↓ Skip to main content

Designing Smart Objects to Support Affording Situations: Exploiting Affordance Through an Understanding of Forms of Engagement

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Designing Smart Objects to Support Affording Situations: Exploiting Affordance Through an Understanding of Forms of Engagement
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00292
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Baber

Abstract

In this paper I consider how the concept of "affordance" has been adapted from the original writings of Gibson and applied to interaction design. I argue that a clear understanding of affordance shifts the goal of interaction design from one of solely focusing on either the physical object or the capabilities of the person, toward an understanding of interactivity. To do this, I develop the concept of Forms of Engagement, originally proposed to account for tool use. Finally, I extend this concept to interacting with modified tangible user interfaces, or "animate objects." These animate objects not only sense how they are being used, but also communicate with each other to develop a shared intent, and provide prompts and cues to encourage specific actions. In this way, the human-object-environment system creates affording situations in pursuit of shared intentions and goals. In order to determine when to provide prompts and cues, the objects need to have a model of how they ought to be used and what intention they are being used to achieve. Consequently, affordances become not only the means by which actions are encouraged but also the manner in which intentions are identified and agreed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 22%
Other 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 6 19%
Psychology 5 16%
Design 4 13%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,332,207
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,709
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,122
of 333,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#423
of 577 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 577 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.