How Artifacts Afford

文物如何承受

Design Thinking, Design Theory

设计思维、设计理论

Ken Friedman and Erik Stolterman, editors

Ken Friedman 和 Erik Stolterman 编辑

Design Things, A. Telier (Thomas Binder, Pelle Ehn, Giorgio De Michelis, Giulio Jacucci, Per Linde, and Ina Wagner), 2011

设计事物》，A. Telier（Thomas Binder、Pelle Ehn、Giorgio De Michelis、Giulio Jacucci、Per Linde 和 Ina Wagner），2011 年

China’s Design Revolution, Lorraine Justice, 2012

中国的设计革命》，罗琳-贾斯特，2012 年

Adversarial Design, Carl DiSalvo, 2012

对抗性设计》，卡尔-迪萨尔沃，2012 年

The Aesthetics of Imagination in Design, Mads Nygaard Folkmann, 2013

设计中的想象美学》，马德斯-尼加德-福克曼，2013 年

Linkography: Unfolding the Design Process, Gabriela Goldschmidt, 2014

Linkography：展开设计过程》，加芙列拉-戈尔德施密特，2014 年

Situated Design Methods, edited by Jesper Simonsen, Connie Svabo, Sara Malou Strandvad, Kristine Samson, Morten Hertzum, and Ole Erik Hansen, 2014

情景设计方法》，由 Jesper Simonsen、Connie Svabo、Sara Malou Strandvad、Kristine Samson、Morten Hertzum 和 Ole Erik Hansen 编辑，2014 年

Taking [A]part: The Politics and Aesthetics of Participation in Experience-Centered Design, John McCarthy and Peter Wright, 2015

Taking [A]part：以体验为中心的设计中的参与政治与美学》，约翰-麦卡锡和彼得-赖特，2015年

Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation, Ezio Manzini, 2015

设计，当人人都在设计：社会创新设计导论》，Ezio Manzini，2015 年

Frame Innovation: Creating New Thinking by Design, Kees Dorst, 2015

框架创新：通过设计创造新思维》，Kees Dorst，2015 年

Designing Publics, Christopher A. Le Dantec, 2016

设计公众》，克里斯托弗-A-勒丹特克，2016年

Overcrowded: Designing Meaningful Products in a World Awash with Ideas, Roberto Verganti, 2016

拥挤不堪：在充满创意的世界中设计有意义的产品》，罗伯托-韦尔甘蒂，2016年

FireSigns: A Semiotic Theory for Graphic Design, Steven Skaggs, 2017

FireSigns：平面设计的符号学理论》，史蒂文-斯卡格斯，2017 年

Making Design Theory, Johan Redström, 2017

制作设计理论》，约翰-雷德斯特伦，2017 年

Critical Fabulations: Reworking the Methods and Margins of Design, Daniela Rosner, 2018

批判性制作：重塑设计的方法和边缘》，丹妮拉-罗斯纳，2018 年

Designing with the Body: Somaesthetic Interaction Design, Kristina Höök, 2018

用身体设计：体感交互设计》，克里斯蒂娜-霍克，2018年

Discursive Design: Critical, Speculative, and Alternative Things, Bruce M. Tharp and Stephanie M. Tharp, 2018

话语设计：批判、投机和另类事物》，布鲁斯-M-塔普和斯蒂芬妮-M-塔普，2018年

Pretense Design: Surface over Substance, Per Mollerup, 2019

伪装设计：表面大于实质，佩尔-莫勒鲁普，2019 年

Being and the Screen: How the Digital Changes Perception, Stéphane Vial, 2019

存在与屏幕数字如何改变感知》，斯特凡-维亚尔，2019年

How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things, Jenny L. Davis, 2020

器物如何承载：日常物品的权力与政治》，珍妮-戴维斯（Jenny L. Davis），2020 年日常事物的权力与政治》，珍妮-L-戴维斯，2020 年

How Artifacts Afford

文物如何承受

The Power and Politics of Everyday Things

日常事物的力量与政治

Jenny L. Davis

珍妮-戴维斯

The MIT Press

麻省理工学院出版社

Cambridge, Massachusetts

马萨诸塞州剑桥市

London, England

英国伦敦

© 2020 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

© 2020 麻省理工学院

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher.

保留所有权利。未经出版商书面许可，不得以任何电子或机械方式（包括影印、录制或信息存储和检索）复制本书的任何部分。

This book was set in ITC Stone Serif Std and ITC Stone Sans Std by New Best-set Typesetters Ltd.

本书由 New Best-set Typesetters Ltd. 采用 ITC Stone Serif Std 和 ITC Stone Sans Std 进行排版。

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

美国国会图书馆编目-出版数据

Names: Davis, Jenny L., author.

姓名戴维斯，珍妮-L.，作者。

Title: How artifacts afford : the power and politics of everyday things / Jenny L. Davis.

标题: How artifacts afford : the power and politics of everyday things / Jenny L. Davis.

Description: Cambridge, Massachusetts : The MIT Press, 2020. | Series: Design thinking, design theory | Includes bibliographical references and index.

说明：马萨诸塞州剑桥 ：麻省理工学院出版社，2020 年。| 丛书：包括参考书目和索引。

Identifiers: LCCN 2019046429 | ISBN 9780262044110 (hardcover)

标识符：LCCN 2019046429 | ISBN 9780262044110 (精装)

Subjects: LCSH: Manufactures--Psychological aspects. | Product design--Social aspects.

主题：LCSH: 制造业--心理学方面。| 产品设计--社会方面。

Classification: LCC TS171.4 .D395 2020 | DDC 658.5/752--dc23

分类：LCC TS171.4 .D395 2020 | DDC 658.5/752--dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019046429

LC 记录见 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019046429

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

d_r0

This book is dedicated to my family: G, Hol, Rup, Mo, Nana, Carol, James, and The Boys.

这本书献给我的家人：G、Hol、Rup、Mo、Nana、Carol、James 和孩子们。

Contents

内容

Series Foreword

丛书前言

Acknowledgments

致谢

1 Introduction

1 引言

A Trolley Problem of a Particular Sort

一个特殊的手推车问题

Affordances

能力

Operationalizing Affordances: The Mechanisms and Conditions Framework

操作化能力：机制和条件框架

How Affordances Matter

能力如何重要

Situating the Text

定位文本

Outline of the Book

本书概要

2 A Brief History of Affordances

2 能力简史

Origins in Ecological Psychology

起源于生态心理学

Affordances Spread

亲和力传播

Objects, Subjects, and Contexts

对象、主体和语境

Sustained Critiques

持续批评

Pathways Forward

前进之路

3 Politics and Power

3 政治与权力

The Medium Is the Message: McLuhan on Technologies as Objects of Study

媒介即信息：麦克卢汉论作为研究对象的技术

Actor-Network Theory: Overcoming Technological Determinism

行为网络理论：克服技术决定论

The Politics of Artifacts

文物政治

Technology as Materialized Action: Technological Efficacy and Human Agency

作为物质化行动的技术：技术效能与人的能动性

Chapter Summary

章节摘要

4 Mechanisms of Affordance

4 能力机制

Requests and Demands

请求和要求

Encourage, Discourage, and Refuse

鼓励、劝阻和拒绝

Allow

允许

Chapter Summary

章节摘要

5 Conditions of Affordance

5 负担得起的条件

Perception

感知

Dexterity

灵活性

Cultural and Institutional Legitimacy

文化与制度的合法性

Chapter Summary

章节摘要

6 Affordances in Practice

6 实践中的亲和力

Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis

批判性技术文化话语分析

The Walkthrough Method and App Feature Analysis

演练法和应用程序功能分析

Values Reflection

价值观反思

Adversarial Design

对抗性设计

Chapter Summary

章节摘要

7 Conclusion

7 结论

Big Question 1: How Do We Identify and Equalize Digital Inequalities?

大问题 1：我们如何识别和消除数字不平等？

Big Question 2: How Do Social Media Affect Sociality and Psychological Well-being?

大问题 2：社交媒体如何影响社交性和心理健康？

Big Question 3: How Do Information Economies Affect Political Life?

大问题 3：信息经济如何影响政治生活？

Big Question 4: How Will Driverless Cars Affect Urban Infrastructures?

大问题 4：无人驾驶汽车将如何影响城市基础设施？

Big Question 5: How Do Medical Technologies Afford Embodied Relations to Health?

大问题 5：医疗技术如何承载与健康的具身关系？

Moving Forward

向前迈进

Notes

说明

Bibliography

参考书目

Index

索引

Series Foreword

丛书前言

As professions go, design is relatively young. The practice of design predates professions. In fact, the practice of design—making things to serve a useful goal, making tools—predates the human race. Making tools is one of the attributes that made us human in the first place.

就职业而言，设计相对年轻。设计的实践早于专业。事实上，设计的实践--制造东西以实现有用的目标，制造工具--早于人类。制造工具是人类最初的属性之一。

Design, in the most generic sense of the word, began over 2.5 million years ago when Homo habilis manufactured the first tools. Human beings were designing well before we began to walk upright. Four hundred thousand years ago, we began to manufacture spears. By forty thousand years ago, we had moved up to specialized tools.

最一般意义上的 "设计 "始于 250 多万年前，当时的智人制造出了第一批工具。人类在开始直立行走之前就已经开始设计了。40 万年前，我们开始制造长矛。四万年前，我们开始制造专门的工具。

Urban design and architecture came along ten thousand years ago in Mesopotamia. Interior architecture and furniture design probably emerged with them. It was another five thousand years before graphic design and typography got their start in Sumeria with the development of cuneiform. After that, things picked up speed.

城市设计和建筑出现在一万年前的美索不达米亚。室内建筑和家具设计可能也随之出现。又过了五千年，随着楔形文字的发展，平面设计和字体设计才在苏美尔开始出现。在那之后，一切都加速发展。

All goods and services are designed. The urge to design—to consider a situation, imagine a better situation, and act to create that improved situation—goes back to our prehuman ancestors. Making tools helped us to become what we are: design helped to make us human.

所有商品和服务都是设计出来的。我们的祖先早在人类诞生之前就有了设计的冲动--考虑一种情况，想象一种更好的情况，并采取行动创造这种更好的情况。制造工具帮助我们成为人类：设计帮助我们成为人类。

Today, the word design means many things. The common factor linking them is service, and designers are engaged in a service profession in which the results of their work meet human needs.

今天，设计一词有多种含义。将它们联系在一起的共同因素是服务，设计师从事的是服务行业，他们的工作成果要满足人类的需求。

Design is first of all a process. The word design entered the English language in the 1500s as a verb, with the first written citation of the verb dated to the year 1548. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the verb design as “to conceive and plan out in the mind; to have as a specific purpose; to devise for a specific function or end.” Related to these is the act of drawing, with an emphasis on the nature of the drawing as a plan or map, as well as “to draw plans for; to create, fashion, execute or construct according to plan.”

设计首先是一个过程。1500 年代，"设计"（design）一词作为动词出现在英语中，第一次书面引用该动词是在 1548 年。梅里亚姆-韦伯斯特大学词典》（Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary）将动词 "设计 "定义为 "在头脑中构思和计划；具有特定目的；为特定功能或目的而设计。"与此相关的是绘图行为，重点是绘图作为计划或地图的性质，以及 "为之绘制计划；按照计划创造、设计、执行或建造"。

Half a century later, the word began to be used as a noun, with the first cited use of the noun design occurring in 1588. Merriam-Webster’s defines the noun as “a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group; deliberate, purposive planning; a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down.” Here, too, purpose and planning toward desired outcomes are central. Among these are “a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be executed; an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing or unfolding; a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something; the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art.” Today, we design large, complex process, systems, and services, and we design organizations and structures to produce them. Design has changed considerably since our remote ancestors made the first stone tools.

半个世纪后，这个词开始作为名词使用，第一次引用设计这个名词出现在 1588 年。梅里亚姆-韦伯斯特词典》（Merriam-Webster's）对该名词的定义是："个人或团体所持有的特定目的；深思熟虑的、有目的的规划；一个心理项目或计划，其中规定了达到目的的手段。在这里，目的和规划也是实现预期成果的核心。其中包括 "初步草图或大纲，显示要执行的事物的主要特征；支配运作、发展或展开的基本计划；执行或完成某事的计划或规程；产品或艺术品中元素或细节的安排"。今天，我们设计大型、复杂的流程、系统和服务，我们设计组织和结构来生产它们。自从我们远古的祖先制造出第一件石器以来，设计已经发生了巨大的变化。

At a highly abstract level, Herbert Simon’s definition covers nearly all imaginable instances of design. To design, Simon writes, is to “[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones” (Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed., MIT Press, 1982, p. 129). Design, properly defined, is the entire process across the full range of domains required for any given outcome.

在高度抽象的层面上，赫伯特-西蒙的定义几乎涵盖了所有可以想象到的设计实例。西蒙写道，"设计 "就是"[设计]行动方案，旨在将现有的情况改变为人们更喜欢的情况"（西蒙：《人工科学》，第 2 版，麻省理工学院出版社，1982 年，第 129 页）。正确定义的设计是指任何特定结果所需的全部领域的整个过程。

But the design process is always more than a general, abstract way of working. Design takes concrete form in the work of the service professions that meet human needs, a broad range of making and planning disciplines. These include industrial design, graphic design, textile design, furniture design, information design, process design, product design, interaction design, transportation design, educational design, systems design, urban design, design leadership, and design management, as well as architecture, engineering, information technology, and computer science.

但是，设计过程始终不只是一种笼统、抽象的工作方式。设计具体体现在满足人类需求的服务行业的工作中，体现在广泛的制造和规划学科中。这些学科包括工业设计、平面设计、纺织品设计、家具设计、信息设计、流程设计、产品设计、交互设计、交通设计、教育设计、系统设计、城市设计、设计领导力和设计管理，以及建筑学、工程学、信息技术和计算机科学。

These fields focus on different subjects and objects. They have distinct traditions, methods, and vocabularies, used and put into practice by distinct and often dissimilar professional groups. Although the traditions dividing these groups are distinct, common boundaries sometimes form a border. Where this happens, they serve as meeting points where common concerns build bridges. Today, ten challenges uniting the design professions form such a set of common concerns.

这些领域关注不同的主题和对象。它们有不同的传统、方法和词汇，由不同的专业团体使用并付诸实践，这些团体往往各不相同。尽管划分这些群体的传统各不相同，但共同的界限有时会形成边界。在这种情况下，它们就会成为交汇点，在共同关注的问题上架起桥梁。今天，将设计专业联合起来的十大挑战就构成了这样一组共同关注的问题。

Three performance challenges, four substantive challenges, and three contextual challenges bind the design disciplines and professions together as a common field. The performance challenges arise because all design professions

三项绩效挑战、四项实质性挑战和三项背景挑战将设计学科和专业作为一个共同领域联系在一起。绩效挑战的出现是因为所有设计专业

- 1. act on the physical world,

1. 作用于物理世界、

- 2. address human needs, and

满足人类需求，以及

- 3. generate the built environment.

3. 创造建筑环境。

In the past, these common attributes were not sufficient to transcend the boundaries of tradition. Today, objective changes in the larger world give rise to four substantive challenges that are driving convergence in design practice and research. These substantive challenges are

过去，这些共同属性不足以超越传统的界限。如今，大千世界的客观变化带来了四个实质性挑战，推动着设计实践与研究的融合。这些实质性挑战是

- 1. increasingly ambiguous boundaries between artifacts, structure, and process;

人工制品、结构和过程之间的界限越来越模糊；

- 2. increasingly large-scale social, economic, and industrial frames;

2. 越来越大规模的社会、经济和工业框架；

- 3. an increasingly complex environment of needs, requirements, and constraints; and

需求、要求和制约因素日益复杂的环境；以及

- 4. information content that often exceeds the value of physical substance.

4. 信息含量往往超过实物的价值。

These challenges require new frameworks of theory and research to address contemporary problem areas while solving specific cases and problems. In professional design practice, we often find that solving design problems requires interdisciplinary teams with a transdisciplinary focus. Fifty years ago, a sole practitioner and an assistant or two might have solved most design problems. Today, we need groups of people with skills across several disciplines and the additional skills that enable professionals to work with, listen to, and learn from each other as they solve problems.

这些挑战需要新的理论和研究框架来应对当代的问题领域，同时解决具体的案例和问题。在专业设计实践中，我们经常发现，解决设计问题需要跨学科团队，需要跨学科的关注。五十年前，一个人和一两个助手可能就能解决大多数设计问题。如今，我们需要的是拥有多个学科技能的团队，以及能够让专业人员在解决问题的过程中相互合作、倾听和学习的其他技能。

Three contextual challenges define the nature of many design problems today. While many design problems function at a simpler level, these issues affect many of the major design problems that challenge us, and these challenges also affect simple design problems linked to complex social, mechanical, or technical systems. These issues are

三个背景挑战决定了当今许多设计问题的性质。虽然许多设计问题都是在较为简单的层面上运作的，但这些问题却影响着我们所面临的许多重大设计问题，而且这些挑战也影响着与复杂的社会、机械或技术系统相关联的简单设计问题。这些问题是

- 1. a complex environment in which many projects or products cross the boundaries of several organizations, stakeholder, producer, and user groups;

1. 许多项目或产品跨越多个组织、利益相关者、生产者和用户群体界限的复杂环境；

- 2. projects or products that must meet the expectations of many organizations, stakeholders, producers, and users; and

必须满足许多组织、利益相关者、生产者和用户期望的项目或产品；以及

- 3. demands at every level of production, distribution, reception, and control.

3. 生产、分配、接收和控制各个层面的需求。

These ten challenges require a qualitatively different approach to professional design practice than was the case in earlier times. Past environments were simpler. They made simpler demands. Individual experience and personal development were sufficient for depth and substance in professional practice. While experience and development are still necessary, they are no longer sufficient. Most of today’s design challenges require analytic and synthetic planning skills that cannot be developed through practice alone.

这十项挑战要求我们在专业设计实践中采取与以往截然不同的方法。过去的环境更加简单。它们提出了更简单的要求。个人经验和个人发展足以使专业实践具有深度和内涵。虽然经验和发展仍然是必要的，但已不再足够。当今的大多数设计挑战都需要分析和综合规划技能，而这些技能仅靠实践是无法培养的。

Professional design practice today involves advanced knowledge. This knowledge is not solely a higher level of professional practice. It is also a qualitatively different form of professional practice that emerges in response to the demands of the information society and the knowledge economy to which it gives rise.

当今的专业设计实践涉及高级知识。这种知识不仅仅是一种更高层次的专业实践。它也是一种质的不同的专业实践形式，是为了应对信息社会及其所带来的知识经济的需求而出现的。

In his essay “Why Design Education Must Change” (from Core77, November 26, 2010), Donald Norman challenges the premises and practices of the design profession. In the past, designers operated on the belief that talent and a willingness to jump into problems with both feet gives them an edge in solving problems. Norman writes:

唐纳德-诺曼（Donald Norman）在他的文章《为什么设计教育必须改变》（摘自 Core77，2010 年 11 月 26 日）中，对设计行业的前提和实践提出了挑战。过去，设计师们相信，天赋和双脚跳入问题中的意愿会让他们在解决问题时更具优势。诺曼写道

In the early days of industrial design, the work was primarily focused upon physical products. Today, however, designers work on organizational structure and social problems, on interaction, service, and experience design. Many problems involve complex social and political issues. As a result, designers have become applied behavioral scientists, but they are woefully undereducated for the task. Designers often fail to understand the complexity of the issues and the depth of knowledge already known. They claim that fresh eyes can produce novel solutions, but then they wonder why these solutions are seldom implemented, or if implemented, why they fail. Fresh eyes can indeed produce insightful results, but the eyes must also be educated and knowledgeable. Designers often lack the requisite understanding. Design schools do not train students about these complex issues, about the interlocking complexities of human and social behavior, about the behavioral sciences, technology, and business. There is little or no training in science, the scientific method, and experimental design.

早期的工业设计工作主要集中在实体产品上。但如今，设计师们的工作涉及组织结构和社会问题，涉及交互、服务和体验设计。许多问题都涉及复杂的社会和政治问题。因此，设计师成为了应用行为科学家，但他们在这方面的教育却严重不足。设计师往往不了解问题的复杂性和已知知识的深度。他们声称，新鲜的眼光可以产生新颖的解决方案，但他们又不明白为什么这些解决方案很少被实施，或者即使实施了，为什么会失败。新的眼光的确可以产生有洞察力的结果，但这双眼睛还必须受过教育，知识渊博。设计师往往缺乏必要的了解。设计学校并没有对学生进行有关这些复杂问题、人类和社会行为相互交织的复杂性、行为科学、技术和商业等方面的培训。对科学、科学方法和实验设计的培训很少或根本没有。

This is not industrial design in the sense of designing products, but industry-related design, design as thought and action for solving problems and imagining new futures. This MIT Press series of books emphasizes strategic design to create value through innovative products and services, and it emphasizes design as service through rigorous creativity, critical inquiry, and an ethics of respectful design. This rests on a sense of understanding, empathy, and appreciation for people, for nature, and for the world we shape through design. Our goal as editors is to develop a series of vital conversations that help designers and researchers to serve business, industry, and the public sector for positive social and economic outcomes.

这不是产品设计意义上的工业设计，而是与工业相关的设计，是作为解决问题和想象新未来的思想和行动的设计。麻省理工学院出版社的这套丛书强调通过创新产品和服务创造价值的战略设计，强调通过严谨的创造力、批判性的探究和尊重设计的道德观，将设计作为服务。这建立在对人类、自然以及我们通过设计塑造的世界的理解、同情和欣赏之上。作为编辑，我们的目标是开展一系列重要的对话，帮助设计师和研究人员为商业、工业和公共部门服务，以取得积极的社会和经济成果。

We will present books that bring a new sense of inquiry to the design, helping to shape a more reflective and stable design discipline able to support a stronger profession grounded in empirical research, generative concepts, and the solid theory that gives rise to what W. Edwards Deming described as profound knowledge (Deming, The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, MIT, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1993). For Deming, a physicist, engineer, and designer, profound knowledge comprised systems thinking and the understanding of processes embedded in systems, an understanding of variation and the tools we need to understand variation, a theory of knowledge, and a foundation in human psychology. This is the beginning of “deep design”—the union of deep practice with robust intellectual inquiry.

我们将介绍那些为设计带来新的探究意识的书籍，这些书籍有助于塑造一个更具反思性和稳定性的设计学科，从而支持一个以经验研究、生成概念和坚实理论为基础的更强大的行业，而这些理论正是 W. Edwards Deming 所描述的深刻知识（Deming，《工业、政府和教育的新经济学》，麻省理工学院，高级工程研究中心，1993 年）。对于物理学家、工程师和设计师戴明来说，渊博的知识包括系统思维和对系统中嵌入的流程的理解、对变异的理解和理解变异所需的工具、知识理论以及人类心理学基础。这就是 "深度设计 "的开端--深度实践与强有力的知识探索的结合。

A series on design thinking and theory faces the same challenges that we face as a profession. On one level, design is a general human process that we use to understand and to shape our world. Nevertheless, we cannot address this process or the world in its general, abstract form. Rather, we meet the challenges of design in specific challenges, addressing problems or ideas in a situated context. The challenges we face as designers today are as diverse as the problems clients bring us. We are involved in design for economic anchors, economic continuity, and economic growth. We design for urban needs and rural needs, for social development and creative communities. We are involved with environmental sustainability and economic policy, agriculture competitive crafts for export, competitive products and brands for micro-enterprises, developing new products for bottom-of-pyramid markets and redeveloping old products for mature or wealthy markets. Within the framework of design, we are also challenged to design for extreme situations; for biotech, nanotech, and new materials; for social business; as well as for conceptual challenges for worlds that do not yet exist (such as the world beyond the Kurzweil singularity) and for new visions of the world that does exist.

关于设计思维和理论的系列文章面临着我们作为一个行业所面临的同样的挑战。从某种程度上说，设计是人类用来理解和塑造世界的一般过程。然而，我们不能以一般的、抽象的形式来处理这一过程或世界。相反，我们要在具体的挑战中迎接设计的挑战，在情境中处理问题或想法。作为设计师，我们今天面临的挑战与客户带给我们的问题一样多种多样。我们参与经济锚点、经济连续性和经济增长的设计。我们为城市需求和农村需求进行设计，为社会发展和创意社区进行设计。我们参与环境可持续发展和经济政策、具有竞争力的农业出口工艺品、具有竞争力的微型企业产品和品牌、为金字塔底层市场开发新产品，以及为成熟或富裕市场重新开发旧产品。在设计框架内，我们还面临着以下挑战：为极端情况设计；为生物技术、纳米技术和新材料设计；为社会企业设计；以及为尚未存在的世界（如库兹韦尔奇点之后的世界）和已存在的世界的新愿景进行概念设计。

The Design Thinking, Design Theory series from the MIT Press will explore these issues and more—meeting them, examining them, and helping designers to address them.

麻省理工学院出版社出版的《设计思维》、《设计理论》系列丛书将探讨这些问题以及更多问题--遇见它们、研究它们，并帮助设计师解决它们。

Join us in this journey.

加入我们的旅程。

Ken Friedman

肯-弗里德曼

Erik Stolterman

埃里克-斯托尔特曼

Editors, Design Thinking, Design Theory Series

编辑，设计思维，设计理论丛书

Acknowledgments

致谢

This book began with a student’s curiosity, became viable through a generous act from a senior scholar, and materialized with the help of an incredible support team made up of colleagues, friends, and family—many who occupy more than one of these categories.

这本书始于一个学生的好奇心，因一位资深学者的慷慨解囊而变得可行，并在一个由同事、朋友和家人组成的令人难以置信的支持团队的帮助下得以实现--其中许多人都不止属于这几类人中的一类。

In 2015, I walked into a classroom at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, prepared to lecture about technological affordances for a small undergraduate course. I did not expect to start a book. However, a young man named Ben asked just the right question (“Don’t rope and wood fences afford differently?”), which led to writing on the classroom whiteboard, a series of blog posts,[1] a journal article in Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,[2] and now, a full monograph. Ben’s thoughtfulness was, literally, inspirational. In 2017, in a new appointment at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, I booked a meeting with Professor Genevieve Bell, a recent transplant from Silicon Valley and founder ANU’s Autonomy, Agency, and Assurance Institute (3Ai).[3] Within a day of that meeting, I had an introduction email to Doug Sery, acquisitions editor for the MIT Press. It was a small act for Professor Bell but monumental for me. Doug was interested in the project and ushered it through from start to finish, with tireless help from Noah J. Springer, whose dissertation, it turns out, addressed affordances (the topic of this book).[4]

2015年，我走进弗吉尼亚州哈里森堡詹姆斯-麦迪逊大学的一间教室，准备为一门小型本科课程讲授技术负担能力。我没想到自己会开始写一本书。然而，一位名叫本（Ben）的年轻人提出了一个恰到好处的问题（"绳索和木栅栏的承受能力难道不一样吗？"），这让我在教室的白板上写下了一系列博文，1 在《科学、技术与社会》（Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society）上发表了一篇期刊文章，2 现在，我又写了一本完整的专著。Ben的深思熟虑简直就是灵感的源泉。2017年，在堪培拉的澳大利亚国立大学（ANU）履新之际，我预约了与吉纳维芙-贝尔（Genevieve Bell）教授的会面，她刚从硅谷移居到澳大利亚国立大学，是澳大利亚国立大学自治、代理和保障研究所（3Ai）的创始人。3 会面后不到一天，我就收到了麻省理工学院出版社收购编辑道格-塞里（Doug Sery）的介绍邮件。这对贝尔教授来说是件小事，但对我来说却是件大事。道格对这个项目很感兴趣，并在诺亚-斯普林格（Noah J. Springer）的不懈帮助下，从头至尾完成了这个项目。4

I am forever grateful to D’Lane Compton, who shared her wisdom, time, and materials when I presented my full naivety in the form of a one-line Twitter message that read “how does one write a book?” I was further aided in both process and content through extensive conversations with and feedback from David A. Banks, Nathan Jurgenson, and PJ Patella-Rey. Their careful balance between encouragement and challenge kept my spirits up and my framing sharp. I am also grateful to all past and present contributors to the Cyborgology blog[5] and Theorizing the Web conference,[6] who have cultivated a community of thinkers, writers, and activists doing the kind of theory I want to see in the world. Equally influential and generous have been my closest collaborators on other projects. Tony Love, Carla Goar, and Bianca Manago have picked up my slack while I worked on the book, and each has made me a better thinker through years of intellectual discussion, debate, and endless Track Changes. The book was also helped along by three emerging scholars who gave me the privilege of supervising their honors theses. Siobhan Dodds, Hannah Gregory, and Will Orr asked about the book each week during our meetings, motivating me to write. They also kept me on my intellectual toes, the benefits of which cannot be overstated. Finally, thank goodness for James Chouinard. My coauthor, editor, and partner. Not once did you hesitate when I asked, “Is it okay if I read something out loud?” You have cheered me through this book while making sure that the ideas are sound. With you, I have full support and get away with nothing. Truly, thank you.

我永远感谢达兰-康普顿（D'Lane Compton），当我以一句 "如何写一本书？"的Twitter消息的形式表达我的全部稚气时，她分享了她的智慧、时间和材料。通过与大卫-班克斯（David A. Banks）、内森-尤根森（Nathan Jurgenson）和PJ-帕泰拉-雷伊（PJ Patella-Rey）的广泛交流和他们的反馈意见，我在写作过程和内容上都得到了进一步的帮助。他们在鼓励和挑战之间保持了谨慎的平衡，让我精神振奋，构思清晰。我还要感谢过去和现在为 "机械人学"（Cyborgology）博客5 和 "网络理论化"（Theorizing the Web）会议6 做出贡献的所有人士，他们培养了一个由思想家、作家和活动家组成的社区，他们在这个社区中从事着我希望在这个世界上看到的理论工作。在其他项目中，我最亲密的合作者也同样对我影响深远、慷慨大方。托尼-洛夫（Tony Love）、卡拉-戈尔（Carla Goar）和比安卡-马纳戈（Bianca Manago）在我写这本书的时候帮了我不少忙，通过多年的思想讨论、辩论和无休止的 "修改轨迹"，他们都让我成为了一个更好的思想家。本书的完成还得到了三位新晋学者的帮助，我有幸指导了他们的荣誉论文。西奥班-多兹（Siobhan Dodds）、汉娜-格雷戈里（Hannah Gregory）和威尔-奥尔（Will Orr）每周都会在我们的会议上询问这本书的内容，激励我写作。他们还让我在思想上保持高度警觉，这对我的益处再怎么强调也不为过。最后，感谢詹姆斯-乔伊纳德。他是我的合著者、编辑和合作伙伴。当我问你 "我可以大声读一些东西吗？"时，你没有一次犹豫过。你一直在鼓励我完成这本书，同时确保我的想法是正确的。有了你，我得到了全力支持，什么都不用担心。真的，谢谢您。

1

Introduction

简介

A Trolley Problem of a Particular Sort

一个特殊的手推车问题

In January 2017, I relocated from the United States to begin an academic appointment in Canberra, Australia. This moment was marked by competing pulls of excitement and trepidation. The allure of adventure and the esteem I felt for my new institution were punctuated by anxiety about the unknown and uncertainty about life abroad. I had been warned that Australia was unlike America, despite the familiarity of a shared language. Heeding this advice, I spent my first weeks in Canberra watching others with anthropological vigilance, certain I would order coffee incorrectly or breach public transit decorum. I kept my voice at a soft timbre and Googled everything before I did it. I was determined to blend in, which I did successfully, for a while.

2017 年 1 月，我从美国搬迁到澳大利亚堪培拉，开始了我的学术生涯。这一刻，我的内心既兴奋又惶恐。冒险的诱惑和我对新学校的崇敬，夹杂着对未知的焦虑和国外生活的不确定性。有人告诫我，尽管有共同的语言，但澳大利亚与美国不同。听了这个建议，我在堪培拉的头几周都在以人类学的警惕性观察他人，担心自己会点错咖啡或违反公共交通礼仪。我把自己的声音保持在轻柔的音调上，在做任何事情之前都上网搜索。我下定决心要混入人群，我成功地混入了人群，而且还混了一段时间。

My first fish-out-of-water moment came unexpectedly, and it had nothing to do with Australian culture. In fact, it was tied to an activity for which I had presumed full competence: acquiring a shopping cart or, in Australian parlance, a shopping trolley. It was a hot day in the peak of summer and I was moving from temporary campus housing to a more permanent place outside the city. Having left behind nearly all my worldly possessions, I needed starter supplies to set up a new home. After a quick internet search for “how to get gas in Australia” and a precarious drive on the left side of the road to a nearby big-box store, I took a deep breath and looked for the largest shopping cart I could find.

我的第一次 "漏网之鱼 "来得很突然，而且与澳大利亚文化毫无关系。事实上，它与一项我自认为完全胜任的活动有关：购置一辆购物车，或者用澳大利亚人的话说，一辆购物手推车。那是盛夏的一个炎热的日子，我正从校园的临时住所搬到城外一个更固定的地方。我几乎留下了我所有的世俗财产，我需要新家的启动用品。我在网上快速搜索了 "如何在澳大利亚加油"，然后在路左侧勉强开到附近的一家大卖场，深吸一口气，找了一辆我能找到的最大的购物车。

To my surprise, I found only hand-held baskets and carts that were linked and locked together. I asked a clerk, “Do you have any trollies available for immediate customer use, and if not, could you please unlock one for me?” The clerk informed me that the trollies took a $2 coin deposit. Besides the fact that I had no idea Australia’s currency included $2 coins, I verged bewildered: “Are you telling me I need to pay to use a cart?” The clerk blinked, started to explain, and then used a key around his belt to unlock a cart before sending me on my way.

出乎意料的是，我发现只有手提篮子和手推车被连在一起并上了锁。我问一位店员："你们是否有供顾客直接使用的手推车，如果没有，能否帮我打开一个？店员告诉我，小推车需要 2 美元的硬币押金。除了我不知道澳大利亚的货币包括 2 澳元硬币这一事实外，我还感到非常困惑："你是说我需要付钱才能使用手推车？店员眨了眨眼睛，开始解释，然后用腰间的钥匙打开了一辆推车的锁，然后就送我上路了。

After a few moments of studying the cart’s blue handle—it had three small currency slots, a lock device, and an opening into which the lock device fits—I understood. Customers don’t rent the carts, but use coins as collateral. When returning the cart, shoppers retrieve their money by locking the used cart back in place, which releases the coin deposit.

我研究了一会儿手推车的蓝色把手--它有三个小货币槽、一个上锁装置和一个与上锁装置相配合的开口--就明白了。顾客不是租用手推车，而是用硬币作为抵押。在归还购物车时，购物者只要将用过的购物车锁回原位，硬币押金就会被释放，从而取回自己的钱。

Coin-locks are a theft-prevention measure and a now common feature of commerce in many urban environments. However, because I grew up in the suburbs and lived in small towns for most of my adult life, coin-locks were new to me. I was used to seeing shopping carts that were free-standing and abundant. In fact, I once lived in an apartment complex in Texas with an informal shopping cart repository in the parking lot. The local supermarket chain sent employees to retrieve the carts once a day. But in Australia’s capital city, coin-locks are standard.[1]

投币锁是一种防盗措施，现在已成为许多城市商业环境中的常见特征。然而，由于我是在郊区长大的，成年后的大部分时间都生活在小镇上，投币锁对我来说还是个新鲜事物。我习惯于看到独立的、大量的购物车。事实上，我曾经住在得克萨斯州的一个公寓大楼里，那里的停车场有一个非正式的购物车存放处。当地的连锁超市每天都会派员工来取回购物车。但在澳大利亚的首府城市，投币锁是标准配置。1

The problem of shopping cart retention is an ironic one in the context of the cart’s history. In 1937, Sylvan Goldman introduced the wheeled shopping cart to reluctant customers at his Humpty Dumpty grocery chain in Oklahoma. By that time, the design of shops had shifted from a model where clerks stood behind a counter and fetched items for customers to a self-service model where customers selected their own items from displays around the store.[2] At first, customers used hand-held baskets to collect and deliver their goods to the checkout counter. As store sizes expanded and grocery loads grew, the conventional hand-held baskets proved less convenient. Clerks had to watch for customers with full baskets, hold customers’ items until checkout, and provide fresh baskets for continued shopping. This could be inconvenient for shoppers and relied on paid labor from store staff. Goldman’s wheeled cart model—which looks similar to the carts used in most stores today—enabled shoppers to buy more goods with greater convenience, while undercutting staffing costs.

从购物车的历史来看，购物车的保有问题是一个具有讽刺意味的问题。1937 年，希尔凡-戈德曼在俄克拉荷马州的胖墩杂货连锁店向不情愿的顾客推出了带轮购物车。当时，商店的设计已经从店员站在柜台后面为顾客取货的模式转变为自助服务模式，顾客可以从商店周围的陈列架上自行挑选商品。2 起初，顾客用手持篮子取货，然后送到收银台。随着商店规模的扩大和杂货量的增加，传统的手提购物篮已不那么方便。店员不得不留意购物篮已满的顾客，在结账前保留顾客的物品，并为继续购物提供新的购物篮。这可能会给购物者带来不便，而且还要依靠店员的有偿劳动。戈德曼的轮式购物车模式--与今天大多数商店使用的购物车相似--使购物者能够更方便地购买更多商品，同时降低了员工成本。

Goldman’s customers needed convincing. Women rejected the idea of pushing a cart because it too closely resembled a baby buggy. Apparently, women wanted shopping to feel like a break from childcare, not an extension of it. Men found carts too effeminate and rejected them on normative gender grounds. So Goldman mobilized a public relations and outreach campaign. Along with advertisements, Goldman hired attractive men and women to use shopping carts in his stores. The tactic worked. Shopping carts quickly spread to other retail outlets, becoming a fixture in the contemporary marketplace.

戈德曼的客户需要说服。女性拒绝推购物车，因为它太像婴儿车了。显然，女性希望购物能让她们从照顾孩子中解脱出来，而不是孩子的延伸。男性则认为手推车太娘娘腔，以性别规范为由拒绝推车。于是，高盛发起了一场公共关系和推广活动。除了广告，戈德曼还雇佣了一些有魅力的男性和女性在他的商店里使用购物车。这一策略奏效了。购物车迅速蔓延到其他零售店，成为当代市场的固定商品。

Image of Sylvan Goldman’s early shopping cart

希尔凡-戈德曼早期购物车的图片

If Goldman had trouble persuading people to adopt his new technology, the existence of coin-locks represents an opposite problem: persuading people to give back the carts they’ve taken. The coin-lock was patented in various forms during the 1980s and 1990s and is one of several theft-prevention measures. Others include electronic and magnetic features that lock a cart’s wheels when it passes a perimeter; long poles attached to shopping carts that block them from fitting through exits; global positioning system (GPS) trackers; and even services that find, retrieve, and return carts for a fee. Not only do stolen or misplaced carts place a financial burden on stores (which pay from $150 to $400 for each replacement), but cities struggle with safety issues when stolen carts are left in roads, on sidewalks, and in creeks and streams. In short, both shops and cities have an interest in keeping shopping carts on company property, and developments in theft-prevention technologies reflect these interests. For customers, theft-prevention features may be a mere inconvenience (they need to remember to carry change) or may dramatically affect the flows of daily life (people without vehicles cannot easily transport large purchases by foot and so must allot time each day to stop by the store and buy provisions).

如果说戈德曼在说服人们采用他的新技术方面遇到了困难，那么投币锁的存在则代表了一个相反的问题：说服人们归还他们拿走的购物车。投币锁在 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代以各种形式获得专利，是多种防盗措施之一。其他防盗措施还包括：在购物车通过周边时锁定车轮的电子和磁性功能；在购物车上安装长杆，阻止购物车通过出口；全球定位系统（GPS）跟踪器；甚至提供有偿寻找、取回和归还购物车的服务。购物车被盗或放错地方不仅给商店带来经济负担（每次更换费用从 150 美元到 400 美元不等），而且当被盗购物车被遗弃在道路、人行道、小溪和溪流中时，城市也会面临安全问题。总之，商店和城市都希望购物车留在公司财产内，防盗技术的发展也反映了这一利益诉求。对于顾客来说，防盗功能可能只是一种不便（他们需要记得携带零钱），也可能会极大地影响日常生活的流程（没有车辆的人无法轻松地步行运送大宗物品，因此必须每天抽出时间到商店购买必需品）。

The evolution of the shopping cart from a labor-replacing technology that encourages high-volume purchases to a tightly controlled commodity fitted with material constraints shows that objects, even the most mundane, are imbued with values that reflect and have the capacity to shape social, political, and economic relations. Goldman’s initial shopping cart was created under the drive of capital accumulation. The cart maximized buying while minimizing paid human labor. Cart usage (or lack thereof) was linked with issues of gender: women wanted to distance the shopping experience from the work of childcare, and men wanted to distance themselves from effeminate connotations of womanhood. Commercial strategies paved the way for widespread shopping cart adoption, and eventually, some carts and shops were redesigned in ways that limited and regulated cart use, with varying effects on consumers.[3] In short, the shopping cart has politics, affects behavior, and shapes the flow of daily life. These dynamics are built into the cart’s material form, with results that are subtle, powerful, and far reaching.

购物车从一种取代劳动力、鼓励大批量购买的技术，演变成一种受到严格控制、具有物质约束的商品，这表明，即使是最普通的物品，也被赋予了反映社会、政治和经济关系的价值，并有能力塑造这些关系。戈德曼最初的购物车是在资本积累的驱动下产生的。购物车最大限度地扩大了购买量，同时最大限度地减少了有偿人力。购物车的使用（或不使用）与性别问题有关：女性希望将购物体验与照顾孩子的工作区分开来，而男性则希望将自己与女性的娘娘腔内涵区分开来。商业策略为购物车的广泛使用铺平了道路，最终，一些购物车和商店被重新设计，限制和规范了购物车的使用，对消费者产生了不同的影响。3 简而言之，购物车具有政治性，影响着人们的行为，塑造着日常生活的流程。这些动态因素已融入购物车的物质形态中，并产生了微妙、强大和深远的影响。

Affordances

能力

This book is about the social dynamics of technology. It is about the ways that ethics, values, and interests are built into technological objects and the ways these objects take shape through interactions with human subjects. More specifically, this book is about technological affordances. Formally, an affordance is defined as “the ‘multifaceted relational structure’[4] between an object/technology and the use that enables or constrains potential behavioral outcomes in a particular context.”[5] That is, affordances mediate between a technology’s features and its outcomes. Technologies don’t make people do things but instead, push, pull, enable, and constrain. Affordances are how objects shape action for socially situated subjects.

本书讲述的是技术的社会动态。它讲述了伦理、价值观和利益如何融入技术对象，以及这些对象如何通过与人类主体的互动而形成。更具体地说，本书讲述的是技术承受力。从形式上讲，"可承受性 "被定义为 "物体/技术与使用之间的'多方面关系结构'4 ，在特定环境下，它促成或限制了潜在的行为结果"。5 也就是说，承受力是技术特征与结果之间的中介。技术并不是让人们去做事，而是推动、拉动、促成和制约。承受力是物体如何塑造社会主体的行动。

The concept of affordance was first introduced by the ecological psychologist James J. Gibson in the 1960s and 1970s.[6] For Gibson, “affordance” was a way to approach the mutual constitution between people and environments. Donald A. Norman brought affordances to design studies a decade later to address human-machine interactions.[7] In recent years, the concept has picked up considerable steam as the study of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and information communication technologies (ICTs) have become firmly entrenched in the academic canon.

