Comment by seanwilson
7 days ago
> I think we need a word for “buttons look like buttons”, as opposed to “the Contacts app looks like a real-world leather-cladded address book” skeuomorphism.
Likely related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance#As_perceived_action..., but it's a jargon word most tech people and others don't know, and it creates debates about what it means among those that do know it.
I usually say something like it should be obvious it's clickable, or obvious what it does, when it comes up.
Affordances is a more general term, not necessarily purely visual, or even visual at all (it can be tactile, or auditory, etc.). It doesn’t denote a particular visual design, and full-blown skeuomorphic elements would also exhibit affordances. But yes, it approaches the heart of the problem.
Signifiers? https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/94265/whats-the-diffe...
> Affordances are what an object can do (truth). Perceived affordances are what one thinks an object can do (perception). Signifiers make affordances clearer (closing the gap between truth and perception). Signifiers often reduce number of possible interpretations and/or make intended way of using an object more explicit.
> A grey link on the screen might afford clicking (truth). But you might perceive it just as a non-interactive label (perception). Styling it as a button (background, shadow etc.) is a signifier that makes it clearer that the link can be clicked.
I don't think there's any more widely known terms here, and not any used within general tech audiences. I'd like it if there was a useful shorthand too but devs/users/clients are probably going to stick with e.g. "I couldn't tell that was a button" because the above have failed to catch on.
"Visual cues" feels accurate enough. I immediately understand "Buttons should look like buttons".
Thanks. Signifiers looks like a perfect fit here since they are elements which signify their affordance. It should ideally get more mainstream instead of someone inventing a new word.
1 reply →