Frenchcoder (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary Tags: Visual edit apiedit |
Keirakraus (talk | contribs) m (I replaced this chapter with my redone chapter review at Dr. Walls' request.) Tags: Visual edit apiedit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''{{PAGENAME}}''' establishes that complex behavior arises from the interaction between bodies and the environment. Cognition follows action because the mind is not separate from the body, but evolved to compliment it. |
+ | '''{{PAGENAME}}''' ''' '''establishes that complex behavior arises from the interaction between bodies and the environment. Cognition follows action because the mind is not separate from the body, but evolved to compliment it. The body perceives the environment and reacts to it efficiently, based on the most obvious information.''' ''' |
| − | ==Information of a Different Sort== |
+ | == '''Information of a Different Sort''' == |
| − | Hinton begins by defining cognition as, “The way people understand things … the process by which we acquire knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and our senses” |
+ | Hinton begins by defining cognition as, “The way people understand things … the process by which we acquire knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and our senses”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page </ref>. This quote shows that Hinton does not see the mind as separate from the body because it reacts to the environment in the same way. There is a coupling between the bodies of simple creatures and their environments, creating a system of complex, advanced behavior. The way we act within the natural world in a series of bodily reactions to information is the same way that we use technology. |
| − | The body-environment theory comes from ''ecological psychology ''(or ''Gibsonian psychology)'': a field “which posits that creatures directly perceive and act in the world by their bodies’ ability to ''detect information'' about the structures in the environment” |
+ | The body-environment theory comes from ''ecological psychology ''(or ''Gibsonian psychology)'': a field “which posits that creatures directly perceive and act in the world by their bodies’ ability to ''detect information'' about the structures in the environment”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 36</ref>. This information is called ''physical information'', which is what you get when bodies and environments make a system of action and perception. James Gibson defines information as what is in the environment, not what the observer receives, which is perception. We operate with bodies that did not evolve to operate in a digital environment. |
| ⚫ | |||
| − | James Gibson defines information as what is in the environment, not what the observer receives. He says, “to perceive is to be aware of the surfaces of the environment and of oneself in it” <ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 37</ref>. In short, people perceive the information of the environment around them. Gibson’s view is complimentary to Hinton’s, which also stresses the importance of the environment and the body within it. Humans operate with bodies that did not evolve to operate in a digital environment. |
||
| ⚫ | Hinton summarizes the common understanding of cognition: most people think that the brain does most of the thinking and the body is merely the means that connect the brain to the world. This perspective is known as ''mainstream cognition, disembodied cognition, representationalism, ''and'' cognitivism.'' It models cognition as a series of inputs and outputs, with the brain gathering data through the senses, working with abstract representations, and then translating its instructions to the body. |
||
| − | + | ''Mainstream cognition'' resembles the workings of a computer because cognitive science developed at around the same time as information and computer science. “The computer became not just a metaphor for understanding the brain, but a literal explanation for its function”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 41</ref>. As a result, proponents of mainstream cognition think of the brain as sterile instead of organic and connected. |
|
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Embodied cognition is the idea that our bodies are an important part of cognition. Hinton says, “Cognition is truly environment-first, emerging from an active relationship between environment, body, and brain”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 42</ref>. In this view, the brain is not the separate holder of knowledge; rather, it is a part of a body that functions necessarily within the world. This view is useful in the user-experience and design fields because it suggests that we should design for bodies, not abstract minds. |
||
| + | Embodied Cognition holds that perception precedes conscious reflection on an experience. Appropriate behavior exists in nature without intelligence, like how a Venus flytrap can act without a brain. The coupling of the organism’s body with the environment makes complex behavior possible. Likewise, humans think better when using the environment, like using sticky notes or sketching. This model holds a continuous loop of action and perception, which drives cognition. |
||
| ⚫ | Hinton |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | ''Mainstream cognition'' resembles the workings of a computer because cognitive science developed at around the same time as information and computer science. “The computer became not just a metaphor for understanding the brain, but a literal explanation for its function” <ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 41</ref>. As a result, proponents of mainstream cognition think of the brain as sterile instead of organic and connected. Of the various alternative theories, Hinton studies context in ''embodied cognition theory''. |
||