20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代，生态心理学家詹姆斯-吉布森（James J. Gibson）首次提出了 "承受能力"（affordance）的概念。6 对吉布森来说，"承受能力 "是一种处理人与环境之间相互构成关系的方法。十年后，唐纳德-A-诺曼（Donald A. Norman）将 "承受力 "引入设计研究，以解决人机互动问题。7 近年来，随着以计算机为媒介的通信（CMC）和信息通信技术（ICTs）的研究在学术界根深蒂固，这一概念也得到了极大的发展。

It is unsurprising that the concept of affordance has surged amid vast and rapid technological change. The ubiquity of smartphones, infusion of digital platforms, and rise of automation are (re)shaping social relationships, information flows, political participation, and economic relations. Social thinkers are eager to understand these societal shifts and are thus interested in how new technologies work and to what effect. “Affordance” is a useful conceptual tool in such a project because it lets analysts interrogate the effects of emergent technologies while avoiding hardline determinism.

在巨大而快速的技术变革中，"可负担性 "概念的兴起不足为奇。智能手机的普及、数字平台的注入以及自动化的兴起正在（重新）塑造社会关系、信息流、政治参与和经济关系。社会思想家们迫切希望了解这些社会变革，因此对新技术如何发挥作用以及产生何种影响很感兴趣。在这样一个项目中，"承受力 "是一个有用的概念工具，因为它可以让分析师在避免强硬的决定论的同时，审视新兴技术的影响。

Technology studies offers the persistent reminder that materiality and human agency always operate together. Hence, Goldman’s shopping cart does not force customers to purchase more goods, and hand-held baskets do not stop customers from buying in bulk. However, carts and baskets have features that differ in ways that structure the shopping experience and alter the distribution of labor between employees and consumers. In this way, front-facing digital cameras don’t make people to take selfies but afford this photographic convention in ways that diverge from the affordances of traditional film-reliant devices. Touch-activated dictionaries interact with vocabulary acquisition differently than paper-bound volumes do. Drop-down menus shape choice in more confining ways than write-in boxes do. And large “REPORT” buttons on social media platforms afford user-generated content moderation differently than an administrator email hidden behind several clicks.

技术研究不断提醒人们，物质性和人类的能动性总是共同作用的。因此，高盛的购物车不会强迫顾客购买更多的商品，手提购物篮也不会阻止顾客大量购买。然而，购物车和购物篮的不同之处在于，它们可以构建购物体验，改变员工和消费者之间的劳动分配。这样一来，前置数码相机并不会让人们自拍，而是以不同于传统胶卷设备的方式提供了这种摄影习惯。触摸式字典与词汇学习的互动方式与纸质字典不同。下拉菜单塑造选择的方式比写入框更具有局限性。社交媒体平台上的大型 "报告 "按钮对用户生成的内容进行管理的方式也不同于隐藏在几次点击之后的管理员电子邮件。

The analytic balance between materiality and human agency makes affordance a valuable concept that has sustained over time and spread across disciplines. However, the scholarly application of affordance has outpaced its careful theoretical consideration. The concept has been mired by misuse, overuse, false binaries, and inadequate treatment of dynamic subjects and circumstances. For these reasons, some scholars argue that the concept has lost analytic value and should be relinquished altogether.[8] As evidenced by my book-length attention to the topic, I believe this response is wrongheaded. Instead, I read the critiques of affordance as an opportunity for clarity and precision, and the concept’s ascent alongside technological advancements as an indicator that such clarity and precision are needed now more than ever.

物质性与人类能动性之间的分析平衡，使 "承受力 "成为一个有价值的概念，并随着时间的推移而不断发展和跨学科传播。然而，学术界对 "可承受性 "的应用已经超过了对其缜密理论的思考。对这一概念的误用、过度使用、错误的二元对立以及对动态主体和环境的处理不当，都使这一概念陷入困境。由于这些原因，一些学者认为这个概念已经失去了分析价值，应该彻底放弃。8 正如我在本书中对这一主题的关注所证明的，我认为这种回应是错误的。相反，我把对 "可负担性 "的批评看作是提高清晰度和精确度的契机，而这一概念随着技术进步而上升，则表明现在比以往任何时候都更需要这种清晰度和精确度。

One persistent critique is that affordance has remained a binary construct. In its binary depiction, features either afford some action or do not afford that action. Coin-locked carts either afford transportability or do not; social media platforms either afford network building or do not; artificial intelligence (AI) either affords emotional attachment or does not. By this logic, features make actions either inevitable or impossible. In practice, we know that the relationship between people and things is never cut and dry. Human-technology relations are a subtle dance in which technological objects push and pull with varying degrees of insistence while human subjects navigate with more and less motivation, creativity, and skill. Concretely, the coin-lock system does not unequivocally or universally preclude the removal of shopping carts from store premises but instead creates conditions that make removal less likely. Indeed, while researching the history of the shopping cart, I found many tutorials and products aimed at surpassing wheel-locks, coin-locks, and GPS tracking devices. Thus, affordances are never determinations, nor are they uniform. Instead, features apply varying levels of pressure on socially situated subjects.

一个长期存在的批评意见是，"承受力 "仍然是一种二元结构。在它的二元描绘中，功能要么能提供某种行动，要么不能提供这种行动。投币式手推车要么能提供运输能力，要么不能；社交媒体平台要么能提供网络建设，要么不能；人工智能（AI）要么能提供情感依恋，要么不能。按照这种逻辑，功能要么使行动成为必然，要么使行动成为不可能。实际上，我们知道人和物之间的关系从来都不是一成不变的。人与技术的关系是一种微妙的舞蹈，在这种舞蹈中，技术对象以不同程度的坚持进行推拉，而人类主体则以更多或更少的动力、创造力和技能进行导航。具体来说，投币锁系统并不能明确或普遍地阻止购物车离开商店，相反，它创造了一些条件，使购物车离开商店的可能性降低。事实上，在研究购物车的历史时，我发现了许多旨在超越轮锁、投币锁和 GPS 跟踪装置的教程和产品。因此，承受力从来都不是决定性的，也不是统一的。相反，功能对社会主体施加了不同程度的压力。

Luckily, affordance’s binary problem has a simple analytic solution: shifting from questions about what technologies afford to how they afford. The shift from what to how undergirds the argument I delineate throughout this text. As a general rule, social analyses are much richer when approached with questions of how rather than what. The how captures processes and nuances, while the what remains one dimensional. By asking how technologies afford, we can identify and articulate variation in a given feature’s social impact.

幸运的是，"承受力 "的二元问题有一个简单的分析解决方案：从技术 "承受什么 "的问题转向技术 "如何承受 "的问题。从 "负担什么 "到 "如何负担 "的转变是我在本文中阐述的论点的基础。一般来说，如果从 "如何 "而不是 "是什么 "的角度出发，社会分析的内容就会丰富得多。如何 "捕捉到了过程和细微差别，而 "是什么 "仍然是单一维度的。通过询问技术如何负担得起，我们可以识别并阐明特定功能对社会影响的差异。

For instance, compared to systems without theft-prevention instruments, the coin-lock system creates a light barrier to using shopping carts. To use a coin-locked cart, customers need the proper resources (usually coins of a particular currency) and need to be willing to engage in extra tasks to obtain the cart at both the front and back ends of a shopping trip. These tasks include finding a coin, unlocking a cart, returning the cart when they are finished, locking it, and retrieving their coin. In practice, these actions take only about thirty extra seconds of work and are relatively inconsequential for many people in most circumstances. Nevertheless, the coin-lock feature creates friction and is thus antithetical to Goldman’s early initiative to make carts as appealing and available as possible. The coin-lock prevents people from stealing the carts but also dissuades them from using the carts at all. Such dissuasion, however, is milder than if carts were held behind a counter and dispensed only by a clerk or if carts kept their coin deposits, which would change the system from collateral to rent-based (though the latter would also disincentivize cart return).

例如，与没有防盗工具的系统相比，投币锁定系统为使用购物车设置了一个较小的障碍。要使用投币式购物车，顾客需要适当的资源（通常是某种货币的硬币），并且需要愿意在购物的前端和后端从事额外的任务来获得购物车。这些任务包括寻找硬币、解锁购物车、购物结束后归还购物车、锁定购物车和取回硬币。实际上，这些操作只需额外花费大约 30 秒钟的时间，在大多数情况下对许多人来说无关紧要。尽管如此，投币锁定功能还是造成了摩擦，因此与高盛早期提出的让购物车尽可能具有吸引力和可用性的倡议背道而驰。投币锁定功能可以防止人们偷窃手推车，但同时也会阻止人们使用手推车。不过，这种劝阻作用比起将手推车放在柜台后面由店员发放，或者手推车保留硬币押金的情况要温和得多，因为这将使系统从抵押型转变为租赁型（不过后者也会抑制手推车的归还）。

In comparing features of different theft prevention implements, both a coin-lock apparatus and magnetically triggered wheel-locks reduce the transportability of grocery carts, but the coin-lock system generally presents fewer barriers to taking carts off-site. A customer who takes a coin-locked cart off-site may lose $2, but the wheel-locked trolley stops rolling after crossing a perimeter. Both coin-locks and wheel-locks reduce transportability, but they do so with varying degrees of force, and neither makes the cart entirely nontransportable. Customers who encounter coin-locks may elect to forgo their $2 investment, leave the store with the cart and then come back to recoup their $2, use a universal cart key (they are easily found and purchased online), or simply wait to find a loose cart and take that cart off the lot. Customers who encounter wheel-locks may lift the cart over the magnetic locking strip, push the cart over the magnetic perimeter with significant force, load the cart into a vehicle, or if especially motivated and sufficiently able, carry the cart after the wheels go into lock mode. The point is that asking how instead of what objects afford shows nuanced relationships between technical features and their effects on human subjects while accounting for creative and subversive human acts.

在比较不同防盗工具的特点时，投币锁装置和磁力触发的轮锁都会降低购物车的可运输性，但投币锁系统通常对将购物车带离现场造成的障碍较少。顾客将投币锁定的手推车推到场外可能会损失 2 美元，但轮锁手推车在越过边界后就会停止滚动。投币锁和车轮锁都会降低推车的可移动性，但它们的力度各不相同，都不会使推车完全无法移动。遇到投币锁的顾客可以选择放弃 2 美元的投资，带着手推车离开商店，然后再回来取回 2 美元，或者使用通用手推车钥匙（这种钥匙很容易在网上找到和购买），或者干脆等着找一辆松动的手推车，然后把那辆手推车带离停车场。遇到车轮锁的顾客可以将手推车举过磁性锁条、用力将手推车推过磁性周边、将手推车装上车，或者在车轮进入锁定模式后，如果特别积极且有足够的能力，也可以将手推车搬上车。问题的关键在于，询问如何而不是什么物体可以提供，可以显示技术特征之间的微妙关系及其对人类主体的影响，同时还能考虑到人类的创造性和颠覆性行为。

A second critique is that analysts too often depict affordances as universal when in fact, they are relational and conditional. Given that technical features exert varying degrees of force, the next question to ask is for whom and under what circumstances?. For example, for me as a coin-lock novice, the coin-locks posed a stronger barrier to use than they would for customers more familiar with the system. Over time, I became accustomed to Canberra’s coin-locks, and the affordances varied between my past and present selves. The barrier to use amplifies when I’m in a hurry (am I willing to expend the extra thirty seconds?) and reduces when I’m not on a schedule. The consequences for taking a shopping cart off site are relatively minor for me ($2 will not noticeably affect my bank account), but may be more consequential for someone experiencing homelessness or fending off hunger. (The need to take a cart off site may also be more pronounced for people in the latter group, who are less likely to have personal transportation and may use the cart for reasons other than grocery shopping).

第二点批评是，分析家们常常把负担能力描绘成普遍性的，而事实上，它们是关系性的、有条件的。鉴于技术特征会产生不同程度的作用力，下一个要问的问题是在什么情况下对谁产生作用力。例如，对我这个投币锁新手来说，投币锁的使用障碍比对更熟悉该系统的顾客更大。随着时间的推移，我逐渐习惯了堪培拉的投币锁，过去的我和现在的我对投币锁的承受能力也不尽相同。当我赶时间时，使用障碍会增加（我是否愿意多花三十秒？将购物车带离现场的后果对我来说相对较小（2 美元不会明显影响我的银行账户），但对无家可归或忍饥挨饿的人来说，后果可能会更严重。(对于后一类人来说，将购物车带离现场的必要性可能会更明显，因为他们不太可能拥有个人交通工具，而且可能会出于买菜以外的原因使用购物车）。

In short, affordances refer to how objects enable and constrain. This will vary across people and contexts. Shifting from what to how and accounting for diverse subjects and circumstances represent a simple but crucial advancement in affordance theory. A more substantial advancement, which is the main project of this book, is to operationalize the concept of affordance such that how, for whom, and under what circumstances are incorporated into a concise analytic tool.

简而言之，负担能力指的是物体如何促成和限制。这因人和环境而异。从 "是什么 "到 "如何 "的转变，以及对不同主体和环境的考虑，是承受力理论的一个简单而重要的进步。更实质性的进步，也是本书的主要项目，是将可承受性的概念操作化，从而将如何、对谁以及在什么情况下纳入一个简明的分析工具。

Operationalizing Affordances: The Mechanisms and Conditions Framework

操作化能力：机制和条件框架

This book delineates the mechanisms and conditions framework as a theoretical scaffold for affordance analyses. The mechanisms of affordance refer to the how of human-technology relations, and the conditions refer to variability across subjects and circumstances. Rather than rely on general statements about more and less force exerted by technological objects, the mechanisms of affordance indicate that technologies request, demand, encourage, discourage, refuse, and allow particular lines of action and social dynamics. Requests and demands are initiated by the object, and encouragement, discouragement, and refusal are responses to subjects’ inclinations. Allow applies to acts initiated by both subjects and objects.

本书划分了机制和条件框架，作为负担能力分析的理论支架。承受力的机制指的是人与技术关系的方式，而条件指的是不同主体和环境下的可变性。承受力机制并不依赖于关于技术对象施加的力量多与少的一般性陈述，而是指出技术要求、需求、鼓励、阻止、拒绝以及允许特定的行动路线和社会动态。请求和要求是由客体发起的，而鼓励、阻止和拒绝则是对主体倾向的回应。允许既适用于主体发起的行为，也适用于客体发起的行为。

The conditions of affordance specify the relational nature of human-technology encounters—namely, the conditions of affordance vary by perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy. That is, people perceive a range of functions and constraints presented by technological objects, have varying levels of skill in operating a set of features, and experience differential support in engaging with a technology due to cultural norms and institutional regulations.[9]

可负担性条件明确了人类与技术相遇的关系性质，即可负担性条件因感知、灵巧性以及文化和制度合法性的不同而不同。也就是说，人们会感知到技术对象所带来的一系列功能和限制，在操作一系列功能方面拥有不同程度的技能，并且由于文化规范和制度规定的不同，在与技术接触时会获得不同的支持。9

Operationalizing affordances through the mechanisms and conditions framework provides a vocabulary and structure with which to approach affordance analyses. For example, with the mechanisms of affordance, we may say that shopping carts encourage large purchases and hand-held baskets discourage large purchases. In this vein, the hand-held baskets request frequent trips to the shop, and the carts encourage fewer trips. Neither baskets nor carts refuse frequent or infrequent shopping trips, but they nudge shoppers in one direction or the other. Shoppers using baskets and carts are allowed to fill their shopping vessels with sale items, specialty items, frozen goods, or fresh produce (that is, baskets and carts pay no mind to their contents outside of weight and dimensions).

通过机制和条件框架对负担能力进行操作，为进行负担能力分析提供了词汇和结构。例如，利用负担能力的机制，我们可以说购物车鼓励大量购买，而手提购物篮则不鼓励大量购买。因此，手提购物篮要求经常去商店，而购物车则鼓励少去商店。购物篮和购物车都不拒绝频繁或不频繁购物，但它们会促使购物者朝一个方向或另一个方向购物。使用购物篮和购物车的购物者可以在购物容器中装满特价商品、特色商品、冷冻商品或新鲜农产品（也就是说，购物篮和购物车不考虑重量和尺寸之外的其他因素）。

The conditions of affordance let us further parse the push and pull of technologies by their circumstances of use. For example, in the 1930s, the perceived link between carts and baby carriages discouraged use by women and men—who experienced the apparatus as an extension of care labor and prohibitively feminine, respectively. Goldman’s early public relations campaign was aimed at rebranding the shopping cart as a gender-neutral labor-saving tool, thus encouraging use by shoppers across gender categories (and in turn, requesting that shoppers purchase more goods in a single trip). Notably, despite Goldman’s successful efforts to change perceptions and cultural norms, the traditional cart model still refuses use by portions of the population. For example, those who use wheelchairs may not have the physical dexterity to utilize Goldman’s original cart design. The cart therefore encourages use by walking customers but refuses use among those with certain mobility impairments. Subsequent cart designs that include an adult-sized seat and motorized components undo this refusal and instead encourage adoption by those for whom walking is difficult or impossible.

负担能力的条件让我们可以根据使用环境进一步分析技术的推拉作用。例如，在 20 世纪 30 年代，人们认为购物车与婴儿车之间的联系阻碍了女性和男性使用购物车，他们分别认为购物车是护理劳动的延伸和过于女性化。高盛早期的公关活动旨在将购物车重新塑造为一种不分性别的省力工具，从而鼓励不同性别的购物者使用购物车（反过来，也要求购物者在一次购物中购买更多的商品）。值得注意的是，尽管高盛成功地改变了人们的观念和文化规范，但传统的购物车模式仍然拒绝了一部分人的使用。例如，使用轮椅的人可能没有足够的身体灵活性来使用戈德曼最初设计的购物车。因此，这种推车鼓励步行顾客使用，但却拒绝某些行动不便的人使用。后来的推车设计包括一个成人大小的座椅和电动组件，消除了这种拒绝现象，反而鼓励那些行走不便或无法行走的人使用推车。

Theft-prevention features also work differently depending on context. Wheel-locks refuse transportability for people who perceive no workarounds to magnetic perimeters but merely discourage transportability for those who are aware of alternatives (such as lifting the cart over the magnetic strip or pushing the cart with enough force to beat the lock device). Similarly, coin-locks request that users keep the carts on store premises but allow people with the requisite resources to move carts beyond store boundaries. Normative and implicit biases also apply here, as cultural and demographic markers can either mitigate or amplify surveillance, highlighting the relational dynamics of affordances in practice. For instance, customers of color are more likely to be followed by a store employee as they shop, thus refusing cart removal in a way that is merely discouraged for white customers, whom employees are more likely to grant freedom of movement around the store.

防盗功能也因环境而异。车轮锁拒绝那些认为磁性周界没有变通办法的人移动购物车，但只是阻止那些知道变通办法的人移动购物车（如将购物车举过磁条，或用足够大的力量推动购物车以撞开锁装置）。同样，投币锁要求用户将手推车放在商店内，但允许有必要资源的人将手推车移出商店边界。规范和隐性偏见在这里也同样适用，因为文化和人口标记可以减轻或扩大监控，突出了实际中负担能力的关系动态。例如，有色人种顾客更有可能在购物时被店员跟踪，从而拒绝推走购物车，而白人顾客则不会这样做，因为店员更有可能允许他们在店内自由行动。

In short, technologies are efficacious in ways that manifest variously across persons and circumstances. The mechanisms and conditions framework offers a conceptual scaffold with which to address these dynamics. The mechanisms of affordance specify how technologies afford, while the conditions of affordance situate technologies in context. Crucially, the mechanisms and conditions framework is not a reifying device, but a tool of argumentation. The mechanisms of affordance are neither rigid nor determinative. Rather, they are analytic stopping points with porous boundaries, and the designation of one category versus another remains always up for debate. In turn, the conditions of affordance are neither static nor mutually exclusive but overlapping and always subject to change. The mechanisms and conditions framework thus provides a schematic onto which analysts and practitioners can map sociotechnical systems, maintaining the richness of dynamism, uncertainty, and robust deliberation.

简而言之，技术在不同的人和不同的情况下具有不同的效力。机制与条件框架为解决这些动态问题提供了一个概念支架。负担能力的机制具体说明了技术的负担能力，而负担能力的条件则将技术置于环境之中。最重要的是，机制与条件框架不是一种重构工具，而是一种论证工具。承受能力机制既不是僵化的，也不是决定性的。相反，它们是边界松散的分析停滞点，一个类别与另一个类别的划分始终有待商榷。反过来，承受能力的条件既不是一成不变的，也不是相互排斥的，而是相互重叠的，并且总是会发生变化。因此，机制与条件框架提供了一个示意图，分析师和实践者可以将社会技术系统映射到这个示意图上，同时保持动态性、不确定性和稳健审议的丰富性。

How Affordances Matter

能力如何重要

The mechanisms and conditions framework is rooted in the assumption that technologies are political. I address this base assumption more thoroughly in chapter 3. For now, I use the politics of technology to make a case for how affordances matter. Technologies are designed, implemented, and used through webs of choices. Some of these choices are explicit and reflect a clear intention for the technology to affect human action in some specific way. Other choices are implicit and may not ever enter the conscious minds of designers, distributors, or end users. Each choice—explicit or implicit—reflects and affects value orientations, sociostructural arrangements, and social dynamics.

机制与条件框架植根于技术具有政治性这一假设。我将在第 3 章中更详尽地论述这一基本假设。现在，我利用技术的政治性来论证承受能力的重要性。技术的设计、实施和使用都是通过各种选择来实现的。其中有些选择是明确的，反映了技术以某种特定方式影响人类行动的明确意图。其他选择则是隐性的，可能从未进入设计者、分销商或最终用户的意识。每一种选择--明确的或隐含的--都反映并影响着价值取向、社会结构安排和社会动态。

Because values are not neutral and tend to reinforce power and status structures, technologies are often infused with the politics of the powerful. This is not to say that technologies cannot effect change for oppressed groups or serve as tools of resistance. They can, and they do. However, the mechanisms and conditions framework begins with the assumption that if left unchecked, technologies will arc toward privilege and normality. This assumption bears out empirically and repetitively. For example, several versions of facial recognition software have failed to identify dark-hued skin tones, thus excluding people of color from available services while reentrenching default whiteness; Facebook’s real-name policy proved exclusionary and at times dangerous for some LGBTQI users; and a study by Carnegie Mellon University showed that Google’s automated targeted ad feature presents men with higher-paying employment opportunities than those presented to women.[10]

由于价值观并不是中立的，而且往往会强化权力和地位结构，因此技术往往被注入了强权政治。这并不是说，技术不能为受压迫群体带来改变，或成为反抗的工具。它们可以，而且确实如此。然而，机制和条件框架的出发点是假设，如果不加以控制，技术将朝着特权和常态的方向发展。这一假设在经验上一再得到证实。例如，几个版本的面部识别软件都无法识别深肤色，从而将有色人种排除在可用服务之外，同时重新巩固了默认的白人身份；Facebook 的实名政策被证明对一些 LGBTQI 用户具有排斥性，有时甚至是危险的；卡内基梅隆大学的一项研究表明，谷歌的自动定向广告功能为男性提供的就业机会高于为女性提供的机会。10

The politics of technology stem from objects’ integration with human social and structural arrangements. By asking how, for whom, and under what circumstances?, the mechanisms and conditions framework takes a relational position in which humans and technologies are inherently co-constitutive. Although technologies maintain a shaping effect on human subjects, technologies themselves embody human values and politics in their design, implementation, and use. The bad news is that this means technologies will, by default, reflect and reinforce existing inequalities. The good news is that the default is neither necessary nor inevitable. A sharp analytic tool, like the mechanisms and conditions framework, renders politics visible and pliable. Inclined practitioners can thus rework sociotechnical systems toward social good.

技术政治源于物品与人类社会和结构安排的融合。通过询问 "如何"、"为谁 "以及 "在什么情况下"，机制与条件框架采取了一种关系立场，即人类与技术在本质上是共同构成的。虽然技术对人类主体具有塑造作用，但技术本身在设计、实施和使用过程中也体现了人类的价值观和政治。坏消息是，这意味着技术在默认情况下会反映并强化现有的不平等。好消息是，这种默认既不是必要的，也不是不可避免的。像机制和条件框架这样的敏锐分析工具，可以使政治变得可见和柔韧。因此，有志于此的实践者可以重塑社会技术系统，使其向社会公益方向发展。

Situating the Text

定位文本

A substantial body of work focuses on the entwinement of social and technical systems. This has emerged as a robust and interdisciplinary approach to the politics and values of technologies in society. From social science, we see rigorous analyses that detail the ways in which technical systems reflect and perpetuate inequalities along intersecting lines of race, class, sexuality, (dis)ability, geography, and gender. From engineering and design studies, we see an effort to integrate values, ethics, and politics into design processes. A properly operationalized model of affordances connects these intellectual and practical efforts by giving language and structure to projects that map the social dynamics of technical systems and to projects that design technical systems with social intent.

大量研究工作都集中在社会与技术系统的结合上。这已成为研究技术在社会中的政治和价值的一种强有力的跨学科方法。从社会科学中，我们可以看到严谨的分析，这些分析详细说明了技术系统如何反映并延续种族、阶级、性、（能力）障碍、地理和性别等交叉领域的不平等现象。从工程和设计研究中，我们看到了将价值观、伦理和政治融入设计过程的努力。通过为绘制技术系统社会动态图的项目和设计具有社会意图的技术系统的项目提供语言和结构，一个适当可操作的负担能力模型将这些智力和实践努力联系起来。

Virginia Eubanks’s Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor[11] and Safiya Umoja Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism[12] stand out as exemplar works from the social sciences. In design studies, there has been a “practical turn” exemplified by Batya Friedman and colleagues’ work on value-sensitive design[13] and Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum’s research on Values at Play in Digital Games.[14] I highlight these works here to situate the mechanisms and conditions framework of affordances within a larger cross-disciplinary project of critical approaches to technology and design. I also highlight them to show the utility of the mechanisms and conditions framework as a cohesive analytic and practical tool.

弗吉尼亚-尤班克斯（Virginia Eubanks）的《不平等的自动化：高科技工具如何对穷人进行剖析、监控和惩罚》11 和萨菲亚-乌莫贾-诺贝尔（Safiya Umoja Noble）的《压迫的算法》：搜索引擎如何强化种族主义》12 是社会科学领域的典范之作。在设计研究方面，出现了 "实践转向"，例如巴蒂亚-弗里德曼及其同事关于价值敏感设计的研究13 以及玛丽-弗拉纳根和海伦-尼森鲍姆关于数字游戏中的价值观的研究14。14 我在此强调这些作品，是为了将承受能力的机制和条件框架置于一个更大的跨学科项目中，即对技术和设计的批判性方法。我在此强调这些作品，也是为了展示机制与条件框架作为一种具有凝聚力的分析与实践工具的实用性。

Eubanks’s Automating Inequality documents the effects of automated decision systems in the US public sector. Billed by government agents as objective and optimally efficient, automated systems have been mobilized to manage public welfare, healthcare, homelessness, and children’s protective services. Eubanks shows that as they are built, these automated systems over-monitor and underserve populations in need. For example, any missing data for a user in the healthcare distribution system resulted in an immediate cease of benefits with no clear information about what the problem was or how to fix it. Recipients would simply receive notification that they were unable to access benefits, and the burden was placed on the beneficiary to reconcile with the system. People experiencing homelessness were required to answer a battery of questions to be eligible for housing, thus placing them in databases for surveillance and monitoring by police and government authorities (while remaining highly unlikely to receive sustainable housing assistance). Automated systems for child protection relied on a point-based algorithm that predicted the likelihood that a child would experience danger. The algorithm was predicated largely on interactions between the family and public services, thus placing poor families under disproportionate scrutiny and increasing the likelihood that parental custody would come under threat. In short, Eubanks shows that “poor and working-class people are targeted by new tools of digital poverty management and face life-threatening consequences as a result.”[15]

尤班克斯的《不平等的自动化》记录了自动化决策系统在美国公共部门的影响。自动化系统被政府人员标榜为客观和最佳效率，已被用于管理公共福利、医疗保健、无家可归者和儿童保护服务。Eubanks 指出，这些自动化系统在建立之初就对有需要的人群进行了过度监控和服务不足。例如，在医疗保健分配系统中，用户的任何数据缺失都会导致福利的立即停止，而没有关于问题所在或如何解决的明确信息。受益人只会收到无法获得福利的通知，而与系统进行核对的责任则落在了受益人身上。无家可归的人需要回答一系列问题才能获得住房资格，从而将他们置于数据库中，供警方和政府当局监视和监测（同时极不可能获得可持续的住房援助）。儿童保护的自动化系统依靠一种基于点的算法来预测儿童遭遇危险的可能性。这种算法主要以家庭与公共服务部门之间的互动为基础，因此贫困家庭受到的监控过多，父母的监护权受到威胁的可能性增加。简而言之，尤班克斯表明，"穷人和工薪阶层成为数字贫困管理新工具的目标，并因此面临威胁生命的后果"。15

Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression examines algorithmic biases at the intersection of race and gender in the Google search engine. Opening with an account of the author’s search for “black girls,” the book elucidates the ways search engines incorporate racist and sexist logics into information systems. Her work shows how the design of information systems, particularly search algorithms, do not just store, sort, and distribute data but also reproduce patterns of inequality. At the beginning of her research, when she typed “black girls” into a Google search box, Noble was faced with pornographic imagery and tropes about black women’s “sass” and anger. This contrasted with searches for “white girls,” which displayed images of innocence and childhood. Far from objective, racist and sexist search results are at once a function of cultural norms and technical design. With algorithms trained on search terms and clicks from socially situated users, the patterns, prejudices, and problems that persist in the culture are encoded into Google’s information infrastructure.

诺布尔的《压迫的算法》研究了谷歌搜索引擎中种族和性别交汇处的算法偏见。该书以作者搜索 "黑人女孩 "的叙述开篇，阐明了搜索引擎将种族主义和性别歧视逻辑融入信息系统的方式。她的研究表明，信息系统的设计，尤其是搜索算法，不仅存储、分类和分发数据，还复制了不平等的模式。在她的研究开始时，当她在谷歌搜索框中输入 "黑人女孩 "时，诺布尔看到的是色情图片和关于黑人女性 "傲慢 "和愤怒的陈词滥调。这与搜索 "白人女孩 "形成了鲜明对比，后者显示的是纯真和童年的图像。种族主义和性别歧视的搜索结果远非客观，而是文化规范和技术设计共同作用的结果。通过对搜索词和来自社会用户的点击进行算法训练，文化中持续存在的模式、偏见和问题被编码到谷歌的信息基础设施中。

Eubanks, Noble, and other critics reveal the politics of design so that we may fix evident problems, create better technologies, and work toward building a better society.[16] As Noble argues, “the more we can make transparent the political dimensions of technology, the more we might be able to intervene.”[17] The practical turn in design studies takes up the task of building better, more ethical, and more equitable things.

尤班克斯、诺布尔和其他批评家揭示了设计的政治性，这样我们就可以解决明显的问题，创造更好的技术，努力建设一个更美好的社会。16 正如诺布尔所言，"我们越能使技术的政治层面透明化，我们就越有可能进行干预"。17 设计研究的实践转向承担起了建设更好、更道德、更公平的事物的任务。

The practical turn in design studies is premised on the idea that recognizing values and ethics in technologies will expose problematic politics and enable designers to effect change. The practical turn centralizes ethical considerations in technical design decisions. The tradition posits that engineers and technology producers have an opportunity and responsibility to build products and systems that serve the social good—or at least avoid enacting harm. The value-sensitive design research program and Flanagan and Nissenbaum’s Values at Play in Digital Games are key representative works from the practical turn.

设计研究中的实践转向是以这样一种理念为前提的，即认识到技术中的价值和伦理会揭露有问题的政治，并使设计师能够促成变革。实践转向将伦理因素集中到技术设计决策中。这一传统认为，工程师和技术生产者有机会也有责任制造出有益于社会的产品和系统--或至少避免造成伤害。对价值敏感的设计研究计划以及弗拉纳根和尼森鲍姆的《数字游戏中的价值观》是实践转向的主要代表作。

The value-sensitive design research program is dedicated to constructing methods of making by which producers remain sensitive to ethics and values from the first stage of the design process and throughout implementation and distribution. Value-sensitive design centralizes power relations and inequalities in its treatment of technical products and systems. It begins with the understanding that default designs often reflect default status structures. The program thus works to avoid and ameliorate material reifications of inequality.[18]

对价值敏感的设计研究计划致力于构建生产方法，使生产者从设计过程的第一阶段开始，在整个实施和分配过程中，始终对道德和价值保持敏感。对价值有敏感认识的设计在处理技术产品和系统时，会集中考虑权力关系和不平等问题。它首先认识到，默认的设计往往反映了默认的地位结构。因此，该计划致力于避免和改善不平等的物质重构。18

In Values at Play in Digital Games, Flanagan and Nissenbaum take on the project of practical intervention by focusing specifically on games. Their analysis of the way leisure products embody implicit and explicit social agendas highlights the pervasiveness of politics in design. With clear implications for technological design more generally, the authors demonstrate the ways game design can perpetuate or resist intersecting oppressions of race, class, gender, (dis)ability, and social class. They show that technical objects are infused with values such as privacy, autonomy, stewardship, and equality. These values can at times sit in tension with each other and between stakeholders, manifesting in divergent ways for the diverse subjects who play.

在《数字游戏中的价值观》一书中，弗拉纳根和尼森鲍姆通过特别关注游戏来开展实际干预项目。他们分析了休闲产品体现隐性和显性社会议程的方式，强调了政治在设计中的普遍性。作者通过对技术设计的明确影响，展示了游戏设计可以延续或抵制种族、阶级、性别、能力（缺陷）和社会阶层等交叉压迫的方式。他们表明，技术物品被注入了隐私、自主、管理和平等等价值观。这些价值观有时会相互之间以及利益相关者之间产生矛盾，以不同的方式体现在不同的游戏主体身上。

Both value-sensitive design and values at play detail methods by which technology producers can account for value tensions and engage in socially intentional design practices. These methods include concrete strategies such as identifying direct and indirect stakeholders, collaborating with diverse stakeholders during all stages of production, making incremental changes in the testing phase (for example, by removing or adding a single feature at a time), externalizing values through sketches and scenarios, prototyping, and creating coding manuals with value orientations. Thus, the practical turn takes a critical perspective on technology and addresses this perspective in material form.

对价值敏感的设计和 "价值在起作用 "都详细说明了技术生产者可以考虑价值紧张关系并参与社会有意设计实践的方法。这些方法包括一些具体的策略，如确定直接和间接的利益相关者、在生产的各个阶段与不同的利益相关者合作、在测试阶段进行渐进式修改（例如，一次只删除或增加一个功能）、通过草图和场景将价值外化、原型设计以及创建具有价值导向的编码手册。因此，实践转向从批判的角度看待技术，并以物质的形式解决这一问题。

The mechanisms and conditions framework of affordances effectively serves both political analysis of technologies and design-based intervention. The automated decision systems detailed by Eubanks can be presented as refusals against poor citizens to maintain privacy and demands on welfare recipients to accept monitoring. Eligibility standards construct rigid depictions of responsible and deserving subjects, and the automation of these decision systems strips away the human element. Thus, although eligibility standards have traditionally requested that recipients comport themselves in line with state-determined values, automation strengthens these requests into demands. These demands of responsible personhood do not apply equally to everyone but exert greater force over those with deeper entrenchment in poverty and state intervention. For instance, automated child protection algorithms count any interaction with services as a risk factor for future abuse. Children whose parents are monitored are entered into the system. When these children grow up and start their own families, they do so with marks already against them. State welfare institutions thus encourage all parents to perform (government-sanctioned) responsible parenthood, refuse to let poor parents deviate, and demand compliance and monitoring in circumstances of intergenerational poverty.

负担能力的机制和条件框架有效地服务于对技术的政治分析和基于设计的干预。尤班克斯（Eubanks）所详述的自动决策系统可以被视为对贫困公民维护隐私的拒绝，以及对福利领取者接受监督的要求。资格标准构建了对负责任和应得主体的刻板描述，而这些决策系统的自动化则剥离了人的因素。因此，尽管资格标准历来要求受助者按照国家确定的价值观行事，但自动化将这些要求强化为需求。这些对负责任的人格的要求并不平等地适用于所有人，而是对那些在贫困和国家干预中根深蒂固的人施加了更大的力量。例如，自动儿童保护算法将与服务机构的任何互动都视为未来虐待的风险因素。父母受到监控的儿童会被录入系统。当这些孩子长大成人，组建自己的家庭时，他们身上已经有了不利于他们的印记。因此，国家福利机构鼓励所有父母履行（政府认可的）负责任的养育义务，拒绝让贫困父母偏离这一轨道，并要求他们在代际贫困的情况下遵守规定并接受监督。

In a similar vein, the information systems described by Noble in Algorithms of Oppression encourage racism under the guise of objectivity. The systems demand curation on the basis of popularity and advertising relevance. Though users are allowed to enter any search terms they wish, the results they receive discourage critical interpretation. Because media literacy and competence in critical race and gender studies can loosen the constraints of the Google search apparatus, dexterity with Google’s search features and an understanding or perception of results as subject to change alter users’ relation to the search tool.

同样，诺布尔在《压迫算法》一书中描述的信息系统也打着客观的幌子，鼓励种族主义。这些系统要求在受欢迎程度和广告相关性的基础上进行策划。虽然用户可以输入任何搜索条件，但他们得到的结果却不鼓励批判性解读。由于媒体素养和批判性种族与性别研究的能力可以放松谷歌搜索设备的限制，对谷歌搜索功能的灵活运用，以及对搜索结果可能发生变化的理解或感知，都会改变用户与搜索工具的关系。

Demarcating the conditions under which technical systems request, demand, encourage, discourage, refuse, and allow not only identifies the politics and values in technical systems but also lays the groundwork for intentional (re)design. Here the mechanisms and conditions framework operates in service of the practical turn. Designers and engineers might rework existing products to encourage gender equity or demand privacy maintenance. They may build goods and services that request sociability or refuse class-based discrimination. The mechanisms and conditions framework thus emerges as both an analytic tool and as a device for developing desirable outcomes.

对技术系统提出要求、需求、鼓励、阻止、拒绝和允许的条件进行划分，不仅能确定技术系统中的政治和价值观，还能为有意（重新）设计奠定基础。在这里，机制和条件框架是为实践转向服务的。设计师和工程师可能会重新设计现有产品，以鼓励性别平等或要求维护隐私。他们可能会制造出要求社交性或拒绝阶级歧视的产品和服务。因此，机制与条件框架既是一种分析工具，也是一种开发理想结果的手段。

In sum, the mechanisms and conditions framework operationalizes “affordance,” providing precise language with which to address human-technology relations. This operationalization is both agile and empirically agnostic, meaning it is not tied to any particular technology but is applicable across myriad sociotechnical systems. The framework can equally address the mechanisms and conditions of bots, social media platforms, chalkboards, seat belts, and shopping carts. This flexible orientation gives affordance analyses both breadth and longevity. One of life’s few inevitabilities is that things change, and technological change persists with striking rapidity. Keeping up with sociotechnical change means creating analytic tools that move along with subtle and dramatic technological shifts. The mechanisms and conditions framework is thus transferable by design.

总之，"机制与条件 "框架将 "可承受性 "操作化，为处理人类与技术的关系提供了精确的语言。这种可操作性既灵活又与经验无关，这意味着它与任何特定技术无关，而是适用于无数社会技术系统。该框架同样可以处理机器人、社交媒体平台、黑板、安全带和购物车的机制和条件。这种灵活的取向使承受能力分析既广泛又持久。生活中为数不多的不可避免的事情之一就是事物的变化，而技术变革更是以惊人的速度持续进行着。要跟上社会技术变革的步伐，就必须创造出能与微妙或剧烈的技术变革同步的分析工具。因此，机制和条件框架在设计上是可以移植的。

Outline of the Book

本书概要

The book follows a trajectory from history and politics to conceptualization and methods. Each chapter builds on preceding chapters. However, each chapter is also self-contained and most can be read independently. The only exceptions are chapters 4 and 5, which explicate the mechanisms and conditions framework in detail and should be read together.

全书按照从历史和政治到概念化和方法的轨迹展开。每一章都建立在前几章的基础上。然而，每章也是自成一体的，大多数章节可以独立阅读。唯一例外的是第 4 章和第 5 章，这两章详细阐述了机制和条件框架，应一并阅读。

The book begins with a brief history of affordance as a concept. One sign of a successful concept is its application across fields. Affordance has certainly achieved this feat. The concept of affordance originated in ecological psychology and has since migrated to design studies, science and technology studies (STS), communication studies, education, anthropology, sociology, engineering, and elsewhere. In its migration and application, scholars and practitioners have undertaken extensive theoretical reworking and engaged the concept in myriad empirical studies. Chapter 2 weaves the varied threads of affordance’s intellectual history into a legible and coherent story.

本书首先简要介绍了 "承受能力 "这一概念的历史。一个概念成功的标志之一是其在各个领域的应用。负担能力无疑实现了这一壮举。可承受性的概念起源于生态心理学，后来迁移到设计研究、科技研究（STS）、传播研究、教育学、人类学、社会学、工程学等领域。在这一概念的迁移和应用过程中，学者和实践者进行了广泛的理论再创作，并在无数的实证研究中使用了这一概念。第2章将 "可负担性 "思想史的不同线索编织成一个清晰连贯的故事。

Chapter 3 gives theoretical grounding to the political nature of the mechanisms and conditions framework. Tracing back to media studies scholars of the 1950s and coming up through contemporary STS perspectives of the new millennium, chapter 3 distinguishes affordance analyses from actor-network theory (ANT)[19] and situates it instead with the critical approach of technology as materialized action.[20] Central to this critical framing is an asymmetrical relationship between subjects and objects and a distinction between technological efficacy and human agency.

第 3 章为机制和条件框架的政治性质提供了理论基础。追溯到 20 世纪 50 年代的媒体研究学者，并通过新千年的当代 STS 视角，第 3 章将承受力分析与行动者网络理论（ANT）19 区分开来，并将其置于技术作为物质化行动的批判方法中。20 这一批判框架的核心是主体与客体之间的不对称关系，以及技术效能与人类能动性之间的区别。

Chapters 4 and 5 lay out the mechanisms and conditions framework. Chapter 4 explains and exemplifies how technologies afford through a porous continuum of request, demand, encourage, discourage, refuse, and allow. Chapter 5 looks at the dynamic relationship between subjects and objects and their contextual contingencies through the conditions of affordance. It demonstrates how the mechanisms of affordance take shape through variations in perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy.

第 4 章和第 5 章阐述了机制和条件框架。第 4 章解释并举例说明了技术是如何通过请求、要求、鼓励、阻止、拒绝和允许等多孔连续体来提供的。第 5 章探讨了主体与客体之间的动态关系，以及通过负担能力的条件所产生的环境变化。它展示了承受机制是如何通过感知、灵巧性以及文化和制度合法性的变化而形成的。

Chapter 6 takes up methodology. The mechanisms and conditions framework is an analytic tool. Chapter 6 addresses existing methodological approaches that pair well with this analytic tool. The chapter is geared toward putting affordance analyses into action. The chapter is also of theoretical relevance because it clarifies the criteria by which methodological approaches fit within the scope of the mechanisms and conditions framework. In clarifying these criteria, chapter 6 rehashes key tenets of the mechanisms and conditions framework and its underlying assumptions.

