Some of my friends started using climbing hooks as a key rings – back in the ’90s.
The same object is now a key ring only. The usage changes the function of the same object.
Moreover, the object prevents future mis-use: you can read NOT FOR CLIMBING USE on one side of the hook. I’m sure it’s fore safety reason (materials are different, I reckon). Is this a good example of a misleading cultural affordance? And what happens when the object is used for other purposes (e.g. fixing a net to a pole, to create an improvised goal)?
On a similar note: what does the CHINA mark mean, if visually connected to the alert written on the hook?
Posted in form&function, objects, user experience
Tagged affordance, climb, form&function, hook, keyring, misuse, objects, usage, user experience
from mass media to mess media to mash media
because I have a lot of cognitive surplus to share with all of you. Or maybe just with myself
What’s the gin in these days? How can we dissipate our will to actively contribute? LOLCATZ? youtube videos?
In my case it’s been GoogleReader, at least for the last year: I subscribed to tons of blogs, sitting at my desk and just waiting passively new posts to be captured with the powerful RSS tool.
(via Influx Insights)
As you know I am reading Mental Models. I find the book pretty interesting, as it gives a different way we can give shape to user research findings; it’s time to use something more complete and insightful than Personas (I’ll try to explain why in a future post). However I had some trouble with the book when it comes to detail practical aspects of the M.M creation. As it’s common, a book can’t completely spread knowledge on practical and “tacit” skills, even if there are a lot of resources available on the site.
BUT….. Hooray!!! Indi Young will be in Brighton for a full-day workshop. Chances are I’ll be able to attend.