| ⚫ | In order to understand the environment, we must take action within it. Hinton ties action and perception together, saying, “Context, then, is also a result of action by a perceiving agent, not a separate set of facts somehow insulated from that active perception”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 48</ref>. Context is the information we actively perceive. Gibson describes a ''perceptual system'' where input and output are a continuous loop. Actions fuel perception—we evolved to constantly change our perspective (action) in order to gain more information (perception). This reaction is automatic. Even in simulated environments, humans will adjust their perspective, even though doing so will not yield new information. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Gibson uses ''information pickup'' “to express how perception picks up, or detects, the information in the environment that our bodies use for taking action”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 50</ref>. Using this information, we form assumptions of what our bodies can do within the environment. Just as weather vanes use their structure to adjust to the movement of air, elbow joints evolved for specific environmental actions. This process allows the body to orient itself in the environment based on responses to the environment, not abstract calculation. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Embodied cognition is the idea that |
||
| + | Affordances are basically the information that we perceive in the environment that tells us what actions we can take in that environment. This information is intrinsic and works with our bodies’ abilities. For example, when viewing a tree branch, we detect affording properties relating to how we can interact with it, like if it would fit well in our hand or if we could use it as a cane. Affordances only make sense within the structure of Gibson’s ecological system because it emphasizes the body. |
||
| + | Hinton explains the properties of affordances. 1) They are also value-neutral, because while some opportunities for action can be good or bad, they are all affordances. 2) Perception of affordance (structure) comes before our ideas about it (category). 3) Affordances exist in the environment even if they are not perceived. 4) Affordances are there even if they are not perceived accurately. 5) Affording information is always in context of other information. 6) Affordances are learned. As we grow up, we learn how to manipulate our own bodies and interact with the world. Because these affordances are not natural, we need to be able to design objects and places that humans can learn how to use. |
||
| − | This approach relies on a first-person perspective, not abstract principles from a third-person observer. It holds that perception precedes conscious reflection on an experience. Appropriate behavior exists in nature without intelligence, like how a Venus flytrap can act without a brain. The hairs on the plant “''structurally'' cause the plant to close on the prey” <ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 43</ref>. The coupling of the organism’s body with the environment makes this complex behavior possible. This model holds a continuous loop of action and perception, which drives cognition. Embodied cognition works nicely with user experience design because it helps one understand how users have experiences. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Hinton takes a moment to illustrate how people use the environment for thinking. Physical activity helps people think, like sketching or using sticky notes; “we not only make use of the spatial relationships between notes to discover affinities and create structures, but also engage our bodies in thinking through the problem” <ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 46</ref>. Using one's body and one's environment has a tangible effect on one's ability to think. |
||
| ⚫ | Affordance theory can be applied to help understand all kinds of information. Designers of digital spaces use affordance as a tool to ask how the user interacts with digital environments. The difference between how we perceive physical objects and how we perceive simulated objects can cause confusion on the part of the viewer because we are used to reacting to physical objects, not simulations. We act on the information we get, even if it is a trick or simulation. For a movie, the only affordance is what is produced by the projector—we are allowed the opportunity to view the image, but not to act in the simulated space. |
||
| ⚫ | Gibson defines ''display'' as “a surface that has been shaped or processed so as to exhibit more information for more than just the surface itself”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 58</ref>. Information we get from these artifacts is ''mediated'' or ''indirect'' instead of direct physical information pickup. This mediated information is not intrinsic and is therefore not considered an affordance. Affordances provide information about what objects are, like how a screen is flat or heavy, but they do not give information on what these surfaces display. Signifiers are also not affordances because they rely on words, not physical structure, to convey information . |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | In order to understand the environment, |
||
| ⚫ | Affordances create the physical information that cognition acts on. ''Soft Assembly'' is when cognition uses different mechanisms to figure out the world: “Various factors of body-environment interaction aggregate on the fly, adding up to behaviors”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 60</ref>. We assemble the information we have about the world at the same time as we are gaining more information. Our cognition uses combinations of cognitive loops (“loops of least effort”) using the environment as scaffolding. The mind uses both the body and the world to improve its own abilities. Cognition acts on an assembly principle to work as efficiently as possible. We act on information about the environment, even if it might not be true. This automatic action means that designers need to create environments where the most obvious action is safe. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Gibson describes a ''perceptual system'' where input and output are a continuous loop. Perception includes the whole bodily context, not just the eyes, because those, too, are part of a larger system. In the system of acting in order to perceive, bodies naturally react to shift perspective and gain more information about the environment. In the example of the movie audience leaning, the body’s movement to see more was automatic, even though the environment was simulated. |