第 6 章是方法论。机制和条件框架是一种分析工具。第 6 章讨论了与这一分析工具相匹配的现有方法论。本章旨在将负担能力分析付诸行动。本章还具有理论意义，因为它阐明了方法论方法与机制和条件框架范围相匹配的标准。在阐明这些标准时，第 6 章重申了机制与条件框架的主要原则及其基本假设。

In the conclusion, I suggest some big questions for future research. The conclusion is meant to be a springboard from which the mechanisms and conditions framework can take flight. My goal throughout the book is to theorize affordances in a way that simplifies rather than complicates. In the conclusion, I urge researchers to apply the mechanisms and conditions framework to the arduous tasks of both analysis and design.

在结论部分，我为今后的研究提出了一些重大问题。结论是一个跳板，机制和条件框架可以从这里起飞。我在全书中的目标是以一种简化而非复杂化的方式来理论化负担能力。在结论中，我敦促研究人员将机制和条件框架应用于分析和设计这两项艰巨的任务中。

2

A Brief History of Affordances

能力简史

When I began thinking seriously about affordances, I often stated that the concept was undertheorized. This is a common declaration from scholars who write about the topic, and it was appealing to me as a justification for my own work. If affordances were undertheorized, then perhaps I could make a meaningful and substantial contribution to the field. The claim also seemed empirically true. There are reams of academic texts that use the term affordance as a central analytic device but provide no definitions, further explication, or serious attention to its theoretical underpinnings. Yet the more I read, the less comfortable I became with my own assertion.

当我开始认真思考 "可承受性 "时，我经常说这个概念理论化程度不够。这是对这一主题进行研究的学者们常说的一句话，也是我为自己的工作辩护的理由。如果 "可承受性 "没有被充分理论化，那么我或许就能为这一领域做出有意义的实质性贡献。从经验上看，这种说法似乎也是正确的。有大量的学术著作将 "可承受性"（affordance）一词作为核心分析工具，但却没有提供任何定义、进一步的阐释或对其理论基础的认真关注。然而，我读得越多，对自己的论断就越不以为然。

As I came to discover, the scholarly treatment of affordances has been extensive and sophisticated. I found myself buried under piles of literature, much of which is painstaking and detailed. Specific relationships between artifacts, subjects, and environments have been formalized through numeric equations, careful nomenclature, graphs, charts, arrows, and appendices. Debates have been robust, and word counts expansive. Affordances are, in short, very theorized. At the same time, however, there remains definitional confusion, conceptual looseness, and an oddly accepted convention of using the concept as though it has no intellectual history at all.[1]

正如我后来发现的那样，学术界对 "负担能力 "的研究是广泛而复杂的。我发现自己被埋没在成堆的文献中，其中很多都是艰苦细致的。通过数字等式、细致的术语、图表、箭头和附录，人工制品、研究对象和环境之间的具体关系被正式确定下来。辩论激烈，字数繁多。总之，"能力 "是非常理论化的。然而，与此同时，定义上的混乱、概念上的松散，以及使用这一概念时约定俗成的怪癖却依然存在。1

Paradoxically, the affordance theoretical literature is dense and unwieldy, and yet in practice, it is apparently ignorable. I wonder whether this contradiction is more than just a fluke. The strength of affordance as a concept is its efficient manner of expressing technological efficacy without falling into determinism. Its beauty is in its parsimony. A theoretical trajectory that overspecifies affordances and related conceptual variables (including artifacts, environments, organisms, users, designers, and architectures) may obscure, rather than reveal, the concept’s full potential. Disciplinary jargon doesn’t help, either.

令人啼笑皆非的是，负担能力理论文献繁杂臃肿，但在实践中却显然是可忽略不计的。我不知道这种矛盾是否只是一种侥幸。作为一个概念，"可承受性 "的优势在于它能有效地表达技术功效，同时又不会陷入决定论。它的魅力在于其简约性。如果理论轨迹过度具体化了可承受性和相关概念变量（包括人工制品、环境、有机体、用户、设计师和建筑），可能会掩盖而非揭示这一概念的全部潜力。学科术语也无济于事。

After immersing myself in fifty years of affordance literature, I now contend that the concept needs not more theory but smarter theory. Affordance needs a theoretical treatment that does justice by its richness and depth while maintaining the simplicity that makes the concept an elegant and practical tool. This is my aim with the mechanisms and conditions framework, presented in chapters 4 and 5. To get to the framework, the first task is to lay out and untangle affordance’s conceptual history. Such a project sets the foundation for my own conceptual model and also highlights the rigorous and thoughtful work that already exists, bringing together multiple threads into a legible and coherent whole. This chapter offers a foray into the main ideas, debates, and applications of the concept since its inception in the 1960s. Rather than a complete catalog of affordance references, I focus on the most influential pieces and those that most clearly demonstrate relevant lines of thought. This is not an exhaustive literature review but a narrative about where affordances have been and how they can be mobilized for both analytic and practical purposes.

在沉浸于五十年的负担能力文献之后，我现在认为，这一概念需要的不是更多的理论，而是更聪明的理论。承受力需要一种理论处理方式，既能体现其丰富性和深度，又能保持其简洁性，从而使这一概念成为一种优雅而实用的工具。这就是我在第 4 章和第 5 章中提出的机制与条件框架的目的。要建立这个框架，首要任务是梳理和理清 "承受力 "的概念历史。这一项目为我自己的概念模型奠定了基础，同时也凸显了已有的严谨而深思熟虑的工作，将多条线索汇聚成一个清晰而连贯的整体。本章介绍了自 20 世纪 60 年代概念提出以来的主要观点、争论和应用。我将重点放在最有影响力的作品和最能清晰展示相关思想脉络的作品上，而不是一份完整的 "承受能力 "参考文献目录。这并不是一篇详尽无遗的文献综述，而是关于 "可承受性 "的发展历程以及如何将其用于分析和实践目的的叙述。

Origins in Ecological Psychology

起源于生态心理学

James J. Gibson first introduced affordances as the pinnacle concept in his work on direct perception.[2] An ecological psychologist, Gibson departed from the dominant perspective of the time, which emphasized representation and inference. Rooted in the ideas of nineteenth-century German scientist and philosopher Hermann von Helmholtz, psychologists in the 1960s predominately modeled perception as a three-term system.[3] The three-term model of perception assumes that perception is the function of a subject, an object, and a mediated representation. For instance, a person (subject) sees a tree (object) via a representational image on the retina (mediator). The subject uses existing knowledge to disambiguate the mediated image and make sense of it.

詹姆斯-吉布森（James J. Gibson）在其关于直接感知的著作中首次提出了 "可承受性"（affordance）这一顶级概念。2 作为一名生态心理学家，吉布森偏离了当时强调表象和推理的主流观点。20 世纪 60 年代的心理学家以 19 世纪德国科学家和哲学家赫尔曼-冯-亥姆霍兹（Hermann von Helmholtz）的思想为基础，主要将感知建模为一个三项系统。3 感知的三项模型假定，感知是主体、客体和中介表征的功能。例如，一个人（主体）通过视网膜上的表象（中介）看到一棵树（客体）。主体利用已有的知识来区分中介图像并理解它。

Gibson rejected this representational perspective in favor of a two-term model that includes only objects and subjects (or as Gibson would say, environments and organisms).[4] The representational model was referred to as inferential perception, whereas Gibson was interested in direct perception. Inferential perception requires that representations are disambiguated via subjects’ existing knowledge. Gibson argued that subjects do not need existing knowledge of a situation to disambiguate but instead can perceive directly from the environment and act based on direct perception. That is, the predominant view of perception at the time was inferential and representational. In contrast, Gibsonian perception was direct, antirepresentational, and action-based.[5]

吉布森摒弃了这一表象视角，转而采用一种只包括客体和主体（或如吉布森所说，环境和有机体）的双项模型。4 表征模型被称为推论知觉，而吉布森感兴趣的是直接知觉。推论知觉要求通过主体的已有知识来区分表象。吉布森认为，主体不需要已有的情境知识来消除歧义，而是可以直接从环境中感知，并根据直接感知采取行动。也就是说，当时占主导地位的知觉观点是推论性和表象性的。与此相反，吉布森的感知是直接的、反表象的和基于行动的。5

The concept of affordance was central to Gibson’s thinking. In 1966, Gibson first defined affordances as “what things furnish, for good or ill.”[6] A decade later in his now canonical text The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Gibson expanded the definition:

承受力的概念是吉布森思想的核心。1966 年，吉布森首次将 "可负担性 "定义为 "事物所提供的，无论好坏"。6 十年后，吉布森在其经典著作《视觉感知的生态学方法》中扩展了这一定义：

The affordances of an environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, but the noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment.[7]

环境的可负担性是指环境为动物提供的东西，是指环境为动物提供的或好或坏的东西。动词 "负担得起 "可以在字典中找到，但名词 "负担得起 "却找不到。这是我编造出来的。我的意思是，它既指环境，也指动物，而现有的任何术语都无法做到这一点。它意味着动物和环境的互补性。7

For Gibson, affordances are action-based, dynamic, and necessarily relational. Perception is a direct dispositional relation between objects and subjects in which opportunities for action are the driving force. For instance, Gibsonian affordances are not concerned with the Euclidian space between points but instead with the distance between points in relation to a subject’s stride.[8] “[W]hat we perceive when we look at objects are their affordances, not their qualities,” says Gibson.[9]

在吉布森看来，能力是以行动为基础的，是动态的，而且必然是相关的。感知是客体与主体之间的直接处置关系，其中行动机会是驱动力。例如，吉布森的 "承受力 "并不关注点与点之间的欧几里得空间，而是关注点与点之间的距离与主体步幅的关系。8 吉布森说："当我们观察物体时，我们感知到的是它们的能力，而不是它们的品质。9

Gibson’s ideas stem from gestalt psychologists who were working in the 1930s, especially Kurt Lewin and Kurt Koffka, who were interested in perception and sensemaking as greater than the sum of individual parts.[10] For instance, Koffka describes mailboxes as having a “demand-character” for those seeking to mail a letter. That is, the mailbox is not just its material elements, but the materialization of an action opportunity for a subject in need. Gibson builds on this by arguing that affordances are action opportunities that derive from a relationship between properties of objects and properties of subjects, regardless of the subject’s need or propensity.

吉布森的观点源于 20 世纪 30 年代的格式塔心理学家，尤其是库尔特-卢因和库尔特-科夫卡，他们对感知和感觉的形成感兴趣，认为其大于各个部分的总和。10 例如，科夫卡将信箱描述为对想要寄信的人具有 "需求特征"。也就是说，邮箱不仅仅是其物质元素，而且是有需要的主体的行动机会的具体化。吉布森在此基础上提出，"可负担性 "是一种行动机会，源于客体属性与主体属性之间的关系，与主体的需求或倾向无关。

Gibson’s conceptualization of affordance has two critical elements: objectivity and bidirectional relationality. Affordances are opportunities for action, based on both intrinsic properties of objects and their relation to subjects. That is, affordances are opportunities for action, not necessarily their actualization. As Gibson explains, “an affordance is not bestowed upon an object by the need of an observer and his act of perceiving it. The object offers what it does because of what it is.”[11] Of postboxes and letter writing, Gibson says:

吉布森的 "承受力 "概念有两个关键要素：客观性和双向关系性。实惠是行动的机会，既基于客体的内在属性，也基于客体与主体的关系。也就是说，能力是行动的机会，而不一定是行动的实现。正如吉布森所解释的，"一种可承受性并不是由于观察者的需要及其感知行为而赋予客体的。物体之所以能提供它所能做的，是因为它是什么"。11 关于邮筒和写信，吉布森说：

For Koffka, it was the phenomenal postbox that invited letter-mailing, not the physical postbox. But this duality is pernicious. I prefer to say that the real postbox (the only one) affords letter-mailing to a letter-writing human in a community with a postal system. This fact is perceived when the postbox is identified as such, and it is apprehended whether the postbox is in sight or out of sight (emphasis in original).[12]

对科夫卡来说，是现象邮筒邀请人们寄信，而不是实体邮筒。但这种二元对立是有害的。我更愿意说，在一个有邮政系统的社区中，真正的邮筒（唯一的邮筒）为写信的人提供了寄信服务。当邮筒被确认为邮筒时，这一事实就被感知到了，无论邮筒是在眼前还是在视线之外，它都被感知到了（着重号为原文所加）。12

For Gibson, affordances are not predicated on use but are manifest in relation to socially situated subjects. Objects and subjects are therefore co-constitutive, and affordances are potential actions arising from bidirectional object-subject relations.

在吉布森看来，承受力并不是以使用为前提的，而是在与社会主体的关系中体现出来的。因此，客体和主体是共同构成的，而能力是由客体和主体的双向关系所产生的潜在行动。

Gibson’s concept of affordance became significant in the psychology of perception. Since then, it has branched fruitfully into a diverse range of fields, where it remains influential to this day. Key expansions have taken hold in design studies and human-computer interaction, anthropology, engineering, communication studies, and education with a focus on pedagogy and technology.

吉布森提出的 "承受力 "概念在感知心理学中具有重要意义。从那时起，吉布森的这一概念在多个领域取得了丰硕成果，至今仍具有重要影响。其主要扩展领域包括设计研究和人机交互、人类学、工程学、传播学以及以教学法和技术为重点的教育学。

Affordances Spread

亲和力传播

The first major shift in affordance theory came in 1988, when Donald A. Norman introduced the idea of affordances to design studies and human-computer interaction (HCI). Norman’s eminent work The Psychology of Everyday Things (POET) contends that objects should be designed in ways that guide users’ perceptions and thus guide action.[13] For Norman, an effective designer should also be an insightful psychologist who builds objects in ways that direct users along intentional pathways. He recognizes that objects have multiple affordances and calls on the designer to highlight desired and relevant action opportunities. Norman first defined affordance as follows:

1988年，唐纳德-诺曼（Donald A. Norman）在设计研究和人机交互（HCI）中引入了 "可承受性"（affordance）的概念，这是 "可承受性 "理论的第一次重大转变。诺曼的著名著作《日常事物心理学》（POET）认为，物品的设计应该能够引导用户的感知，从而指导用户的行动。13 在诺曼看来，一个有效的设计者也应该是一个有洞察力的心理学家，他所设计的物品应能引导用户沿着有意识的路径使用。他认识到，物品具有多种可承受性，并要求设计师突出所需的相关行动机会。诺曼首先对 "承受力 "下了如下定义：

The term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used. A chair affords (“is for”) support and, therefore, affords sitting. A chair can also be carried.[14]

所谓 "承受力"，是指事物的感知和实际属性，主要是那些决定事物如何使用的基本属性。椅子提供（"用于"）支撑，因此可以坐。椅子也可以被搬动。14

Norman eventually renamed his germinal work from The Psychology of Everyday Things to The Design of Everyday Things (DOET).[15] Not only does the updated version have a new title, but it also presents new theoretical delineations that attend to critiques against the original text.

诺曼最终将他的萌芽之作从《日常事物心理学》更名为《日常事物设计》（DOET）。15 更新后的版本不仅有了新的标题，还提出了新的理论定义，以回应对原文的批评。

In its original formulation, Norman’s POET emphasizes perception, in contrast to Gibson, who speaks of the inherent properties of an environment. Critics argued that Norman’s formulation gives short shrift to materiality. It is too subjective, they said, and does not grant enough efficacy to material conditions.[16] A decade later in DOET, Norman addresses this point by distinguishing between “real” affordances and “perceived” affordances. Real affordances are the actions that an environment makes available, and perceived affordances are those that the user knows are available. He argues that this is a key distinction and that designers should focus on the latter.

在最初的表述中，诺曼的 POET 强调感知，这与吉布森形成鲜明对比，后者谈论的是环境的固有属性。批评者认为，诺曼的表述轻视了物质性。他们说，这一表述过于主观，没有赋予物质条件足够的效力。16 十年后，诺曼在《DOET》一书中对 "真实的 "可承受性和 "感知的 "可承受性进行了区分，从而解决了这一问题。真实的可负担性是指环境提供的行动，而感知的可负担性是指用户知道可以使用的行动。他认为这是一个关键的区别，设计者应该把重点放在后者上。

In the updated text, Norman envisions object-subject interactions as a series of distinct constraints. He differentiates between cultural constraints, physical constraints, and logical constraints. Physical constraints are synonymous with affordances, logical constraints are what the design environment makes readily available, and cultural constraints are norms shared by a group. Referencing cultural constraints, he further differentiates between affordances (real and perceived) and conventions. Conventions are cultural constraints that have evolved over time, encouraging some actions while inhibiting others. He summarizes the updated argument as follows:

在更新后的文本中，诺曼将客体与主体之间的互动设想为一系列不同的制约因素。他区分了文化约束、物理约束和逻辑约束。物理约束与承受能力同义，逻辑约束是设计环境所提供的现成条件，而文化约束则是群体共享的规范。在提到文化制约因素时，他进一步区分了承受能力（真实的和感知的）和约定俗成。约定俗成是随着时间的推移而逐渐形成的文化约束，在鼓励某些行为的同时，也会抑制另一些行为。他将最新论点总结如下

Affordances specify the range of possible activities, but affordances are of little use if they are not visible to the users. Hence, the art of the designer is to ensure that the desired, relevant actions are readily perceivable.[17]

可承受性规定了可能的活动范围，但如果用户看不到可承受性，它们就没有什么用处。因此，设计者的艺术在于确保所需的相关操作易于感知。17

Gibson and Norman both convey an image of objects and subjects in relation. However, their work derives from distinct disciplinary traditions, each maintains unique purposes, and each diverges from the other in the primacy of objectivity (Gibson) and subjectivity (Norman). Norman’s distinction between real and perceived affordances works toward reconciling the two formulations, but daylight remains between these foundational statements on the concept. Drawing variously from Gibson and Norman, the concept of affordance has found its way into myriad fields outside of psychology and HCI. Indeed, disciplinary expansion of the concept appears in anthropology, engineering, communication studies, and education, with threads seeping into neuroscience, robotics, sociology, and philosophy.

吉布森和诺曼都表达了客体和主体之间的关系。然而，他们的研究源于不同的学科传统，各自坚持独特的目的，并且在客观性（吉布森）和主观性（诺曼）的首要地位上也各执一词。诺曼对真实的和感知的 "可承受性"（affordance）进行了区分，从而调和了这两种表述，但这两种概念的基础性表述之间仍存在分歧。通过对吉布森和诺曼的不同借鉴，"可承受性 "这一概念已经进入了心理学和人机交互技术之外的众多领域。事实上，这一概念的学科扩展出现在人类学、工程学、传播学和教育学中，并渗入到神经科学、机器人学、社会学和哲学中。

Although affordance’s interdisciplinary spread has resulted in a dense and at times unruly literature, it also demonstrates the potential for the concept as an analytic tool that spans disciplinary boundaries. Such tools are critical in a historical moment marked by rapid social and material change. Contemporary problems are increasingly beyond the scope of singular disciplinary expertise. Yet true interdisciplinary collaboration is often stifled by distinct languages and conventions that create barriers to communication and understanding. A concept that has organically traveled from one discipline to the next demonstrates strong potential as an intellectually unifying force.

虽然 "可承受性 "的跨学科传播导致了密集的、有时甚至是无序的文献，但它也展示了这一概念作为一种跨越学科界限的分析工具的潜力。在社会和物质快速变化的历史时刻，这种工具至关重要。当代问题越来越超出单一学科专业知识的范围。然而，真正的跨学科合作往往被不同的语言和惯例所扼杀，这些语言和惯例造成了沟通和理解的障碍。一个概念从一个学科到另一个学科的有机传播，显示出其作为智力统一力量的强大潜力。

Anthropologists have adopted affordance as a means of cross-cultural understanding and analysis.[18] By rejecting the assumption that humans are distinct in their reliance on symbols and accepting instead the premise of direct perception, anthropologists can learn about new cultures through shared perception (the affordances of shared place and space) and can analyze cultures outside of their own without the troubling distinction between “us” and “them.” Tim Ingold explains:

人类学家将 "承受力 "作为跨文化理解和分析的一种手段。18 人类学家摒弃了人类在依赖符号方面与众不同的假设，转而接受了直接感知的前提，从而可以通过共享感知（共享地点和空间的承受力）来了解新文化，并且可以分析自身文化之外的文化，而无需区分 "我们 "和 "他们"。蒂姆-英戈尔德解释道：

The argument, in a nutshell, was that a relational approach to affordances might give us a language in which to express how people continually bring forth environments, and environments people, that could escape the endlessly self-replicating dualism between a universally given world of nature and the diversely constructed worlds of culture.[19]

概括地说，这种观点认为，从关系的角度来看待可承受性，或许能为我们提供一种语言，用以表达人们如何不断创造环境和环境中的人，从而摆脱自然世界的普遍给定与文化世界的多元建构之间无休止的自我复制二元论。19

In this vein, Bryan Pfaffenberger advocates for affordance as a conceptual means to capture the tridimensional relationships between technique, sociotechnical systems, and material culture.[20] Through affordances, anthropologists have a dynamic way to understand the interplay between the resources with which artifacts are made (skills, knowledge, and tools), the sociotechnical systems that link cultural practices with technological developments, and the tangible material culture that results from and cycles back to inform cultural praxis. Thus, an anthropological observation of public transit behavior in Beijing would account for the interplay of urban infrastructure, population density, and cultural sensibilities as cocreating both objects (trains, platforms, buses, and share bikes) and subjects (commuters, tourists, and private motorists). The affordance perspective gives the anthropologist an analytic lens with which to understand people and culture in context.

本着这一思路，布莱恩-普法芬伯格（Bryan Pfaffenberger）主张将 "承受力"（affordance）作为一种概念手段，用以捕捉技术、社会技术系统和物质文化之间的三维关系。20 人类学家可以通过 "承受力 "这一动态方法来理解制造人工制品的资源（技能、知识和工具）、将文化实践与技术发展联系在一起的社会技术系统以及由文化实践产生并循环回馈给文化实践的有形物质文化之间的相互作用。因此，对北京公共交通行为的人类学观察将考虑到城市基础设施、人口密度和文化情感的相互作用，它们共同创造了客体（火车、站台、公交车和共享单车）和主体（上班族、游客和私家车主）。可承受性视角为人类学家提供了一个分析视角，使其能够在语境中理解人与文化。

In engineering, Jonathan R. A. Maier and George M. Fadel have led the field in constructing an affordance ontology and method of implementation.[21] Their affordance-based design (ABD) introduces affordances as fundamental to engineering design and defines affordance as the relationship between two subsystems in which potential behaviors can occur that would not be possible with either subsystem in isolation. ABD incorporates four basic elements: artifacts, users, environments, and designers. Affordances are the relationship between artifacts, users, and environments. The job of the designer is to optimize the intersection of these three elements toward some defined goal or goals. This resonates with Norman’s original call for adequate “mapping,” in which designers are tasked with psychological insight as they build technologies that clearly guide users down intended paths. As a simple example, chest-height desks facilitate standing, and waist-height desks are primarily suited for sitting. The former guides users down a “healthy” and active physical relationship to the workspace, whereas the latter guides users toward stagnation. An active stance is thus likely preferable if the goal is health and wellness. A sedentary disposition may be preferable if the goal is long stretches of uninterrupted productivity. With an affordance frame, engineers can design with these (and other) various goals in mind.

在工程学领域，乔纳森-迈尔（Jonathan R. A. Maier）和乔治-法德尔（George M. Fadel）在构建承受能力本体论和实施方法方面处于领先地位。21 他们的 "基于承受能力的设计"（ABD）将承受能力作为工程设计的基本要素，并将承受能力定义为两个子系统之间的关系，在这种关系中，两个子系统中任何一个单独存在都不可能出现潜在的行为。ABD 包含四个基本要素：人工制品、用户、环境和设计师。能力是人工制品、用户和环境之间的关系。设计师的工作是优化这三个要素的交叉点，以实现某个或某些既定目标。这与诺曼最初提出的充分 "映射 "的号召不谋而合，即设计师的任务是在构建技术的过程中洞察用户的心理，明确引导用户沿着预期的路径前进。举个简单的例子，胸高的办公桌方便站立，而腰高的办公桌主要适合坐着。前者引导用户与工作空间建立 "健康"、积极的身体关系，而后者则引导用户停滞不前。因此，如果以健康和保健为目标，活跃的姿态可能更可取。如果目标是长时间不间断地提高工作效率，那么久坐不动的姿态可能更可取。有了负担能力框架，工程师就可以在设计时考虑到这些（以及其他）不同的目标。

Within communication studies, affordance has emerged as a robust concept in the study of information communication technologies (ICTs) and computer-mediated communication (CMC). Affordance is useful for its capacity to capture the ways hardware and software interact with socially situated users.[22] Affordance research in communication studies shows how digital architectures, infrastructures, policies, and practices shape and reflect social dynamics. Hence, a review of affordances in the ICT/CMC literature shows studies variously emphasizing design architectures,[23] individual user practices,[24] platform policies,[25] and informal conventions.[26]

在传播学研究中，"承受力 "已成为信息传播技术（ICTs）和计算机辅助传播（CMC）研究中的一个重要概念。承受力之所以有用，是因为它能够捕捉到硬件和软件与社会用户的互动方式。22 传播研究中的承受力研究显示了数字架构、基础设施、政策和实践如何塑造和反映社会动态。因此，对 ICT/CMC 文献中的 "可承受性 "的回顾表明，各种研究都强调了设计架构、23 个人用户实践、24 平台政策、25 以及非正式惯例。26

Digital and electronic media have also driven the conceptual use of affordance in studies of education and pedagogy.[27] Scholars contend that educational technologies interact with learners to construct learning environments with greater or less pedagogical value. For instance, Roy D. Pea utilizes affordance to conceptually describe the interplay between students and technical systems in a distributed learning environment.[28] Diana Laurillard and colleagues contend that affordances can shape the relative learning benefits for experts and novices in diverse learning groups.[29] Daniel D. Suthers explores how learning goals can be designed into technical systems,[30] and Grainne Conole and Martin Dyke tease out the criteria for technological affordances that enable collaborative learning.[31]

数字和电子媒体也推动了在教育和教学法研究中对负担能力概念的使用。27 学者们认为，教育技术与学习者相互作用，构建了具有或多或少教学价值的学习环境。例如，Roy D. Pea 利用承受能力从概念上描述了分布式学习环境中学生与技术系统之间的相互作用。28 戴安娜-劳里拉德及其同事认为，承受能力可以决定专家和新手在不同学习小组中的相对学习收益。29 丹尼尔-D-苏瑟斯探讨了如何将学习目标设计到技术系统中，30 格莱恩-科诺尔和马丁-戴克阐明了促进协作学习的技术承受能力的标准。31

In short, affordance has conceptual legs, and those legs have traveled. The concept now spans multiple fields and does diverse and important analytic and practical work. The immense breadth of a single concept speaks to its hardiness. And yet the concept has not been without controversy. Indeed, the affordance literature is thick with debate and critique, much of which revolves around various emphases on objects, subjects, and contexts.

简而言之，"承受力 "有概念上的支撑，而且这些支撑已经走过了漫长的历程。如今，这一概念已横跨多个领域，开展了多种多样的重要分析和实践工作。一个概念的广泛性说明了它的坚韧性。然而，这一概念并非没有争议。事实上，关于 "可承受性 "的文献中充斥着大量的争论和批判，其中大部分都围绕着对对象、主体和语境的不同强调。

Objects, Subjects, and Contexts

对象、主体和语境

Since Gibson introduced affordances in the 1960s, the literature has been active with debates about the primacy of subjects versus objects and about the role of context and culture in affordance analyses. Gibson’s antirepresentational direct perception approach positioned affordances as bidirectional relationships between “organisms” and “environments.” However, some interpret his definition (“what things furnish, for good or ill”) as a model in which environments have disproportionate weight while organisms respond only to environmental stimuli. In contrast, critics point to Norman’s conceptualization as overly perceptual, unable to adequately attend to material features outside of what subjects perceive. Debates within the affordances literature thus posit various ways to portray object-subject dynamics most precisely. Moreover, analysts contend that neither Gibson nor Norman fully account for contextual and cultural factors. Critics thus build on early works by advancing models of affordance that situate objects and subjects within sociostructural conditions.

自从吉布森在 20 世纪 60 年代提出 "承受力 "这一概念以来，关于主体与客体的优先性以及语境和文化在承受力分析中的作用的争论就一直没有停止过。吉布森的反表象直接感知方法将能力定位为 "有机体 "与 "环境 "之间的双向关系。然而，一些人将他的定义（"事物所提供的，无论好坏"）解释为一种模式，在这种模式中，环境具有不成比例的重要性，而有机体只对环境刺激做出反应。与此相反，批评者指出诺曼的概念过于感性，无法充分关注主体感知之外的物质特征。因此，"可承受性 "文献中的争论提出了各种最精确地描绘客体-主体动态的方法。此外，分析家们认为，吉布森和诺曼都没有充分考虑到语境和文化因素。因此，批评者在早期著作的基础上，提出了将客体和主体置于社会结构条件下的承受力模型。

Although Gibson’s conceptualization of affordance is ontologically bidirectional, defined as a relation between environments and organisms, his work is largely concerned with how the environment emerges as directly perceivable. Thus, his work has been interpreted as maintaining an emphatic bias toward objects rather than subjects.[32] Seeking to rectify Gibson’s materialist leanings, the psychologist William H. Warren recentralized subjects in affordance analysis through a case study of stair climbing.[33] Warren set out to determine the relational properties that make stairs unclimbable, climbable, and optimally climbable for distinct subjects, so he quantified the relationship between leg length and riser height as a metric for stair climbability. Not only did Warren show how the properties of objects (riser height) and properties of subjects (leg length) exist in relation, but he also demonstrated subjects’ active perception when interpreting the objects with which they engage. Warren’s subjects showed remarkably accurate perception of the ease or difficulty with which they would be able to climb a set of stairs, indicating the relevance of perception in object-subject relations. Warren’s case study remains a quintessential example of affordance relationality that contemporary theorists continue to evoke.

尽管吉布森的 "可承受性 "概念在本体论上是双向的，被定义为环境与有机体之间的关系，但他的作品在很大程度上关注的是环境如何被直接感知。因此，他的作品被解释为保持了对客体而非主体的强调。32 为了纠正吉布森的唯物主义倾向，心理学家威廉-H-沃伦（William H. Warren）通过对爬楼梯的案例研究，重新将主体纳入了实惠分析中。33 沃伦试图确定哪些关系属性使得楼梯对于不同的主体而言是不可攀爬的、可攀爬的以及最佳可攀爬的，因此他量化了腿长与立管高度之间的关系，以此作为楼梯可攀爬性的衡量标准。沃伦不仅展示了物体的属性（立柱高度）和受试者的属性（腿长）之间的关系，还展示了受试者在解释他们所接触的物体时的主动感知。沃伦的研究对象对爬楼梯的难易程度表现出了非常准确的感知，这表明了感知在客体-主体关系中的重要性。沃伦的案例研究仍然是当代理论家们不断唤起的实惠关系性的典型例子。

A group of philosophers built on similar ideas to those advanced in Warren’s stair study and introduced effectivity as a conceptual way to balance out Gibson’s theorizing.[34] Effectivity was set up as a complementary concept that emphasizes subjectivity in perception and the capacity to act. Thus, “The animal’s effectivities are directed to the environment in the way that the environment’s affordances are directed to the animal.”[35] The effectivity-affordance duality ensures equal and dynamic relations between subjects and objects.

一群哲学家基于沃伦楼梯研究中提出的类似观点，提出了 "有效性 "这一概念，以平衡吉布森的理论。34 有效性是一个补充性概念，它强调感知的主观性和行动能力。因此，"动物的效应性是针对环境的，而环境的承受力是针对动物的"。35 有效性与可负担性的二元性确保了主体与客体之间的平等和动态关系。

Although effectivity deals with the issue of relationality, critics contend that it undermines the power of Gibson’s concept, which explicitly entwines environment and subject. Constructing two complementary concepts (affordance and effectivity) thus undermines affordance’s bidirectional quality, which is its most crucial feature.[36] Nonetheless, the effectivity-affordance duality maintains purchase within ecological psychology and was formalized by Michael Turvey with a focus on actualization. Turvey contends that affordances are not ontologically present in the environment and that effectivities are not ontologically present in the subject. Rather, affordances are actualized through the match between particular object affordances and subject effectivities.[37]

虽然 "效果性 "涉及关系性问题，但批评者认为它削弱了吉布森概念的力量，因为吉布森的概念明确地将环境与主体联系在一起。因此，构建两个互补的概念（"可承受性 "和 "效果性"）削弱了 "可承受性 "的双向性，而这正是其最关键的特征。36 尽管如此，效果-负担能力的二元性在生态心理学中仍然受到欢迎，迈克尔-特维（Michael Turvey）将其正式化，并将重点放在了 "实现"（actualization）上。图尔维认为，负担能力本体上并不存在于环境中，效果本体上也不存在于主体中。相反，可承受性是通过特定客体的可承受性与主体的有效性之间的匹配而实现的。37

Another conceptual distinction that has emerged is between utility and usability.[38] This is an effort to capture the materiality of Gibsonian affordances while addressing the perceptual focus of Norman’s work. The utility of an object refers to its potentialities in relation to subjects, while usability refers to the perceptual information signaled to the subject by the object. A similar distinction has been introduced in engineering through the complementary relationship between functions and affordances.[39] Functions are those features designed into an object, while affordances are the “totality of behaviors the user can perform with it.”[40] Again, we see a relationship between material potentialities and subjective perceptions that affect—but do not determine—actions and outcomes. These ideas are further expanded as theorists take on the additional variable of context.

另一个新出现的概念区分是实用性和可用性。38 这是为了在解决诺曼作品中的感知重点的同时，捕捉吉布森实用性的物质性。物体的效用指的是其与主体相关的潜能，而可用性指的是物体向主体传递的感知信息。在工程学中，通过功能与可承受性之间的互补关系也引入了类似的区分。39 功能是指设计到物体中的那些特征，而可承受性则是 "用户可以用它来完成的全部行为"。40 我们再次看到了物质潜能与主观感知之间的关系，主观感知影响--但并不决定--行为和结果。随着理论家们将语境作为额外的变量，这些观点得到了进一步扩展。

In addition to efforts toward reconciling objects and subjects in affordance analyses, theorists have also endeavored to account for context. Anthony Chemero contends that in order for an affordance to actualize, there must be a fit between the properties of the object and the properties of the subject, along with circumstances that support perception and enactment.[41] In this way, a meshing of object and subject does not determine an outcome but generates a potentiality that can change across time, between subjects, and amid new circumstances. From this perspective, the “affordances of technological objects are not reducible to their material constitution but are inextricably bound up with specific historically situated modes of engagement and ways of life.”[42] Building on this, Andrea Scarantino distinguishes between surefire affordances and probabilistic affordances. Surefire affordances manifest in a certain outcome, and probabilistic affordances have a positive probability of less than 1.[43] That is, under certain conditions, we can expect objects to elicit a predictable and certain response (surefire), and in other conditions, the environment will push in one direction, but outcomes are not inevitable (probabilistic).

除了努力在能力分析中调和客体与主体之外，理论家们还努力解释语境。安东尼-切梅罗认为，要使一种可承受性成为现实，客体的属性和主体的属性之间必须有一个契合点，同时还要有支持感知和实施的环境。41 这样，客体和主体的结合并不决定结果，而是产生一种潜能，这种潜能可以在不同的时间、不同的主体和新的环境中发生变化。从这个角度看，"技术对象的可承受性并不能还原为其物质构成，而是与特定的历史情景下的参与模式和生活方式密不可分"。42 在此基础上，安德烈娅-斯卡兰蒂诺（Andrea Scarantino）对 "万无一失的承受力 "和 "概率性承受力 "进行了区分。43 也就是说，在特定条件下，我们可以预期物体会引起可预测的、确定的反应（"万无一失"），而在其他条件下，环境会朝着一个方向推动，但结果并非不可避免（"概率性"）。

Tied up with contextual factors is the social element of technological artifacts. Neither objects nor subjects exist in isolation. Rather, objects and subjects are part of a world that is “propertied by other people”[44] and by other things.[45] Capturing the social element, the term social affordances theorizes an intersubjective relation between persons in situations that shape the meanings, perceptions, and affordances of physical objects.[46] Richard C. Schmidt demonstrates social affordances using the example of a cup with a handle. The cup takes on one meaning as an object for purchase in a store and yet another when given as a gift. It thus affords grasping, filling, and drinking-out-of but also affords capitalist exchange, relationship building, and memory making.[47] In this vein, organizational affordances capture the ways organizational bodies interplay with technical systems to shape one-to-many and many-to-many interactions and relational dynamics.[48]

与环境因素相联系的是技术人工制品的社会因素。物体和主体都不是孤立存在的。相反，客体和主体都是 "其他人 "44 和其他事物所拥有的世界的一部分。45 "社会承受力 "一词抓住了这一社会因素，从理论上说，人与人之间的主体间关系决定了实物的意义、感知和承受力。46 理查德-C-施密特（Richard C. Schmidt）以一个带手柄的杯子为例说明了社会承受力。杯子作为商店里的购买对象具有一种意义，而作为礼物赠送时又具有另一种意义。因此，它既可以用来抓握、装满和饮用，也可以用来进行资本主义交换、建立关系和制造记忆。47 同样，组织的可承受性捕捉了组织机构与技术系统相互作用，形成一对多、多对多互动和关系动态的方式。48

Summarily, Gibson originally conceived affordances as something that “cuts across” object-subject relations. Norman then applied the concept to HCI, merging the roles of designer and psychologist. The concept was and remains influential. However, analysts found early formulations unsatisfactory in their overemphasis on either materiality or perception. Attempts to rectify the issue generated complementary concepts such as effectivity, function, and utility and usability, all of which capture the relevance of perception and its imbrication with materiality as affordances take shape and animate action. The role of context has also risen to the fore with contentions that objects and subjects are enabled and constrained through cultural conventions, social relationships, and situational factors that shape meaning and action opportunities.

总之，吉布森最初将 "承受能力 "视为一种 "跨越 "客体-主体关系的东西。随后，诺曼将这一概念应用于人机交互，将设计师和心理学家的角色合二为一。这一概念过去和现在都很有影响力。然而，分析家们发现，早期的概念过于强调物质性或感知性，并不能令人满意。为了纠正这一问题，人们提出了一些补充性概念，如效果性、功能性、实用性和可用性，所有这些概念都体现了感知的相关性，以及感知与物质性的结合，因为负担得起的东西已经成形并激发了行动。情境的作用也凸显出来，认为客体和主体通过文化习俗、社会关系和情境因素得以实现和受到限制，这些因素塑造了意义和行动机会。

Sustained Critiques

持续批评

Affordance has enjoyed conceptual longevity and proven analytically useful across multiple disciplines. Despite or perhaps because of this, the concept has also endured sustained patterns of critique. Three main critiques are leveraged against the concept of affordance: definitional confusion, binary application, and failure to account for diverse subjects and contexts. As demonstrated in the section above, analysts have certainly worked to address each of these issues. However, the critiques have yet to be resolved in a systematic or widely applicable way.

承载力 "在概念上历久弥新，并在多个学科中被证明具有分析用途。尽管如此，或许正因为如此，这一概念也经受了持续不断的批评。针对 "可承受性 "概念的批评主要有三点：定义混乱、二元应用以及未能考虑不同的主题和背景。正如上文所展示的，分析家们当然已经致力于解决这些问题。然而，这些批评尚未以系统或广泛适用的方式得到解决。

If you speak with people who study affordances, there is a high probability that they will lament the concept’s misuse, overuse, and entirely undefined use within academic literatures. The problem of definitional confusion in affordance analyses is polemic. On the one hand, the concept has been reformulated to death and tied to increasingly specific disciplinary jargon. On the other hand, the concept is often used without any definition at all, as though it has no intellectual roots or any controversy about its meaning.[49]

如果你与研究 "可承受性 "的人交谈，他们很可能会感叹这一概念在学术文献中的滥用、过度使用和完全没有定义的使用。负担能力分析中的定义混乱问题是个争论不休的问题。一方面，这一概念已被改写得面目全非，并与越来越具体的学科术语联系在一起。另一方面，这一概念在使用时往往没有任何定义，就好像它没有任何思想根源，对其含义也没有任何争议。49

The seeds of definitional discord may have been sown into Gibson’s original conceptualization, in which he advanced “two, apparently irreconcilable positions,”[50] asserting that affordances are intrinsic to the physical properties of an object and at the same time exist only in relation to a subject. Affordances were thus originally conceived as both objective and relational. Movement of the concept from ecological psychology and its reformulation at the hands of Donald Norman exacerbated conceptual uncertainty. Indeed, reviews of the literature on affordance show divergence between definitions derived from Gibson, definitions derived from Norman, and most troubling, use of the term as a central analytic device with no definition at all. Such definitional confusion has become so problematic and widespread that Norman himself has suggested replacing the concept altogether and using “signifier” instead.[51]

在吉布森最初的概念中，可能就已经埋下了定义不一致的种子，他提出了 "两种显然不可调和的立场 "50，即负担能力是物体固有的物理属性，同时又只存在于与主体的关系之中。因此，"承受力 "最初被认为既是客观的，又是相关的。这一概念从生态心理学中流出，并在唐纳德-诺曼（Donald Norman）手中得到重新表述，加剧了概念的不确定性。事实上，关于 "可承受性 "的文献综述显示，源自吉布森的定义和源自诺曼的定义之间存在分歧，而最令人不安的是，该术语被用作一种核心分析工具，却根本没有定义。这种定义上的混淆已经变得非常棘手和普遍，以至于诺曼本人都建议完全取代这一概念，改用 "符号"。51

A second critique of affordance is its binary formulation in which objects either do afford or do not afford. Despite early works that emphasize the operation of affordances in “degrees,” such as Warren’s well-known and often cited stair example, practical applications of affordance analyses often depict affordances as either entirely present or entirely absent.[52] Binary depictions not only undermine the concept’s analytic integrity but also weaken its capacity as a design tool. Indeed, to capture and evaluate the nuanced interplay between designed objects and user-subjects requires vocabulary that describes affordances that exist between optimal and critical points.[53]

对 "承受力 "的第二个批评是它的二元表述，即物体要么 "承受"，要么 "不承受"。尽管早期的著作强调承受能力在 "程度 "上的作用，如沃伦著名的、经常被引用的楼梯例子，但在实际应用中，承受能力分析往往将承受能力描述为完全存在或完全不存在。52 这种二元描述不仅破坏了概念分析的完整性，也削弱了其作为设计工具的能力。事实上，要捕捉和评估设计对象与用户主体之间微妙的相互作用，就需要描述存在于最佳点和临界点之间的承受能力的词汇。53

A third critique of affordance is the continued struggle to account for diverse subjects and contexts. Affordance analyses too often describe artifacts as though they exist in a static and monolithic world. This is a somewhat ironic problem, in that affordance was originally formulated to capture a dynamic object-subject relation. That objects afford in relation to a subject integrates a notion of variability across persons and contexts. Yet in practice, analysts evaluate objects as though their features are inert.[54] Such rigid analyses deflate a key strength of the affordance concept by undoing its capacity to capture dynamism between subjects and objects within complex and changing circumstances.

