The Affordance Debate: Why Designers Should Say 'Enabler' and 'Clue' Instead

For decades, Don Norman's term "affordance" has been gospel in design circles—but its misuse has sparked a quiet crisis of understanding. As Taylor.town argues in a recent analysis, the gap between Norman's original definition and its colloquial interpretation now actively hinders clear communication in product development.

The Roots of Confusion

Norman borrowed "affordance" from ecological psychologist James J. Gibson, defining it as "the relationship between the properties of an object and the capabilities of an agent". Simply put: a chair's "sit-ability" is an affordance, but only if the user physically can sit. Yet as Norman himself lamented in The Design of Everyday Things, designers warped the term to mean visual cues like buttons—prompting him to coin "signifier" for perceptual hints.

This created a persistent divide:
- Purists reserve "affordance" for functional possibilities (e.g., a screen's entire surface affords touch)
- Practitioners use it colloquially for interface elements (e.g., "login affordance" meaning a login button)

A Radical Simplification

The article proposes replacing both terms with intuitive alternatives:

For example:
- A logout button's visibility is a clue
- The underlying system function allowing logout is the enabler

Why It Matters for Tech Teams

This isn't academic nitpicking. Ambiguous terminology causes tangible friction:
1. Misaligned specifications between designers and engineers
2. Inaccessible documentation for new team members
3. Overcomplicated critiques in design reviews

As the author notes: "Definitions only work when everybody shares similar understanding." Terms like "enabler" and "clue" require no lectures on ecological psychology—they convey intent through common language. While adoption seems unlikely, the proposal underscores a critical need: in UX design, clarity must triumph over jargon.

_Source: Taylor.town_