||
| ⚫ | ''Satisficing'' describes how we “conserve energy by doing whatever is just enough to meet a threshold of acceptability”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 62</ref>. It impacts design because users will act with as little concentration as possible. Not aiming to understand the environment, users will even improvise and use the environment in different ways than intended. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | An ''Umwelt'' is, “the world perceived and acted upon by a given organism”<ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 65</ref>. Even people with the same senses will live in separate umwelts because everyone has different experiences and interprets information differently. As we create devices that act in response to human variables, those devices also gain umwelts. Hinton mentions that it is important to ask what the device’s umwelts are and how to best translate between human and device umwelts. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Gibson uses ''information pickup'' “to express how perception picks up, or detects, the information in the environment that our bodies use for taking |
||
| ⚫ | Hinton’s overall analysis of the relationship between the mind and body is that they form a single unit of perception and reaction with cognition following later. This idea is extremely important to the field of digital writing because understanding how the user thinks should impact the way we design. Humans evolved to reach understanding by acting within the world in a physical, reactionary way. Designs that operate in a similar way to how we interact with the physical world would be much easier to use. |
||
| ⚫ | An example of this idea in motion can be seen in Clive Thompson’s article, ''[http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/magazine/2010/11/18.12ST.thompson.pdf We’re All Coders Now]''. In it, he describes how something as abstract as coding can become easy to understand and use if the information is presented in a certain way. He describes his success with the Google App Inventor, which uses pieces of code like Lego bricks to enable users to create apps without knowing code. The app inventor is successful because it takes into account that users think using their bodies. We understand how Legos work and we shuffle ideas around in order to get a better sense of them. Design with an embodied perspective in mind has the potential to create products that are easier to use because they work with how humans evolved to operate. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Gibson created the term ''affordance'' to describe “properties of environmental structures that provide opportunities for action to complementary organisms” <ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 52</ref>. Affordances are basically the information that is perceived in the environment that tells what actions can be taken in that environment. This information is intrinsic and works with the bodies’ abilities. For example, when viewing a tree branch, a person is constantly moving and gaining more information, detecting affording properties relating to how they can interact with it, like if it fits well in their hand or if they could use it as a cane. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Gibson created affordance to answer Gestalt psychology’s dualism of meaning and physical properties. He considered affordance, “a radical departure from existing theories of value and meaning” <ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 54</ref>. The idea of affordances is in direct conflict with mainstream cognition’s view of the mind’s place in the world. Affordances only make sense within the structure of Gibson’s ecological system. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Hinton explains the properties of affordances. They are also value-neutral, because while some opportunities for action can be good or bad, they are all affordances. For example, water has the potential to drown a mammal, but it is essential for a fish. Perception of affordance also comes before ideas about it. For example, when using a fork to eat, the body “appropriates the fork based on its structure, not its category” <ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 55</ref>. Categories, like what type of fork it is, emerge later, based on personal experience and social convention. Next, affordances exist in the environment even if they are not perceived. Gibson argued that people perceive not their brain’s ideas and representations of real things, but the things themselves. The workings of the mind only exist because of a physical coupling with the world. For stairs, the ability to use them exists whether or not people know the stairs are there. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Following the previous point, affordances are also there even if they are not perceived accurately. “Perception is of the information created by the affordance, not the affordance itself” <ref>Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 56</ref>. An affordance is a physical property, regardless of perception. Affording information is always in context of other information. They have meaning as a part of a whole system and can augment the possibility for action. Finally, affordances are learned. As someone grows up, they learn how to manipulate their own bodies and interact with the world. Because these affordances are not natural, designers need to be able to develop objects and places that humans can learn how to use. In looking at how people interact with technology, the main question is whether an action is conventional or learnable. |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Affordance theory can be applied to help understand all kinds of information. Designers of digital spaces use affordance as a tool to ask how the user interacts with digital environments |