对 "可承受性 "的第三个批评是，它一直在努力考虑不同的主体和背景。承受力分析常常把人工制品描述成存在于一个静态的、单一的世界中。这是一个有点讽刺的问题，因为 "可承受性 "最初是为了捕捉一种动态的客体-主体关系。客体与主体之间的关系包含了一个跨人和跨语境的可变性概念。然而，在实践中，分析家们在评价客体时，仿佛客体的特征是惰性的。54 这种僵化的分析削弱了 "承受力 "概念在复杂多变的环境中捕捉主体与客体之间动态关系的能力，从而削弱了这一概念的关键优势。

Pathways Forward

前进之路

From its origins in ecological psychology, affordance has spanned disciplines and animated robust debate and critique. It was first formulated as an antirepresentational theory of direct perception that contested dominant assumptions about the relationship between organisms and environments. As it moved to design studies, the concept tasked the designer with the responsibilities of the psychologist and placed deep emphasis on guiding user perceptions. Subsequent advances have worked to add precision to the concept and find balance between materiality and subjectivity. Even with these theoretical advances, the term remains plagued by critique, with central intellectual figures suggesting that we do away with the concept altogether. Yet affordance maintains a strong presence across literatures and shows no signs of waning. It is thus advisable that we attend to affordances in a thoughtful manner rather than tossing up our hands and letting the concept take on a life of its own.

承受力起源于生态心理学，现已跨越多个学科，并引发了激烈的讨论和批评。它最初是作为直接感知的反表象理论提出的，对生物与环境之间关系的主流假设提出了质疑。当它被应用到设计研究中时，这一概念赋予了设计师心理学家的职责，并将重点放在引导用户感知上。随后的发展致力于增加概念的精确性，并在物质性和主观性之间找到平衡。即使取得了这些理论上的进步，这一术语仍然饱受批评，一些核心知识分子建议我们完全摒弃这一概念。然而，"可承受性"（affordance）却在各种文献中保持着强大的影响力，丝毫没有减弱的迹象。因此，我们应该以深思熟虑的方式关注 "承受能力"，而不是束手就擒，任由这一概念自生自灭。

Affordance has been subject to critique over conceptual clarity, binary formulation, and static depictions of persons and contexts. Although each of these issues has received significant attention, there is yet to be a systematic framework that addresses them together in a readily applicable way. A key reason for this is that theories of affordance have remained conceptually siloed within specific fields and articulated through discipline-specific jargon. Even as theoretical advances continue, these advances often remain inaccessible outside of niche academic circles. What is needed is a simple and systematic framework of affordance, articulated with vocabulary that cuts across disciplinary boundaries. Building such a framework begins by taking note of the most useful developments within the affordance literature.

在概念清晰度、二元表述以及对人和环境的静态描述等方面，"可及性 "一直受到批评。尽管这些问题中的每一个都受到了极大的关注，但目前还没有一个系统的框架能够以一种易于应用的方式将这些问题一并解决。造成这种情况的一个重要原因是，承受能力理论在概念上仍然被孤立在特定领域内，并通过特定学科的行话加以表述。即使理论在不断进步，但在小众的学术圈子之外，这些进展往往仍然难以企及。我们需要的是一个简单而系统的 "可承受性 "框架，并用跨越学科界限的词汇加以表述。要建立这样一个框架，首先要注意承受能力文献中最有用的发展。

Of the three main critiques, conceptualization has been the most effectively addressed and theorists have done so in ways that correct for binary and static applications. Conceptual advances formulate affordances as continuous (rather than binary) and dynamic (rather than static). The work of Peter Nagy and Gina Neff[55] and Sandra K. Evans and colleagues[56] stand out in this regard. Rooted in communication studies, the conceptual clarifications offered in these works can be applied across fields. Nagy and Neff make the notable contribution of accounting for “webs of relations” between artifacts, users, designers, and contexts in their introduction of imagined affordance. Imagined affordance is an interplay of materiality, intentionality, and serendipity as designers build objects that then take shape through diverse users and changing circumstances. Similar work has emerged in engineering, with scholars articulating affordance relationships between artifacts and each other as artifact-artifact affordances (AAAs), between artifacts and users as artifact-user affordances (AUAs), and artifacts in environments as artifact-environment affordances (AEAs).[57] Adding further precision, Evans and colleagues articulate an affordance as that which mediates between features and outcomes. This formulation attends to materiality (features) while recognizing the myriad ways in which materiality can manifest through socially situated subjects, resulting in a range of undetermined outcomes. Thus, affordances are potentialities that operate in degrees through interactions with diverse subjects and circumstances.

在这三个主要批评中，概念化问题得到了最有效的解决，理论家们也以纠正二元和静态应用的方式解决了这一问题。概念上的进步将负担能力表述为连续的（而非二元的）和动态的（而非静态的）。Peter Nagy 和 Gina Neff 55 以及 Sandra K. Evans 及其同事 56 的研究在这方面尤为突出。这些著作植根于传播学研究，其概念澄清可适用于各个领域。纳吉和内夫在引入 "想象的可承受性 "时，将人工制品、用户、设计者和环境之间的 "关系网 "考虑在内，做出了显著的贡献。想象的可承受性是物质性、意向性和偶然性的相互作用，设计师在制造物品时，通过不同的用户和不断变化的环境使物品成形。类似的工作也出现在工程学领域，学者们把人工制品之间的承受能力关系称为人工制品-人工制品承受能力（AAAs），把人工制品与用户之间的承受能力关系称为人工制品-用户承受能力（AUAs），把人工制品在环境中的承受能力关系称为人工制品-环境承受能力（AEAs）。57 埃文斯及其同事进一步明确指出，负担能力是介于特征和结果之间的能力。这一表述在关注物质性（特征）的同时，也承认物质性可以通过社会主体以无数种方式表现出来，从而产生一系列不确定的结果。因此，可承受性是一种潜能，通过与不同主体和环境的互动，在一定程度上发挥作用。

Building on these recent advances, the mechanisms and conditions framework provides a common language, untied from disciplinary jargon, that recognizes affordances as both gradated and contextually situated. First introduced as a simple tool that cuts across disciplines to enable dynamic sociotechnical analyses,[58] the framework is already being put to use across diverse fields. Scholars have employed the framework to understand complex object-subject relations, account for diverse user practices, and address structural power relations.[59] It has even extended out from technology studies to serve as a framework for broader patterns of power-infused interactions.[60] I further articulate the mechanisms and conditions framework in the remaining pages of this book, constructing a foundation for affordance analyses moving forward.

在这些最新进展的基础上，"机制与条件 "框架提供了一种不受学科术语束缚的共同语言，它承认可承受性是分等级的，也是根据具体情况而定的。该框架最初是作为一种跨学科的简单工具提出来的，目的是进行动态的社会技术分析。学者们利用该框架来理解复杂的客体-主体关系，解释不同的用户实践，并处理结构性权力关系。59 该框架甚至从技术研究中延伸出来，成为更广泛的权力互动模式的框架。60 我将在本书的剩余篇幅中进一步阐述机制与条件框架，为今后的承受力分析奠定基础。

3

Politics and Power

政治与权力

The social world is power laden, and so too are technologies. Conceptual tools for the study of human-technology relations must therefore also assume and attend to political dynamics as they manifest in social and material forms. This chapter follows major lines of thought in the evolution of communication and technology studies and situates the mechanisms and conditions framework within and against them, highlighting the model’s critical orientation. The chapter establishes two key assumptions: humans and technologies are co-constitutive, and politics and power are central to this sociotechnical relation.

社会世界充满权力，技术也是如此。因此，研究人类与技术关系的概念工具也必须假设并关注以社会和物质形式表现出来的政治动态。本章遵循传播与技术研究发展的主要思路，将机制与条件框架置于这些思路之中，并与之相对照，突出该模型的批判性取向。本章确立了两个关键假设：人类和技术是共同构成的，政治和权力是这种社会技术关系的核心。

Conceptually, affordances address the shaping effects of technologies in a way that avoids technological determinism. Technologies may affect human life in myriad and sometimes profound ways, yet outcomes are never certain and can be disrupted, thwarted, and circumvented to sometimes surprising ends. That is, both humans and technologies are powerful, protean, and eventful.[1] This perspective resists designations of either human subjects or technological objects as autonomous and effectual and instead positions human-technology dynamics as necessarily relational.[2] The mechanisms and conditions framework thus assumes that technologies and people exist together in co-constitutive assemblages.

从概念上讲，"承受力 "以避免技术决定论的方式解决技术的塑造效果问题。技术可能会以无数种有时甚至是深刻的方式影响人类的生活，但结果永远不会是确定的，可能会被打乱、挫败和规避，有时会达到令人惊讶的目的。也就是说，人类和技术都是强大、多变和多事的。1 这种观点反对将人类主体或技术客体指定为自主和有效的，而是将人类与技术的动态关系定位为必然的关系。2 因此，"机制与条件 "框架假定技术与人共同存在于共同构成的组合体中。

Most science and technology studies (STS) scholars today assume co-constitutive assemblages as a starting point for analysis. Human-technology relations are intrinsically relational. My arguments diverge from predominant perspectives, however, by establishing agentic asymmetry between human subjects and technological objects. I contend that although humans and technologies mutually construct each other, the weight of responsibility always falls to people. This does not mean that humans have disproportionate effect. Indeed, technologies may shape the world in ways humans could never dream and at magnitudes far beyond the capacities of mere flesh. Rather, the assumption of asymmetry is based on distributions of accountability. Technological objects can exert substantial force, but only humans can and must be held to account. I hinge the assumption of object-subject asymmetry on a distinction between efficacy and agency. Efficacy refers to the capacity to effect change. Agency refers to the capacity to inflict will. This distinction comes from Ernst Schraube’s technology as materialized action[3] approach, which claims that although technology can be highly efficacious, only humans can be agentic.

如今，大多数科技研究（STS）学者都将共同构成的组合作为分析的出发点。人类与科技之间的关系本质上是关联性的。然而，我的论点与主流观点不同，我在人类主体和技术客体之间建立了代理不对称。我认为，尽管人类与技术相互建构，但责任的重担总是落在人类身上。这并不意味着人类的影响不成比例。事实上，技术塑造世界的方式可能是人类做梦也想不到的，其程度也远远超出了肉体的能力。相反，不对称的假设是基于责任的分配。技术对象可以施加巨大的力量，但只有人类可以而且必须承担责任。我将客体与主体不对称的假设建立在功效与代理之间的区别之上。效能指的是实现变革的能力。代理指的是施加意志的能力。这种区分来自恩斯特-施劳博（Ernst Schraube）的 "技术作为物化的行动"（technology as materialized action 3）方法，该方法声称，尽管技术可以具有很高的效力，但只有人类才具有代理能力。

I build my argument by drawing on three key lines of thought: Marshall McLuhan’s classic thesis on the medium as the message,[4] Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory (ANT),[5] and Schraube’s notion of technology as materialized action.[6] I also pull from Langdon Winner’s delineation of artifacts and their politics as foundational evidence of how power relations permeate sociotechnical systems.[7] I conclude by proposing the mechanisms and conditions framework of affordances as a neat analytic tool that captures technological efficacy and holds it together with human agency, always accounting for contextual variation and looming structural hierarchies. In short, this chapter describes how technology is efficacious, political, and inextricable from the human element.

我借鉴了三条关键思路来构建我的论点：马歇尔-麦克卢汉（Marshall McLuhan）关于媒介即信息的经典论述、布鲁诺-拉图尔（Bruno Latour）的行动者-网络理论（ANT）4 以及施劳博（Schraube）关于技术即物化行动的概念6。6 我还借鉴了兰登-温纳（Langdon Winner）对人工制品及其政治的描述，将其作为权力关系如何渗透社会技术系统的基础证据。7 最后，我提出了 "可负担性 "的机制与条件框架，作为一种简洁的分析工具，它可以捕捉技术的效能，并将其与人类的能动性结合在一起，同时始终考虑到环境的变化和隐约可见的结构等级。简而言之，本章描述了技术如何具有效力、政治性以及与人类因素密不可分。

The Medium Is the Message: McLuhan on Technologies as Objects of Study

媒介即信息：麦克卢汉论作为研究对象的技术

Scholars within communication studies and STS have taken important strides to demonstrate the shaping effects of technology. Analysts make a compelling case that technologies do things, and as researchers, we should take those things seriously. This is the key contribution of communication scholar Marshall McLuhan, who in 1964 famously declared that the medium is the message.[8] McLuhan was pushing back against what he saw as two recurrent and related errors in academic commentary on media in society: (1) the presumption that technology is neutral and (2) an exclusive focus on media content as the unit of analysis.

传播研究和 STS 领域的学者在展示技术的塑造效果方面取得了重要进展。分析家们提出了一个令人信服的论点：技术是有作用的，作为研究者，我们应该认真对待这些作用。这是传播学者马歇尔-麦克卢汉（Marshall McLuhan）的主要贡献，他在 1964 年提出了著名的 "媒介即信息"（the medium is the message）的观点。8 在麦克卢汉看来，学术界对媒体社会的评论经常出现两个相关的错误：(1) 假定技术是中立的；(2) 只将媒体内容作为分析单位。

McLuhan directly opposes the idea of technological neutrality. The assumption that technology is neutral means that the technology itself has no organizing function and instead, all that matters is what people do with technological objects. A position of technological neutrality, or extreme constructivism, ignores a deep empirical history in which social life has continually reformed in the face of technological change. For instance, the industrial revolution brought with it not only changing work conditions but also the rise of cities, the emergence of a “middle class,” and a restructuring of families that tied many women to uncompensated labor in the home. In this way, the introduction of the train rail organized economic and political life around periodic stops on a fixed geographic trajectory, and automobiles rearranged the social infrastructure around complex and interweaving road systems. The rail system fostered centralized towns, and automobiles enabled the development of suburbs and freed commerce from the rigid temporal and geographic constraints of rail tracks and train schedules.

麦克卢汉直接反对技术中立的观点。技术中性的假设意味着技术本身不具有组织功能，相反，重要的是人们如何使用技术对象。技术中立的立场，或者说极端的建构主义，忽视了社会生活在技术变革中不断改革的深刻经验史。例如，工业革命不仅带来了工作条件的改变，还带来了城市的崛起、"中产阶级 "的出现以及家庭结构的重组，这使得许多妇女不得不在家中从事无报酬的劳动。因此，火车铁路的引入使经济和政治生活围绕着固定地理轨迹上的周期性站点展开，而汽车则围绕着复杂交织的道路系统重新安排了社会基础设施。铁路系统促进了城镇的集中化，而汽车则使郊区得以发展，并使商业摆脱了铁轨和火车时刻表在时间和地理上的严格限制。

As a communication scholar, McLuhan was primarily concerned with communication media like newspapers, telephones, radio, and television. Just as railroads, cars, and industrial machinery are not neutral, neither are the technologies through which we produce and consume information. For McLuhan, the job of the communication scholar is to understand the social underpinnings and implications of communication media, including whose interests they serve and how they might be resisted.

作为一名传播学者，麦克卢汉主要关注报纸、电话、广播和电视等传播媒介。正如铁路、汽车和工业机械不是中立的一样，我们生产和消费信息的技术也不是中立的。在麦克卢汉看来，传播学者的工作是理解传播媒介的社会基础和影响，包括它们为谁的利益服务以及如何抵制它们。

Related to the fallacious assumption of technological neutrality, McLuhan critiques an overemphasis on content within media studies. Following World War II, media and communication scholars became preoccupied with powerful broadcasters and their potential influence over individuals and publics through implicit and explicit propaganda. This concern gave rise to the “media effects” paradigm in which media products are studied as forces of cultural construction.[9] McLuhan advocates for a shift away from media content and a shift toward media proper.

与技术中立的错误假设有关，麦克卢汉批评了媒体研究中对内容的过分强调。二战后，媒体和传播学者开始关注强大的广播公司及其通过隐性和显性宣传对个人和公众的潜在影响。这种担忧催生了 "媒体效应 "范式，即把媒体产品作为文化建构的力量来研究。9 麦克卢汉主张从媒体内容转向媒体本体。

McLuhan argues that analysts should look beyond what people produce and consume through a given medium and instead try to understand the medium itself. It is the medium, claims McLuhan, that has significant effects on individuals, cultures, and the rhythms of public life. That is, the medium does something in its own right and should thus be the primary object of analysis. In other words, the medium is the message.

麦克卢汉认为，分析家们应该超越人们通过特定媒介生产和消费的东西，而试图理解媒介本身。麦克卢汉认为，正是媒介对个人、文化和公共生活节奏产生了重大影响。也就是说，媒介本身是有作用的，因此应该成为主要的分析对象。换句话说，媒介就是信息。

Distinguishing between medium and content, McLuhan explains that the former is a technological apparatus and the latter includes the range of outputs from that apparatus. Using electric light as an example, McLuhan refers to the light itself as the medium and the illumination from varied sources—including reading lamps, surgical lamps, and televisions—as the content. It is crucial to McLuhan that scholars focus on the medium rather than be distracted by content. He argues that content can take myriad forms and is largely irrelevant. The medium is what shapes society and should thus be the object of scrutiny.

麦克卢汉在区分媒介和内容时解释说，前者是一种技术设备，后者包括该设备的一系列输出。麦克卢汉以电灯为例，将电灯本身称为媒介，将各种光源（包括阅读灯、手术灯和电视机）的照明称为内容。对麦克卢汉来说，学者们关注媒介而不是内容是至关重要的。他认为，内容可以有无数种形式，而且基本上无关紧要。媒介是塑造社会的因素，因此应该成为研究的对象。

Positioning himself against the prevailing perspectives of the time, McLuhan suggests that focusing on content ignores the power with which technology affects individual lives and collective social organization, obscuring the forest for the trees. Understanding television based on programming, food systems based on grocery store shelves, or social media based on the substance of newsfeeds would all be examples of content-focused analyses. Instead, McLuhan would have us interrogate the infrastructure of television streaming services, the technologies of mass food production, and the principles of algorithmic networked sociality. For McLuhan, understanding mediated technologies is not about analyzing what people produce and consume through them but discerning each medium’s syntax and grammar

麦克卢汉的观点与当时的主流观点背道而驰，他认为，只关注内容会忽视技术对个人生活和集体社会组织的影响，从而掩盖了森林的真相。基于节目理解电视，基于杂货店货架理解食品系统，或基于新闻推送内容理解社交媒体，这些都是以内容为中心进行分析的例子。相反，麦克卢汉会让我们审视电视流媒体服务的基础设施、大规模食品生产的技术以及算法网络社交的原则。对麦克卢汉来说，理解媒介技术并不是分析人们通过这些技术生产和消费了什么，而是辨别每种媒介的语法和语法

McLuhan warns that myopic attention to outputs—or content—obfuscates the ways media infiltrate the fabric of daily life. Asking what people do with technologies displaces the bigger issue: what technologies do with people. McLuhan argues that once introduced, media quickly become entrenched. People are then swept away in the medium without an opportunity to put on the breaks or change direction. Maintaining social autonomy, then, requires a critical eye toward technological objects and the media systems in which they are embedded.

麦克卢汉警告说，对输出或内容的短视关注，会掩盖媒体渗透日常生活结构的方式。询问人们对技术做了什么，会取代更大的问题：技术对人们做了什么。麦克卢汉认为，媒体一旦被引入，很快就会变得根深蒂固。然后，人们就会被媒体卷走，没有机会刹车或改变方向。因此，要保持社会的自主性，就必须以批判的眼光看待技术对象及其所嵌入的媒体系统。

McLuhan cautions that ignoring media’s shaping effects fosters naivety and leaves people vulnerable to mechanisms of control over which they have little recourse. He thus provocatively states: “subliminal and docile acceptance of media impact has made them prisons without walls for their human users.”[10] McLuhan’s warning seems especially pointed in the face of algorithmic systems increasingly charged with critical functions such as hiring decisions, public resource allocation, criminal justice outcomes, knowledge curation, and information distribution. Recognizing the medium as the message is McLuhan’s key to avoiding pervasive technological constriction.

麦克卢汉告诫说，忽视媒体的塑造作用会助长人们的天真，使他们容易受到控制机制的影响，而他们对这种控制机制几乎没有求助手段。因此，他挑衅性地指出"潜移默化地、温顺地接受媒体的影响，已经使媒体成为人类使用者没有围墙的监狱"。10 面对算法系统越来越多地承担起招聘决策、公共资源分配、刑事司法结果、知识整理和信息传播等关键职能，麦克卢汉的警告显得尤为尖锐。认识到媒介即信息是麦克卢汉避免普遍技术限制的关键。

Actor-Network Theory: Overcoming Technological Determinism

行为网络理论：克服技术决定论

McLuhan’s contributions are intellectually important as a counter to extreme constructivism and a reorientation toward technological efficacy. In response to the common adage “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” McLuhan would likely respond, “Guns generate systems of violence.” McLuhan’s insistence on the medium as the message casts light on the ways that technical infrastructures shape social life. However, his work has been critiqued for its technological determinism. Technological determinism means that technologies prefigure (or determine) a range of effects. Critics point out that people are not simply dupes upon which technologies act, but are active subjects who creatively engage in technological implementation and use. Although McLuhan made a significant contribution by reminding people that the medium matters, critics argue that he takes the case too far and erases human agency.

作为对极端建构主义的反击和对技术效能的重新定位，麦克卢汉的贡献具有重要的思想意义。对于 "枪不杀人，人杀人 "这句谚语，麦克卢汉可能会回答："枪产生暴力系统"。麦克卢汉坚持媒介即信息的观点，揭示了技术基础设施塑造社会生活的方式。然而，他的作品也因其技术决定论而受到批评。技术决定论是指技术预示（或决定）了一系列效果。批评者指出，人并不只是技术作用的受骗者，而是创造性地参与技术实施和使用的积极主体。尽管麦克卢汉提醒人们媒介很重要，从而做出了重大贡献，但批评者认为，他的说法太过分了，抹杀了人的能动性。

Actor-network theory (ANT) arose in response to the technological determinism promulgated by McLuhan and his contemporaries. Most famously articulated by Bruno Latour, ANT depicts humans and technologies as mutually shaping entities that together make up multifaceted webs of relations.[11] ANT takes seriously the idea that technology is powerful but understands humans as equally so. Just as technologies shape people and societies, people and societies actively build and use technologies. For example, Google Maps does not unidirectionally determine geographies but reflects existing ways of knowing and navigating space and place at the same time that it adapts to users through the collection and deployment of geolocational metadata.

行为者-网络理论（ANT）是针对麦克卢汉及其同时代人提出的技术决定论而产生的。布鲁诺-拉图尔（Bruno Latour）是ANT理论最著名的阐述者，他将人类和技术描述为相互塑造的实体，共同构成了多层面的关系网。11 ANT 认真对待技术是强大的这一观点，但认为人类也同样强大。正如技术塑造人和社会一样，人和社会也在积极构建和使用技术。例如，谷歌地图并不是单向决定地理位置的，而是通过收集和部署地理位置元数据，在适应用户的同时，反映现有的认识和导航空间与地点的方式。

Key to ANT is the idea that humans and technologies engage in mutually constitutive networks or “assemblages,”[12] with no preference or distinction between people and things. All members of the network are considered actants, and actants all combine to create an assemblage. ANT uses the term actants to overcome the divide between humans and nonhumans within relational assemblages. Actant replaces the term actor because actor generally has a human connotation. For ANT theorists, human and nonhuman actants are always part of a mutually constitutive actor network. This means the actor network that makes up a classroom setting includes students, teachers, desks, dust, computers, lecterns, and temperature control units. The presence and behavior of all actants make up the classroom experience. Changes, additions, or removals alter the classroom experience. For example, the students, teachers, and computers may become disturbed if the dust participates with too much gusto, and the desks, computers, and lecterns remain restful if the students and teachers decide not to attend class.

ANT 的关键在于人类和技术参与到相互构成的网络或 "集合体 "12 中，人和物之间没有偏好或区别。网络中的所有成员都被视为行为者，而行为者则共同创造了一个集合体。ANT 使用 "行动者"（actants）一词来克服关系集合体中人与非人之间的分歧。行动者（actant）取代了行动者（actor）一词，因为行动者通常具有人类的含义。对于 ANT 理论家来说，人类和非人类行为者总是相互构成行为者网络的一部分。这意味着构成教室环境的行为者网络包括学生、教师、课桌、灰尘、计算机、讲台和温度控制装置。所有行为者的存在和行为构成了课堂体验。变化、添加或移除都会改变课堂体验。例如，如果灰尘过多，学生、教师和计算机就会受到干扰；如果学生和教师决定不上课，课桌、计算机和讲台就会保持安静。

Applying the language and logic of ANT to a 2011 Occupy Wall Street protest, technology analyst and STS scholar David Banks describes the process of acquiring wifi for an event in Albany, New York:

技术分析师和 STS 学者戴维-班克斯（David Banks）将 ANT 的语言和逻辑应用于 2011 年的 "占领华尔街 "抗议活动，描述了为纽约奥尔巴尼的一次活动获取 wifi 的过程：

After several hours, the IT working group resolves that 4G hotspots will not cooperate with their encampment. The 4G signal refuses to visit the park with the same regularity as the activists. Without the 4G signal, those in the park are unable to reach their fellow activists, computers, protest signs, and supplies located throughout the Hudson Valley region. The IT working group decides instead, to project a wireless signal from a nearby apartment into the park. They devise an assemblage of signal repeaters and routers that will provide a more reliable stream of data that will show up on time to general assemblies, and in sufficient numbers. The working group believes that the attendance of broadband Internet will allow the geographically and temporally dispersed occupiers to be enrolled within the larger actor-network of Occupy Albany. This increased attendance by activists, broadband connections, and networking hardware, according to the facilitation working group, will lend more authority to the decisions that come out of the GA and keep the occupation going through the winter.[13]

几个小时后，IT 工作组决定 4G 热点不与他们的营地合作。4G 信号拒绝像活动人士一样定期访问公园。没有 4G 信号，公园里的人就无法联系到他们的其他活动家、电脑、抗议标语和哈德逊河谷地区的物资。IT 工作组决定从附近的公寓向公园投射无线信号。他们设计了一套信号中继器和路由器，可以提供更可靠的数据流，使大会准时到达，而且人数充足。工作小组认为，宽带互联网的使用将使地理上和时间上分散的占领者加入到更大的 "占领奥尔巴尼 "行动者网络中。促进工作小组认为，活动家、宽带连接和网络硬件出席率的提高，将使大会做出的决定更具权威性，并使占领活动持续到冬季。13

Note how Banks includes human and nonhuman actants as equivalent nodes within the network. The protest is attended by people, signs, and computers. One might say that the protest suffers because 4G is not fully present, just like the protest would also suffer if human activists were unreliable in their commitment to the event or the cause. Luckily for the protesters, broadband and routers actively partook.

请注意班克斯是如何将人类和非人类行为者作为网络中的等价节点的。参加抗议活动的有人类、标志和电脑。有人可能会说，抗议活动会因为 4G 的不完全存在而受到影响，就像如果人类活动者对活动或事业的承诺不可靠，抗议活动也会受到影响一样。幸运的是，宽带和路由器积极参与了抗议活动。

ANT is an attractive framework for its capacity to address the meaningful co-constitution of humans and nonhumans. The introduction of actant as a piece of terminology and the practice of placing people and things on equal ground effectively communicates that technologies impose on, but do not determine, social and behavioral outcomes. ANT thus captures technologies’ shaping effects without getting trapped by technological determinism. For ANT theorists, people and things are part of an integrated and inextricable whole.

ANT 是一个极具吸引力的框架，因为它能够解决人类和非人类之间有意义的共同构成问题。将行为者（actant）作为术语的引入，以及将人与物置于同等地位的做法，有效地传达了技术强加于但并不决定社会和行为结果的观点。因此，ANT既能捕捉到技术的塑造效果，又不会被技术决定论所困。对 ANT 理论家来说，人和物是一个不可分割的整体的一部分。

The Politics of Artifacts

文物政治

ANT represents a major advancement in communication studies and STS. It has been and remains highly influential among those who seek to understand and explain the integration of technologies across varied arenas of social life. However, a lingering critique about ANT’s struggle to deal with issues of power, politics, and inequality remains a resounding blight on the framework.[14] In this regard, the main trouble with ANT is its symmetrical treatment of all “actants” within a web of relations. All people and things ostensibly play active roles, with no clear guide from ANT to discern which actants hold greater influence, to what ends, and in whose interests.

ANT 是传播研究和 STS 的一大进步。对于那些试图理解和解释技术在社会生活各个领域的整合的人来说，它一直都具有很大的影响力。然而，对于 ANT 在处理权力、政治和不平等问题上的挣扎的批判仍然挥之不去，这也是该框架的一大污点。14 在这方面，ANT 的主要问题在于它对关系网中所有 "行为者 "的对称处理。所有的人和事表面上都扮演着积极的角色，但 ANT 并没有明确的指导来辨别哪些行为者拥有更大的影响力、达到什么目的、符合谁的利益。

For critical social scientists, power and inequality are central to the organization of social life. Intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability, and geography profoundly affect how people move through the world, how they interact with each other, and what opportunities are (and are not) available to them. Through this lens, any social theory that inadequately attends to power dynamics suffers from a serious explanatory deficiency.

对于批判性社会科学家来说，权力和不平等是社会生活组织的核心。种族、阶级、性别、性、能力（障碍）和地理的交叉深刻地影响着人们如何在世界上活动，如何相互影响，以及他们能获得（和不能获得）哪些机会。从这个角度看，任何不充分关注权力动态的社会理论都存在严重的解释缺陷。

Feminist STS scholars argue that ANT’s incapacity to address race, class, gender, and other social hierarchies renders the perspective ineffective as a framework for understanding or explaining technology in society.[15] ANT’s apolitical foundation precludes the framework from accounting for systems of marginalization and oppression around which social life takes shape. For instance, an apolitical and power-neutral analytic framework would prove wanting when analyzing data-based policing systems that preemptively label individuals and communities as suspect,[16] when examining the development of cinematic technology that optimally captures (and assumes) white skin,[17] or when looking at the data flows in which personal and detailed information spreads from social media platforms to advertisers and political operatives with ethically ambiguous agendas.[18]

女性主义 STS 学者认为，ANT 无法解决种族、阶级、性别和其他社会等级制度的问题，因此该视角无法作为理解或解释社会中技术的框架。15 ANT 的非政治基础使得该框架无法解释社会生活所围绕的边缘化和压迫体系。例如，在分析以数据为基础、先发制人地将个人和社群贴上可疑标签的治安系统时，16 在研究以最佳方式捕捉（并假定）白人皮肤的电影技术的发展时，17 或者在研究个人详细信息从社交媒体平台传播到广告商和具有道德模糊目的的政治操作者的数据流时，一个非政治和权力中立的分析框架将被证明是不可行的。18

Critical scholars contend that power and inequality are endemic to the social system. Thus, any meaningful intellectual approach must address power dynamics. However, contemporary proponents of ANT have marked political analyses as beyond the framework’s scope. In a 2014 article clarifying the purpose and tenets of ANT, Edwin Sayes explains that “morality and politics” are outside ANT’s parameters. ANT was never meant to account for power, Sayes concedes, and thus the theory should not be critiqued on those grounds.[19] However, critics would say that power and politics are part and parcel of existing social systems. They would say that frameworks with parameters that exclude politics and power are inherently flawed. I concur with this critical take.

批判主义学者认为，权力和不平等是社会制度的固有特征。因此，任何有意义的思想方法都必须解决权力动态问题。然而，当代 ANT 的支持者却将政治分析视为超出了该框架的范围。埃德温-塞耶斯（Edwin Sayes）在 2014 年的一篇文章中阐明了 ANT 的宗旨和原则，解释说 "道德和政治 "不在 ANT 的范围之内。Sayes 承认，ANT 从未打算对权力进行解释，因此不应以此为由对该理论进行批评。19 不过，批评者会说，权力和政治是现有社会体系的组成部分。他们会说，将政治和权力排除在外的框架本身就是有缺陷的。我同意这种批评观点。

The significance of integrating power into frameworks and theories of human-technology interaction is quickly apparent through the now classic work of STS scholar Langdon Winner, who asked the question “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”[20] Winner analyzed the urban planning of New York City with a particular focus on bridges along the Long Island Parkway. Designed by Robert Moses, the bridges were too low for buses to pass underneath. These low-hanging bridges made the attractive shores of Long Island inaccessible to those who relied on public transit and kept the roads open to people who traveled by car. Public transit disproportionately serves people of low socioeconomic status, which intersects with race such that riders are more likely to be people of color. This seemingly apolitical architectural decision (bridge height) thus perpetuated race-class dynamics in a way that maintained a white affluent demographic on the Long Island beaches, a pattern that remains in place to this day.

STS 学者兰登-温纳（Langdon Winner）提出了 "人工制品具有政治性吗？"这一问题，他的经典著作很快就证明了将权力纳入人与技术互动框架和理论的重要性。20 Winner 分析了纽约市的城市规划，尤其关注长岛公园路沿线的桥梁。罗伯特-摩西（Robert Moses）设计的这些桥梁太低，公交车无法从下面通过。这些低矮的桥梁使得那些依靠公共交通出行的人无法到达长岛迷人的海岸，而那些开车出行的人则可以继续使用道路。公共交通为社会经济地位低下的人提供的服务不成比例，而社会经济地位低下又与种族有关，因此乘坐公共交通的人更有可能是有色人种。因此，这一看似非政治性的建筑决策（桥梁高度）延续了种族阶级的态势，使长岛海滩上的白人富裕人口得以维持，这种模式一直沿用至今。

Moses’s low-hanging bridges are an example of what Selena Savić and Gordan Savičić refer to as the “unpleasant design of ‘hostile architectures.’”[21] Unpleasant design regulates social behavior through architectural features that enact control in the absence of authority figures. For example, armrests on public benches deter people from lying down, thus making the space uninviting for homeless populations. In Seattle, the transport authorities have erected bike racks under bridges to displace tent encampments and their occupants. In the United Kingdom, a housing estate mounted unflattering pink lights that show skin blemishes, discouraging teenagers from loitering. Such “hostile architectures” can also take shape through digital design and algorithmic code. For example, automated human resource management programs disqualify applicants without predetermined credentials (or the proper key words), thus disadvantaging candidates with less social capital,[22] and banking interfaces select indicators of who will (and will not) be likely to pay back a loan, thus reinforcing wealth distribution via purchasing potential.[23] In short, technologies are encoded with power relations that produce patterned effects.

摩西的低悬桥是塞莱娜-萨维奇和戈尔丹-萨维奇所说的"'敌对建筑'的令人不快的设计 "的一个例子。21 令人不快的设计通过在没有权威人物的情况下实施控制的建筑特征来规范社会行为。例如，公共长椅上的扶手会阻止人们躺下，从而使空间对无家可归者失去吸引力。在西雅图，交通部门在桥下架设自行车架，以驱赶帐篷营地及其居住者。在英国，一个住宅区安装了不雅的粉红色灯光，显示皮肤瑕疵，阻止青少年闲逛。这种 "敌对建筑 "也可以通过数字设计和算法代码来形成。例如，自动化的人力资源管理程序会取消没有预先确定证书（或适当关键词）的求职者的资格，从而使社会资本较少的求职者处于不利地位；22 而银行界面则会选择哪些人可能（或不可能）偿还贷款的指标，从而通过购买潜力强化财富分配。23 简而言之，技术是以产生模式化效应的权力关系编码的。

Technology as Materialized Action: Technological Efficacy and Human Agency

作为物质化行动的技术：技术效能与人的能动性

The main premise of Ernst Schraube’s notion of technology as materialized action is that technological objects are imbued with the politics and values of the culture within which they arise. Technologies do not merely mediate between subjects and the world but are material manifestations of subjectivity. Objects maintain a sometimes profound shaping effect, but ultimate responsibility rests with human subjects. For Schraube, “concrete historical experiences, needs, ideas [and] interests . . . flow into the construction of products.” In a sense, Schraube’s approach adjusts ANT and infuses it with a much-needed critical element.[24]

恩斯特-施劳贝尔（Ernst Schraube）提出的 "技术是物化的行动 "这一概念的主要前提是，技术客体中蕴含着其所产生的文化的政治和价值观。技术不仅仅是主体与世界之间的中介，更是主体性的物质表现。客体有时具有深远的塑造作用，但最终责任在于人类主体。在施劳博看来，"具体的历史经验、需求、想法[和]兴趣......流入产品的构造之中"。从某种意义上说，Schraube 的方法调整了 ANT，并为其注入了急需的批判元素。24

A central component of the materialized action approach is an asymmetrical relationship between people and things: people maintain a distinct responsibility for the production and use of technological objects. Schraube is clear in his assertion that subjects and objects mutually shape one another. Channeling McLuhan and Latour, Schraube states: “It is not only the subjects that do something with the things; the things also do something with the subjects.”[25] However, what distinguishes subjects from things is agency, which Schraube ties to humans exclusively. He explains: “it would be misleading to speak of an object really ‘acting.’ Action is an intentional human activity accessible to consciousness and concerned with issues of freedom, reasons, and responsibility.”[26] Hence, there is a “need for an asymmetrical-reciprocal language” that designates the human as the “responsible acting subject with the potential to engage on a socio-political level.”[27] It is from this line of thought that the mechanisms and conditions framework derives its assumption of human-technology asymmetry.

物化行动方法的核心内容是人与物之间的不对称关系：人对技术客体的生产和使用负有独特的责任。施劳博明确指出，主体与客体是相互塑造的。Schraube 借鉴了麦克卢汉和拉图尔的观点："不仅是主体对物做了什么，物也对主体做了什么"。25 然而，主体与客体的区别在于能动性，而施劳博将能动性与人类联系在一起。他解释说他解释说："如果说客体真的在'行动'，那将是一种误导。行动是一种有意识的人类活动，可以被意识所接受，并与自由、原因和责任等问题有关"。26 因此，"需要一种非对称-互惠的语言"，将人指定为 "负责任的行动主体，具有参与社会政治层面的潜力"。27 正是从这一思路出发，机制与条件框架得出了人类与技术不对称的假设。

A materialized action approach recognizes technological efficacy (technologies do things) but rejects the idea of technological agency. Agency is reserved for human subjects. This distinction between agency and efficacy and the related asymmetry in human-technology relations open the door to critical analyses. Placing agency exclusively with human actors positions producers and consumers as responsible parties. The effects of technology, both good and bad, can be traced back to cultural norms, corporate directives, state interests, and other claims makers and stakeholders. Designers engrain their own agency into technologies, and users agentically employ those technologies. The force of technological objects can be immense, but that force is inextricable from the values, desires, and interests of human actors.

物化行动方法承认技术的功效（技术做事），但拒绝接受技术代理的观点。代理权只属于人类主体。代理权与效能之间的这种区别以及人类与技术关系中的相关不对称为批判性分析打开了大门。将代理权完全归于人类行为者，将生产者和消费者定位为责任方。技术的影响，无论好坏，都可以追溯到文化规范、企业指令、国家利益，以及其他要求制定者和利益相关者。设计者将自己的代理权植入技术，而用户则代理地使用这些技术。技术对象的力量可以是巨大的，但这种力量与人类行为者的价值观、欲望和利益密不可分。

This subject-object asymmetry undergirds the logic behind scholars’ treatment of AI as neither artificial[28] nor intelligent,[29] but the material manifestation of human values and biases. Speaking in a similar vein about credit-sorting algorithms, legal scholar Frank Pasquale exemplifies the human origins of seemingly autonomous technological systems:

学者们将人工智能视为既非人工28 也非智能29 ，而是人类价值观和偏见的具体表现，这种主客体不对称是其背后逻辑的基础。在谈到信用分类算法时，法律学者弗兰克-帕斯夸莱（Frank Pasquale）以类似的方式举例说明了看似自主的技术系统的人类起源：

Regulators want to avoid the irrational or subconscious biases of human decision-makers, but of course human decision-makers devised the algorithms, inflected the data, and influenced its analysis. No “code layer” can create a “plug and play” level playing field. Policy, human judgment, and law will always be needed. Algorithms will never offer an escape from society.[30]

监管者希望避免人类决策者的非理性或下意识偏见，但当然，人类决策者设计了算法，影响了数据，并对其分析产生了影响。任何 "代码层 "都无法创造一个 "即插即用 "的公平竞争环境。政策、人类判断和法律永远都是必需的。算法永远无法摆脱社会的束缚。30

The practical turn in design studies—discussed throughout the first two chapters of this book—is premised on the idea that human values manifest in technological objects. Human primacy is thus not only a tool of accountability but also an opportunity to make, distribute, use, and refine technologies with intentionally defined value systems. Hence, Peter-Paul Verbeek refers to design as an intrinsically moral endeavor, harking back to Donald A. Norman’s original mandate for designers to act as psychologists, guiding users down particular paths and away from others.[31]

本书前两章所讨论的设计研究中的实践转向，是以人类价值体现在技术物品中这一观点为前提的。因此，人类至上不仅是问责的工具，也是制造、分配、使用和完善具有有意定义的价值体系的技术的机会。因此，彼得-保罗-维尔贝克把设计称为一种内在的道德努力，这让人想起唐纳德-A-诺曼（Donald A. Norman）最初要求设计师作为心理学家的任务，引导用户走上特定的道路，而不是其他道路。31

To be clear, a theory of technology as materialized action does not presume hand-wringing capitalists who quietly impose their will onto technological objects that then infiltrate the social system through meticulous plots. On the contrary, the effects of any technology remain uncertain, taking shape only through interactions with complex societal structures and diverse users who can deploy the technology toward various ends in sometimes highly creative (and unexpected) ways. Thus, Schraube talks about technology as ontologically ambivalent. He states that “things are more than just societal meanings, more than just socially conceived and produced items. They always materialize, in addition, an unknown action, something coincidental, unplanned, and their decisive power and efficacy can frequently be located just in what had not originally been imagined or intended.”[32]

需要明确的是，作为物化行动的技术理论并不假定那些哭哭啼啼的资本家会悄无声息地将自己的意志强加给技术对象，然后通过精心策划渗入社会系统。恰恰相反，任何技术的效果都是不确定的，只有通过与复杂的社会结构和不同用户的互动才能形成。因此，施劳贝尔认为技术在本体论上是矛盾的。他说："事物不仅仅是社会意义，不仅仅是社会构想和生产的物品。此外，它们总是将未知的行动、巧合的东西、计划外的东西具体化，而它们的决定性力量和功效往往恰恰就在那些原本没有想象或计划的东西之中。32

The effects of technological objects may surprise those who make and distribute them. Surprises can derive from creative practices on the part of users, as well as from latent effects that designers and distributors did not foresee or intend. In this vein, the effects of technologies are nearly always multiple, or “multistable.”[33] An artifact does not just do something, it does numerous things, many of which were never imagined.

技术产品的效果可能会让制造和销售者大吃一惊。惊喜可能来自于使用者的创造性实践，也可能来自于设计者和销售者没有预见或没有打算的潜在效果。因此，技术的效果几乎总是多重的，或者说是 "可多变的"。33 一件人工制品不只是做了某件事，它还做了许多事，其中有许多是人们从未想象过的。

For example, social movements scholar Zeynep Tufekci draws a careful sociological analysis of the role played by digital and mobile technologies in protest movements.[34] She demonstrates that the same technological advancements that enable mass connection and facilitate rapid organization also leave protest groups relatively fragile. Traditional social movements required immense groundwork to establish a presence and organize action. A happy side effect of traditional organizing efforts is that the mundane and tedious processes produce crucial benefits such as group cohesion and clearly defined leaders within the movement. In contrast, digital social technologies help movements grow quickly but struggle to cultivate an infrastructure that can sustain challenges from the state and internal disagreements, rendering movements less solid. The effects of digital tools on protests, then, are multiple and sometimes contradictory. Similarly, the fact that social media are integral to protests and political participation significantly extends the original purpose of some of the most prominent social media platforms. For instance, Facebook started as a social hub meant to connect friends and communities at an elite educational institution. It has now become a key site through which users post abuses by state authorities and document social injustices. It is unlikely that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg imagined his platform would host livestreamed videos of US police officers shooting unarmed citizens when he created TheFacebook.com in 2004 or that his team envisaged those shootings when it introduced Facebook Live in 2015.

