# data[].attributes.body
The video reminded me of the my first encounter with using the word, 'affordance'. It is to me, a word we can 'afford' to lose in everyday language but can't 'afford' not to use in academia. Scylla and Charybdis first coined the term to rage against technological determinism, to emphasise the new modes of social relations as actively caused by particular forms of technology. In contrast, a theory of “affordances” (Gibson 1979) views technologies as artifacts that “may be both shaped by and shaping of the practices humans use in interaction with, around and through them”. The video follows Ian Hutchby's defintition as the “functional and relational aspects which frame, while not determining, the possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object” (2001:444). For me, this 'newer' definition is deeply problematic. It shifts the idea of an 'affordance' as a utility or usage that dictates how we might respond or make use of a technological object, while still allowing for unexpected user-invented alternative uses. I think we need to return to the original definition and start thinking of 'affordances' in broader terms beyond a simplistic idea of an object's property.

# data[].attributes.body
When affordances are used to describe ICT, most layman would think about features and functions of the hardware or software/app. Contrary to this, the Affordance theory focuses on the fit of the technology to the activity of the user. As a result of this theory, there have been many studies about how ICT may be appropriated by users or even 'misused'

# data[].attributes.body
I feel there is a difference between affordance and features. The latter is a designed functionality, however affordances is what is used for by a person for a purpose not necessary designed of it

# data[].attributes.body
“Separating affordances from the information available about them allows the distinction among correct rejections and perceived, hidden and false affordances” (Gaver, 1991). The perceptible affordance of a cup is that tea can be poured into it. As the cup has an opening on the top and closed at the bottom, it is perceived by us that the cup can hold tea. The real affordance or actual ability of the cup is also the same, which means that the perceived affordance is consistent with the actual affordance and therefore it can be used for that purpose. However a cup could be used as a pot for a small plant or as a pen holder depending on an individual’s perception. This is the hidden affordance of the cup, not immediately obvious but could be used in that manner by some people. The cup cannot be used to sit on and it is not perceived as such, which will lead to correct rejection of the cup being used in place of a chair. A cup made of wax could be an example of false affordance where user perceives the cup capable of holding hot liquids but in reality, the cup’s physical limitation does not allow it such affordance.

# data[].attributes.body
The success with which technology is used for education depends on the instructor's ability to recognize the requirements in the learning context and then select and make use of technologies in ways that meet those needs. Many of the technologies have not been designed solely for educational purposes so the educator needs to analyse the affordances of technologies to creatively repurpose them for the educational context. As technology is always changing and evolving rapidly, instructors cannot just understand the tools but also be able to understand the capabilities and merit of these tools so that the selection of technology meets the identified learning needs.

# data[].attributes.body
My understanding is that affordance is context-dependent. For example, the affordance of a book is to read. It can also be used as a "fan". However, the affordance of a book being a "fan" is in the context of a hot surrounding. If I am in a cold place, I would not even think about using the book as a fan. Hence, the hidden affordances of an object only become "visible" in their own specific context. At least it appears so to me

# data[].attributes.body
"I wonder if how an affordance is perceived or actual is dependent on how it is described. In the article, an example of how a GUI is claimed by its designers as an affordance for clicking is considered 'perceived', simply because users of the computer can click anywhere else on screen. However, what if the affordance is worded as to 'provide users an opportunity to interact with the system in a particular manner'? That changes the context... is that then an actual affordance? "

# data[].attributes.body
now that Ram brought up the point and Terri explains his understanding... is it just positioning of a cool word by this particular scholar?

# data[].attributes.body
why not just call it features?

# data[].attributes.body
I think the affordances of an object are the things that I can do with the object. - Victor

# data[].attributes.body
It means what I can afford to do with that object. It means what that object allows me to do with it.

# data[].attributes.headline
After watching the video, what do you think are "affordances" in layman's term?

# data[].attributes.subject
After watching the video, what do you think are "affordances" in layman's term?

# data[].attributes.body
watch this 2 mins tutorial first!

# data[].attributes.body
I feel the same

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that it means something else

# data[].attributes.body
I think that affordances means that it depends on our perception

# data[].attributes.body
Big Idea: What is affordances?