From Gibson to Norman
Gibson (1979) called the action possibilities an environment offers an animal affordances: chairs afford sitting, handles grasping. Norman (1999) argued that on screens perceived affordances matter more than real ones, and Norman (2013) named the cues that communicate them signifiers. On a touchscreen everything is technically tappable, so only signifiers tell users what to press.
Hidden and false affordances
Gaver (1991) distinguished hidden affordances, possible but invisible, from false ones, visible but not real. Swipe-to-delete and long-press menus are hidden; underlined non-link text is false. Hartson (2003) suggests checking cognitive, physical, sensory and functional affordances; the physical kind ties directly to adequate touch target size.
Flat design and mobile buttons
Moran (2017) found in eye-tracking that flat elements without shadows or borders draw less attention and cause hesitation. The fix is clear signifiers rather than ornament: filled or outlined buttons, coloured underlined links and a partly cut-off next card for swipeable areas. Give hints for invisible controls such as gesture navigation, and conventional shapes per Jakob's law speed learning.
FAQ
- How do affordances differ from signifiers?
- An affordance is the possible action; a signifier is the visual cue that shows it is possible.
- Is flat design forbidden?
- No, but keep clear signifiers such as button fills, borders and colour.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-27
References
- Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin. The ecological psychology classic that coined the term affordance.
- Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43. Distinguishes real from perceived affordances for screen design.
- Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 79–84). ACM. Classifies hidden and false affordances.
- Hartson, R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315–338. Splits affordances into cognitive, physical, sensory and functional types.
- Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). Basic Books. Introduces signifiers, explaining what makes a button look pressable.
- Moran, K. (2017, September 3). Flat UI elements attract less attention and cause uncertainty. Nielsen Norman Group. Eye-tracking shows weak flat signifiers cause hesitation.
- Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal principles of design (Rev. ed.). Rockport. A concise affordance entry with examples.