例如，社会运动学者 Zeynep Tufekci 对数字和移动技术在抗议运动中的作用进行了细致的社会学分析。34 她指出，技术的进步能够实现大众联系并促进快速组织，但也使抗议团体相对脆弱。传统的社会运动需要大量的基础工作来建立存在和组织行动。传统组织工作的一个令人高兴的副作用是，平凡而乏味的过程产生了至关重要的益处，如群体凝聚力和运动中明确的领导者。相比之下，数字社交技术有助于运动的快速发展，但却难以培养出能够承受国家挑战和内部分歧的基础设施，从而使运动变得不那么稳固。因此，数字工具对抗议活动的影响是多重的，有时甚至是相互矛盾的。同样，社交媒体是抗议和政治参与不可或缺的一部分，这一事实大大扩展了一些最著名社交媒体平台的初衷。例如，Facebook 最初只是一个社交中心，旨在将精英教育机构的朋友和社区联系起来。现在，它已成为用户发布国家当局滥用权力和记录社会不公的重要网站。Facebook 创始人马克-扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）在 2004 年创建 TheFacebook.com 时，不太可能想到他的平台上会有美国警察枪杀手无寸铁的公民的现场直播视频，他的团队在 2015 年推出 Facebook Live 时，也不太可能设想到这些枪杀事件。

Technology as materialized action is not so much a negation of ANT as it is an evolution in STS thought. The materialized action approach takes from ANT the clear recognition that technologies and human subjects interact in a mutually shaping relationship. For Schraube, however, the human-technology relationship is asymmetrical. The assumption of asymmetry that underlies the materialized action approach creates space for analyses of politics, power, and human agency. The mechanisms and conditions framework aligns with the materialized action approach, equipping the framework with a critical analytic lens.

作为物化行动的技术与其说是对 ANT 的否定，不如说是 STS 思想的演变。物化行动方法从 ANT 中明确认识到，技术与人类主体在相互塑造的关系中相互作用。然而，在施劳博看来，人类与技术的关系是不对称的。作为物化行动方法基础的不对称假设为分析政治、权力和人的能动性创造了空间。机制和条件框架与物化行动方法相一致，为该框架配备了批判性的分析视角。

Chapter Summary

章节摘要

This chapter establishes two key assumptions that undergird the mechanisms and conditions framework: humans and technologies are co-constitutive, and human-technology relations are power-laden and political. Technologies are imbued with human subjectivity and deployed by creative subjects. The effects of technology can be planned but are never entirely knowable. People may use technologies in innovative and creative ways, and the larger implications of technological developments, however they are used, can be surprising and unexpected. For these reasons, affordance is the appropriate terminology for talking about technological objects and their place in sociotechnical systems. The features of the object can be identified, but the uses and outcomes are variable. Objects thus afford but do not determine.

本章确立了支撑机制与条件框架的两个关键假设：人类与技术是共同构成的，人类与技术的关系充满权力和政治色彩。技术充满了人类的主观性，并由创造性主体加以运用。技术的效果是可以规划的，但永远无法完全预知。人们可能会以创新和创造性的方式使用技术，而技术发展所产生的更大影响，无论如何使用，都可能是令人惊讶和意想不到的。基于这些原因，"承受力"（affordance）是谈论技术对象及其在社会技术系统中的地位的适当术语。物品的特征是可以确定的，但用途和结果却是可变的。因此，物品可以负担，但不能决定。

Building on canonical works from communication studies and STS, a materialized action approach fits symbiotically with the mechanisms and conditions analytic framework. This framework of affordances navigates the interplay of technological efficacy along with human agency. In turn, by adopting the human-technology asymmetry engendered in a materialized action approach, affordance analyses hone in on power, politics, and inequality.

以传播研究和科技研究的经典著作为基础，物化行动方法与机制和条件分析框架相辅相成。这种可承受性框架可以引导技术效能与人类能动性的相互作用。反过来，通过采用物化行动方法所产生的人与技术的不对称，承受能力分析将重点放在权力、政治和不平等上。

The following two chapters offer theoretical precision to affordance theory by operationalizing affordances through the mechanisms and conditions framework. The mechanisms and conditions framework addresses key critiques leveraged against the concept and, in doing so, shifts affordance from a tool that describes what a technology is to one that describes how a technology operates. This entails the introduction of a clear conceptual model that remains flexible across time, users, and situations, always accounting for structural dynamics.

接下来的两章通过机制与条件框架对可负担性进行操作，为可负担性理论提供了精确的理论依据。机制与条件框架解决了针对这一概念的主要批评，从而将负担能力从描述技术是什么的工具转变为描述技术如何运作的工具。这就需要引入一个清晰的概念模型，在不同时间、不同用户和不同情况下保持灵活性，并始终考虑结构动态。

4

Mechanisms of Affordance

亲和力机制

On a chilly day in the winter of 2015, I stood in a classroom talking with the students enrolled in my Cultural Studies of New Media course. The topic of the day was affordances. After a background lecture about the evolution of structure and agency debates in science and technology studies, I introduced the main concept and jumped into examples. My primary objective was to grapple with analytic tensions between technological constructivism and technological determinism. The first example was a fence. A fence does not impose impenetrable borders, I said, but it affords spatial restriction. After moving on with a few more examples and some back and forth between myself and the students, a bright young man raised his hand and pointed out that there is a substantial difference between a fence made of wood and an electric fence and that both are distinct from rope fencing. We all agreed and discerned that while the rope fence asks you to respect a boundary, the wood fence tells you to do so, and the electric fence insists.

2015 年冬天一个寒冷的日子，我站在教室里与选修新媒体文化研究课程的学生们交谈。当天的主题是 "负担能力"（affordance）。在介绍了科技研究中结构和代理辩论的演变背景后，我介绍了主要概念，并直接举例说明。我的主要目的是在分析技术建构主义和技术决定论之间的紧张关系。第一个例子是栅栏。我说，栅栏并没有强加不可逾越的边界，但它提供了空间限制。我又举了几个例子，在我和学生之间来回讨论之后，一个聪明的年轻人举手指出，木栅栏和电栅栏有本质区别，两者都不同于绳索栅栏。我们一致认为，绳索栅栏要求你尊重边界，而木制栅栏告诉你这样做，电栅栏则坚持这样做。

This student had tapped into a longstanding critique of affordance theory. Although both Gibson and Norman constructed affordances as nuanced gradations, the concept has been applied in a largely binary fashion. That is, analysts who employ the concept do so as though objects either afford or do not afford some function. But like the fence example, objects afford in varying degrees, and their effects are exerted with differing levels of force. The rope asks, the wood tells, and the electricity insists.

这位学生提出了长期以来对 "承受力 "理论的批评。尽管吉布森和诺曼都将 "承受力 "构建为细微的等级，但这一概念在很大程度上是以二元对立的方式应用的。也就是说，使用这一概念的分析师们认为，物体要么具有某种功能，要么不具有某种功能。但是，就像栅栏的例子一样，物体提供功能的程度各不相同，它们的作用力也各不相同。绳索在要求，木头在诉说，电力在坚持。

Over the years, scholars have tried to get outside of affordance binaries. For example, as discussed in chapter 2, William H. Warren introduced a mathematical formulation to calculate the “climbability” of stairs.[1] The ratio of leg length to stair height makes a set of steps range from optimally climbable to entirely unclimbable, with a series of accessibility variants in between. His theoretical point was that affordances are not present or absent but present and absent, by degree. Objects do not just afford or not afford but push and pull with more and less pressure. Sandra K. Evans and colleagues highlight this point in their treatment of affordances as mediators between features and outcomes,[2] while Rob Withagen and Harjo J. de Poel point out that affordances are not mere opportunities for action but situationally variable invitations.[3]

多年来，学者们一直试图跳出承受能力的二元对立。例如，正如第 2 章所讨论的，威廉-沃伦（William H. Warren）提出了一种计算楼梯 "可攀爬性 "的数学公式。1 腿长与楼梯高度之比使得一组台阶从最佳可攀爬到完全不可攀爬不等，在两者之间还有一系列可攀爬性变体。他的理论观点是，可负担性不是存在或不存在，而是存在和不存在的程度。物体并不只是负担得起或负担不起，而是推拉的压力有大有小。桑德拉-K-埃文斯及其同事在将可承受性视为特征与结果之间的媒介时强调了这一点，2 而罗布-威萨根和哈若-J-德-波尔则指出，可承受性不仅仅是行动的机会，而是情境可变的邀请。3

Despite empirical and theoretical advances, binary renderings of affordance remain widespread.[4] A binary model of affordance translates to either-or renditions of what an object enables and constrains. Either you can document images with a device, or you cannot; either you can avoid surveillance on a platform, or you cannot; either an object is mobile, or it is tethered in place. For anyone who has engaged with any technology, this either-or rendition is likely inconsistent with experience. Documenting images may be more or less difficult, avoiding surveillance may be automatic or require savvy, and an object may be easy to move, cumbersome to move, or firmly fixed in one location.

尽管在经验和理论上都取得了进步，但对承受能力的二元描述仍然普遍存在。4 能力的二元模型是对物体所能实现和限制的非此即彼的描述。要么你能用设备记录图像，要么你不能；要么你能在平台上避免监控，要么你不能；要么一个物体是移动的，要么它被拴在原地。对于接触过任何技术的人来说，这种非此即彼的说法很可能与经验不符。记录图像或多或少会有些困难，躲避监控可能是自动的，也可能需要精明的头脑，物体可能容易移动，也可能移动起来很麻烦，或者被牢牢地固定在一个地方。

I contend that affordance’s binary problem is rooted in an entrenched but misguided orienting question. Analysts ask “What does this object afford?” when the more appropriate question is “How does this object afford?” Altering the question in this small way—from what to how—reconfigures affordances as continuous and dynamic rather than static and binary. The remainder of this chapter is dedicated to operationalizing the how of affordances.

我认为，"承受力 "的二元问题根源于一个根深蒂固但却被误导的定向问题。分析家们问的是 "这个物体能提供什么？"，而更恰当的问题是 "这个物体如何提供"。从 "是什么 "到 "如何提供"，以这种微小的方式改变问题，就能将 "提供 "重构为连续的、动态的，而非静态的、二元的。本章的其余部分将专门讨论 "如何提供 "这一问题。

Proper operationalization is critical for transforming a continuous conceptualization of affordance into a practical analytic tool. Expanding on previous work, I suggest a framework in which technological objects do not just afford or not afford but request, demand, encourage, discourage, refuse, and allow. Requests and demands are bids placed by technological objects, on user-subjects. Encourage, discourage, and refuse are the ways technologies respond to bids user-subjects place upon them. Allow pertains equally to bids from technological objects and the object’s response to user-subjects. Together, these make up the mechanisms of affordance.

适当的操作化对于将持续的 "承受力 "概念转化为实用的分析工具至关重要。通过对之前工作的扩展，我提出了一个框架，在这个框架中，技术对象不仅仅是负担得起或负担不起，而是请求、要求、鼓励、阻止、拒绝和允许。请求和要求是技术对象对用户主体提出的要求。鼓励、阻止和拒绝是技术对用户主体向其提出的要求做出回应的方式。允许同样涉及技术客体的出价和客体对用户主体的回应。这些机制共同构成了 "可负担性 "机制。

Before diving into each mechanism, I need to say a bit about how this part of the framework operates. First, the mechanisms are not prescriptive. That is, request, demand, encourage, discourage, refuse, and allow are not concrete categories into which technological features essentially or inherently fall. Rather, these are analytic stopping points that help describe the intensity with which technological objects facilitate or impede particular lines of action and social dynamics. These categories could go by other names, and there could be more or fewer categories. These are meant as a set of hooks on which analysts can hang their descriptions, comparisons, and points of debate.

在深入探讨每种机制之前，我需要先说一下这部分框架是如何运作的。首先，这些机制不是规定性的。也就是说，请求、要求、鼓励、阻止、拒绝和允许并不是技术特征本质上或内在地属于的具体类别。恰恰相反，这些都是有助于描述技术对象促进或阻碍特定行动路线和社会动态的强度的分析止点。这些类别可以有其他名称，也可以有更多或更少的类别。这些分类的目的是作为一套钩子，让分析师可以将他们的描述、比较和辩论点挂在上面。

Related to the flexible (rather than rigid) nature of affordance mechanisms are the porous boundaries between categories. Features may not fit cleanly into one mechanism category or another. Rather, the affordances of an object can slip between categories or rest within the margins. A strong discouragement may also be read as refusal, just as a weak demand may be read as a request. Concretely, this means that analysts and practitioners could reasonably disagree about whether something is a request or a demand, engage in lively disputes about whether something is encouraged versus allowed, and go back and forth internally about whether some action is refused or merely discouraged. This uncertainty is a strength of the framework. It creates a nimble analytic tool that serves—rather than stifles—dynamic readings and renderings of technological objects in society. It also creates a common vocabulary for knowledge sharing, theory building, critique, and debate.

与负担能力机制的灵活（而非僵化）性质相关的是类别之间的多孔边界。功能可能无法完全归入某个机制类别。相反，物体的承受能力可以在不同类别之间滑动，也可以在边缘地带停留。强烈的劝阻也可能被解读为拒绝，正如微弱的要求也可能被解读为请求。具体而言，这意味着分析师和实践者可以合理地对某件事情是请求还是要求产生分歧，对某件事情是鼓励还是允许产生激烈的争论，对某些行为是被拒绝还是仅仅被劝阻在内部来回争论。这种不确定性正是该框架的优势所在。它创造了一种灵活的分析工具，有助于而不是扼杀社会对技术对象的动态解读和呈现。它还为知识共享、理论建设、批评和辩论创造了共同的词汇。

Requests and Demands

请求和要求

Requests and demands refer to bids that originate with the artifact. They are initiated by the technological object and guide the user in some direction, with varying degrees of resolve. Requests indicate preference for some line of action over others, and demands render one line of action inevitable and other lines of action implausible. Although requests and demands originate with the artifact (rather than the user), they are rooted in sociostructural dynamics. Humans design, build, and distribute technological objects and infrastructures. How these objects and infrastructures guide human behavior arises from and is situated within existing social systems.

请求和要求指的是由人工制品发起的请求。它们由技术对象发起，以不同程度的决心引导用户朝某个方向前进。请求表示对某些行动路线的偏好，而要求则使某一行动路线不可避免，而其他行动路线则不可信。尽管请求和要求是由人工制品（而不是用户）提出的，但它们都植根于社会结构动态之中。人类设计、建造和分配技术物品和基础设施。这些物品和基础设施是如何引导人类行为的，这源于现有的社会体系，并处于其中。

Requests

要求

When a technology requests, it emphasizes a particular set of actions, deemphasizing other action possibilities. A user may abide by a request, ignore a request, or address it only partially. A request necessarily entails a degree of flexibility. The technology persuades in one direction but leaves alternate options open.

当一项技术提出要求时，它会强调一组特定的操作，而忽略其他操作的可能性。用户可以遵守请求，也可以忽略请求，或者只部分处理请求。请求必然包含一定程度的灵活性。技术会朝着一个方向说服用户，但也会保留其他选择。

Recalling the fence example from above, we might say that the rope fence requests that walkers stay within or outside the perimeter. The rope indicates a preference, but passers-by may easily step over the rope or dip under it. Both the twine around newly seeded grass and the velvet ropes that guide people through long and winding queues shape movement patterns but do so in ways that can be readily overcome. The material of these fences and their arrangement in space can do little to stop someone who wishes to breach the barrier. Thus, the rope fence does not force people out or keep people in but asks them not to intrude or to remain on a designated path.

回顾上面的栅栏例子，我们可以说，绳索栅栏要求行人待在围栏内或围栏外。绳索表明了人们的偏好，但路人可以轻易地从绳索上跨过或从绳索下钻过。新播种的草地上缠绕的麻绳和引导人们通过蜿蜒长队的天鹅绒绳索都塑造了人们的行动模式，但其方式却很容易被克服。这些栅栏的材料及其在空间中的布置几乎无法阻止想要突破障碍的人。因此，绳索栅栏并不强迫人们离开或阻止人们进入，而是要求他们不要闯入或留在指定的路径上。

Continuing with this example, we can see that the strength of a request will vary between different kinds of rope fencing, even if the ropes do not differ in physical restraint. For instance, yellow barricade tape adorned with police iconography likely strengthens the force of a rope’s request. That is, the police tape makes a stronger request than an unmarked piece of brown twine. Although the materiality of twine and flimsy plastic are not substantially different in their physical capacity to prevent breach, the police tape is bolstered through the semiotics of institutional legitimacy and sometimes actual capacity for punitive measure. The police tape is firmer in its demarcation of a space as off-limits and creates more solid barriers to entry than an equally permeable twine fence without institutional markers.

继续举例说明，我们可以发现，不同种类的绳索围栏，即使在物理约束方面没有区别，请求的强度也会不同。例如，饰有警察标志的黄色路障带可能会加强绳索请求的力度。也就是说，与没有标记的棕色麻绳相比，警用胶带的要求更为强烈。虽然麻绳和脆弱的塑料在防止破坏的物理能力上没有本质区别，但警用胶带通过制度合法性的符号学和有时实际的惩罚措施能力得到了加强。与没有机构标记的同样可渗透的麻绳栅栏相比，警戒带在划分禁区方面更为坚固，为进入设置了更坚实的障碍。

Variation in the affordances of police tape even persist between jurisdictions due to varying legal ramifications. In 2017, for instance, a Republican member of the Missouri House of Representatives named Galon Higdon proposed (unsuccessfully) House Bill 37 (HB37), which would make crossing a police border a class A misdemeanor. Breaching a cordoned off area could be punishable by a criminal record, up to a year in jail, and an up to $1,000 fine. Defending the bill, Higdon told reporters, “Right now, [the police border] is pretty much a request.”[5] Apparently, Higdon wanted to move it closer to a demand.[6]

由于法律后果的不同，不同司法管辖区对警用胶带的承受能力也不尽相同。例如，2017 年，密苏里州众议院一位名叫加隆-希格顿（Galon Higdon）的共和党议员提出了第 37 号众议院法案（HB37）（未获通过），该法案将跨越警戒线定为 A 级轻罪。闯入封锁区可被处以犯罪记录、最长一年的监禁和最高 1000 美元的罚款。在为该法案辩护时，希格顿告诉记者："现在，[警察边界]几乎就是一种要求"。5 显然，希格顿希望将其向要求靠拢。6

The significance of this distinction between plain twine and police tape and between police tape under distinct legal codes is twofold and holds relevance for the mechanisms of affordance more generally. First, it illustrates the fluid and varying nature of affordances. Not all requests (or demands, refusals, and so on) are created equal. The mechanisms are artificial nodes and have room for within-category variation. The police tape veers closer to a demand, and the twine rope exerts very little force. Second, the elements that locate a technological object in one category versus another (for example, request versus demand) are not purely material but take shape in relation to cultural meaning systems and institutional infrastructures. The police tape is no less physically permeable than the twine, yet it enacts spatial restriction more powerfully.

这种区分普通麻绳和警用胶带以及不同法律规范下的警用胶带的意义是双重的，对更广泛的承受力机制具有现实意义。首先，它说明了承受力的多变性。并非所有的请求（或要求、拒绝等）都是一样的。这些机制都是人工节点，在类别内有变化的空间。警戒带更接近于要求，而麻绳的力量很小。其次，将技术对象定位为一个类别与另一个类别（例如，请求与需求）的要素并非纯粹的物质，而是与文化意义系统和制度基础设施相关联的。警用胶带的物理渗透性并不亚于麻绳，但它对空间的限制却更为有力。

Demands

要求

Requests are distinct from demands in the relative availability of alternate options. A request prefers some line of action, but a demand implies there are no other possibilities. Demands exert a strong degree of force. Rather than asking someone to “Please do this, and please do not do that,” a demand more firmly states, “You will do this, and you will not do that.” A demand might present in the form of physical, social, and/or symbolic prompts.

请求与要求的区别在于是否有其他选择。请求更倾向于某种行动路线，而要求则意味着没有其他可能性。要求具有很强的强制力。与要求别人 "请这样做，请不要那样做 "相比，要求更坚定地表示 "你要这样做，你不能那样做"。要求可能以身体、社会和/或象征性提示的形式出现。

Returning to fences, ropes represent a request, but steel fitted with electricity represents a demand. An electric fence demands that passers-by remain on one side of the barrier. When navigating space in a prison yard, for example, the fencing structures demand that inmates remain within a clearly defined and bounded space and that members of the public remain outside of that clearly defined and bounded space.

回到栅栏，绳索代表着一种要求，而装有电力的钢材则代表着一种需求。电栅栏要求路人停留在屏障的一侧。例如，在监狱院子里穿行时，围栏结构要求囚犯待在明确界定和限定的空间内，要求公众待在明确界定和限定的空间外。

Like fences that organize how people move in space, so too to do roads and rail lines. Highways and train tracks demand that automobiles follow the paths on which the roads and rails were built. We might say that railways generate a stronger demand and roadways lean closer to a request. Not following a train track renders a train dysfunctional, thus making the locomotive technology dependent on the infrastructural technology. Cars remain functional when going “off road,” but drivers may suffer vehicular damage, bodily harm, and police sanctions (such as tickets and fines) between points A and B.

就像围栏组织人们在空间中移动一样，公路和铁路线也是如此。公路和铁轨要求汽车沿着公路和铁轨的路径行驶。我们可以说，铁路产生了更强烈的要求，而公路则更接近于要求。不沿着火车轨道行驶会使火车无法正常运行，从而使机车技术依赖于基础设施技术。汽车在 "偏离道路 "时仍能正常行驶，但驾驶员可能会在 A 点和 B 点之间遭受车辆损坏、人身伤害和警方处罚（如罚单和罚款）。

In the world of academia, significant attention has been aimed at the distribution (and control) of academic texts. Although digitization creates the opportunity to archive intellectual materials and make them publicly available, many mainstream publishing companies set up infrastructures in which articles are locked behind paywalls. Publishing platforms are then built in a way that demands either individual payment or institutional affiliation to access published content. This demand has been the subject of public protest as proponents of open access advocate instead for policies and related digital architectures that do not place financial restrictions on interested publics but instead allow knowledge to flow openly and equitably.[7]

在学术界，学术文本的发行（和控制）一直备受关注。尽管数字化为知识材料的存档和公开提供创造了机会，但许多主流出版公司建立的基础设施却将文章锁在付费墙后面。然后，出版平台的构建方式要求个人付费或机构隶属关系才能访问已出版的内容。这种要求遭到了公众的抗议，因为开放存取的支持者主张制定政策和建立相关的数字架构，不对感兴趣的公众施加经济限制，而是允许知识公开、公平地流动。7

On Facebook, the platform continues to demand that users select a gender category when signing up for the service. Initially, Facebook demanded that users select either male or female but has since expanded to include more than fifty custom gender options. That is, Facebook dropped its previous demand that users engage in binary identification but maintains the demand for gender identification of some sort. Facebook also demands that users select from a prefigured list rather than use a write-in box that might broaden the field of self-identification.[8] Platform usage thus requires users to gender identify, but the interface could be (and has been) reconfigured in ways to tighten or loosen those requirements. Facebook’s gender-identity demand is a function of its design, and its design is a function of decisions that were neither natural nor inevitable and could certainly be otherwise.

在 Facebook 上，该平台继续要求用户在注册服务时选择性别类别。最初，Facebook 要求用户选择男性或女性，但后来扩大到包括 50 多个自定义性别选项。也就是说，Facebook 放弃了之前要求用户进行二元身份识别的做法，但仍然要求用户进行某种性别识别。Facebook 还要求用户从预设列表中进行选择，而不是使用写入框来扩大自我识别的范围。8 因此，平台的使用要求用户进行性别鉴定，但界面可以（而且已经）进行重新配置，以收紧或放宽这些要求。Facebook 对性别认同的要求是由其设计决定的，而其设计又是由既不自然也不可避免的决定决定的，当然也可以是其他决定。

Although demands exert force, they are not deterministic. People may opt out of using a technology or may subvert a demand in their use of the technology (though subversion requires significant effort and perhaps a degree of courage and risk). For instance, a person may covertly take a car off road; people may elect not to sign up for Facebook or they may try to confuse the Facebook system by selecting one gender category initially and then signaling alternate gender categories through other fields on the platform; and academics can undercut publisher paywalls through social sites like ResearchGate. Demands thus present as the only possible option but remain vulnerable to unexpected and creative user agencies.

尽管需求会产生力量，但它们并不是决定性的。人们可以选择不使用某种技术，也可以在使用技术的过程中颠覆某种要求（尽管颠覆需要付出巨大的努力，也许还需要一定程度的勇气和风险）。例如，一个人可以暗中将汽车开出公路；人们可以选择不注册 Facebook，也可以试图混淆 Facebook 系统，首先选择一个性别类别，然后通过平台上的其他字段表示其他性别类别；学术界可以通过 ResearchGate 等社交网站削弱出版商的付费墙。因此，需求是唯一可能的选择，但仍然容易受到意想不到的、创造性的用户机构的影响。

In sum, requests prefer, and demands insist. Request and demand are not static or uniform categories but represent approximations of the intensity with which a technology pushes users in some directions and pulls them away from others. Within each category, there is room for variation and slippage. A strong request may spill over into a demand, and a weak demand may arguably align with a strong request (that is, other options may seem plausible but unlikely). Together, requests and demands represent the bids technological objects place on users. Although these bids derive from objects, we should be sure to recall that objects are materialized action[9] and thus are inseparable from the sociocultural systems from which they arise and in which they are deployed.

总之，请求更喜欢，需求更坚持。请求和需求并不是静态或统一的类别，而是代表了一种技术推动用户向某些方向发展和将他们从其他方向拉开的强度的近似值。在每个类别中，都有变化和滑动的空间。强烈的请求可能会转化为需求，而微弱的需求可能会与强烈的请求相一致（也就是说，其他选择可能看似合理，但不太可能）。请求和需求共同代表了技术对象对用户的出价。虽然这些要求来自于物品，但我们应该牢记，物品是物化的行动9，因此与它们产生和应用的社会文化系统密不可分。

Encourage, Discourage, and Refuse

鼓励、劝阻和拒绝

Encourage, discourage, and refuse are how technological objects respond when user-subjects initiate some action. These technological responses can accommodate, deter, or block users’ initiatives. When technologies encourage, they make some line of action readily available and easy to execute. When technologies discourage, they erect barriers to a line of action. The action may still be available but not readily so. The user may have to overcome obstacles or creatively engage the technology in order to access lines of action that are discouraged. Technological objects refuse when some line of action seems entirely untenable.

鼓励、阻止和拒绝是技术对象在用户主体发起某些行动时做出的反应。这些技术反应可以迎合、阻止或阻挠用户的行动。当技术鼓励时，它们会让某些行动变得容易实施。当技术不鼓励时，它们就会对行动路线设置障碍。行动可能仍然存在，但不容易实现。用户可能必须克服障碍或创造性地使用技术，才能获得被阻止的行动路线。当某些行动路线似乎完全站不住脚时，技术物品就会拒绝。

Like the first set of mechanisms (request and demand), these three mechanisms are integrated as part of sociotechnical systems involving humans, material apparatuses, culture, and structure. Bids by the object (request and demand) are not empirically distinct from bids on the object (encourage, discourage, and refuse). Rather, each serves as a set of analytic pegs that represent distinct foci on particular parts of the human-technology relation. For example, when a technology demands some line of action, it refuses others; when it requests that users engage in some behavior, that behavior is also encouraged.

与第一套机制（请求和需求）一样，这三种机制也是社会技术系统的组成部分，涉及人类、物质设备、文化和结构。从经验上讲，物体的出价（请求和需求）与物体的出价（鼓励、阻止和拒绝）并不截然不同。相反，每种出价都是一套分析工具，代表了人类与技术关系特定部分的不同焦点。例如，当一项技术要求用户采取某种行动时，它就会拒绝其他行动；当它要求用户采取某种行为时，它也会鼓励用户采取这种行为。

Encourage

鼓励

Technological objects encourage some line of action when that line of action is made easy and appealing. The action is generally obvious, expected, and seamless to execute. Those lines of action that are encouraged often represent the very things a technology was built to accomplish. Users need to employ little or no creativity, deviance, or subterfuge to engage the technology in encouraged ways. For example, cameras built into phones encourage documentation, and the front-facing camera feature encourages self-portraiture (selfies).

当某种行动变得容易和吸引人时，技术物品就会鼓励人们采取这种行动。这种行动通常是显而易见的、意料之中的，而且执行起来天衣无缝。这些被鼓励的行动通常代表了技术所要实现的目标。用户几乎不需要任何创造力、偏差或诡计，就能以受鼓励的方式使用技术。例如，手机内置的摄像头鼓励记录，而前置摄像头功能则鼓励自拍（自拍）。

Along with requests, features that encourage offer the clearest depiction of designers’ intentions—what designers aim for the object to do. In some cases, however, an object may encourage lines of action about which the designer gave little or no thought. That is, an object may be built to accomplish a specific task, and this intentionality is an obvious part of the user experience. Alternatively, the object may be built a certain way for one reason (such as aesthetics, efficiency, or cost-effectiveness) but harbor features that encourage seemingly unrelated user practices.

除了要求之外，鼓励性特征也能最清楚地反映设计者的意图--设计者希望物体做什么。然而，在某些情况下，一个对象可能会鼓励设计者很少或根本没有考虑过的行动。也就是说，设计一个物体可能是为了完成一项特定的任务，这种意图性是用户体验的一个明显部分。另一种情况是，物品可能是出于某种原因（如美学、效率或成本效益）而以某种方式制造的，但却隐藏着鼓励用户采取看似无关的行动的特征。

For example, sharing and engagement are encouraged through the Facebook architecture. Key features of Facebook—such as the immediate availability of “memories” and a visible one-click tool for sharing, a text box with one-click options for adding images, and automatic “tagging”—all combine to encourage users to generate content and connect with their networks. Adding content to Facebook is easy, seamless, and represents the intentions of Facebook, Inc. The more data users produce, the more valuable the platform is to advertisers who are willing to pay to create targeted ads and to data brokers willing to pay for users’ information. It is thus in Facebook, Inc.’s financial interests to encourage data sharing and prolonged engagement, and the features of the social network site do just this. However, the business model of Facebook also, it turns out, encourages political influence. Granular and expansive data production coupled with microtargeted advertising and a hands-off moderation policy combine to create the conditions by which political operatives can construct and deliver compelling political messages to exactly those individuals most likely to be persuaded, regardless of these messages’ veracity. It is unlikely that Facebook meant for this outcome, yet its product encourages the outcome nonetheless.

例如，Facebook 架构鼓励分享和参与。Facebook 的主要功能--如 "回忆 "的即时可用性、一键分享的可见工具、一键添加图片的文本框选项以及自动 "标记"--都鼓励用户生成内容并与其网络建立联系。在 Facebook 上添加内容非常简单、无缝，而且体现了 Facebook 公司的意图。用户产生的数据越多，该平台对愿意付费制作定向广告的广告商和愿意付费购买用户信息的数据经纪人就越有价值。因此，鼓励数据共享和长期参与符合 Facebook 公司的经济利益，而该社交网站的功能正是如此。然而，事实证明，Facebook 的商业模式也鼓励政治影响。细致而广泛的数据生产、微目标广告和放手不管的审核政策共同创造了条件，使政治活动家可以构建并向那些最有可能被说服的人传递引人注目的政治信息，而不管这些信息的真实性如何。Facebook 不可能希望出现这种结果，但其产品却鼓励了这种结果的出现。

Dinner plates offer a less politically charged example of encouragement outside of intention. Large plates encourage greater food consumption, and small plates encourage portion control. Those who design and distribute dishware need not have a particular interest in consumption habits, yet plate size encourages and discourages consumption in meaningful ways. This bears out empirically, with research demonstrating that diners who eat from small plates feel more satisfied with less food than diners eating from larger plates, who require more food to feel sated.[10]

餐盘是一个政治色彩较淡的例子，说明了鼓励的意图之外。大餐盘鼓励更多的食物消费，而小餐盘则鼓励控制份量。设计和分发餐具的人不需要对消费习惯有特别的兴趣，但餐盘的大小却能以有意义的方式鼓励或阻止消费。研究表明，用小盘子进餐的食客比用大盘子进餐的食客用更少的食物就能感到满足，后者需要更多的食物才能感到满足。10

In most cases, dish design is a function of aesthetic style and normative cultural convention rather than concern about consumers’ dietary practices. For instance, fine dining establishments may select large plates to enhance presentation rather than to serve large meals, and small plates may derive from normative conventions of tea settings as part of a cultural food practice rather than a portion-control strategy. However, despite designers’ indifference to diet, plate size nonetheless encourages more or less food consumption.

在大多数情况下，菜肴设计是审美风格和规范性文化习俗的作用，而不是对消费者饮食习惯的关注。例如，高级餐厅可能会选择大盘子来加强展示效果，而不是提供大餐；小盘子可能来自茶具的规范性惯例，是饮食文化习俗的一部分，而不是控制份量的策略。然而，尽管设计者对饮食漠不关心，餐盘的大小还是会鼓励人们多吃或少吃食物。

This is not to say that plate proportions, as a feature, cannot contain volume-related intentions. For example, there is an emergent market of dishware designed specifically for dietary practice. Capitalizing on the affordances of plate shape and size, companies have created food-management plating that controls portions and also encourages balanced food consumption. For example, the Portions Master Skinny Plate offers presized cut-outs for protein, starch, and vegetables. As described on the Portions Master website:

这并不是说，盘子的比例作为一种特征，不能包含与体积相关的意图。例如，市场上出现了专门为饮食习惯设计的餐具。利用盘子形状和大小的优势，一些公司创造了食品管理盘，既能控制份量，又能鼓励均衡饮食。例如，Portions Master Skinny Plate 为蛋白质、淀粉和蔬菜提供了预设尺寸的切口。正如 Portions Master 网站所描述的那样：

The Portions Master is a portion control plate that was specifically designed to help you eat healthy and lose weight, without having to count calories. With Portions Master, you just portion out your protein, complex carbohydrates, and fiber in the appropriate space, remove Portions Master from your dinner plate, and you’re ready. It’s really that easy![11]

份量大师是一款份量控制盘，专为帮助您健康饮食和减肥而设计，无需计算卡路里。有了 Portions Master，您只需将蛋白质、复合碳水化合物和纤维分装在适当的位置，然后从餐盘上取下 Portions Master，就可以了。真的就是这么简单！11

If a person wishes to eat more healthfully, the Skinny Plate accommodates. If a person wants to indulge, a larger plate without cut-out portions would pose the fewest barriers and encourage unrestricted consumption.

如果一个人希望吃得更健康，"瘦身餐盘 "可以满足他。如果一个人想放纵自己，那么一个没有切分的大盘子会造成最少的障碍，并鼓励无限制地消费。

In short, technological objects encourage particular lines of action by making them easy and accessible. Should users wish to engage those lines of action, the object readily abides. In some cases, like Facebook’s encouragement to share and Portions Master’s encouragement to eat a balanced diet, the design reflects a clear set of intentions by which design collaborates with the user to coalesce in a predictable and intended outcome. However, sometimes objects encourage behaviors that may not coincide with designers’ intentions. Such latent effects can encourage lines of action that generate surprising and unexpected results.

简而言之，技术物品通过使特定的行动路线变得简单易行，从而鼓励了这些行动路线。如果用户希望参与这些行动，物品就会很容易遵守。在某些情况下，比如 Facebook 鼓励用户分享，Portions Master 鼓励用户均衡饮食，这些设计都反映了一套明确的意图，即设计与用户合作，共同实现可预测的预期结果。然而，有时物品所鼓励的行为可能与设计者的意图并不一致。这种潜移默化的效果会鼓励人们采取行动，从而产生出人意料的结果。

Discourage

劝阻

Objects discourage when their architectures and normative structures erect obstacles. Whatever is discouraged is nonobvious and requires a degree of extra effort on the part of users. The action is available and plausible, but getting to it is not seamless. Users may need to employ creativity and technical savvy and be willing and able to circumvent norms and rules. Actions that an object discourages may be intentional or unintentional on the part of designers. Features might have been built to avoid a particular line of action, or certain functionalities might never have been considered in the design process and thus never incorporated into an apparatus.

当对象的架构和规范结构设置障碍时，它们就会令人望而却步。被阻止的行为都是不显而易见的，需要用户付出一定程度的额外努力。行动是可用的，也是合理的，但实现起来却并非天衣无缝。用户可能需要运用创造力和技术知识，愿意并能够绕过规范和规则。设计者可能有意，也可能无意地阻止了物体的操作。在设计过程中，可能从未考虑过某些功能，因此也从未将其纳入设备中。

Twitter’s discouragement of long-form content, for example, erects obstacles by design. The Twitter platform makes space in each tweet for a specific number of characters (originally 140 and expanded to 280 in 2017), but there are ways for users to get around these character limits. For instance, users can take a screenshot of a long snippet of text and attach an image of the screenshot to a tweet. Users also can engage the platform’s thread function to create a “tweetstorm”—a connected series of posts that generates a narrative. Despite these workarounds, users are tied to text limits by default and must undertake additional steps to practice verbosity.

例如，推特不鼓励长篇内容，这在设计上就设置了障碍。推特平台为每条推文预留了特定的字符数（最初为140个字符，2017年扩大到280个字符），但用户有办法绕过这些字符限制。例如，用户可以截图一段较长的文字，然后将截图的图片附件到推文中。用户还可以使用平台的线程功能来创建 "推特风暴"--一系列连在一起的帖子，从而产生一种叙事效果。尽管有这些变通方法，但用户在默认情况下还是受到文字限制的束缚，必须采取额外的步骤来练习措辞。

On Instagram, users are discouraged from posting frequently. This discouragement is not a function of any design feature but reflects the norms of platform participants. While conducting interviews for one of my own previous studies, a participant recounted a story in which her younger sister was appalled to learn that the participant had posted twice within a few hours. The younger sister explained that there was a firm one-post-per-day rule and that anything beyond this was “clogging the feed.”[12] The design features of Instagram do nothing to limit documentation and sharing (in fact, we might argue that the platform design requests and encourages content production and distribution), but the community informally censures those who share too much, thus discouraging abundance and enforcing relative scarcity.

Instagram 不鼓励用户频繁发布信息。这种不鼓励并不是任何设计功能的作用，而是反映了平台参与者的规范。在为我之前的一项研究进行访谈时，一位参与者讲述了这样一个故事：她的妹妹得知这位参与者在几小时内发布了两次帖子，感到非常震惊。妹妹解释说，Instagram 有一条严格的规定，即每天只能发布一条信息，超过这条规定就会 "堵塞供稿"。12 Instagram 的设计特点并没有限制记录和分享（事实上，我们可以说平台的设计要求并鼓励内容的生产和传播），但社区会对那些分享过多的人进行非正式的谴责，从而阻碍了内容的丰富性，并强化了相对的稀缺性。

Combining community norms with design features, platforms and forums that curate through voting ostensibly discourage dissenting voices. Designers likely implement voting features to foster democratic participation. In practice, however, voting amplifies voices from the center while minimizing or erasing voices from the margins. Those who engage in ways that resonate with the majority of the community will receive positive feedback (“upvotes”) and be rewarded with increased opportunities for attention. Those who engage in ways that challenge the community will receive negative feedback (“downvotes”) or be ignored.[13]

将社区规范与设计功能相结合，通过投票进行策划的平台和论坛表面上会抑制不同的声音。设计者使用投票功能可能是为了促进民主参与。但实际上，投票放大了来自中心的声音，却最小化或抹杀了来自边缘的声音。那些以能引起社区大多数人共鸣的方式参与的人，会得到积极的反馈（"向上投票"），并获得更多的关注机会。而那些以挑战社区的方式参与的人则会收到负面反馈（"降权"）或被忽略。13

For example, the image-sharing site Imgur sorts content by “up” and “down” votes from within the community. Images and comments with the most “upvotes” are located at the top of each page, and those that receive enough “upvotes” appear on the “front page,” optimizing visibility. In contrast, “downvoted” content gets pushed to the bottom of the page, and when votes go negative (receive more negative than positive votes), the content disappears from the main site. After content disappears due to a negative vote score, it remains accessible only behind a “bad comments” link. In practice, this means that users who express alternative opinions are given less space on the platform than those who express popular views, thus reinforcing the ideological status quo among community members.

例如，图片共享网站 Imgur 根据社区内的 "向上 "和 "向下 "投票对内容进行分类。获得最多 "高票 "的图片和评论位于每个页面的顶部，获得足够多 "高票 "的图片和评论会出现在 "首页"，从而优化可见度。相反，"被降票 "的内容会被推到页面底部，当出现负票（获得的负票多于正票）时，内容就会从主网站上消失。内容因负面投票而消失后，只能通过 "差评 "链接访问。实际上，这意味着表达不同意见的用户在平台上获得的空间小于表达流行观点的用户，从而强化了社区成员的意识形态现状。

In a study of engagement around racial imagery on the Imgur platform, sociologist Christopher M. Julien found that the general zeitgeist on Imgur is one of colorblindness and “postracial” humor.[14] Julien’s study showed that forum participants downvote both explicit racism and progressive antiracist discourse. Imgur’s user base, which is predominately white, male, and middle class, effectively perpetuates a comfortable racial ideology and discursive practice that both rejects extreme white supremacy and also dismisses those who point out continued patterns of racial oppression. The vote feature thus discourages dissenting voices, empowering the community to remain ideologically unchallenged. Moreover, if we assume that dissenting voices are more likely to come from users who do not share the white, male, middle-class demographic, Imgur’s vote feature also discourages participation by diverse and marginalized groups.

社会学家克里斯托弗-朱利安（Christopher M. Julien）对 Imgur 平台上种族图像的参与情况进行了研究，发现 Imgur 平台上的普遍思潮是肤色冷漠和 "后种族 "幽默。14 朱利安的研究表明，论坛参与者对明显的种族主义和进步的反种族主义言论都进行了降权。Imgur 的用户群以白人、男性和中产阶级为主，这有效地延续了一种舒适的种族意识形态和话语实践，既反对极端的白人至上主义，也否定那些指出种族压迫持续模式的人。因此，投票功能阻止了不同声音的出现，使社区在意识形态上不受挑战。此外，如果我们假定不同声音更有可能来自非白人、男性、中产阶级的用户，那么 Imgur 的投票功能也阻碍了多元化和边缘化群体的参与。

To be sure, dissent is possible on Imgur (and other vote-curated platforms like Reddit and the late YikYak), and there are no direct technical forms of racial or gender exclusion from participation. We may therefore imagine marginalized groups converging to generate a critical mass that changes the conversation through organized voting campaigns. However, this rebellious option is effortful and deliberate. By default, vote-curated platforms reinforce like-minded thinking and perpetuate the status quo. Dissent is not precluded, but it is socially and technologically discouraged.

