Issue 3: Affordances in Design , August 2015 , pp. 239 - 247
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

Akiyama, K. (1991). Function Analysis: Systematic Improvement of Quality and Performance. Cambridge: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G.E.M. (1957/2000). Intention. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, D.C., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationship between function and affordance. Proc. IDETC/CIE 2005: ASME 2005 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. DETC2005-85017, Long Beach, CA, September 24–28.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, B., & Josephson, J.R. (2000). Function in device representation. Engineering with Computers 16(3–4), 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72(20), 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Franssen, M. (2006). The normativity of artefacts. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaver, W.W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proc. CHI'91 (Robertson, S.P., Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S., Eds.), pp. 79–84. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hartson, R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology 22(5), 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houkes, W.N. (2006). Knowledge of artefact functions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houkes, W.N., & Vermaas, P.E. (2004). Actions versus functions: a plea for an alternative metaphysics of artifacts. Monist 87(1), 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houkes, W.N., & Vermaas, P.E. (2010). Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houkes, W.N., Vermaas, P.E., Dorst, K., & De Vries, M.J. (2002). Design and use as plans: an action–theoretical account. Design Studies 23(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroes, P.A., & Meijers, A.W.M. (Eds.) (2006). The dual nature of technical artefacts [special issue]. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2009 a). Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design 20(1), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2009 b). Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign and reverse engineering. Research in Engineering Design 20(4), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijers, A.W.M. (2000). The relational ontology of technical artefacts. In The Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology (Kroes, P.A., & Meijers, A.W.M., Eds.), pp. 81–96. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Millikan, R.G. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. (1991). The teleological notion of “function.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69(4), 454–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1988/2002). The Psychology of Everyday Things/The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Otto, K.N., & Wood, K.L. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pols, A.J.K. (2010). Transferring responsibility through use plans. In Philosophy and Engineering: An Emerging Agenda (Van de Poel, I., & Goldberg, D.E., Eds.), pp. 189–203. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pols, A.J.K. (2012). Characterising affordances: The descriptions-of-affordances model. Design Studies 33(2), 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, B. (1998). Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. Journal of Philosophy 95(5), 215–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheele, M. (2006). Function and use of technical artefacts: social conditions of function ascription. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schyfter, P. (2009). The bootstrapped artifact. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B., & Wood, K.L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4), 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, D.G. (2002). The Mechanical Design Process (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Vaesen, K. (2011). The functional bias of the dual nature of technical artefacts program. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42, 190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaesen, K., & Van Amerongen, M. (2008). Optimality vs. intent: limitations of Dennett's artifact hermeneutics. Philosophical Psychology 21(6), 779–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eck, D. (2011). Supporting design knowledge exchange by converting models of functional decomposition. Journal of Engineering Design 22(11–12), 839–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P.E. (2013). On the formal impossibility of analysing subfunctions as parts of functions in design methodology. Research in Engineering Design 24(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P.E., & Houkes, W.N. (2003). Ascribing functions to technical artefacts: a challenge to etiological accounts of functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54(2), 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P.E., & Houkes, W.N. (2006). Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, W.H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: visual guidance in stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10(5), 683–703.Google ScholarPubMed