||
| − | |||
| − | In the example of the movie and viewers leaning to see more, there was not actually an affordance of the depicted doorway, though the bodies in the audience initially acted as if there was an affordance. People act on the information they get, even if it is a trick or simulation. For the movie, the only affordance is what is produced by the projector—viewers are allowed the opportunity to look at the image, but not to act in the simulated space. |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | Gibson defines ''display'' as “a surface that has been shaped or processed so as to exhibit more information for more than just the surface itself” |
||
| − | |||
| − | Don Norman, an author on affordances, was important in introducing affordance theory to the design profession. He says there should be a distinction between types of affordances, like a door handle’s form to indicate which direction it swings, as opposed to a sign that says, “push” or “pull,” which is an example to a ''signifier''. Sabrina Golonka, ecological psychologist, agrees that there should be a distinction between affordances and signifiers. Hinton summarizes by saying, “What matters to the first-person perspective of a user is the blended spectrum of information the user perceives, whether it is direct or indirect” <ref name=":2">Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 60</ref>. In order to understand how the user sees a product, it is important to understand how the user gains information about that product. |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Affordances create the physical information that cognition acts on. ''Soft Assembly'' is when cognition uses different mechanisms to figure out the world: “Various factors of body-environment interaction aggregate on the fly, adding up to behaviors” |
||
| − | |||
| − | Andy Clark says that human cognition uses combinations of cognitive loops (“loops of least effort”) using the environment as scaffolding. The mind uses both the body and the world to improve its own abilities. He adds that cognition acts on an assembly principle to work as efficiently as possible. Humans act on information about the environment, even if it might not be true. This automatic action means that designers need to be careful with the environments they create. |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | ''Satisficing'' describes how |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | A dog perceives its environment and stops to investigate without calculating why. Because it senses things differently than its owner, both dog and man walk in separate worlds. ''Umwelt'' is defined by Jakob Johann von Uexkull as “the world perceived and acted upon by a given organism” <ref name=":3">Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. ''Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture''. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 65</ref>. Uexkull connected biology with ''semiotics'', a system of signs. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Even people with the same senses will live in separate umwelts because “our needs and experiences shape how we interpret the information about the structures around us” <ref name=":3" />. Perceptions shift based on one's needs so they interpret the same information in different ways. As devices are created that act in response to human variables, those devices also gain umwelts. Hinton mentions that it is important to ask what the device’s umwelts are and how to best translate between human and device umwelts. |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Hinton proposes that the mind does not direct complex behavior because complexity arises even in creatures without minds. He posits that this behavior arises because of the physical structures of bodies interacting with physical environments and evolving together over time. He argues that the mind follows action and that only by processing one's actions through cognition can they reach understanding. The mind is not separate from the world, but arisen of it. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Hinton goes on to say that, “Context, then, is also a result of action by a perceiving agent, not a separate set of facts somehow insulated from that active perception <ref name=":1" />. Here, he is proposing that even though the physical world does exist objectively, the word “context” should not refer to that physical world, but rather, to the world that the individual perceives. He does allow that affordances exist objectively—the ability for a body to interact with the environment exists whether or not it is perceived. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Hinton makes a final point that because of the sheer amount of information people live in, their bodies have evolved to operate based on the minimum information needed to act. Humans react based on the most obvious information and then adjust their actions based on the new information they perceive from that action. The way that each body forms its own understanding of the world is akin to individuals living in separate worlds. |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | Hinton’s overall analysis of the relationship between the mind and body is that they form a single unit of perception and reaction with cognition following later. This idea is extremely important to the field of digital writing because understanding how the user thinks should impact the way |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | An example of this idea in motion can be seen in [http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/magazine/2010/11/18.12ST.thompson.pdf |
||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Latest revision as of 01:36, 30 November 2015
Chapter 4: Perception, Cognition, and Affordance establishes that complex behavior arises from the interaction between bodies and the environment. Cognition follows action because the mind is not separate from the body, but evolved to compliment it. The body perceives the environment and reacts to it efficiently, based on the most obvious information.