可以肯定的是，在 Imgur（以及其他投票平台，如 Reddit 和已故的 YikYak）上，异议是可能存在的，也没有直接的技术形式将种族或性别排斥在参与之外。因此，我们可以想象边缘化群体聚集在一起，通过有组织的投票活动，产生改变对话的临界质量。然而，这种反叛性的选择是费力而深思熟虑的。默认情况下，投票策划的平台会强化志同道合者的思想，并使现状永久化。异议并不被排除在外，但在社会上和技术上却不被鼓励。

Refuse

垃圾

A line of action is refused when it is implausible and/or impossible. A technological object may be designed in a way that renders certain functions untenable. That is, it may be obvious from the design that particular functionality is prohibited. For instance, a traditional cell phone refuses internet access, and users probably would never consider using a classic Nokia to browse the web. Alternatively, Objects may present the possibility of functionality but then refuse when a user attempts to enact the function. For example, someone might attempt to touch a computer screen to manipulate the display, but if the display screen cannot serve as an input device, then the content will remain undisturbed.

如果某项行动是不可信和（或）不可能的，就会被拒绝。技术物品的设计可能会使某些功能无法实现。也就是说，从设计上可以明显看出某些功能是被禁止的。例如，传统手机拒绝上网，用户可能永远不会考虑使用经典的诺基亚手机浏览网页。另一种情况是，物品可能会提供一些功能，但当用户试图实现这些功能时，物品又会拒绝。例如，有人可能会试图触摸电脑屏幕来操作显示屏，但如果显示屏不能作为输入设备，那么内容就不会受到干扰。

Sometimes, objects refuse as a feature of design, as when an action is intentionally and explicitly prohibited. Other times, refusals are incidental, as when a feature is unreflexively omitted during construction. For example, paywalls on digital academic journal articles (discussed previously) refuse access to those who do not pay or do not carry the proper institutional affiliation. Paywalls are built with the intention of controlling access and are a feature of the publisher’s business model. In contrast, some publishers do not include direct hyperlinks between citations on a reference page and the sources referenced therein. By omitting hyperlinks, those who designed the interface prevent readers from finding referenced texts, but this was likely not an explicit consideration.

有时，物体拒绝是设计的一个特点，如故意明确禁止某个动作。其他时候，拒绝是偶然的，比如在构建过程中不经意地省略了某个功能。例如，数字学术期刊文章上的付费墙（前面已经讨论过）拒绝那些不付费或没有适当机构隶属关系的人访问。建立付费墙的目的是控制访问，也是出版商商业模式的一个特点。与此相反，有些出版商在参考文献页上的引文和其中引用的资料来源之间不直接提供超链接。通过省略超链接，设计界面的人阻止了读者查找参考文献，但这很可能不是一个明确的考虑因素。

Previously, I used the example of Twitter discouraging long-form narratives by limiting character counts. Here, we may say that Twitter refuses to accommodate more than 280 characters in a single communication. This refusal is a feature of the interface design. When a user exceeds the designated character limit, the excess text turns red, as does the “remaining characters” indicator at the bottom of the tweet. The “remaining characters” indicator also displays negative numbers, showing users how many words beyond the designated boundary they have typed. The Post button fades to pale blue and becomes inactive, thus refusing a communication that is over the limit. In this way, Twitter refuses more than 280 characters per tweet, thus requesting brevity.

之前，我曾以 Twitter 通过限制字符数来阻止长篇叙事为例。在这里，我们可以说 Twitter 拒绝在一次通信中容纳超过 280 个字符。这种拒绝是界面设计的一个特点。当用户超过指定的字符数限制时，多余的文字会变成红色，推文底部的 "剩余字符数 "指示器也会变成红色。剩余字符 "指示器还会显示负数，显示用户输入的字数超出了指定的字数限制。发布 "按钮会变为淡蓝色并失去作用，从而拒绝超过限制的交流。通过这种方式，Twitter 拒绝每条推文超过 280 个字符，从而要求简洁。

A key feature that distinguishes Facebook from its predecessor MySpace is that the latter encourages page personalization while the former refuses personalization. Facebook users can provide content exclusively within prefigured categories set by the platform. The platform refuses to add music or background designs to a user’s profile. The prefigured categories are arranged in a set order and displayed in a uniform way for all users. Facebook also refuses to let users publicly rank order their friends, a feature integral to the MySpace architecture.

Facebook 有别于其前身 MySpace 的一个主要特点是，后者鼓励页面个性化，而前者拒绝个性化。Facebook 用户只能在平台预设的类别内提供内容。该平台拒绝为用户的个人资料添加音乐或背景设计。预设类别按固定顺序排列，并以统一方式显示给所有用户。Facebook 还拒绝让用户对其好友公开排序，而这正是 MySpace 架构不可或缺的一项功能。

Recalling Robert Moses’s bridges in New York City, we can say that low overhangs refused to let public transport buses through. Moses’s urban planning design did not refuse access to economically disadvantaged people but discouraged access by restricting forms of transit on which less wealthy New Yorkers were more likely to rely. Scholars have debated about Moses’s racist or classist intentions when designing the bridges,[15] but intentional or not, the bridges continue to organize movements of people, cars, real estate, and money along lines of race and class.

回顾罗伯特-摩西（Robert Moses）在纽约建造的桥梁，我们可以说，低矮的悬臂拒绝让公共交通巴士通过。摩西的城市规划设计并没有拒绝经济上处于不利地位的人通行，而是通过限制纽约不太富裕的人更有可能依赖的交通方式来阻止他们通行。学者们对摩西在设计这些桥梁时的种族主义或阶级歧视意图争论不休，15 但不管是有意还是无意，这些桥梁仍然按照种族和阶级的界限组织着人员、汽车、房地产和资金的流动。

Objects refuse by excluding and prohibiting specific acts. These may be integral to the design or unreflexive products of omission. Indeed, the emergence of new features often transform an object that once refused into one that encourages (or vice versa). For instance, early cell phones were not fitted with cameras, thus refusing pictoral documentation. Newer models, however, have cameras and applications for photo storage and sharing, encouraging users to snap pictures and to do so in a social manner.[16]

物体通过排除和禁止特定行为来拒绝。这些行为可能是设计的组成部分，也可能是不作为的无意识产物。事实上，新功能的出现往往会将曾经拒绝的物品转变为鼓励的物品（反之亦然）。例如，早期的手机不带摄像头，因此拒绝图像记录。然而，较新的机型配备了摄像头和用于存储和分享照片的应用程序，鼓励用户拍照并以社交的方式拍照。16

It again bears reminding that refuse (like demand) is not a deterministic category. Refusals are not necessarily universal, nor are they always permanent. They present as impossible but remain subject to change and circumvention. Twitter previously refused more than 140 characters but now enables up to 280. Facebook users may populate their photo streams with a particular aesthetic to approximate background personalization, even though “wallpapers” as such are refused by the platform.

需要再次提醒的是，拒绝（与需求一样）并不是一个确定的范畴。拒绝不一定是普遍的，也不一定是永久的。它们表现为不可能，但仍有可能改变和规避。Twitter 以前拒绝 140 个字符以上的内容，但现在允许最多 280 个字符。尽管 "壁纸 "本身被该平台拒绝，但 Facebook 用户可以在其照片流中加入特定的美学元素，以接近背景个性化。

In sum, objects encourage by making some lines of action obvious and easy, discourage by making some lines of action difficult to access, and refuse by rendering some lines of action impossible or implausible. These categories are not fixed nor are they mutually exclusive. For instance, leaving a tip is gently encouraged by the presence of a tip jar on a countertop but more explicitly encouraged by including a preset tip option as part of the card payment process. Shoppers are subtly discouraged from printing a receipt when an electronic self-checkout prompts the customer to make a decision (by asking, “Would you like to print a receipt?”), more strongly discouraged when the default response is no (leaving the shopper to switch the selection to yes), and even further discouraged—and potentially refused—if a receipt materializes only after the shopper asks for a copy from a human cashier.

总之，物体通过使某些行动路线变得明显和容易而起到鼓励作用，通过使某些行动路线变得难以达到而起到阻碍作用，通过使某些行动路线变得不可能或不可信而起到拒绝作用。这些类别并不是固定不变的，也不是相互排斥的。例如，柜台上的小费罐可以温和地鼓励顾客留下小费，而在刷卡支付过程中预设小费选项则可以更明确地鼓励顾客留下小费。当电子自助结账机提示顾客做出决定时（询问 "您是否要打印收据？"），顾客会被巧妙地劝阻不要打印收据；当默认回答为 "否 "时，顾客会被更强烈地劝阻不要打印收据（让顾客将选项切换为 "是"）；而当顾客向人工收银员索要收据后，收据才会出现时，顾客会被进一步劝阻--甚至可能被拒绝。

Allow

允许

Technologies place bids on users in the form of requests and demands. Technologies respond to users in the form of encouragement, discouragement, and refusal. Allow applies to bids placed by technologies and to bids placed on technologies. Allow is distinct from other mechanisms of affordance due to its neutral intensity and multidirectional application. A user may take a line of action, but there is no pressure to do so, and there are no significant obstacles in the way. Allow is like a fork in the road. A traveler may just as easily opt for one route as another. The traveler is not faced with enticements from any direction, and the traveler does not need to overcome any extra blockades to access the pathways.

技术以请求和要求的形式向用户提出要求。技术以鼓励、劝阻和拒绝的形式回应用户。允许 "适用于由技术提出的要求和对技术提出的要求。由于其中立的强度和多向应用，"允许 "有别于其他负担机制。用户可以采取某种行动，但没有任何压力，也没有任何重大障碍。Allow 就像一个岔路口。旅行者可以选择一条路线，也可以选择另一条路线。旅行者不需要面对来自任何方向的诱惑，也不需要克服任何额外的障碍来进入路径。

For example, multispeed blenders and multilevel light dimmers allow people to select variants of power and brightness levels at their own discretion. The blender does not try to persuade the cook to pulverize rather than fold, and it obliges equally when the cook pulses and continuously churns. The light dimmer does not resist the slightest glimmer or the most brilliant glow but allows light dispersion as the user deems fit.

例如，多速搅拌机和多级调光器可以让人们自行选择不同的功率和亮度。搅拌机不会试图说服厨师粉碎而不是折叠，当厨师脉冲式地持续搅拌时，搅拌机也会同样服从。调光器不会抵制最轻微的闪光或最耀眼的光芒，而是根据用户认为合适的方式散射光线。

Although Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat request that users share content and encourage users to connect with others on the platforms, all of these platforms allow users to select any username handle that they wish. This naming policy is distinct from Facebook’s, which, through the company’s terms of service, has always demanded that users display their “real” names. However, after much controversy and debate, Facebook now allows users to select a “real” name from their name assigned at birth or another name by which friends and family would recognize them.

尽管 Twitter、Instagram 和 Snapchat 都要求用户分享内容，并鼓励用户与平台上的其他人建立联系，但所有这些平台都允许用户根据自己的意愿选择任何用户名。这一命名政策与 Facebook 的命名政策截然不同，Facebook 通过其服务条款一直要求用户显示自己的 "真实 "姓名。然而，在经过大量争议和讨论后，Facebook 现在允许用户选择一个 "真实 "的名字，可以是出生时指定的名字，也可以是亲朋好友认识他们的另一个名字。

Just because allow is neutral in tone does not mean it is apolitical. For instance, the Facebook name policy has been mired in political contention, with opponents pointing to privacy concerns, especially among marginalized populations who might find harm in identity exposure. The allowed detachment between user identities and handles on Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat thus accounts for issues of privacy and attends to a range of user vulnerabilities in ways that the Facebook platform neglects. Allowing open user handles is therefore a political decision.

允许在语气上保持中立并不意味着它不带政治色彩。例如，Facebook 的姓名政策就陷入了政治争论，反对者指出隐私问题，尤其是边缘化人群，他们可能会发现身份曝光会对他们造成伤害。因此，Twitter、Instagram 和 Snapchat 上允许用户身份与用户名分离，这就考虑到了隐私问题，并以 Facebook 平台所忽视的方式关注了用户的一系列弱点。因此，允许开放用户名是一项政治决定。

Sometimes, features that maintain indifference by design are deeply political in ways entirely unforeseen and unintended by designers. Remember, when left unchecked, technologies will arc toward power and privilege. This point became clear in the exposure of ostensibly neutral advertising interfaces of major digital media platforms during racial unrest in the United States in 2016 and 2017. As of this writing, the advertising interfaces for leading digital media platforms allow customers to utilize granular data to target any group of interest. After the appearance of a disturbing amount of white supremacist propaganda during the 2016 US presidential campaigns, journalists at ProPublica entered the Facebook ad interface to investigate the capacity to target users with white nationalist leanings. The publication identified 2,300 users who had expressed interest in “Jew hater,” “how to burn Jews,” and “history of ‘why Jews ruin the world.’” With a quick fifteen-minute approval process, ProPublica was able to “promote” content to these anti-Semitic targets.[17] Journalists at BuzzFeed similarly tested how Google’s ad interface handled racist inputs. The BuzzFeed team typed the keywords “white people ruin,” and the ad platform suggested running advertisements next to searches for “black people ruin neighborhoods.” With the keywords “why do Jews ruin everything,” Google suggested ads tied to searches for “evil Jews” and “Jewish control of banks.”[18] Similar issues were found in the ad interfaces of Twitter and Instagram. In short, building algorithms that allow targeting from any direction and with any agenda is a political decision because it forgoes an alternate option that refuses racism and expressions of hate.

有时，设计中保持冷漠的功能会以设计者完全无法预料和无意的方式产生深刻的政治影响。请记住，如果不加以控制，技术就会朝着权力和特权的方向发展。在 2016 年和 2017 年美国种族骚乱期间，各大数字媒体平台表面上中立的广告界面被曝光，这一点变得非常明显。截至本文撰写之时，主要数字媒体平台的广告界面允许客户利用细粒度数据瞄准任何感兴趣的群体。在 2016 年美国总统竞选期间，出现了大量令人不安的白人至上主义宣传，之后，ProPublica 的记者进入 Facebook 广告界面，调查针对白人民族主义倾向用户的能力。该刊物发现有 2300 名用户对 "仇视犹太人"、"如何烧死犹太人 "和"'犹太人为何毁了世界'的历史 "表示出兴趣。通过 15 分钟的快速审批程序，ProPublica 得以向这些反犹目标 "推广 "内容。17 BuzzFeed 的记者同样测试了谷歌广告界面如何处理种族主义输入。BuzzFeed 团队输入关键词 "白人毁了"，广告平台建议在 "黑人毁了社区 "的搜索旁边投放广告。在输入 "犹太人为何毁掉一切 "的关键词时，谷歌建议在 "邪恶的犹太人 "和 "犹太人控制银行 "的搜索旁边投放广告。18 Twitter 和 Instagram 的广告界面也存在类似问题。总之，建立允许从任何方向、以任何议程为目标的算法是一个政治决定，因为它放弃了拒绝种族主义和仇恨表达的另一种选择。

Although Facebook, Google, Instagram, and Twitter all prohibit racism and bigotry in their terms of service, the designs of their platforms do little to uphold these rules. Their algorithms are built to extract data with optimal granularity and to churn that data into information for paying customers. These companies project values of inclusion and equality, but their platform architectures do not have these values encoded. Thus, allow is neutral in intensity but can maintain strong political leanings, connected to or separate from, designer intent.

尽管 Facebook、Google、Instagram 和 Twitter 都在服务条款中禁止种族主义和偏执，但它们的平台设计却很少维护这些规则。它们的算法旨在以最佳粒度提取数据，并将数据转化为信息提供给付费用户。这些公司标榜包容和平等的价值观，但它们的平台架构却没有这些价值观的编码。因此，允许在强度上是中立的，但可以保持强烈的政治倾向，与设计者的意图相关或分离。

Chapter Summary

章节摘要

Despite Gibson’s and Norman’s articulations of affordances as gradated and nuanced, applications of the concept have been persistently static and binary. The struggle to incorporate gradation stems from a flawed analytic starting point. As long as analysts begin by asking, “What do these objects afford?,” they will remain stuck in imprecise formulations by which an affordance is either present or absent. Altering the question to “How do these objects afford?” creates space for dynamism.

尽管吉布森和诺曼将 "可承受性 "表述为渐变和微妙的，但这一概念的应用却始终是静态和二元的。将渐变性融入其中的努力源于一个有缺陷的分析起点。只要分析人员一开始就问："这些物体能提供什么？"，他们就会一直停留在不精确的表述上，要么存在，要么不存在。而将问题改为 "这些物品如何负担得起？"则为动态分析创造了空间。

Asking how instead of what lays the groundwork for developing a framework and vocabulary that captures the continuous nature of technological affordances. Beginning with how, I suggest that affordances are characterized by a suite of mechanisms: request, demand, encourage, discourage, refuse, and allow. These mechanisms operate together as a tool to discern and articulate the varying degrees of insistence with which technological objects push, pull, and respond in multiple directions.

问 "如何 "而不是 "是什么"，为制定一个能够捕捉技术能力持续性的框架和词汇奠定了基础。从 "如何 "入手，我认为，"可承受性 "的特点在于一系列机制：请求、要求、鼓励、阻止、拒绝和允许。这些机制共同作用，成为一种工具，用来辨别和阐明技术对象在不同程度上的坚持，它们在多个方向上推动、拉动和响应。

Rather than a rigid framework, the mechanisms are porous, rendering the analytic tool malleable by design. Each mechanism is an artificial stopping point rather than a firm designation, and within each mechanism, there remains room for variation. Demands may be strong or weak, resisting or seeping into the borders of requests. It may be unclear whether an artifact refuses some action or just firmly discourages it. A feature may sit ambiguously between encourage and allow. Indeed, one might say that as a tool, the mechanisms and conditions framework encourages and requests disagreement and debate in affordance analyses.

这些机制不是僵化的框架，而是多孔的，使分析工具在设计上具有延展性。每种机制都是一个人为的停顿点，而不是一个确定的名称，在每种机制中都有变化的空间。要求可能很强烈，也可能很微弱，可能会受到抵制，也可能会渗入要求的边界。我们可能不清楚某项功能是拒绝某些行为，还是只是坚决不鼓励某些行为。一个功能可能在鼓励和允许之间模棱两可。事实上，我们可以说，作为一种工具，机制与条件框架鼓励并要求在能力分析中出现分歧和辩论。

The implications of the mechanisms of affordance can be individual, interpersonal, and/or cultural-structural. As features push and pull with varying degrees of insistence, these features guide what people do, how they interact, and how macro-level patterns are formed, altered, and reified. For instance, swipe-based dating apps request that users consider a high volume of potential partners and discourage users from slow considerations. The swipe feature may then shape how individuals evaluate potential partners and how they present themselves as romantically appealing—placing emphasis on quickly identifiable markers such as physical attractiveness and income. The glut of potential partners and ease of selection and dismissal may shape how those who use the apps interact during dates, perhaps moving quickly to intimacy to establish commitment within a crowded pool or keeping distance to avoid foreclosing the full range of romantic options. These micro interactions can affect romance and intimacy at a cultural-structural level by normalizing serial dating, detaching a single date from future romantic engagements, and empowering those who feel dissatisfied in current relationships to explore the abundant field. In short, swipe apps don’t just offer another way to date but reshape the meaning and practice of finding love.

承受机制的影响可以是个人的、人际的和/或文化结构的。这些功能以不同的坚持程度推拉着人们，引导着人们的行为、互动方式，以及宏观层面的模式是如何形成、改变和重新整合的。例如，基于刷卡的交友软件要求用户考虑大量的潜在伴侣，不鼓励用户慢慢考虑。因此，刷卡功能可能会影响个人如何评估潜在伴侣，以及如何展现自己的浪漫魅力--将重点放在快速识别的标志上，如外貌吸引力和收入。潜在伴侣过多，选择和拒绝都很容易，这可能会影响使用这些应用的人在约会时的互动方式，他们可能会在拥挤的人群中迅速进入亲密关系以建立承诺，也可能会保持距离以避免排除所有的浪漫选择。这些微观互动会在文化结构层面上影响浪漫和亲密关系，使连续约会正常化，使单次约会与未来的浪漫约定分离，并使那些对当前关系感到不满的人有能力探索丰富的领域。简而言之，扫一扫应用程序不仅提供了另一种约会方式，而且重塑了寻找爱情的意义和实践。

The mechanisms of affordance hold social, political, economic, and legal ramifications, with far-reaching effects. Higdon’s HB37 in Missouri, for example, was about more than just controlling space or enforcing safety. The timing of the bill coincided with US protests about racist policing practices, including violence by police officers against black citizens. Some of the most tumultuous protests took place in Ferguson, Missouri—the state in which HB37 was introduced. Attempts to criminalize police barrier breaches can therefore be read as a political move that restricts protest activities and shifts power to state authorities. HB37 would not only strengthen the request that citizens remain outside of police perimeters but also discourage aggressive protest tactics and encourage police use of force.

负担得起的机制具有社会、政治、经济和法律影响，影响深远。例如，密苏里州的希格登法案（HB37）不仅仅是为了控制空间或加强安全。该法案出台的时间恰逢美国抗议种族主义警务行为，包括警察对黑人公民施暴。一些最激烈的抗议活动发生在密苏里州弗格森--HB37 法案的出台地。因此，将警察破坏隔离墙的行为定为刑事犯罪的尝试可被解读为一种限制抗议活动并将权力转移给州政府的政治举措。HB37 法案不仅加强了要求公民远离警方警戒线的规定，还阻止了激进的抗议策略，鼓励警方使用武力。

In sum, the mechanisms of affordance address the binary problem that has heretofore plagued affordance theory. Asking how instead of what gives nuance and agility to affordance analysis, freeing it from rigid binary constrictions. However, the mechanisms alone are not enough. On their own, the mechanisms of affordance depict complex objects in relation with homogeneous subjects. But affordances will vary across users and contexts. Thus, we must ask not only how objects afford but also for whom and under what circumstances?. This question—for whom and under what circumstances?—is the focus of the next chapter.

总之，承受能力机制解决了迄今为止困扰承受能力理论的二元对立问题。问 "如何 "而不是 "什么"，使承受力分析变得细微而灵活，摆脱了僵化的二元限制。然而，仅有机制是不够的。就其本身而言，承受力机制描述的是复杂客体与同质主体之间的关系。但是，不同的用户和不同的情境下，承受能力也会有所不同。因此，我们不仅要问物体如何负担，还要问是谁在什么情况下负担得起。这个问题--为谁和在什么情况下--是下一章的重点。

5

Conditions of Affordance

可负担性条件

In 2014, a fifty-seven-year-old woman was arrested and charged with “interfering with a peace officer” after crossing police tape during a standoff between law enforcement and a potentially violent suspect near her home in Eugene, Oregon. As discussed in the previous chapter, police tape offers a flimsy physical barrier, but symbolically (and legally), it maintains sway. An article about the incident in Eugene’s The Register-Guard quotes officers expressing concern about the integrity of the scene and the safety hazard of barrier breaches.[1] Officers also describe the woman’s behavior as irresponsible and insubordinate, noting that she was smoking cigarettes and appeared intoxicated. Said police spokeswoman Melinda McLaughlin:

2014 年，一名五十七岁的妇女在俄勒冈州尤金市的家附近，在执法人员与一名可能有暴力倾向的嫌疑人对峙期间，越过了警戒带，随后被捕并被指控 "干扰治安官员"。正如前一章所述，警用胶带提供了一个脆弱的物理屏障，但在象征意义上（和法律上），它却保持着影响力。尤金《注册卫报》（The Register-Guard）上一篇关于该事件的文章引用警官的话，对现场的完整性和隔离带破损的安全隐患表示担忧。1 警方还称这名妇女的行为不负责任、不服从管理，并指出她当时正在抽烟，而且似乎喝醉了。警方发言人梅琳达-麦克劳夫林（Melinda McLaughlin）说：

People may be curious, but these are high risk situations and there is a reason why there is a perimeter. . . . They warned her a few times, but she kept coming out to smoke and asking what was going on. . . . It was taking officer resources to manage her. . . . She was intentionally failing to follow commands.

人们可能会好奇，但这些都是高风险情况，设置警戒线是有原因的。. . .他们警告了她几次，但她还是不停地出来抽烟，问发生了什么事。. .管理她占用了警官的资源。. .她是故意不服从命令。

McLaughlin’s justification seems reasonable. Removal was about safety, the police barrier is a legal perimeter, and this woman was acting unruly. We might expect that such measures would be taken against any person who similarly transgressed. However, a line toward the end of The Register-Guard article stands out as curious:

麦克劳夫林的理由似乎很合理。拆除是为了安全起见，警察隔离墙是合法的警戒线，而这名妇女的行为不守规矩。我们或许可以预料到，对任何有类似违规行为的人都会采取这样的措施。然而，《注册卫报》文章结尾的一句话却令人感到奇怪：

A second person—a member of the media—also crossed the perimeter, McLaughlin said, but left before officers issued a warning.

麦克劳克林说，还有一个人--媒体成员--也越过了警戒线，但在警察发出警告之前就离开了。

Two people traversed a legal perimeter on the same night, in the same place, during the course of the same police operation. One was arrested. The other was never even warned—though the other’s presence was noticed, as indicated by McLaughlin’s statement.

在同一天晚上，在同一地点，在同一次警方行动中，有两个人穿越了法定警戒线。其中一人被捕。另一个人甚至从未被警告过--尽管麦克劳克林的陈述表明，另一个人的存在被注意到了。

The apartments in which the incident occurred are located in Eugene’s Jefferson Westside neighborhood. This neighborhood has a median income under $30,000 (47 percent below the national average) and a crime rate that is 61 percent above the national average.[2] As a resident of this area, living in a modest rental unit, the arrested woman did not benefit from valued social class signifiers. Rather, her resident status near the crime scene likely undermined the legitimacy of her presence and reinforced the police boundary via heightened vigilance and mistrust. In other words, the police were disinclined give this resident the same benefit of the doubt granted to a journalist who walked through the perimeter noticed but undisturbed.

事发公寓位于尤金市杰斐逊西区。该社区的收入中位数低于 3 万美元（比全国平均水平低 47%），犯罪率比全国平均水平高 61%。2 作为该地区的居民，被捕妇女居住在一个简陋的出租房内，她并没有从有价值的社会阶层标志中受益。相反，她在犯罪现场附近的居民身份很可能削弱了她出现的合法性，并通过提高警惕和不信任来强化警察的边界。换句话说，警方不愿意给予这名居民与一名记者同样的怀疑，后者走过警戒线时受到了注意，但没有受到干扰。

Far from objective, the surveillance, suspicion, and punishment around police tape took shape in distinct ways for two different subjects. For the media associate, the perimeter proved porous; for the resident, the tape was iron clad. Notably, images from The Register-Guard article indicate that the arrested woman racially presents as white. Given existing statistics and accounts about police interactions with racial minorities, especially those of low socioeconomic means, we might imagine that the barrier formed by the police tape would have been even stronger—and the consequences more severe—had the resident been a person of color.

警戒线周围的监视、怀疑和惩罚远非客观，而是以截然不同的方式呈现在两个不同的对象面前。对媒体同行来说，警戒线是漏洞百出的；而对居民来说，警戒线则是铁板一块。值得注意的是，《注册卫报》文章中的图片显示，被捕女子的种族特征为白人。鉴于现有的关于警察与少数种族，尤其是社会经济地位低下的少数种族互动的统计数据和描述，我们可以想象，如果该居民是有色人种，那么警察胶带形成的屏障会更加坚固，后果也会更加严重。

The point is that the mechanisms of affordance—how objects afford—are necessarily entangled with social and structural conditions. Affordance analyses thus begin with the two-part question: How does this object afford and for whom and under what circumstances?. From this analytic base, affordances are neither singular nor static but protean relationships between artifacts, persons, and situations that remain always, potentially, in flux. For whom and under what circumstances? is represented in the framework by the “conditions of affordance.”

问题在于，承受力的机制--物体如何承受--必然与社会和结构条件纠缠在一起。因此，承受力分析从两个部分的问题开始：这个物品如何负担得起，在什么情况下为谁负担得起？从这一分析基础出发，承受力既不是单一的，也不是一成不变的，而是器物、人和情境之间的动态关系，始终处于潜在的变化之中。在这个框架中，"承受能力的条件 "代表了在什么情况下对谁而言？

In this chapter, the conditions of affordance are distilled into three broad factors: perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy. These factors address how subjects perceive objects and the functionality, barriers, opportunities, and constraints therein; the skill with which subjects can engage objects; and the degree to which the subject-object relationship is sanctioned by normative conventions and official codifications (that is, norms, rules, and laws). As stated in the framework’s original formulation:

在本章中，负担能力的条件被提炼为三大因素：感知、灵巧以及文化和制度合法性。这些因素涉及主体如何感知客体以及客体的功能、障碍、机会和限制；主体与客体接触的技巧；以及主体与客体的关系在多大程度上得到规范性惯例和官方编纂（即规范、规则和法律）的认可。正如该框架最初的表述：

evaluating an artifact’s affordances entails discerning if a subject perceives the artifact’s function, and if so, does that subject have the physical and cognitive dexterity to utilize it, and if so, is the subject’s use of the artifact culturally valid and institutionally supported.[3]

评估一件人工制品的可承受性，需要辨别主体是否感知到人工制品的功能，如果感知到了，主体是否具备使用人工制品的身体和认知灵活性，如果具备，主体对人工制品的使用是否具有文化有效性和制度支持。3

In simpler terms, what an object demands of me may be only a request for you. I may be encouraged in some instances and refused in others. You may be allowed to enact some function, but I may not. Affordances are built into material features but only partially so. Proper affordance analysis requires attention to features in context.

简单地说，一件物品对我的要求可能只是对你的请求。我可能在某些情况下受到鼓励，而在另一些情况下遭到拒绝。你可能被允许发挥某种功能，但我可能不被允许。承载力内置于物质特征中，但只是部分内置于物质特征中。正确的承受力分析需要关注上下文中的特征。

The three broad conditions of affordance are not discrete categories but are entwined in mutually shaping relation. Each factor informs and is informed by the others. Perception is likely affected by the skill or dexterity one has with an object, just as perception of the object can enhance or hinder user competence. Clear perception and skillful dexterity may earn a subject cultural and institutional legitimacy, just as cultural and institutional legitimacy may foster skill development.

承受能力的三大条件并非相互独立的类别，而是相互交织、相互影响的关系。每个因素都会影响其他因素，也会被其他因素所影响。对物体的感知可能会受到一个人使用物体的技能或灵巧程度的影响，正如对物体的感知会增强或阻碍使用者的能力一样。清晰的感知和娴熟的技巧可以为主体赢得文化和制度上的合法性，正如文化和制度上的合法性可以促进技能的发展一样。

As typological demarcations, perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy echo existing work from affordance theory and from the practical turn in design studies. In a conceptual review of affordances, Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho identify two axes along which users may experience variation in the affordances of an object: “the ease with which an affordance can be undertaken and . . . the clarity of the information that describes the existing affordance.”[4] From a design perspective, Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry argue that critical and reflexive design should account for variations in cognitive, technical, and physical competency.[5] Perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy operationalize such variations into a usable model.

作为类型划分，感知、灵巧性以及文化和制度合法性与现有的承受能力理论和设计研究中的实践转向相呼应。乔安娜-麦格雷瑞尔（Joanna McGrenere）和韦恩-何（Wayne Ho）在对可负担性进行概念性回顾时，指出了用户可能会体验到物品可负担性变化的两个轴心："一种可承受性的容易程度和......描述现有可承受性的信息的清晰度"。4 从设计的角度来看，巴蒂亚-弗里德曼（Batya Friedman）和戴维-亨德利（David G. Hendry）认为，批判性和反思性设计应该考虑到认知、技术和体能方面的能力差异。5 感知、灵巧性以及文化和制度的合法性将这些变化操作化为一个可用的模型。

The conditions of affordance not only add context to analyses but also reveal the default subjects for whom technologies are designed. Identifying who is refused versus who is allowed or encouraged to access technological features clarifies a set of assumptions about imagined users—their social positions, physical characteristics, and material and immaterial resources. In turn, these identifications also render visible those who are marginalized, ignored, and excluded. This gives depth and breadth to analytic understandings of human-technology relations. It should also give pause to practitioners (including designers, engineers, executives, and investors) whose products are rooted in and distributed through complex social systems.

承受能力的条件不仅为分析增添了背景，还揭示了技术设计的默认主体。识别哪些人被拒绝使用技术功能，哪些人被允许或鼓励使用技术功能，可以澄清对想象用户的一系列假设--他们的社会地位、身体特征、物质和非物质资源。反过来，这些识别也使那些被边缘化、被忽视和被排斥的人显而易见。这为分析理解人类与技术的关系提供了深度和广度。这也应该让那些产品植根于复杂社会系统并通过复杂社会系统进行传播的从业人员（包括设计师、工程师、管理人员和投资者）稍安勿躁。

Perception

感知

In an update to his 1988 The Psychology of Everyday Things—renamed The Design of Everyday Things—Donald A. Norman makes a distinction between real affordances and perceived affordances.[6] Real affordances refer to the material features of an object, and perceived affordances refer to the way subjects interpret those features. How an object affords thus depends partially on the extent to which a subject is aware of an object’s functionality. Without subjective awareness, the features of an object remain inert.

唐纳德-诺曼（Donald A. Norman）在其1988年出版的《日常事物心理学》（更名为《日常事物设计》）的更新版中，对实际可承受性和感知可承受性进行了区分。6 真正的负担能力指的是物体的物质特征，而感知的负担能力指的是主体对这些特征的解读方式。因此，物体如何提供功能，部分取决于主体对物体功能的认知程度。没有主观意识，物体的功能就会失去作用。

The inclusion of a technical function is a necessary but insufficient condition for its availability. A function about which a subject is unaware is as effective as a function that is absent. This is exemplified in an observation by communication scholar Gina Neff, who points out that “For hackers and experts, systems look more crackable, more full of potential and possibility, than they look to the rest of us—appearing to us as given and relatively fixed.”[7] Thus, the material elements of a technical object emerge not objectively but always through a lens.

技术功能的包含是其可用性的必要但不充分的条件。主体不了解的功能与不存在的功能一样有效。传播学者吉娜-内夫（Gina Neff）的观察就体现了这一点，她指出："对于黑客和专家来说，系统比我们其他人看起来更容易破解，更充满潜力和可能性--在我们看来，系统是既定的、相对固定的。7 因此，技术对象的物质元素并不是客观出现的，而总是通过镜头出现的。

Imagine coming home from work at the end of a long week, looking forward to a quiet glass of wine. You walk in the door, toss your coat, and uncork a bottle. Opening your cupboards, you see that there isn’t a single clean glass in the house. You do not feel like washing dishes. After a brief pause you realize that although you may not have clean glasses, you do have measuring cups. “That’ll do!” you think, and pour yourself a drink.

想象一下，漫长的一周结束后，下班回家，期待着静静地喝一杯葡萄酒。您走进家门，扔掉外套，打开瓶盖。打开橱柜，您发现家里没有一个干净的杯子。您不想洗碗。稍作停顿后，您意识到虽然没有干净的杯子，但您有量杯。"这样就行了！"你想，然后给自己倒了一杯酒。

Glasses and measuring cups are designed for different purposes. The former is meant to hold beverages, and the latter is meant to portion food and cooking materials. One is for consumption; the other, for preparation. Yet many features of drinking glasses and measuring cups are largely interchangeable. Both can hold consumable substances and enable human subjects to transfer those substances from one vessel to another, whether into a bowl or into a mouth. For the measuring cup to become a drinking glass, however, the subject must perceive this functionality. That is, the measuring cup is a drinking glass only after it is recognized as such. Without recognizing the measuring cup as a potential drinking device, the cup refuses direct consumption. In contrast, once a subject perceives the measuring cup as having glasslike features, that subject is allowed to drink directly from it.

玻璃杯和量杯的设计目的不同。前者用于盛放饮料，后者用于分装食物和烹饪材料。一个用于饮用，另一个用于准备。然而，饮料杯和量杯的许多功能在很大程度上是可以互换的。两者都可以盛放可食用的物质，并使人类能够将这些物质从一个容器转移到另一个容器，无论是放入碗中还是放入口中。然而，要使量杯成为饮杯，主体必须感知到这种功能。也就是说，量杯只有在被识别后才是一个饮水杯。如果没有认识到量杯是一种潜在的饮用装置，量杯就会拒绝直接饮用。相反，一旦被试者认为量杯具有类似玻璃杯的功能，就可以直接饮用。

On social media platforms, algorithms actively curate both content and relationships. Some content and people are highlighted, and others are relegated to the bottom of the feed or entirely omitted from view.[8] One of the main critiques leveled against digital social platforms is that users often do not—and cannot—understand how curatorial decisions are made.[9] Perception has thus emerged as a critical issue around truth and trustworthiness. By default, the features of most social media platforms functionally discourage or even refuse critical investigation into the source of content and its place within an information stream. Hence, crises of “fake news” and misinformation have occupied public attention and prompted a flurry of responses from social media companies, which have sought to institute means of truth verification via technical design and personnel.

在社交媒体平台上，算法会主动策划内容和关系。一些内容和人物会被突出显示，而另一些内容和人物则会被降到底部或被完全忽略。8 针对数字社交平台的主要批评之一是，用户往往不了解--也无法了解--策划决定是如何做出的。9 因此，感知已成为围绕真实性和可信度的一个关键问题。默认情况下，大多数社交媒体平台的功能阻碍甚至拒绝对内容来源及其在信息流中的位置进行批判性调查。因此，"假新闻 "和错误信息的危机引起了公众的关注，并促使社交媒体公司做出了一系列回应，试图通过技术设计和人员来建立真相验证手段。

(Mis)information does not affect everyone equally. Novices might not know that their news is presorted or that they can readjust the flow of content. In contrast, those equipped with a higher level of media literacy are less bound by default algorithms, can perceive their news feeds as both constructed and pliable, and can alter the feeds to fit personal information preferences. For media-savvy subjects, default settings are requests rather than demands, and the information that does filter through allows for skepticism. Such tactics might defend against dubious information, encouraging critical news consumption. At the same time, adjusting the default options can just as easily exacerbate the problem of misinformation because those familiar with platform settings are allowed (or even encouraged) to filter out content that challenges their personal worldviews, reinforcing tight filter bubbles that request confirmation biases and discourage encounters with opposing perspectives. Perception thus affects the fixed (or pliable) nature of a news feed but does so toward multiple, sometimes contradictory ends.

(错误）信息对每个人的影响并不相同。新手可能不知道他们的新闻是预先分类的，也不知道他们可以重新调整内容的流向。与此相反，那些具备较高媒体素养的人则较少受到默认算法的束缚，他们可以认为自己的新闻源既是建构的，也是柔韧的，他们可以改变新闻源以适应个人的信息偏好。对于精通媒体的受试者来说，默认设置是请求而不是要求，而且通过过滤的信息也允许怀疑。这种策略可以抵御可疑信息，鼓励批判性新闻消费。同时，调整默认选项也很容易加剧错误信息的问题，因为那些熟悉平台设置的人被允许（甚至被鼓励）过滤掉挑战他们个人世界观的内容，从而强化了严密的过滤泡沫，这些泡沫要求确认偏见，不鼓励接触反对观点。因此，感知会影响新闻源的固定性（或柔韧性），但其目的是多重的，有时甚至是相互矛盾的。

Perception is not always liberating or enabling. In some cases, clear perception of features—in their material and social forms—can have constraining effects. In the previous chapter, one of my interviewees was reprimanded by her younger sister after sharing “too many” posts on Instagram. These two sisters did not follow the same normative conventions. Thus, my participant was initially allowed to post as many times as she wanted, while Instagram strongly discouraged the same actions from the participant’s sibling. Indeed, the experience of censure altered my participant’s perception such that the affordances of Instagram changed for her. What was once allowed was no longer.

感知并不总是解放或促进。在某些情况下，对其物质和社会形式特征的清晰感知会产生限制作用。在上一章中，我的一位受访者因为在 Instagram 上分享了 "太多 "帖子而遭到了妹妹的训斥。这两姐妹并没有遵循同样的规范性惯例。因此，我的受访者一开始可以随心所欲地发布帖子，而 Instagram 则强烈反对受访者的妹妹采取同样的行为。事实上，被谴责的经历改变了我的参与者的看法，使她对 Instagram 的承受能力发生了改变。曾经被允许的行为不再被允许。

Perception has been and remains a crucial variable in the conceptual trajectory of affordances. It is the crux of ontological debates about affordances as intrinsic properties versus relational elements—that is, is the existence of an affordance inherent, or do features afford only once they are perceived? This question—akin to those about the sounds of trees falling in forests—is a philosophical one. In contrast, the mechanisms and conditions framework is a practical project, and I am less concerned about the nature of affordances than how they operate. In practical operation, perception activates affordances and alters their shape, rendering technologies more flexible or more constricting. Perception shifts subject-object relations between various mechanisms from request to refuse, accommodating and subverting the intentions of design.

在能力概念的发展轨迹中，感知一直是而且仍然是一个至关重要的变量。它是本体论争论的核心，争论的焦点是作为内在属性的承受力与作为关系元素的承受力--也就是说，承受力的存在是与生俱来的，还是只有当特征被感知时才具有承受力？这个问题--类似于森林中树木倒下的声音--是一个哲学问题。相比之下，"机制与条件 "框架是一个实践项目，我不太关心 "可承受性 "的本质，而更关心它们是如何运作的。在实际操作中，感知会激活能力并改变其形态，使技术变得更加灵活或更具限制性。感知改变了各种机制之间的主客体关系，从请求到拒绝，既包容又颠覆了设计意图。

Dexterity

灵活性

In order to utilize the features of an object, one must not only perceive those features as available but also have the ability to employ them. Dexterity refers to the capacity of a subject to enact the functions of an object. These capacities can be physical or cognitive. A subject must be able to physically manipulate the object in required ways and have the knowledge set that enables manipulation.

为了利用物体的特征，一个人不仅要感知到这些特征是可用的，而且还要具备利用这些特征的能力。灵巧是指主体发挥物体功能的能力。这些能力可以是身体上的，也可以是认知上的。主体必须能够以所需的方式对客体进行物理操作，并拥有能够进行操作的知识集。

Variation in dexterity and its relationship to affordances is a central element of disability studies and disability activism. By and large, built infrastructures have historically been constructed with a presumed model human who walks easily, sees clearly, and hears with precision. The critical disability perspective contends that such assumptions have resulted in a disabling social structure for those whose bodies do not adhere to the presumed model ideal.[10] Stairs offer a clear example. Stairs are built to transport bodies between levels of a given built structure. In the default case, stairs encourage climbing. However, as described in William H. Warren’s classic affordance study, stair climbing relies on particular bodily configurations.[11] In addition to adequate leg-length-to-stair-height ratios, stair climbers must contain the muscular capacity to support full body weight, the muscle control to contort the legs at will, and the coordination to balance for brief moments as one leg leaves a bottom step and advances to the next. Persons with lower body paralysis, muscular atrophy, severe arthritis, or myriad other conditions do not have bodies that adhere to these requirements. Thus, although the stairs encourage climbing by able-bodied persons, those living with certain mobility impairments are discouraged or refused.

