Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:11:43.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the computability of affordances as relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2015

Jonathan R.A. Maier*
Affiliation:
General Engineering Program, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
*
Reprint requests to: Jonathan R.A. Maier, General Engineering Program, 106A Holtzendorff Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA. E-mail: jmaier@clemson.edu

Abstract

One of the principal advantages of affordance-based design is that Gibson's theory of affordances is a relational theory, akin to other relational approaches such as relational biology and relational computer science. The relationships between artifacts and their designers and users are of such primary importance that only a theory that is able to deal with those relationships directly appears to be sufficient for describing the wide breadth of problems in engineering design. However, there is no precise definition for what qualifies as a relational theory. In mathematics, we do find something approaching a theory of relations, dating back at least to Charles Peirce's Logic of Relatives around 1870. While rather general, Peirce's ideas on the subject laid the foundation for advances in the 20th century, including the relational model of databases. This paper is a first attempt at applying the mathematics of relations to affordances, with the aim of more precisely characterizing affordances, which heretofore have been difficult to define and, lacking appropriate mathematics, nearly impossible to subject to computation. Meanwhile, the implicit computability of affordances as relations is demonstrated by examples drawn from engineering, physics, computer science, biology, and architecture.

Type
Special Issue Articles
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

Brooks, R.A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence 47(1–3), 139159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D., & Blessing, L. (2005). The relationships between function and affordance. Proc. ASME 2005 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. & Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. DETC2005-85017, Long Beach, CA, September 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemero, A., & Turvey, M.T. (2007). Gibsonian affordances for roboticists. Adaptive Behavior 15(4), 473480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaver, W.W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proc. CHI'91. New Orleans, LA: ACM.Google Scholar
Gibson, E.J. (2000). Perceptual learning in development: some basic concepts. Ecological Psychology 12(4), 295302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The theory of affordances. In The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hopewell, NJ: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hedman, S. (2004). A First Course in Logic: An Introduction to Model Theory, Proof Theory, Computability, and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K.S. (2003). What is an affordance? Ecological Psychology 15(2), 107114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. (2006). How structure influences behavior. General Systems Bulletin 35. International Society for the Systems Sciences.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., Anandan, S., Bapat, V., Summers, J.D., & Bettig, B. (2007). A computational framework for semantically rich design problems based on the theory of affordances and exemplar technology. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'07. Paris: Design Society.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., Ezhilan, T., & Fadel, G.M. (2007). The affordance structure matrix—a concept exploration and attention directing tool for affordance based design. Proc. ASME 2007 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. & Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., Paper No. DETC2007-34526, Las Vegas, NV, September 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2007) Identifying affordances. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'07. Paris: Design Society.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2009 a). Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design 20(1), 1327.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), 225239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, J.R.A., Mocko, G., & Fadel, G.M. (2009). Hierarchical affordance modeling. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED'09. Stanford, CA: Design Society.Google Scholar
McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: clarifying and evolving a concept. Proc. Graphics Interface 2000, Montreal, May 13–17.Google Scholar
Murphy, R.R. (1999). Case studies of applying Gibson's ecological approach to mobile robots. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans 29(1), 105111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C.S. (1873). Description of a notation for the logic of relatives, resulting from an amplification of the conceptions of Boole's calculus of logic. Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, New Series 9(2), 317378.Google Scholar
Rome, E., Hertzberg, J., & Dorffner, G. (Eds.) (2006). Towards Affordance-Based Robot Control. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Stoffregen, T.A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal–environment system. Ecological Psychology 15(2), 115134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turvey, M.T. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology 4(3), 173187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, W.H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10(5), 683703.Google ScholarPubMed