Information of a Different Sort[]
Hinton begins by defining cognition as, “The way people understand things … the process by which we acquire knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and our senses”[1]. This quote shows that Hinton does not see the mind as separate from the body because it reacts to the environment in the same way. There is a coupling between the bodies of simple creatures and their environments, creating a system of complex, advanced behavior. The way we act within the natural world in a series of bodily reactions to information is the same way that we use technology.
The body-environment theory comes from ecological psychology (or Gibsonian psychology): a field “which posits that creatures directly perceive and act in the world by their bodies’ ability to detect information about the structures in the environment”[2]. This information is called physical information, which is what you get when bodies and environments make a system of action and perception. James Gibson defines information as what is in the environment, not what the observer receives, which is perception. We operate with bodies that did not evolve to operate in a digital environment.
A Mainstream View of Cognition[]
Hinton summarizes the common understanding of cognition: most people think that the brain does most of the thinking and the body is merely the means that connect the brain to the world. This perspective is known as mainstream cognition, disembodied cognition, representationalism, and cognitivism. It models cognition as a series of inputs and outputs, with the brain gathering data through the senses, working with abstract representations, and then translating its instructions to the body.
Mainstream cognition resembles the workings of a computer because cognitive science developed at around the same time as information and computer science. “The computer became not just a metaphor for understanding the brain, but a literal explanation for its function”[3]. As a result, proponents of mainstream cognition think of the brain as sterile instead of organic and connected.
Embodied Cognition: An Alternative View[]
Embodied cognition is the idea that our bodies are an important part of cognition. Hinton says, “Cognition is truly environment-first, emerging from an active relationship between environment, body, and brain”[4]. In this view, the brain is not the separate holder of knowledge; rather, it is a part of a body that functions necessarily within the world. This view is useful in the user-experience and design fields because it suggests that we should design for bodies, not abstract minds.
Embodied Cognition holds that perception precedes conscious reflection on an experience. Appropriate behavior exists in nature without intelligence, like how a Venus flytrap can act without a brain. The coupling of the organism’s body with the environment makes complex behavior possible. Likewise, humans think better when using the environment, like using sticky notes or sketching. This model holds a continuous loop of action and perception, which drives cognition.
Action and the Perceptual System[]
In order to understand the environment, we must take action within it. Hinton ties action and perception together, saying, “Context, then, is also a result of action by a perceiving agent, not a separate set of facts somehow insulated from that active perception”[5]. Context is the information we actively perceive. Gibson describes a perceptual system where input and output are a continuous loop. Actions fuel perception—we evolved to constantly change our perspective (action) in order to gain more information (perception). This reaction is automatic. Even in simulated environments, humans will adjust their perspective, even though doing so will not yield new information.
Information Pickup[]
Gibson uses information pickup “to express how perception picks up, or detects, the information in the environment that our bodies use for taking action”[6]. Using this information, we form assumptions of what our bodies can do within the environment. Just as weather vanes use their structure to adjust to the movement of air, elbow joints evolved for specific environmental actions. This process allows the body to orient itself in the environment based on responses to the environment, not abstract calculation.