灵巧性的差异及其与负担能力的关系是残疾研究和残疾行动主义的核心要素。总体而言，历史上建造的基础设施都是以行走自如、视力清晰、听力准确的人类为假定模型的。批判性残疾视角认为，这种假定导致了社会结构对那些身体不符合假定理想模型的人的禁用。10 楼梯就是一个明显的例子。建造楼梯是为了在特定建筑结构的不同楼层之间运送身体。在默认情况下，楼梯鼓励攀爬。然而，正如威廉-H-沃伦（William H. Warren）在其经典的承受能力研究中所描述的，爬楼梯依赖于特定的身体构造。11 除了要有足够的腿长与楼梯高度的比例之外，爬楼梯者还必须具备支撑全身重量的肌肉能力、随意扭动双腿的肌肉控制能力，以及在一条腿离开底部台阶并迈向下一个台阶时保持短暂平衡的协调能力。下半身瘫痪、肌肉萎缩、严重关节炎或其他多种疾病患者的身体无法满足这些要求。因此，虽然楼梯鼓励身体健康的人爬楼梯，但却不鼓励或拒绝那些有某些行动障碍的人爬楼梯。

In this vein, visually oriented websites serve consumers who have clear ocular vision, but they discourage or even refuse access among people with vision impairments. For instance, a stylish thin font presents a clean look but may be unreadable for those with eyesight less than 20/20; screen readers translate website content into audio form but cannot read images directly and often have trouble reading text within images; and similar color contrasts (such as white on grey) can render text indistinguishable from the background. So although website designers work hard to create slick visuals, the process of doing so may request engagement from seeing users while refusing access to the visually impaired. In contrast, websites that adhere to the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) standards of accessibility[12] equally allow and even encourage consumption by users with any level of vision.

因此，以视觉为导向的网站服务于眼睛视力清晰的消费者，但却阻碍甚至拒绝有视力障碍的人访问网站。例如，时尚的细长字体看起来很简洁，但对于视力低于 20/20 的人来说可能无法阅读；屏幕阅读器可以将网站内容翻译成音频形式，但无法直接阅读图像，通常也很难阅读图像中的文字；类似的颜色对比（如灰底白字）会使文字与背景无法区分。因此，尽管网站设计者努力创造华丽的视觉效果，但这样做的过程可能会要求看得见的用户参与，而拒绝视障人士访问。相反，符合万维网联盟（W3C）无障碍标准的网站同样允许甚至鼓励任何视力水平的用户访问。

On a personal note, dexterity plays a substantial role in my collaborative research relationships. Like all researchers, I operate with clear limits. I am highly proficient in qualitative methods and have a strong grasp of social theory. Yet my dexterity with both statistical analyses and large-scale data analytics is relatively basic. I do not have the skills to build complex statistical models or write novel code that unlocks and makes sense of data points from the web. On my own, I am allowed to use a variety of data collection and analysis tools but refused all but their most elementary functions. Luckily, I work with wonderful coauthors who do have expertise in statistics and big-data digital methods. Because of my coauthors’ dexterity in this regard, the features of quantitative and digital data analysis software allow, request, and encourage complex analyses for our research teams.

就我个人而言，灵巧性在我的合作研究关系中发挥着重要作用。与所有研究人员一样，我的工作有明确的限制。我非常精通定性方法，对社会理论有很强的把握。然而，我在统计分析和大规模数据分析方面的灵活性相对较低。我不具备建立复杂的统计模型或编写新颖的代码来解锁和理解网络数据点的技能。我自己可以使用各种数据收集和分析工具，但除了最基本的功能外，其他功能我都不会使用。幸运的是，我与出色的合作者一起工作，他们在统计学和大数据数字方法方面拥有专业知识。由于我的合作者在这方面的灵巧，定量和数字数据分析软件的功能允许、要求并鼓励我们的研究团队进行复杂的分析。

Dexterity, like perception, is not a fixed designation but a description of subject-object relations at a particular juncture. Prohibitions need not apply forever, nor is access guaranteed over time and across contexts. This is because competencies can change, and so too can circumstances. For example, I could upskill via research methods workshops and classes; a person with adult-onset vision impairment might initially find screen readers unintelligible but with time and practice could become adept; and the features of a new phone may seem inaccessible at first but quickly become familiar, allowing and encouraging use of various features toward multiple ends. In turn, one’s dexterity with a set of stairs may decline with age, and an operating system update might upend one’s previously intuitive and expert relation to a device.

灵巧与感知一样，不是一个固定的名称，而是对某一特定时刻主客体关系的描述。禁令不必永远适用，也不能保证在不同时间和不同环境下都能使用。这是因为能力会变，环境也会变。例如，我可以通过研究方法研讨会和课程来提高自己的能力；有成人视力障碍的人最初可能会觉得屏幕阅读器难以理解，但随着时间的推移和练习，就会变得娴熟；新手机的功能最初可能看起来难以使用，但很快就会变得熟悉，从而允许并鼓励使用各种功能来达到多种目的。反过来，一个人使用楼梯的灵活性可能会随着年龄的增长而下降，而操作系统的更新可能会颠覆一个人以前与设备之间直观而专业的关系。

Cultural and Institutional Legitimacy

文化与制度的合法性

Growing up in my parents’ home, I was aware of how the thermostat worked. I knew what it did and how to operate its functions. However, in my eighteen years of living at home and subsequent visits throughout adulthood, I have yet to change the temperature. My structural position within the family—coupled with the practical fact that I don’t pay the bills—creates a circumstance in which I am strongly discouraged from operating temperature control technologies in the family dwelling. I am allowed to use a space heater or a fan and encouraged to use tools like sweaters and socks to control my personal temperature, but heavy barriers remain in place that restrict control over central temperature technologies. In fact, my family has very particular conventions about who may access temperature controls and under what circumstances. My mother has control in the summer, and my father has control in the winter. My brother and I should never touch the thermostat. Thus, my mother is encouraged to deploy temperature controls in the warmer months and discouraged but still allowed to do so after October. My father is discouraged in the winter but encouraged in the summer. We “kids” face heavy discouragement, if not outright refusal, year-round.

我在父母家长大，知道恒温器是如何工作的。我知道它是做什么的，也知道如何操作它的功能。然而，在我 18 年的家庭生活中，以及后来成年后的探访中，我还没有改变过温度。我在家庭中的结构性地位，再加上我不支付账单的实际情况，造成了我被强烈阻止在家庭住宅中操作温度控制技术的情况。我被允许使用空间加热器或风扇，并被鼓励使用毛衣和袜子等工具来控制个人温度，但仍然存在严重的障碍，限制了对中央温度技术的控制。事实上，我的家庭对谁在什么情况下可以使用温度控制器有着非常特殊的约定。夏天由我母亲控制，冬天由我父亲控制。我和弟弟绝对不能碰恒温器。因此，我们鼓励母亲在温暖的月份使用温度控制器，不鼓励但仍允许她在 10 月之后使用。我的父亲在冬天会受到劝阻，但在夏天会受到鼓励。我们这些 "孩子 "一年四季都要面对严厉的劝阻，甚至是断然拒绝。

Sociotechnical assemblages exist at the intersection of history, biography, and culture. Cultural norms and institutional codes reflect and shape social and political dynamics, and these dynamics inform the way people and technologies relate. Thus, the force exerted by technologies is inextricable from the structural position of social subjects. As a condition of affordance, cultural and institutional legitimacy addresses the way one’s location within the larger social structure and the related norms, values, rules, and laws of a social system inform human-technology relations.

社会技术组合存在于历史、传记和文化的交汇处。文化规范和制度准则反映并塑造了社会和政治动态，而这些动态又影响着人与技术的关系。因此，技术所施加的力量与社会主体的结构性地位密不可分。作为承受力的一个条件，文化和制度的合法性涉及一个人在更大的社会结构中所处的位置，以及一个社会体系的相关规范、价值观、规则和法律对人类与技术关系的影响。

Cultural and institutional legitimacy can operate through both formal and informal channels, representing a continuum between codes and conventions. In some cases, the affordances of a technology are tied to formal rules and laws (codes). In other cases, affordances are guided by normative patterns (conventions). Recalling the police tape, this technology allows and encourages breach by police officers but not citizens. Citizens are legally refused access, but police officers are authorized to pass. Between citizens, the pressure exerted by the police tape varies less by code and more by norms or conventions. In the opening to this chapter, I recount a story of a local resident who was arrested after breaching the police barrier during a standoff while a journalist entered and exited without warning or censure. The journalist was marked by signifiers of high status that buffered against suspicion and surveillance, in contrast with the local woman, who quickly became suspect. The barrier was thus a refusal for the local citizen but a mere discouragement for the journalist.

文化和制度的合法性既可以通过正式渠道，也可以通过非正式渠道，在守则和惯例之间形成一个连续体。在某些情况下，技术的可负担性与正式规则和法律（守则）相联系。在另一些情况下，技术的可承受性则受规范模式（惯例）的指导。回想一下警用胶带，这种技术允许并鼓励警察违规，但不允许公民违规。公民在法律上被拒绝进入，但警察却有权通过。在公民之间，警戒带所施加的压力较少因法规而异，较多因规范或惯例而异。在本章的开头，我讲述了一个当地居民的故事，他在一次对峙中冲破了警察的屏障而被捕，当时一名记者在没有警告或谴责的情况下进出。这位记者的身份很高，可以避免被怀疑和监视，而这位当地妇女则不同，她很快就成了嫌疑犯。因此，障碍物对当地公民来说是一种拒绝，但对记者来说只是一种劝阻。

Cultural and institutional legitimacy is an intrinsically political condition tied to existing status and power dynamics. How access is distributed and for whom technologies are (implicitly and explicitly) intended reflect status markers within the broader social system, most often privileging those with valued status traits. By default, technologies will lean toward the reification of power structures. Subverting power structures thus requires attention to the ways that existing sociotechnical systems serve, ignore, or harm, socially situated subjects.

文化和制度的合法性本质上是一种政治条件，与现有的地位和权力动态息息相关。如何分配使用权以及技术的（暗示和明示）使用对象反映了更广泛社会体系中的地位标志，最常见的情况是赋予那些拥有重要地位特征的人特权。在默认情况下，技术将倾向于权力结构的重新整合。因此，要颠覆权力结构，就必须关注现有社会技术系统如何服务、忽视或伤害社会主体。

In a study of flagging and reporting on social media, Stefanie Duguay, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor examine how platform features uniquely affect queer*-identifying women.[13] Their analysis of Instagram, Tinder, and Vine documents architectural elements, terms of service, and normative community practices. They show that content moderation features across these platforms serve a default user and that the default user is not queer* women. For example, Instagram has a highly visible reporting mechanism but moderates based on heteronormative conventions, Tinder has an obscure flagging feature that enables sexually exploitative and deceptive behavior,[14] and Vine’s laissez-faire approach implicitly supports a “toxic technoculture” that allows antiqueer* sentiments to proliferate. Cultural norms and interface design thus construct inhospitable environments for LGBTQI women. Although the platforms encourage participation among one demographic (cis white people), they discourage participation for those who fall outside of this imagined demographic ideal.

Stefanie Duguay、Jean Burgess 和 Nicolas Suzor 对社交媒体上的标记和报道进行了研究，探讨了平台功能如何对认同同性恋*的女性产生独特影响。13 她们对 Instagram、Tinder 和 Vine 的分析记录了架构元素、服务条款和规范性社区实践。他们发现，这些平台的内容管理功能是为默认用户服务的，而默认用户并不是同性恋*女性。例如，Instagram 有一个非常明显的举报机制，但却根据异性恋规范进行审核；Tinder 有一个隐晦的标记功能，使性剥削和欺骗行为成为可能；14 Vine 的自由放任方式暗中支持一种 "有毒的技术文化"，使反同性恋情绪泛滥。因此，文化规范和界面设计为 LGBTQI 女性构建了不友好的环境。虽然这些平台鼓励某一人群（顺式白人）参与，但却不鼓励那些不属于这一理想人群的人参与。

Another interesting example comes from the literature on social media and social capital. It has emerged axiomatic that social media use enhances social capital in the form of network building, information sharing, and resource distribution. The truism of a positive relationship between social media and social capital derives primarily from studies of university students.[15] Although the authors of these studies are clear about the applicable scope of their findings (university students) and although social media has also proven capital-enhancing in other populations (such as the elderly),[16] the idea that social media is universally capital-enhancing has morphed into a general empirical claim. However, subsequent work shows that social media experiences are highly variable and for some can be more of a liability than an asset.

另一个有趣的例子来自有关社交媒体和社会资本的文献。社交媒体的使用以网络建设、信息共享和资源分配的形式增强了社会资本，这已成为不言而喻的事实。社交媒体与社会资本之间存在正向关系这一不言而喻的道理主要来自对大学生的研究。15 虽然这些研究的作者明确指出了其研究结果的适用范围（大学生），而且社交媒体在其他人群（如老年人）中也被证明具有资本增强作用，16 但社交媒体普遍具有资本增强作用的观点已演变成一种普遍的经验性主张。然而，随后的研究表明，社交媒体的体验千差万别，对某些人来说，社交媒体与其说是一种资产，不如说是一种负担。

In sharp contrast to university-based findings, ethnographic exploration of social media experiences among low-income urban youth of color paint an image of vulnerability rather than opportunity.[17] Here, social media are not sites of resource accumulation but surveillance, drama, and danger. These works report on youth who face threats of violence, have private images exposed, and see fights escalate, leading to self-imposed restrictions on sharing and participation. Far from the happy “highlight reels” that characterize social media experiences within the public imagination, these urban youth are discouraged from the network-building features of social media platforms, are refused the freedom to connect, and face requests for limited engagement. That is, social disadvantage is not ameliorated by connectivity but is compounded as youth move online.

与大学的研究结果形成鲜明对比的是，对城市低收入有色人种青年的社交媒体体验进行的人种学探索描绘了一幅脆弱而非机遇的画面。17 在这里，社交媒体不是资源积累的场所，而是监视、戏剧和危险的场所。17 在这里，社交媒体不是资源积累的场所，而是监视、戏剧和危险的场所。这些作品报道了面临暴力威胁、私人图片被曝光、争斗升级，导致分享和参与受到自我限制的青年。在公众的想象中，这些城市青年的社交媒体经历远非快乐的 "精彩片段"，他们不愿意使用社交媒体平台的网络建设功能，被拒绝自由联系，并面临有限参与的要求。也就是说，社会劣势并没有因为连通性而得到改善，反而随着青年上网而加剧。

In short, human-technology relations and the affordances therein are always socially situated. Cultural norms and institutional codes create both opportunities and prohibitions. Cultural and institutional factors do not determine human-technology relations, but pathways are built with wider or narrower entrances and with smoother or rockier terrains. The contours of these pathways create opportunity structures that shape sociotechnical dynamics at both micro and macro levels.

简而言之，人类与技术的关系以及其中的可承受性始终是社会性的。文化规范和制度准则既创造了机会，也设置了禁令。文化和制度因素并不决定人与技术的关系，但却会在入口处或宽或窄，地势或平坦或崎岖的地方修建通道。这些途径的轮廓创造了机会结构，在微观和宏观层面形成了社会技术动态。

Chapter Summary

章节摘要

This chapter addresses the second part of the mechanisms and conditions framework, demonstrating that affordances take shape in relation to diverse subjects operating under a range of contextual variables. Discerning how objects afford (the mechanisms) entails careful analysis of for whom and under what circumstances? (the conditions). The conditions of affordance are encoded into built objects but necessarily go beyond materiality. How objects afford will vary from one person to the next, from one circumstance to another, and in new ways over time.

本章论述了机制与条件框架的第二部分，表明承受力的形成与在一系列环境变量下运作的不同主体有关。要辨别物体的承受能力（机制），就必须仔细分析在什么情况下为谁承受？(条件）。负担能力的条件被编码到人造物品中，但必然超越物质性。物品的承受能力因人而异，因环境而异，并随着时间的推移以新的方式变化。

The larger message of including “conditions” in the mechanisms and conditions framework is that humans and technologies are co-constitutive and structurally situated. Politically aware analyses necessitate careful consideration of the material and the social. The conditions of affordance facilitate analyses in which the same object affords in multiple and divergent ways. Indeed, the conditions of affordance insist that technical features are polysemic, polyvalent, and variable. In its specific articulation, the conditions of affordance include three factors: perception, dexterity, and cultural and institutional legitimacy. Although analytically distinct, each condition entwines with and informs the others.

将 "条件 "纳入机制与条件框架的更大意义在于，人类与技术是共同构成的，是结构性的。具有政治意识的分析必须仔细考虑物质和社会。承受能力的条件有利于分析同一对象以多种不同方式提供的能力。事实上，"可负担性 "条件坚持认为技术特征是多义的、多价的和可变的。在具体的表述中，承受能力的条件包括三个因素：感知、灵巧以及文化和制度的合法性。尽管从分析角度看，每个条件都是不同的，但它们相互交织、相互影响。

In some cases, a person may recognize what a feature does (perception), and have the skill to use it (dexterity), but face formal or normative barriers that refuse or discourage enactment. For example, a young hacker may know how to access and change school records but is prohibited from doing so by threat of expulsion or legal action. The refusal persists despite perceptive awareness and practical capability. In other cases, cultural and institutional legitimacy can facilitate or impede familiarity with an object, thus affecting perception and dexterity. For example, men have been cast as more technologically inclined than women, creating a relationship of exploration and technical skill-building among boys and making this path less appealing or obvious to girls. If technological competence is accepted and expected, perception and dexterity more easily follow; if technological competence is deterred or not assumed, perception and dexterity are less likely to develop. Further still, perception and dexterity can be the basis for cultural and institutional legitimacy. For instance, the institutional legitimacy to operate a motor vehicle (a driver’s license) is predicated on demonstrating familiarity with vehicular operations and adeptness behind the wheel.

在某些情况下，一个人可能认识到某项功能的作用（感知），并拥有使用它的技能（灵巧），但却面临着正式或规范性的障碍，从而拒绝或阻止其应用。例如，一个年轻的黑客可能知道如何访问和更改学校记录，但由于受到开除或法律诉讼的威胁而被禁止这样做。尽管有感知意识和实际能力，但拒绝仍然存在。在其他情况下，文化和制度的合法性会促进或阻碍对某一对象的熟悉，从而影响感知和灵活性。例如，男性被认为比女性更有技术倾向，这就在男孩中形成了一种探索和技术技能培养的关系，使这一途径对女孩的吸引力减弱或变得不明显。如果技术能力被接受和期待，感知力和灵巧性就更容易随之发展；如果技术能力被阻止或不被期待，感知力和灵巧性就不太可能发展。此外，感知和灵巧可以成为文化和制度合法性的基础。例如，驾驶机动车辆（驾照）的制度合法性取决于对车辆操作的熟悉程度和对驾驶的熟练程度。

The conditions of affordance are both reflective and productive. They embody existing sociostructural arrangements and reverberate out to shape cultural norms, institutional practices, and the practical realities of everyday life. For instance, in regions where it is illegal for women to drive, these laws shape and reflect more than women’s relationships to motor vehicles. They also shape and reflect gendered relations of dependence, restrict women’s employment opportunities, and symbolically entrench a clear gender-status structure in which men maintain disproportionate power in the home and in society. In this way, students who lack access to personal computers in the home may be less adept at operating the features of digital technologies, including navigation of online learning platforms. Features of online learning platforms are therefore more readily available to “highly connected” learners, constructing a relationship in which digital inequality comes to affect educational outcomes that, in turn, shape life chances in ways that reproduce wealth and poverty.

负担得起的条件既是反思性的，也是生产性的。它们体现了现有的社会结构安排，并产生反响，形成文化规范、制度惯例和日常生活的实际现实。例如，在妇女开车违法的地区，这些法律塑造和反映的不仅仅是妇女与机动车辆的关系。它们还塑造和反映了性别依赖关系，限制了妇女的就业机会，并象征性地巩固了男性在家庭和社会中保持着不成比例权力的明确性别地位结构。因此，家里没有个人电脑的学生可能不太擅长操作数字技术的功能，包括在线学习平台的导航。因此，"高度互联 "的学习者更容易获得在线学习平台的功能，从而构建了一种关系，在这种关系中，数字不平等开始影响教育成果，而教育成果反过来又以重现财富和贫困的方式塑造人生机会。

The conditions of affordance take shape not only through direct interactions between individual subjects and individual objects but also through multifaceted sociotechnical relationships. The affordances of some object for some person in some circumstance can change with the introduction of a complementary technology or the inclusion of other people. Screen readers, for instance, combine with existing website architectures to make content legible to the visually impaired, shifting the affordances of the site from refuse to allow, request, and encourage. Even without an electronic screen reader, the issue of accessibility is not insurmountable. The features of a website can also become available through collaboration with another person who may read the site aloud (an organic screen reader). The inaccessible website may not encourage use by people with vision impairments, but with the proper tools or collaborations, consumption is allowed. My own research partnerships highlight the relationality of sociotechnical assemblages. The features of some data analytics software discourage me from using them due to my low levels of dexterity, but I am welcome to mobilize the features with the aid of skilled colleagues.

承受能力的条件不仅通过单个主体与单个客体之间的直接互动而形成，也通过多方面的社会技术关系而形成。随着辅助技术的引入或其他人的加入，某些物体在某些情况下对某些人的承受能力会发生变化。例如，屏幕阅读器与现有的网站架构相结合，使内容对视障者清晰易读，从而将网站的可承受性从拒绝转变为允许、请求和鼓励。即使没有电子屏幕阅读器，可访问性问题也并非不可解决。网站的功能也可以通过与其他人合作来实现，后者可以朗读网站（有机屏幕阅读器）。无法访问的网站可能不鼓励有视力障碍的人使用，但如果有适当的工具或合作，就可以使用。我自己的研究伙伴关系突出了社会技术组合的关联性。一些数据分析软件的功能让我望而却步，因为我的灵活性较低，但我欢迎在熟练同事的帮助下使用这些功能。

The conditions of affordance are not fixed to individual persons or contexts. Circumstances change, and when they do, so too do the relationships between human subjects and technological objects. In 2017, Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia issued a decree that legalized driving for women in the country.[18] This legal decree altered the cultural and institutional support available to Saudi women who wished to operate vehicles. Many of the car’s affordances were previously refused to women by threat of imprisonment but now would be allowed. For some women, this legal change requested and encouraged driving (though a lifetime of being a passenger might inhibit perception and dexterity, posing barriers to use). For women who continue to adhere to traditional beliefs and are embedded in traditional networks, operating a motor vehicle is, at best, allowed. Indeed, the normative cultural milieu of this latter group may still demand driving abstinence.

承受能力的条件并不固定于个人或环境。环境在变，人类主体与技术客体之间的关系也在变。2017 年，沙特阿拉伯的穆罕默德-本-萨勒曼颁布法令，使该国女性驾驶合法化。18 这项法令改变了沙特女性希望驾驶车辆的文化和制度支持。以前，妇女因受到监禁威胁而无法使用汽车的许多功能，但现在可以使用了。对一些妇女来说，这一法律变化要求并鼓励她们驾驶汽车（尽管终生作为乘客可能会抑制感知力和灵活性，从而对使用汽车造成障碍）。对于那些继续坚持传统信仰并扎根于传统网络的妇女来说，驾驶机动车充其量只是被允许的。事实上，后一类妇女的规范文化环境可能仍然要求她们不开车。

At a meta level, the conditions of affordance both situate analytic outcomes and also sharpen the analytic process. Technology commentators are necessarily entrenched in cultural systems. From a first-person perspective, affordance analyses will be colored by the social position of the analyst. Whether some feature reads most clearly as request versus allow, for example, may well be a function of the conditions under which a particular analyst encounters a particular object (such as cultural and institutional access to that object). The conditions of affordance thus not only contextualize how artifacts afford but also encourage analytic reflexivity. If analysts must always ask for whom and under what circumstances?, they foreground their own default assumptions about the opportunities and constraints of the technology under consideration. The conditions of affordance thus reveal potential biases and infuse the analytic process with critical self-reflection.

在元层面上，承受能力的条件既能确定分析结果的位置，也能使分析过程更加清晰。技术评论者必然根植于文化体系之中。从第一人称的角度来看，承受能力分析会受到分析者社会地位的影响。举例来说，某些特征是否能最清晰地解读为 "要求 "或 "允许"，很可能取决于特定分析师遇到特定对象时所处的条件（如接触该对象的文化和制度）。因此，"可承受性 "的条件不仅使人工制品的 "可承受性 "有了语境，而且鼓励了分析的反思性。如果分析人员总是要问 "在什么情况下"、"为谁"、"如何"，那么他们就会把自己对所考虑的技术的机会和限制的默认假设摆在台面上。因此，承受能力的条件揭示了潜在的偏见，并为分析过程注入了批判性的自我反思。

Having operationalized a model of affordances in which mechanisms and conditions combine to structure analyses of subject-object relations, we turn now to methodological strategies by which such an operationalization can be applied. What I set roots for in chapters 1, 2, and 3 and delineate in in chapters 4 and 5 is an agile and politically attuned analytic tool. The following chapter identifies and describes methodologies of implementation. Rather than suggest something entirely novel, chapter 6 instead demarcates methodological approaches that resonate with key assumptions of the mechanisms and conditions framework, thus generating symbiotic theory-methods pairings.

在将机制与条件相结合以构建主客体关系分析的 "可承受性 "模型操作化之后，我们现在来讨论应用这种操作化的方法论策略。我在第 1、2 和 3 章中提出并在第 4 和 5 章中阐述的是一种灵活的、与政治相适应的分析工具。下一章确定并描述了实施方法。第 6 章并没有提出完全新颖的建议，而是划定了与机制和条件框架的关键假设产生共鸣的方法，从而产生了理论与方法的共生配对。

6

Affordances in Practice

实践中的亲和力

On their own, conceptual frameworks are little better than neat party tricks, arranging complex social phenomena into tidily packaged vocabularies. The purpose of conceptual work is to help analysts and practitioners better understand and intervene in the social world. Frameworks thus enliven through empirical encounters, facilitated by rigorous methodologies. This chapter points to methodological approaches that complement the mechanisms and conditions framework and that are enhanced through the pairing. The methodologies presented herein are not exhaustive but exemplify the vehicles through which affordance analyses can take effect. Each was selected for its high quality, relevance to the fields of technology studies, and coincidence with key assumptions of the mechanisms and conditions framework.

就其本身而言，概念框架不过是整齐划一的派对把戏，将复杂的社会现象排列成整齐包装的词汇表。概念工作的目的是帮助分析师和实践者更好地理解和干预社会世界。因此，在严格的方法论的推动下，框架通过与经验的接触而变得生动活泼。本章指出了与机制和条件框架相辅相成的方法论，这些方法论通过配对得到了加强。本章介绍的方法并非详尽无遗，但体现了负担能力分析可以发挥作用的载体。每种方法都因其质量高、与技术研究领域相关以及与机制和条件框架的关键假设相吻合而被选中。

Methodological complements to the mechanisms and conditions framework can be varied in their approaches (qualitative, quantitative, computational etc.), stem from an array of disciplines (such as communication studies, science and technology studies, engineering, and education), and serve a range of practical and intellectual goals (including accessible design, critical analysis, and policy development to name a few). Not all methods are equally appropriate, but maintaining the integrity of the mechanisms and conditions framework requires implementation through approaches that share the framework’s key theoretical tenets. Methods best suited to the mechanisms and conditions framework should meet the following criteria:

对机制和条件框架的方法学补充可以是多种多样的（定性、定量、计算等），来自于一系列学科（如传播研究、科技研究、工程学和教育学），服务于一系列实践和知识目标（包括无障碍设计、批判性分析和政策制定等）。并非所有的方法都同样适用，但要保持机制与条件框架的完整性，就必须采用与该框架的主要理论原则相同的方法。最适合机制与条件框架的方法应符合以下标准：

- 1. Centralize political dynamics.

1.集中政治动态。

- 2. Give voice to marginal populations and groups.

2.让边缘人口和群体发出自己的声音。

- 3. Maintain a reflexive orientation.

3.保持反思的方向。

- 4. Assume multiplicity of meaning, experience, and outcome.

4.假设意义、经验和结果的多重性。

- 5. Address materiality with a social lens.

5.用社会视角看待物质性。

Artifacts are political. They both reflect and affect social organization and the values entailed therein. Methods that assume political neutrality or ignore the political element are ill-suited for the mechanisms and conditions framework because they leave little space for critical consideration of production, implementation, distribution, and use across subjects and circumstances. Political neutrality thus undermines analytic attention to the conditions of affordance as structural factors that shape how artifacts afford. In contrast, approaches that treat politics and power as integral can mobilize the mechanisms and conditions framework to both reveal and potentially upend existing structural arrangements.

人工制品具有政治性。它们既反映又影响社会组织及其所包含的价值观。假定政治中立或忽视政治因素的方法不适合机制和条件框架，因为它们几乎没有空间对不同主体和环境的生产、实施、分配和使用进行批判性考虑。因此，政治中立削弱了对负担能力条件的分析关注，而负担能力条件是决定人工制品如何负担的结构性因素。与此相反，将政治和权力视为一个整体的研究方法，可以调动机制和条件框架来揭示并潜在地颠覆现有的结构安排。

Connected to politics and power is the propensity of a given method to lift marginal voices and prioritize the non-normative. Methods that converge on the center highlight dominant perspectives and treat them as universal. In contrast, the mechanisms and conditions framework centralizes variability, otherness, and difference. This means more than simply accounting for diverse stakeholders but also intentionally amplifying those stakeholders whose experiences diverge from the “norm.” Technological design (and the design of social organization more generally) trends toward normalization. That is, design often assumes a default user but does not explicate who that user is or how default assumptions foster and entrench exclusion. Methods that recognize the normalization trend and explicitly push back against it are appropriate for affordance analyses using the mechanisms and conditions framework.

与政治和权力相关的是，特定的方法倾向于提升边缘化的声音，优先考虑非规范性的声音。向中心靠拢的方法强调主流观点，并将其视为普遍观点。与此相反，机制和条件框架则将变异性、他异性和差异性集中化。这意味着不仅仅要考虑不同的利益相关者，还要有意识地放大那些经验与 "规范 "不同的利益相关者。技术设计（以及更普遍的社会组织设计）趋向于规范化。也就是说，设计通常会假定一个默认的用户，但并不说明这个用户是谁，也不说明默认的假定是如何助长和巩固排斥现象的。认识到正常化趋势并明确反对这种趋势的方法适合于使用机制和条件框架进行负担能力分析。

Claims to objectivity are antithetical to the mechanisms and conditions framework. The mechanisms and conditions framework is flexible and reflexive by design. It is a tool with which to make arguments, not define or solidify “truths.” Scientific claims are always imperfect approximations. Thus, methods that recognize the subjective nature of epistemology—or ways of knowing—are appropriate for affordance analyses. Methodological reflexivity indicates critical introspection about how research questions, data collection strategies, and analyses are based on choices that could be otherwise and if they were otherwise, would likely produce different results.

客观性的主张与机制和条件框架背道而驰。机制与条件框架的设计具有灵活性和反思性。它是一个用于论证的工具，而不是定义或巩固 "真理 "的工具。科学主张总是不完美的近似值。因此，承认认识论（或认知方式）主观性的方法适合于实惠分析。方法论的反思性表明，研究问题、数据收集策略和分析是如何建立在选择的基础上的，这些选择可以是其他的，而且如果是其他的，很可能会产生不同的结果。

No technological object has a singular meaning, nor does it produce entirely predictable outcomes. That is, artifacts are polysemic, dynamic, and surprising. Overly rigid empirical approaches undercut the capacity for analytic and technical adaptation, while methods that embrace fluid meaning systems approach sociotechnical relations as inherently moving targets. The latter are appropriate for affordance analyses.

任何技术物品都没有唯一的意义，也不会产生完全可预测的结果。也就是说，人工制品是多义的、动态的和令人惊讶的。过于僵化的实证方法削弱了分析和技术适应能力，而接受流动意义系统的方法则将社会技术关系视为固有的移动目标。后者适用于能力分析。

Finally, the mechanisms and conditions framework is best applied through approaches that imbricate the material with the social. Specifically, methods should account for the material elements of an artifact while avoiding technological determinism. Appropriate methodologies will recognize architectures, infrastructures, and features as opportunities and constraints rather than as direct causal forces.

最后，机制和条件框架的最佳应用方法是将物质与社会结合起来。具体来说，研究方法应考虑到人工制品的物质要素，同时避免技术决定论。适当的方法应将建筑、基础设施和特征视为机遇和制约因素，而不是直接的因果力量。

In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss five methodological approaches that meet all of these criteria (political, marginal, reflexive, multiple, and sociomaterial). I delineate each methodology, reference key works, and think through how each approach might be used in conjunction with the mechanisms and conditions framework. Other methodologies also fit the criteria and can be effectively coupled with affordance analyses. I present these five as exemplar cases. Along with highlighting methodological tools appropriate for affordance analyses, the chapter also demonstrates the applicability of the mechanisms and conditions framework across a wide variety of empirical topics. The chapter thus highlights the breadth of the mechanisms and conditions framework while providing practical guidance for research-based application.

在本章的其余部分，我将讨论符合所有这些标准（政治、边缘、反思、多重和社会物质）的五种方法论。我划分了每种方法，参考了主要著作，并思考了如何将每种方法与机制和条件框架结合起来使用。其他方法也符合这些标准，并可与承受力分析有效结合。我将这五种方法作为范例进行介绍。本章除了重点介绍适合承受能力分析的方法工具外，还展示了机制与条件框架在各种实证课题中的适用性。因此，本章强调了机制与条件框架的广泛性，同时为基于研究的应用提供了实用指导。

Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis

批判性技术文化话语分析

Of all the approaches featured in this chapter, critical technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA) shows the tightest fit with the theoretical underpinnings of the mechanisms and conditions framework. Introduced by digital media and race scholar André Brock, CTDA specifically applies to analyses of internet technologies and entails simultaneous attention to hardware, software, ideology, and user experience.[1] CTDA combines material analysis of hardware and software design as it intersects with meaning production and articulation by socially situated users. The method entails deep and simultaneous consideration of artifact, practice, and belief, which together create analytic texts that the researcher reads through a critical lens.[2] CTDA centralizes the social margins and lifts those voices that are otherwise unheard, positioned against the norm, or considered only retroactively.

在本章介绍的所有方法中，批判性技术文化话语分析（CTDA）与机制和条件框架的理论基础最为契合。CTDA由数字媒体和种族学者安德烈-布洛克（André Brock）提出，特别适用于对互联网技术的分析，需要同时关注硬件、软件、意识形态和用户体验。1 CTDA 将硬件和软件设计的材料分析与社会用户的意义生产和表达相结合。这种方法需要同时深入考虑人工制品、实践和信仰，它们共同创造了研究人员通过批判性视角解读的分析文本。2 CTDA 将社会边缘集中化，并提升了那些在其他情况下无法听到、被定位为违反规范或仅被追溯考虑的声音。

Key assumptions of CTDA include the following:

CTDA 的主要假设如下

- • ICTs [information communication technologies] are not neutral artifacts outside of society; they are shaped by the sociocultural contexts of their design and use.

- 信息和传播技术[信息通信技术]并不是社会之外的中性人工制品；它们是由其设计和 使用的社会文化背景决定的。

- • Society organizes itself through the artifacts, ideologies and discourses of ICT based technoculture.

- 社会通过以信息和通信技术为基础的技术文化的人工制品、意识形态和话语来组织自己。

- • Technocultural discourse must be framed from the cultural perspective of the user AND of the designer.[3]

- 技术文化论述必须从用户和设计者的文化视角出发。3

Brock warns that as a method, CTDA is “unwieldy” and inefficient and that “neither interface analysis nor critical discourse analysis can be done succinctly.”[4] A CTDA reading entails analytic accounts of interrelated materiality, practices, and culture and focuses on power dynamics. CTDA thus insists on data that are multiply analyzed and articulated.[5]

布洛克警告说，作为一种方法，CTDA 是 "笨重的"、低效的，"无论是界面分析还是批判性话语分析都无法简洁地完成"。4 CTDA 的解读需要对相互关联的物质性、实践和文化进行分析说明，并关注权力动态。因此，CTDA 坚持对数据进行多重分析和阐述。5

Like the mechanisms and conditions framework, CTDA eschews positivist notions of objectivity and determinism in the research process. CTDA analysis generates not definitive answers but situated arguments. Data are always read through a lens, such that different analysts may come to different conclusions about the same research object. This resonates with the porous nature of affordance mechanisms and their use as analytic pegs rather than as concrete categorizations. Hence, a request may be argued as a demand or from another perspective formulated as a refusal.

与机制和条件框架一样，CTDA 在研究过程中摒弃了实证主义的客观性和决定论。CTDA 分析产生的不是确定的答案，而是情景论证。数据总是通过镜头来解读的，因此不同的分析师可能会对同一研究对象得出不同的结论。这与负担能力机制的多变性以及将其用作分析的锚点而非具体分类的做法不谋而合。因此，一项请求可能被认为是一种要求，也可能从另一个角度被认为是一种拒绝。

For both CTDA and the mechanisms and conditions framework, ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Both resist definitive statements and in doing so destabilize analytic authority. This does not equate to imprecision but rather, baked-in discomfort and uncertainty. Together, CTDA and the mechanisms and conditions framework create a vehicle for thoughtful, critical, and rigorously derived scholarship by which knowledge remains a living and changing organism. Conclusions remain always contentious, situated, open to critique, and subject to change.

对于 CTDA 和机制与条件框架而言，模糊性是其特点，而非缺陷。两者都抵制明确的陈述，并因此破坏分析权威的稳定性。这并不等同于不严谨，而是一种不舒适和不确定性。CTDA 和机制与条件框架共同为深思熟虑、批判性和严格推导的学术研究提供了载体，使知识成为一个不断变化的有机体。结论始终具有争议性、情景性、可批判性和可改变性。

As indicated by the name, critical technocultural discourse analysis maintains a critical perspective. Drawing on critical information studies, CTDA focuses not on problems but on problematics—issues like racism, sexism, and classism that are wrapped up in culture and that cannot be solved but only resolved.[6] CTDA thus relies on and combines with critical race theory, queer theory, critical feminist studies, and the like. CTDA centralizes marginalized persons and groups, bringing underrepresented voices to the fore and attending to intersecting power structures that inform and take shape through digital products and processes.[7]

正如其名称所示，批判性技术文化话语分析坚持批判性视角。借鉴批判信息研究，CTDA 关注的不是问题，而是问题--种族主义、性别歧视和阶级歧视等问题，这些问题被包裹在文化之中，无法解决，只能解决。6 因此，CTDA 依赖于批判性种族理论、同性恋理论、批判性女权主义研究等，并与之相结合。CTDA 将边缘化的个人和群体集中起来，让代表不足的声音凸显出来，并关注相互交织的权力结 构，这些权力结构通过数字产品和数字流程提供信息并形成。7

CTDA provides a strong foundation for interrogating how internet technologies afford across subjects and circumstances. Rather than a singular internet or depiction of a monolithic interface experience, CTDA intrinsically asks for whom and under what circumstances?, escaping general statements about “what people do online” and specifying the ways artifacts and ideology intersect with agentic and socially situated subjects.[8] CTDA creates a critical empirical orientation, and the mechanisms and conditions framework puts that orientation into practice.

CTDA 为探究互联网技术在不同主体和环境下的承受能力奠定了坚实的基础。CTDA 并不是一个单一的互联网或对单一界面体验的描述，而是内在地追问 "在什么情况下为谁服务？"，摆脱了关于 "人们在网上做什么 "的一般性陈述，明确了人工制品和意识形态与代理主体和社会情景主体的交叉方式。8 CTDA 创造了一种批判性的经验取向，而机制和条件框架则将这种取向付诸实践。

The Walkthrough Method and App Feature Analysis

演练法和应用程序功能分析

Both of the next two approaches are specific to studies of software applications (apps). Apps are software programs that serve a singular, specific purpose.[9] Although apps are most commonly associated with mobile devices, they are also incorporated into desktop and laptop interfaces. Apps represent a significant part of the contemporary digital landscape and make up an immense economy of exchange between corporate entities, developers, and users in which both money and data serve as currency.

接下来的两种方法都是专门针对软件应用程序（Apps）的研究。应用程序是指具有单一、特定用途的软件程序。9 虽然应用程序通常与移动设备联系在一起，但它们也被纳入台式机和笔记本电脑的界面中。应用程序是当代数字领域的重要组成部分，是企业实体、开发者和用户之间巨大的交换经济，其中金钱和数据都是货币。

I present the walkthrough method and app feature analysis together because of their shared empirical target. Although both analyze apps, the two approaches operate with different units of analysis and offer complementary strengths. The walkthrough method takes single apps as the unit of analysis. It entails a deep dive into the operation of a given app as that app takes shape through user publics. In contrast, the unit of analysis for app feature analysis is an entire genre of apps (such as health apps, parenting apps, privacy apps, or gambling apps). App feature analysis takes a bird’s-eye view to map a broad technological and ideological landscape. In short, the walkthrough method interrogates individual apps, and app feature analysis assembles a dataset from a corpus of similarly themed apps. Apps are the data points in app feature analysis, and in the walkthrough method, each app is the data.

我将演练法和应用程序特征分析法放在一起介绍，因为它们有共同的实证目标。虽然都是分析应用程序，但这两种方法的分析单位不同，优势互补。演练法以单个应用程序为分析单位。它需要深入了解特定应用程序的运行情况，因为该应用程序是通过用户公众形成的。相比之下，应用程序特征分析的分析单位是整个应用程序类型（如健康应用程序、育儿应用程序、隐私应用程序或赌博应用程序）。应用程序特征分析以鸟瞰的视角来描绘广阔的技术和意识形态景观。简而言之，演练法是对单个应用程序进行调查，而应用程序特征分析则是从主题相似的应用程序语料库中收集数据集。在应用程序特征分析中，应用程序是数据点，而在演练法中，每个应用程序都是数据。

The Walkthrough Method

演练法

The walkthrough method is a synthesis of critical technology studies with traditional cultural studies techniques by which artifacts are read as texts.[10] The walkthrough method interrogates single apps or small groups of apps to discern how the software intersects with, reinforces, and potentially diverges from normative cultural standards in the hands of user publics. The walkthrough method involves deep engagement between the researcher and the technology of interest. Although the method can be used in conjunction with interviews and other forms of user-experience elicitation, the walkthrough method does not itself include user-experience data. The walkthrough method for app analysis builds on traditional “walkthroughs” in the field of engineering, which aim at improving design for diverse imagined users.[11] The walkthrough method discussed herein includes an explicitly political element that has been adapted for the specific study of software applications.

演练法是批判性技术研究与传统文化研究技术的综合，后者将人工制品作为文本进行解读。10 演练法是对单个应用程序或一小批应用程序进行研究，以了解软件在用户公众手中是如何与规范性文化标准相交、相辅相成并可能背道而驰的。演练法涉及研究人员与相关技术之间的深度接触。虽然这种方法可以与访谈和其他形式的用户体验激发结合使用，但演练法本身并不包含用户体验数据。用于应用程序分析的演练法以工程领域的传统 "演练 "为基础，旨在为不同的想象用户改进设计。11 本文讨论的演练法包含一个明确的政治元素，该元素已针对软件应用程序的具体研究进行了调整。

The walkthrough method involves three broad stages: registration and entry; everyday use; and suspension, closure, and leaving.[12] The researcher carefully documents and analyzes the technical components of registering for an app, utilizing its features, and attempting to disengage. These technical processes are situated and multiply interpreted through critical theoretical frameworks (including critical race studies, queer theory, critical STS, and critical feminism) to reveal the cultural and political underpinnings of an app’s interface. The researcher approaches the app not as a static article but as a dynamic creation that will take shape in expected and unexpected ways for different users.

