Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

communicate with societies via designed artifacts (Julier 2008). These social developments have
been amplified in certain ways by the introduction of digital technologies and global information
networks. As consequence, inter-relations between designers, objects and users have been reformed
in design theory to place emphasis is on ‘designer-user cooperation’ rather than ‘designer
as authority’ (Krippendorff, 1990). Drawing on these various definitions and perspectives on
design, the next section will continue with the discussions on the socio-cultural functions of design,
particularly focusing on the notions of affordances and constraints as semiotic resources.
4.2. Socio-cultural and communicative functions of design
Within the social semiotic framework, design refers to (re-)semiotization of socially available
resources as sign systems, translation of discursive intentions into material and form, and making
compositions of semiotic and material resources to facilitate multimodal experiences. As I have
explained in the previous chapter, the multimodal approach to social semiotics has its
epistemological roots in Halliday’s (1978, 2007) critical socio-linguistic theory on systemic
functional analysis of language in use. The multimodal approach aims to expand the linguistic
perspective by analyzing the design and use of multiple communication channels in social
situations, and develops domain-specific frameworks to study the sign-generation practices with
various resources, including written and spoken text, image and sound, film, architecture, and
digital interaction design. Here, I first discuss the notion of affordances, which is a central terms of
both social semiotics and meaning-oriented design theories. Then I discuss the construction of
meaning through design in relation to the complex and ill-defined nature of design problems in
order to discuss the emergent nature of design solutions through constructive dialogue.
Affordances as Meaning and Actions Potentials
In essence, it is not enough that a product works; it must also fit the hand and mind of the
person who uses it (Buchanan 2001a: 16).
Affordances can be described as ‘meaning/action potentials’ that are partially nested in the world,
purposefully organized by the designers, and actualized by the users in particular contexts and
situations. In the case of Second Life, I am particularly interested in how the VW platform affords
its users to collaboratively design and create new content, in forms of virtual objects and spaces, to
facilitate communication and social presence among avatars. The multimodal analysis also focuses
on the affordances and constraints of virtual places as intended by their (co-)designers.
The foundational debate around ‘affordances’ and ‘constraints’ is characterized by two major
theoretical contributions: James Jerome Gibson’s (1986) ecological view places the affordances
into in the world of objects and explain them through our ability to recognize what the world
84