Affordance[]
Affordances are basically the information that we perceive in the environment that tells us what actions we can take in that environment. This information is intrinsic and works with our bodies’ abilities. For example, when viewing a tree branch, we detect affording properties relating to how we can interact with it, like if it would fit well in our hand or if we could use it as a cane. Affordances only make sense within the structure of Gibson’s ecological system because it emphasizes the body.
Hinton explains the properties of affordances. 1) They are also value-neutral, because while some opportunities for action can be good or bad, they are all affordances. 2) Perception of affordance (structure) comes before our ideas about it (category). 3) Affordances exist in the environment even if they are not perceived. 4) Affordances are there even if they are not perceived accurately. 5) Affording information is always in context of other information. 6) Affordances are learned. As we grow up, we learn how to manipulate our own bodies and interact with the world. Because these affordances are not natural, we need to be able to design objects and places that humans can learn how to use.
Directly Perceived versus Indirectly Meaningful[]
Affordance theory can be applied to help understand all kinds of information. Designers of digital spaces use affordance as a tool to ask how the user interacts with digital environments. The difference between how we perceive physical objects and how we perceive simulated objects can cause confusion on the part of the viewer because we are used to reacting to physical objects, not simulations. We act on the information we get, even if it is a trick or simulation. For a movie, the only affordance is what is produced by the projector—we are allowed the opportunity to view the image, but not to act in the simulated space.
Gibson defines display as “a surface that has been shaped or processed so as to exhibit more information for more than just the surface itself”[7]. Information we get from these artifacts is mediated or indirect instead of direct physical information pickup. This mediated information is not intrinsic and is therefore not considered an affordance. Affordances provide information about what objects are, like how a screen is flat or heavy, but they do not give information on what these surfaces display. Signifiers are also not affordances because they rely on words, not physical structure, to convey information .
Soft Assembly[]
Affordances create the physical information that cognition acts on. Soft Assembly is when cognition uses different mechanisms to figure out the world: “Various factors of body-environment interaction aggregate on the fly, adding up to behaviors”[8]. We assemble the information we have about the world at the same time as we are gaining more information. Our cognition uses combinations of cognitive loops (“loops of least effort”) using the environment as scaffolding. The mind uses both the body and the world to improve its own abilities. Cognition acts on an assembly principle to work as efficiently as possible. We act on information about the environment, even if it might not be true. This automatic action means that designers need to create environments where the most obvious action is safe.
“Satisficing”[]
Satisficing describes how we “conserve energy by doing whatever is just enough to meet a threshold of acceptability”[9]. It impacts design because users will act with as little concentration as possible. Not aiming to understand the environment, users will even improvise and use the environment in different ways than intended.
Umwelts[]
An Umwelt is, “the world perceived and acted upon by a given organism”[10]. Even people with the same senses will live in separate umwelts because everyone has different experiences and interprets information differently. As we create devices that act in response to human variables, those devices also gain umwelts. Hinton mentions that it is important to ask what the device’s umwelts are and how to best translate between human and device umwelts.
Analysis[]
Hinton’s overall analysis of the relationship between the mind and body is that they form a single unit of perception and reaction with cognition following later. This idea is extremely important to the field of digital writing because understanding how the user thinks should impact the way we design. Humans evolved to reach understanding by acting within the world in a physical, reactionary way. Designs that operate in a similar way to how we interact with the physical world would be much easier to use.
An example of this idea in motion can be seen in Clive Thompson’s article, We’re All Coders Now. In it, he describes how something as abstract as coding can become easy to understand and use if the information is presented in a certain way. He describes his success with the Google App Inventor, which uses pieces of code like Lego bricks to enable users to create apps without knowing code. The app inventor is successful because it takes into account that users think using their bodies. We understand how Legos work and we shuffle ideas around in order to get a better sense of them. Design with an embodied perspective in mind has the potential to create products that are easier to use because they work with how humans evolved to operate.
References[]
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 36
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 41
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 42
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 48
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 50
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 58
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 60
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 62
- ↑ Hinton, Andrew, and Peter Morville. Understanding Context: Environment, Language, and Information Architecture. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 2014. Print. Page 65