Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

In the context of HCI, the notion of affordances become subject of yet another debate, primarily
because of the new experiential relations users construct in their engagements with products of
digital media. Hartson (2003) categorizes affordances in interaction design as ‘cognitive, physical,
sensory and functional affordances’, and analyzes the affordances of collaborative media spaces. He
also offers the idea that affordances are present in groups. Hartson’s analysis is particularly
interesting, in that it manages to categorize a number of affordances that were not-yet-present in
collaborative media in the early days of CVEs. In cases of collaborative digital media, affordances
do not only refer to functional tools, but also social environments in which mediated interaction
takes place. Karel Kreijns and Paul Kirschner (2001) describe social affordances as certain
properties of computer-supported learning environments that act as social contextual facilitators
relevant for the learner’s social interaction. In this view, proper design of platforms and their
affordances could enhance collaborative learning through their use.
Affordances are based on learning, as no meaning potential can be actualized without the sociocultural
values linked to it. In his essay on ‘the problem with affordance’, Martin Oliver (2005)
argues that the term ‘affordance’ has lost its connection with the actual object, which is the
moment-to-moment interactions using specific artifacts. Both affordances and constraints are
context-specific potentials, which can only be described as ‘constraints of that object using this
affordance in this specific context/situation’ (Oliver 2005). In this respect, he argues that we
should avoid calling what we study ‘affordances’, but ’claims’. My understanding of affordance
differs from Oliver’s (2005) in one specific aspect; in that, I focus not only learning through
interaction with a specific object, but co-production practices within systems of objects and
networks of individuals in social contexts. On the other hand, from a sign-maker’s point of view,
Oliver’s idea of ‘claims’ makes sense, as designers ‘claim’ to produce certain discourses, and
facilitate certain interactions with their designs.
Design is considered as a mode of communication between (co-) designers and (potential) users (eg
Mansell 1996, Thackara 2005, Julier 2008, Gauntlett 2011).In fact, the collaborative design
processes in SL often take place within the same environments in which users experience the
designs (Weber et al. 2008). This makes it virtually impossible to distinguish between the contexts
and products of design in SL. However, I argue that a content-builder’s experience with SL’s
affordances and constraints may differ from a non-builder’s, mainly in terms of the difference in
goals, resources and practices according to their conditions of engaging. Therefore, an affordance
of SL for one user may be interpreted as a constraint for the purposes of another user, while lack of
one affordance can as well be chance to achieve another goal.
86