演练法包括三个大的阶段：注册和进入；日常使用；暂停、关闭和离开。12 研究人员仔细记录并分析了注册应用程序、使用其功能以及尝试退出的技术过程。通过批判性理论框架（包括批判性种族研究、同性恋理论、批判性 STS 和批判性女权主义）对这些技术过程进行定位和多重阐释，以揭示应用程序界面的文化和政治基础。研究人员不是将应用程序作为静态的文章来研究，而是将其作为一种动态的创造物来研究，不同的用户会以预料之中和意料之外的方式使用应用程序。

The goal of the walkthrough method is to identify the invisible infrastructure of an app by which technical systems quietly but effectively generate products, actions, and ideologies.[13] Unearthing an app’s invisible infrastructure helps paint an image of the app’s environment of expected use, defined as the way an “app provider anticipates [the app] will be received, generate profit or other forms of benefit, and regulate user activity.”[14] The environment of expected use is broken into three factors: vision, operating model, and governance.

演练法的目标是识别应用程序的隐形基础设施，通过这些基础设施，技术系统悄无声息但却有效地生成产品、行动和意识形态。13 揭开应用程序的隐形基础设施有助于描绘应用程序的预期使用环境，其定义为 "应用程序提供商预期[应用程序]将被接受、产生利润或其他形式的利益以及规范用户活动的方式"。14 预期使用环境分为三个因素：愿景、运营模式和管理。

Vision refers to the intended purpose of the app, its target user, and the presumed context of use. From the perspective of the mechanisms and conditions framework, this roughly translates into the conditions of affordance preemptively imagined by app producers (for whom is the app intended, and under what circumstances is its use expected?). Operating model refers to an app’s business model and revenue streams. This is the political economy of the app. Governance refers to the management and regulation of user activity through technical features and terms of service. Governance is thus how an app requests, demands, encourages, discourages, refuses, and allows.

愿景是指应用程序的预期目的、目标用户以及假定的使用环境。从机制和条件框架的角度来看，这大致可以转化为应用程序制作者预先设想的可负担性条件（应用程序是为谁设计的，预计在什么情况下使用？）运营模式是指应用程序的商业模式和收入来源。这是应用程序的政治经济学。治理是指通过技术功能和服务条款对用户活动进行管理和规范。因此，治理是指应用程序如何请求、要求、鼓励、阻止、拒绝和允许。

The walkthrough method resists universal renderings of app users. The method requires imagining app features and processes from multiple user perspectives and detailing the political implications therein. For instance, researchers have studied apps from a queer* perspective to discern which forms of gender identity and sexuality are deemed legitimate and which are marginalized, ignored, or actively rejected.[15] Similar analyses could derive from intersections of race, class, gender, (dis)ability, early adopters, and older adults. Moreover, the method attends to unexpected uses, giving voice to user agencies and insubordinations. Environments of expected use are thus a base form that interacts with diverse user publics in multiple ways and toward varied ends.

演练法抵制对应用程序用户的普遍渲染。该方法要求从多个用户角度想象应用程序的功能和流程，并详细说明其中的政治含义。例如，研究人员从同性恋*的角度研究应用程序，以辨别哪些性别认同和性行为形式被视为合法，哪些被边缘化、被忽视或被主动拒绝。15 类似的分析还可以从种族、阶级、性别、（残疾）能力、早期采用者和老年人的交叉点得出。此外，该方法还关注意想不到的使用情况，为用户机构和不服从行为发声。因此，预期使用的环境是一种基本形式，它以多种方式与不同的用户公众互动，并达到不同的目的。

Actor-network theory (ANT) currently serves as the walkthrough method’s theoretical underpinning. However, as discussed in the early chapters of this book, ANT maintains political neutrality in its equivalent treatment of subjects and objects, leaving little space for critical accountability. ANT’s apolitical basis is incongruous with the walkthrough method’s explicitly political orientation. Indeed, the walkthrough method assumes that “technologies serve the cultural aspirations of their creators, who often accrue power by oppressing particular groups.”[16] In contrast, ANT’s central practitioners concede that the framework cannot be evaluated on political grounds.[17] The mechanisms and conditions framework provides an operational tool that maintains political sharpness. It is therefore an effective way to organize findings from walkthrough method studies while remaining theoretically synchronic.

行为网络理论（ANT）目前是演练法的理论基础。然而，正如本书前几章所讨论的，行为网络理论在同等对待主体和客体时保持了政治中立，几乎没有为批判性问责留下空间。ANT的非政治性基础与 "演练法 "明确的政治取向并不协调。事实上，演练法假定 "技术服务于其创造者的文化愿望，而这些创造者往往通过压迫特定群体来积累权力"。16 与此相反，ANT 的核心实践者承认，不能从政治角度对该框架进行评估。17 机制与条件框架提供了一个保持政治敏锐性的操作工具。因此，它是组织演练法研究结果的有效方法，同时保持了理论上的同步性。

App Feature Analysis

应用程序功能分析

App feature analysis is a newly devised approach to the study of app genres. Introduced by Rena Bivens and Amy Adele Hasinoff, app feature analysis is aimed at “uncovering the ideologies that underlie design.”[18] The method includes analysis of material features, the cultural assumptions those features embody, and a future-oriented imagining of research-based redesign. The method is less about identifying the specific features of a single application and more about revealing trends through the broad analysis of an app genre. Tracing an entire genre, rather than focusing on singular products, uncovers cultural norms as they manifest in the mundane and widespread technologies that permeate daily life.

应用程序特征分析是研究应用程序类型的一种新方法。由瑞娜-比文斯（Rena Bivens）和艾米-阿黛尔-哈西诺夫（Amy Adele Hasinoff）提出，应用程序特征分析旨在 "揭示设计背后的意识形态"。18 该方法包括对物质特征的分析、这些特征所体现的文化假设以及对基于研究的再设计的面向未来的想象。该方法的重点不在于识别单个应用程序的具体特征，而在于通过对应用程序类型的广泛分析来揭示趋势。追踪整个类型，而不是专注于单一产品，可以发现文化规范，因为它们体现在渗透日常生活的平凡而普遍的技术中。

App feature analysis is a mixed-methods approach that employs both quantitative and interpretive techniques. By documenting and interpreting technical features across multiple products, app feature analysis maps a sociotechnical landscape. Bivens and Hasinoff conducted a case study of antirape apps to demonstrate the method.[19] They identified 215 mobile apps intended to mitigate sexual violence. These 215 apps make up the authors’ dataset. Within the dataset, they identified 807 features. For each feature, they documented the actions enabled, the type of violence prevention strategies, and the expected user’s relationship to sexual violence (victim, perpetrator, or bystander). Their analysis yielded a powerful if disheartening finding: antirape apps reinforce victim blaming and myths of strangers as primary perpetrators of assault. The apps’ orientations go against feminist projects of victim empowerment and against social science research findings that consistently show that most victims know their sexual assailants.[20]

应用程序特征分析是一种混合方法，同时采用定量和解释技术。通过记录和解释多个产品的技术特征，应用程序特征分析绘制了一幅社会技术图景。Bivens 和 Hasinoff 对反偷窥应用程序进行了案例研究，以展示这种方法。19 他们确定了 215 款旨在减轻性暴力的移动应用程序。这 215 款应用程序构成了作者的数据集。在数据集中，他们确定了 807 个特征。对于每个特征，他们记录了启用的操作、暴力预防策略的类型以及预期用户与性暴力的关系（受害者、施暴者或旁观者）。他们的分析得出了一个令人沮丧的有力结论：反强奸应用程序强化了对受害者的指责和陌生人是主要施暴者的说法。这些应用程序的取向与女权主义者赋予受害者权力的计划背道而驰，也与社会科学研究结果背道而驰，这些研究结果一致表明，大多数受害者都认识性侵犯者。20

One of the most compelling elements of app feature analysis is its movement beyond critique. Having identified trends in the application landscape, the method entails a productive reimagining. Thus, app feature analysis is not only deconstructive but reconstructive, too. For example, the authors imagine apps that would collect and distribute women’s stories of assault. Apps such as these would mobilize women’s narratives to create a critical threshold at which the magnitude of assault could not escape public scrutiny and would help the women who participate (by sharing or simply consuming) to find empowerment in shared experience.

应用功能分析最引人注目的要素之一是它超越了批判的范畴。在确定了应用程序的发展趋势后，该方法需要进行富有成效的重新想象。因此，应用功能分析不仅是解构性的，也是重构性的。例如，作者设想一些应用程序可以收集和传播女性遭受侵犯的故事。这样的应用程序将调动妇女的叙事，创造一个临界点，让侵犯行为的严重程度无法逃脱公众的监督，并帮助参与其中的妇女（通过分享或只是消费）从共同的经历中找到力量。

App feature analysis is rooted in critical perspectives of design. The authors approach their topic—software applications—with the assumption that technology “reproduces culture and, in turn, influences users.” Treating apps as sociocultural artifacts, app feature analysis uncovers “the social and political currents that are translated into technology design.”[21]

应用程序特征分析植根于设计的批判性视角。作者以技术 "再现文化并反过来影响用户 "这一假设为出发点来探讨他们的主题--软件应用程序。将应用程序视为社会文化人工制品，应用程序功能分析揭示了 "转化为技术设计的社会和政治潮流"。21

Affordances are an integral part of app feature analysis. Indeed, affordances are explicit in Biven and Hasinoff’s definition of a feature as “an action, option, or setting afforded by the mobile app and accessible to the user.”[22] The mechanisms of affordance give voice to opportunities and constraints in both app analysis and reimagined design. For instance, we might restate the authors’ findings to say that existing antirape apps encourage women to protect themselves from strangers while allowing men to proceed unaffected. Reimagined applications in which women aggregate their collective stories would instead demand public attention and refuse public ignorance toward gendered sexual violence.

承受能力是应用程序功能分析不可或缺的一部分。事实上，在 Biven 和 Hasinoff 对功能的定义中，"负担能力 "是明确的，即 "移动应用程序提供的、用户可以访问的操作、选项或设置"。22 在应用程序分析和重新构想的设计中，承受力的机制体现了机遇和限制。例如，我们可以重述作者的发现，即现有的反强奸应用程序鼓励女性保护自己免受陌生人侵害，而男性则不受影响。而重新构想的应用程序则可以让女性将她们的故事汇集在一起，要求公众关注并拒绝公众对性别性暴力的无知。

The authors already begin to account for the conditions of affordance in their analytic categories of intended users (victim, perpetrator, or bystander). That is, the authors attend to the question of for whom?. App feature analysis would be further strengthened with analytic categories tied to the circumstances in which apps are employed. For instance, are apps intended for use during an assault encounter as a means of resistance, before the encounter as a preventative measure, or after the encounter as a form of documentation? The authors detail these issues, but the mechanisms and conditions framework would provide a systematic means by which to do so.

作者已经开始在对预期用户（受害者、施害者或旁观者）的分析分类中考虑承受能力的条件。也就是说，作者关注的是 "为谁 "的问题。如果将分析类别与应用程序的使用环境联系起来，应用程序特征分析将得到进一步加强。例如，应用程序是在遭遇袭击时作为一种抵抗手段使用，还是在遭遇袭击前作为一种预防措施使用，抑或是在遭遇袭击后作为一种记录形式使用？作者详细阐述了这些问题，但机制和条件框架将提供一个系统化的方法来解决这些问题。

Although app feature analysis is relatively new and has not yet been applied widely, it has expansive potential to address a range of app categories (such as police accountability apps, antiracism apps, hook-up apps, health apps, and privacy apps). Moreover, the principles of app feature analysis may well be extended to other objects of study. For instance, researchers may study the material and social features of dating platforms, crowdfunding platforms, video streaming services, or news sites. App feature analysis thus shows promise, which can be bolstered in combination with the mechanisms and conditions framework.

尽管应用程序特征分析相对较新，尚未得到广泛应用，但它在处理一系列应用程序类别（如警察问责应用程序、反种族主义应用程序、勾搭应用程序、健康应用程序和隐私应用程序）方面具有广阔的潜力。此外，应用程序特征分析的原则完全可以扩展到其他研究对象。例如，研究人员可以研究约会平台、众筹平台、视频流服务或新闻网站的物质和社会特征。因此，应用程序特征分析大有可为，可以结合机制和条件框架加以强化。

Values Reflection

价值观反思

Values reflection is not a single method but an umbrella term for the suite of techniques aimed at incorporating values considerations into the design process.[23] Values reflection is production-facing. That is, the method entails engagement with stakeholders who make, commission, distribute, and implement technical products. However, the method maintains consideration for users because values reflection involves imagining how user publics will experience the technology and the range of social effects the technology will engender.

价值反思不是一种单一的方法，而是旨在将价值因素纳入设计过程的一系列技术的总称。23 价值反思面向生产。也就是说，这种方法需要与那些制造、委托、分发和实施技术产品的利益相关者合作。不过，该方法仍然考虑到了用户，因为价值反思涉及想象用户公众将如何体验技术，以及技术将产生的一系列社会效应。

Methods of values reflection begin with the assumption that technologies are value-laden and political and that considerations of politics and values in the design process can mitigate harms and optimize benefits—including the capacity to define what is harmful, what is beneficial, and for whom. Values reflection is inherently imaginative. It is based on exercises that help technology producers envisage how the product will take shape across contexts. The mechanisms and conditions framework could give structure to these imaginings while maintaining space for flexibility and argumentation. Thus, engineers might imagine how their products request versus demand compliance from different potential subjects and to what ends. If effects are deleterious under some conditions, practitioners can change course.

价值反思的方法始于这样一个假设，即技术带有价值和政治色彩，在设计过程中对政治和价值的考虑可以减少危害，优化效益--包括界定什么是有害的、什么是有益的以及对谁有益的能力。价值反思本质上具有想象力。它以练习为基础，帮助技术生产者设想产品在不同环境下的形态。机制和条件框架可以为这些想象提供结构，同时为灵活性和论证保留空间。因此，工程师可以设想他们的产品如何要求不同的潜在主体遵守规定，以及达到何种目的。如果在某些条件下效果是有害的，实践者可以改变方向。

Values reflection techniques include a range of strategies that help practitioners identify the values that inform design and imagine how these values will translate into user experiences. Some common techniques include value dams and flows, mock-ups, prototypes, field deployments, and values scenarios.[24] Dams and flows identify value tensions and work to reduce them in the design space. This includes removing design elements that even small contingents find highly objectionable (value dams) and centralizing those elements that a substantial proportion of stakeholders find especially attractive (value flows). Mock-ups, prototypes, and field deployments are small-scale renderings of in-process products that offer a preview of their implementation through engagement with producers and potential users. Values scenarios entail consideration of technical objects in practice using narrative form. This aids in the process of imagining diverse users and contexts and emphasizes long- and short-term effects of technologies as they take shape through user publics.

价值反思技术包括一系列策略，可帮助从业人员识别设计所依据的价值，并想象这些价值将如何转化为用户体验。一些常见的技术包括价值堤坝和价值流、模型、原型、实地部署和价值情景。24 价值坝和价值流可以识别价值紧张关系，并努力在设计空间中减少这些紧张关系。这包括移除即使是小部分人也非常反感的设计元素（价值堤坝），并集中大部分利益相关者认为特别有吸引力的元素（价值流）。模拟模型、原型和实地部署是正在生产的产品的小型效果图，通过与生产者和潜在用户的接触，可以预览产品的实施情况。价值情景需要用叙述的形式来考虑技术对象在实践中的应用。这有助于想象不同的用户和环境，并强调技术在用户公众中形成的长期和短期影响。

Affordances have been integral to values-reflection projects, with researchers urging producers to consider how the features of their design shape user practices and social dynamics.[25] Values reflection is premised on the idea that identifying multiple and competing values fosters thoughtful and intentional design. The mechanisms and conditions framework builds on the existing use of affordances in values reflection methods, adding a systematic way to articulate value implications for direct and indirect stakeholders who engage technologies under an array of circumstances.

研究人员敦促生产者考虑其设计的特点是如何影响用户实践和社会动态的。25 价值反思的前提是，识别多重的、相互竞争的价值，从而促进深思熟虑的、有意识的设计。机制和条件框架建立在价值反思方法中现有的承受能力的基础上，为在各种情况下使用技术的直接和间接利益相关者提供了一种系统的方法来阐述价值影响。

The mechanisms and conditions framework may be especially useful for infrastructure design in which size and scope pose particular challenges.[26] Infrastructures are large-scale ventures incorporating multiple technological objects, layers of production, and broadly defined stakeholders. The mechanisms and conditions framework guides and structures the complex process of identifying persons and contexts for which an infrastructure will hold relevance. That is, the mechanisms and conditions framework provides a systematic scaffold when size and scope make it difficult to pin down clear boundaries.

机制和条件框架对于规模和范围构成特殊挑战的基础设施设计尤为有用。26 基础设施是大规模的项目，包含多种技术对象、生产层次和广泛定义的利益相关者。机制与条件框架为确定基础设施与哪些人和环境相关的复杂过程提供了指导和结构。也就是说，当规模和范围难以确定明确界限时，机制和条件框架提供了一个系统的支架。

Adversarial Design

对抗性设计

Adversarial design is a form of critical design founded on the principle of agonism.[27] Critical design is a means of material making that highlights and acts on the taken-for-granted assumptions and practices that organize social life.[28] Agonism is a political principle that embraces dissensus and contestation. Rather than a converging public sphere, agonism envisions politics as an ongoing process of contradiction and disagreement.[29]

对抗性设计是一种建立在对抗性原则基础上的批判性设计。27 批判性设计是一种制作材料的手段，它强调组织社会生活的理所当然的假设和做法，并将其付诸行动。28 "激进主义 "是一种政治原则，它接受不同意见和争议。激进主义将政治视为一个持续的矛盾和分歧过程，而不是一个趋同的公共领域。29

Instantiating agonism through material artifacts is the main project of adversarial design, as articulated by Carl DiSalvo in his titular text.[30] Adversarial design does the work of agonism, giving material form to polyvalent debate. Adversarial design is explicitly political design. It addresses the values and agendas embedded in social and technical systems, makes those dynamics visible, and asserts alternative configurations.

正如卡尔-迪萨尔沃（Carl DiSalvo）在他的论文中所阐述的那样，通过物质艺术品来实现对抗性设计是对抗性设计的主要项目。30 对抗性设计完成了鼓动主义的工作，为多价辩论赋予了物质形式。对抗性设计是明确的政治设计。它涉及社会和技术系统中蕴含的价值观和议程，使这些动态显而易见，并主张替代性配置。

Adversarial design takes form through three broad tactics: revealing hegemony, reconfiguring the remainder, and articulating collectives. Revealing hegemony refers to identifying and challenging intersecting nexuses of power that organize existing political arrangements and then asking whose interests and values are currently reflected and served and how built artifacts might rework these interests and values in alternative ways. Reconfiguring the remainder gives close attention to inclusion and exclusion of built features, attending to the political implications of additions and omissions. Articulating collectives does the work of agonism by constructing human and nonhuman networks that “participate together in making, exploring, and contesting alternatives to a wide variety of societal issues and conditions.”[31]

对抗性设计通过三种广泛的策略形成：揭示霸权、重组剩余和阐明集体。揭示霸权指的是识别和挑战组织现有政治安排的权力交错关系，然后询问目前反映和服务于谁的利益和价值观，以及建筑艺术品如何以另一种方式重新塑造这些利益和价值观。其余部分的重新配置密切关注建筑特征的纳入和排除，关注添加和遗漏的政治影响。衔接集体 "通过构建人类和非人类网络，"共同参与制造、探索和争论各种社会问题和条件的替代方案"，从而完成了激进主义的工作。31

Adversarial design is both an inquiry and a practice. As inquiry, adversarial design materializes vague and nebulous situational meanings so that they can be sensed and made sense of. In practice, adversarial design takes the material forms of agonism and renders them actionable. For instance, DiSalvo references the “CCD-me-not Umbrella,” a surveillance-deflecting device that obstructs charged coupled device (CCD) surveillance cameras.[32] The agonistic design of the umbrella model clarifies conditions of mass surveillance while creating a material means for resistance. Even without commercial distribution, the surveillance-defying umbrella shows an alternative to ubiquitous watching.

对抗性设计既是一种探索，也是一种实践。作为一种探究，对抗性设计将模糊不清的情境意义具体化，使其能够被感知和理解。在实践中，对抗性设计采用了对抗性的物质形式，并使其具有可操作性。例如，迪萨尔沃提到了 "CCD-me-not Umbrella"（CCD-me-not Umbrella），这是一种能阻挡带电耦合器件（CCD）监控摄像机的监控偏转装置。32 雨伞模型的煽动性设计澄清了大规模监控的条件，同时创造了一种物质抵抗手段。即使没有商业销售，这把抵制监控的雨伞也展示了无处不在的监视之外的另一种选择。

The political orientation of adversarial design as method coincides with the political orientation of the mechanisms and conditions as an analytic frame. Adversarial design seeks out intersecting power dynamics and rearticulates them in new form. The mechanisms and conditions framework provides a vocabulary for these rearticulations. For instance, when “reconfiguring the remainder,” adversarial designers might ask how inclusions and exclusions request compliance, demand subservience, or allow resistance. In this way, hegemony can be revealed with clarity by attending to for whom and under what circumstances such requests, demands, allowances, and so on take form.

作为一种方法，对抗式设计的政治取向与作为一种分析框架的机制和条件的政治取向不谋而合。对抗式设计寻找相互交织的权力动态，并以新的形式对其进行重新阐述。机制与条件框架为这些重新阐述提供了词汇。例如，在 "重新配置剩余部分 "时，对抗性设计者可能会问，包容和排斥是如何要求服从、要求顺从或允许反抗的。这样，通过关注这些请求、要求、允许等是对谁以及在什么情况下形成的，就可以清晰地揭示霸权。

A second convergence between the mechanisms and conditions framework of affordances and adversarial design is their shared orientation toward process and argument. Adversarial design is built on the premise of ongoing contestation. No design project reaches an ultimate political conclusion but raises questions and critiques that remain always unresolved. The unresolved nature of contestation generates a dynamic and productive political landscape. In this way, the mechanisms and conditions framework is inherently nondetermined. The boundaries between each node in the model are loose, pliable, and up for debate. No object fits neatly within a single mechanism, and conditions are always subject to change. Thus, both adversarial design and the mechanisms and conditions framework remain projects of argumentation rather than missions of fact.

负担能力的机制和条件框架与对抗性设计之间的第二个共同点是它们对过程和争论的共同取向。对抗性设计建立在持续争论的前提之上。任何设计项目都不会得出最终的政治结论，而是会提出始终悬而未决的问题和批评。争论的未决性产生了一种动态的、富有成效的政治景观。因此，机制和条件框架本质上是非确定的。模型中每个节点之间的界限都是松散的、柔韧的、有待讨论的。没有任何对象能完全符合单一的机制，而且条件总是会发生变化。因此，对抗式设计和机制与条件框架仍然是论证项目，而不是事实任务。

Chapter Summary

章节摘要

This final substantive chapter addresses affordances in practice. The mechanisms and conditions framework is an analytic tool. I demonstrate here its flexibility in combination with a range of methodological strategies and orientations. The mechanisms and conditions framework is not tied to any one discipline, empirical subject matter, or methodological practice. Rather, it extends across fields, topics, and modes of knowing. The methods discussed in this chapter are merely a sampling of potential unions between theory and praxis. Creative researchers can, and I hope will, implement the mechanisms and conditions framework through their own method of choice.

最后一章是关于实践中的承受能力。机制与条件框架是一种分析工具。我在这里展示了它与一系列方法论策略和取向相结合的灵活性。机制与条件框架与任何一门学科、实证主题或方法实践无关。相反，它跨越了各个领域、主题和认知模式。本章讨论的方法只是理论与实践之间潜在结合的一个样本。有创造力的研究人员可以，而且我希望他们能够通过自己选择的方法来实施机制和条件框架。

Each method discussed above adheres to a clear set of criteria, making them all appropriate vehicles for critical affordance analyses. Each method centralizes political dynamics; gives voice to marginal populations and groups; maintains a reflexive orientation; assumes multiplicity of meaning, experience, and outcome; and treats materiality as consequential but not determinative. One other crucial element these methods hold in common is their focus on imagined users. Like Norman, the approaches addressed in this chapter envisage practitioners and analysts as relational subjects whose job entails understanding the world from multiple other perspectives. This process, which sociologists refer to as “role-taking,”[33] is of particular relevance given status patterns in which those who make, sell, distribute, and evaluate technologies often hold positions of privilege and maintain disproportionate access to cultural, social, and financial capital. Left unchecked, producers are likely to make products for users who are just like themselves. Understanding the reverberations of sociotechnical systems as they affect marginalized groups requires systematic attention and concerted intention. Thus, critical methodologies and critical conceptual frameworks are invaluable for uncovering and undermining power dynamics that would otherwise reproduce in material form. Simply put, critical methods and theory are necessary to overcome the white guy problem of Silicon Valley and the ivory tower of academe.

上文讨论的每种方法都遵循一套明确的标准，使它们都适合用于批判性承受能力分析。每种方法都以政治动态为中心；让边缘人群和团体发表意见；坚持反思的方向；假定意义、经验和结果的多重性；将物质性视为后果，但不是决定性的。这些方法的另一个重要共同点是它们都关注想象中的使用者。与诺曼一样，本章讨论的方法也将从业人员和分析人员视为关系主体，他们的工作需要从其他多个角度理解世界。社会学家将这一过程称为 "角色转换"，33 鉴于制造、销售、分销和评估技术的人通常拥有特权地位，并能不成比例地获得文化、社会和金融资本，这一过程就显得尤为重要。如果不加以控制，生产者很可能会为那些和自己一样的用户生产产品。要了解社会技术系统对边缘化群体的影响，需要系统的关注和一致的意愿。因此，批判性的方法论和批判性的概念框架对于揭示和破坏权力动态是非常有价值的，否则权力动态就会以物质形式再现。简而言之，批判性方法和理论是克服硅谷白人问题和学术界象牙塔的必要条件。

7

Conclusion

结论

From humble beginnings as “what things furnish, for good or ill,”[1] the concept of affordance has taken on a robust and complex intellectual life. Over the course of this book, I have traced the concept’s journey and tried to give “affordance” new legs and a fresh perspective. The purpose of this book has been twofold. First, the text brings together vast, diverse, and sometimes divergent treatments of affordances across disciplines and between scholars, housing them all together in a way that clarifies rather than complicates. The second purpose of the book, the main purpose, has been to explicate the mechanisms and conditions framework. The mechanisms and conditions framework reorients the driving question of affordance analyses from what artifacts afford to how they afford, attending to variations across subjects and circumstances. It offers a simple vocabulary that spans disciplines, empirical objects of study, and various goals of both analysis and design.

负担得起 "的概念从最初的 "事物的好坏 "1 开始，到现在已经拥有了强大而复杂的思想生命。在本书中，我追溯了这一概念的发展历程，并试图为 "承受力 "赋予新的内涵和新的视角。本书有两个目的。首先，本书汇集了各学科和不同学者对 "可承受性 "的大量、多样、有时甚至是分歧的论述，以一种澄清而非复杂化的方式将它们集中在一起。本书的第二个目的，也是主要目的，是阐释机制与条件框架。机制与条件框架重新调整了实惠分析的驱动问题，从人工制品实惠什么转向人工制品如何实惠，关注不同主体和环境的差异。它提供了一个简单的词汇表，跨越了学科、经验研究对象以及分析和设计的各种目标。

Over fifty years after affordance’s original formulation, this book gives the concept a much-needed makeover. Having been picked up, (over)theorized, and put to work toward versatile ends, it is worth pausing to reconsider what affordance analysis can do, what it is doing, and how it can do that work better. Now, in particular, is the time for such a project. Traditional sociotechnical problems (such as road systems, built infrastructures, and the ergonomics of chairs and tables) remain relevant, joined by ubiquitous digitization and advances in AI and machine learning, which some herald as the next paradigmatic revolution. Entirely new concepts and theories are not always the answer. Sometimes, as with affordances, it’s best to level up what is already trusted, tried, and true.

在 "可承受性 "最初提出五十多年后，本书对这一概念进行了亟需的改造。在被拾起、（过度）理论化并用于多用途目的之后，我们值得停下来重新考虑承受能力分析能做什么、它正在做什么以及如何更好地完成这项工作。尤其是现在，正是开展这样一个项目的时候。传统的社会技术问题（如道路系统、基础设施建设、桌椅人体工程学等）依然具有现实意义，而无处不在的数字化以及人工智能和机器学习的进步，则将其视为下一场范式革命。全新的概念和理论并不总能解决问题。有时，就像经济适用性一样，最好的办法是提升那些已经值得信赖、久经考验且真实可信的东西。

The rise of social media reinvigorated the concept of affordance and put it into action as theorists and practitioners scrambled to understand the transformative effects of digitally networked sociality. The growth of computer-mediated communication studies and “new media” scholarship gave the affordance concept a renaissance, with little time for theoretical consideration of this analytic workhorse. Today, social media have more or less settled into the societal fabric, giving way to a steady, measured, and considered treatment within the academic canon. This steady treatment deserves robust and agile analytic devices. The mechanisms and conditions framework serves this purpose. The very mundanity of digital social technologies and their global embeddedness across major institutions and intimate relations render their effects profound but increasingly less blaring.

社交媒体的兴起为 "可承受性 "概念注入了新的活力，并将其付诸行动，理论家和实践家们争相了解数字网络社交的变革性影响。以计算机为媒介的传播研究和 "新媒体 "学术研究的发展使 "可承受性 "概念获得了复兴，但却很少有时间对这一分析工具进行理论研究。如今，社交媒体已或多或少地融入了社会结构，在学术界得到了稳定、审慎和深思熟虑的对待。这种稳定的处理方式需要强有力的、灵活的分析工具。机制与条件框架正是为此而生。数字社交技术的平凡性及其在全球范围内对主要机构和亲密关系的嵌入，使其影响深远，但也越来越不引人注目。

Digital connectivity is now the water in which we swim. Understanding how various systems (and companies) nudge, push, pull, and arrange requires critical attention to dynamics that would otherwise seem inevitable and unchanging. Affordance analyses unearth and articulate the ways clicks, likes, and shares translate into commercially valuable data packages and politically exploitable information; how health apps distribute (moral) responsibility for bodily maintenance while outsourcing body knowledge; how news and information can be at once abundant and at the same time deeply partial and carefully crafted; how the convenience and pleasure of an inviting screen can also exert pressure to perform, directives to consume, and severe punishment for public missteps. The mechanisms and conditions framework clarifies these complexities, politicizes their implications, and renders them visible through a simple vocabulary and a model that adapts to and assumes variation across time, subjects, and circumstances.

现在，数字连接已成为我们游泳的水域。要想了解各种系统（和公司）是如何推动、拉动和安排的，就必须对那些看似不可避免且一成不变的动态因素给予高度关注。通过情境分析，我们可以发现并阐明点击、点赞和分享是如何转化为具有商业价值的数据包和具有政治利用价值的信息的；健康应用程序是如何在外包身体知识的同时分配身体维护的（道德）责任的；新闻和信息是如何在丰富的同时又具有深刻的片面性和经过精心制作的；诱人的屏幕带来的便利和愉悦是如何施加表演压力、消费指令以及对公众错误行为的严厉惩罚的。机制与条件框架澄清了这些复杂性，将其影响政治化，并通过一个简单的词汇和一个适应并假定不同时间、不同主体和不同环境的模型将其呈现出来。

While theorists and practitioners continue to figure out what it means to be always on, connected, and tracked, another sociotechnical shift—artificial intelligence—has captured the public imagination. The loftiest hopes tangle with the deepest anxieties as “smart” systems enter our homes, schools, hospitals, workplaces, and government institutions. Driven by existential and practical questions about the future of humanity, funds are pouring into the hands of researchers and practitioners for the study of artificial intelligence and machine learning systems. It is near impossible to open Twitter without encountering launch announcements for new AI centers, institutes, and collaborative working groups. I am currently part of a core team at my own institution enacting a large-scale interdisciplinary project to “humanise machine intelligence,[2]” part of an AI Meetup at a neighboring university, and on several AI-related mailing lists. I also have a shared Dropbox folder in which colleagues collaborate to keep up with the emergent AI literature, which moves far faster than any human could possibly read (but maybe AI can help us with that someday soon).

当理论家和实践家们继续探索 "永远在线"、"互联 "和 "被追踪 "的含义时，另一种社会技术变革--人工智能--已经俘获了公众的想象力。随着 "智能 "系统进入我们的家庭、学校、医院、工作场所和政府机构，最崇高的希望与最深切的焦虑纠缠在一起。在有关人类未来的生存和现实问题的驱动下，研究人工智能和机器学习系统的资金不断涌入研究人员和从业人员的手中。打开推特，几乎不可能不遇到新的人工智能中心、研究所和合作工作组的发布公告。我目前是我所在机构的一个核心团队的成员，该团队正在实施一个大规模的跨学科项目，旨在 "使机器智能人性化2"。我还有一个共享的 Dropbox 文件夹，同事们可以在这个文件夹中合作，跟上新出现的人工智能文献，这些文献的更新速度远远超过人类的阅读速度（不过也许人工智能很快就能帮我们解决这个问题）。

AI initiatives seem increasingly compulsory for major research universities. Cambridge has the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI); Oxford has the Oxford Artificial Intelligence Society and the Future of Humanity Institute (along with its Centre for the Governance of AI); Stanford has the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence; Tsinghua launched the Tsinghua University Institute for Artificial Intelligence; and New York University’s AI Now Institute has been a leading force in the field. These join corporate hubs, nonprofits, and think tanks, such as Google’s DeepMind, OpenAI, and the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence.[3]

人工智能倡议似乎越来越成为各大研究型大学的必修课。剑桥大学成立了勒弗胡尔姆未来智能中心（CFI）；牛津大学成立了牛津人工智能学会和人类未来研究所（及其人工智能治理中心）；斯坦福大学成立了斯坦福以人为本人工智能研究所；清华大学成立了清华大学人工智能研究院；纽约大学的 AI Now 研究所一直是该领域的领导力量。这些机构包括企业中心、非营利组织和智库，如谷歌的 DeepMind、OpenAI 和艾伦人工智能研究所。3

The financial and intellectual resources channeled into these endeavors portend a horizon of profound technical and social change. My flummoxed encounter with a locked shopping cart (recounted in the opening of this book) may well become an antiquated problem of the past as refrigerators, closets, robotic warehouse workers, automated drones, and driverless cars all collaborate to ensure that my shelves are adequately stocked and my domestic needs met. The nature of work will change. The nature of governance will change. The nature of care will change. In these changes are both utopic possibilities and sobering capacities for harm. AI can be potentially time saving, money saving, and lifesaving. It can breach geographic barriers and traverse dangerous territories. It can undermine human biases and create more equitable outcomes. AI can also steal, kill, and devastate.

投入这些工作的财力和智力资源预示着技术和社会将发生深刻变革。当冰箱、壁橱、机器人仓库工人、自动无人机和无人驾驶汽车通力合作，确保我的货架上有充足的存货并满足我的家庭需求时，我对上锁的购物车的困惑（本书开篇叙述）很可能成为一个过时的问题。工作的性质将发生变化。管理的性质将发生变化。护理的性质也将改变。在这些变化中，既有乌托邦式的可能性，也有令人警醒的危害性。人工智能可以节省时间、金钱和生命。它可以突破地理障碍，穿越危险地带。它可以破坏人类的偏见，创造更公平的结果。人工智能也可以偷窃、杀戮和破坏。

Although sociotechnical change is inevitable—AI is coming—how these developments take shape remains an open question but one over which we, as professionals and fellow humans, have some degree of control. Early evidence suggests that unimpeded, AI technologies will go down some troubling paths. The rollouts of AI systems have been plagued by bad news: policing algorithms that target poor communities of color, job sorting programs that penalize women, home assistants that eavesdrop on private conversations, and cars that crash into pedestrians. These outcomes are neither natural nor inevitable. There is still time to change course, but the time to get involved is now, while the foundations are still being poured. To get involved—to intervene in AI in a way that optimizes opportunities and ameliorates rather than exacerbates harm—requires clear, precise, and politically sharp conceptual tools. If these tools can traverse disciplines and aid in processes of production and distribution, all the better. The mechanisms and conditions framework positions affordance analysis to be one such critical apparatus.

虽然社会技术变革不可避免--人工智能即将到来--但如何实现这些发展仍是一个悬而未决的问题，但作为专业人士和人类同胞，我们可以在一定程度上控制这些变革。早期的证据表明，人工智能技术在不受阻碍的情况下会走上一些令人不安的道路。人工智能系统的推出一直受到坏消息的困扰：针对贫困有色人种社区的警务算法、惩罚女性的工作排序程序、窃听私人谈话的家庭助理以及撞向行人的汽车。这些结果既不是自然的，也不是不可避免的。我们仍有时间改变方向，但现在就应该参与进来，因为基础仍在夯实。要参与其中--以优化机会、改善而非加剧伤害的方式干预人工智能--需要清晰、准确、政治敏锐的概念工具。如果这些工具能够跨越学科，并有助于生产和分配过程，那就更好了。机制与条件框架将负担能力分析定位为这样一种关键工具。

The mechanisms and conditions framework rests on several assumptions: affordances are continuous rather than binary; affordances vary across persons and circumstances; subjects and objects are mutually constitutive; and subjects and objects have an asymmetrical relationship. Underlying these assumptions is a political orientation (artifacts do have politics) and an instability of analysis such that analytic designations are always up for debate. These assumptions drive a simple typology made up of a simple vocabulary that fosters complex and sophisticated understandings of, and engagement with, an array of sociotechnical systems—from the mundane and tedious to those that can revolutionize existing ways of life.

机制和条件框架建立在几个假设之上：承受能力是连续的，而不是二元的；承受能力因人和环境而异；主体和客体是相互构成的；主体和客体的关系是不对称的。这些假设的基础是政治取向（人工制品确实具有政治性）和分析的不稳定性，因此分析的名称总是有待商榷。这些假设推动了一种由简单词汇组成的简单类型学，它促进了对一系列社会技术系统复杂而精深的理解和参与--从平凡乏味的系统到能够彻底改变现有生活方式的系统。

I close this book by proposing a series of five big questions tied to the uncertainties of a changing sociotechnical landscape. Along with each general prompt, I suggest smaller research queries that would benefit from systematic affordance analyses. These big questions are familiar. Little about them is epiphanic. They are questions entrenched in some of the most pressing and public issues, the ones about which news programs invite panelists and university syllabi dedicate weeks of study. The questions themselves are simple in a way that belies the complexity from which they arose, the magnitude of their implications, and the intricacies of resolving them. For these questions, I offer the mechanisms and conditions framework—an upgraded model of a trusty analytic device.

在本书的最后，我提出了与不断变化的社会技术环境的不确定性相关联的五个大问题。在提出每一个大问题的同时，我还提出了更小的研究问题，这些问题将受益于系统的能力分析。这些大问题耳熟能详。它们几乎没有什么新意。它们是一些最紧迫的公共问题，是新闻节目邀请专家小组讨论的问题，也是大学教学大纲花费数周时间研究的问题。这些问题本身很简单，但却掩盖了其产生的复杂性、其影响的巨大性以及解决这些问题的复杂性。对于这些问题，我提供了机制和条件框架--一种可靠分析工具的升级模型。

These questions are not exhaustive. Rather, they are a gesture toward putting the mechanisms and conditions framework into action. Having written a theoretical book, I am now most interested in the getting down to the business of doing. The questions I propose are not a research agenda but a spark for inspiration. They are future-looking because that’s a fun place to explore, but the framework can and I hope will also address the full gamut of research goals, including the traditional, the mundane, and the all-important ordinary.

这些问题并非详尽无遗。相反，它们是将机制和条件框架付诸行动的一种姿态。在撰写了一本理论性著作之后，我现在最感兴趣的是脚踏实地地去做。我提出的问题不是研究议程，而是激发灵感的火花。它们面向未来，因为那是一个有趣的探索领域，但我希望这个框架也能解决所有的研究目标，包括传统的、平凡的和最重要的普通目标。

Big Question 1: How Do We Identify and Equalize Digital Inequalities?

大问题 1：我们如何识别和消除数字不平等？

Digital inequalities are disparities in access to, skill with, and the effects of, digital products and services. Access to digital technologies is more widespread than ever. It is tempting to interpret this as a closing of “digital divides” and reduction of inequities. However, as digital divides narrow, those that persist grow deeper.[4] When institutions and infrastructures are built on presumed access, the consequences for those without access amplify exponentially. Moreover, access alone does not resolve inequality because hardware and software intersect with race, class, gender, and sexuality, with effects that mirror the raced, classed, gendered, and heteronormative priorities of existing social arrangements. The mechanism and conditions framework can help articulate how inequalities distribute for subjects across social locations. This would add nuance to overly general statements about access and skill that mistakenly presume more access and more skill will necessarily result in beneficial outcomes across cases.[5] Some specific questions might include: How do school curriculums afford gendered relations to technology that translate into gendered patterns in technology-based careers—that is, why aren’t more women in tech, and how can we change this through institutions of education? How do image- and text-based platforms afford engagement for queer*-identified persons? How do livestreaming features afford documentation and surveillance across social class demographics?

数字不平等是指在获取数字产品和服务、使用数字产品和服务的技能以及数字产品和服务的效果方面存在的差距。数字技术比以往任何时候都更加普及。人们很容易将此解释为 "数字鸿沟 "的缩小和不平等的减少。然而，随着数字鸿沟的缩小，持续存在的数字鸿沟也在加深。4 当机构和基础设施建立在假定的接入基础上时，对那些无法接入的人造成的后果就会成倍放大。此外，仅有使用权并不能解决不平等问题，因为硬件和软件与种族、阶级、性别和性取向相互交织，其影响反映了现有社会安排中的种族、阶级、性别和异性恋优先事项。机制和条件框架可以帮助阐明不平等是如何在不同的社会位置上对主体进行分配的。这将为关于机会和技能的过于笼统的陈述增添细微差别，因为这些陈述错误地假定更多的机会和更多的技能必然会带来有益的结果。5 一些具体问题可能包括学校课程如何提供与技术的性别关系，并转化为基于技术的职业中的性别模式--也就是说，为什么没有更多女性从事技术工作，我们如何通过教育机构改变这种状况？基于图像和文本的平台如何为同性恋者提供参与机会？现场直播功能如何为不同社会阶层人口提供记录和监控？

Big Question 2: How Do Social Media Affect Sociality and Psychological Well-being?

大问题 2：社交媒体如何影响社交性和心理健康？

There has been vigorous debate in the academic literature about the effects of digital social platforms on social relationships and psychological well-being. Unsurprisingly, a review of these studies shows that the effects are far from uniform but vary with the features of the platform, the subjects who use them, and the conditions of their use.[6] There is also evidence that the “problem” of social media and psychosocial outcomes is overblown.[7] The mechanisms and conditions framework is a way to tease out these variations and answer concrete questions, such as: How do dominant social media platforms afford social connection and isolation, and for whom? How do content production and consumption afford mental well-being for traditional and nontraditional users? How do default privacy settings enable and constrain personal expression for diverse subjects?

关于数字社交平台对社交关系和心理健康的影响，学术界一直争论不休。不出所料，对这些研究的回顾表明，其影响远非千篇一律，而是因平台特点、使用对象和使用条件而异。6 还有证据表明，社交媒体和社会心理结果的 "问题 "被夸大了。7 机制和条件框架是厘清这些差异并回答具体问题的一种方法，例如：主流社交媒体平台是如何为社交媒体用户提供心理社会结果的？主流社交媒体平台是如何提供社会联系和隔离的？内容生产和消费如何为传统用户和非传统用户带来心理健康？默认的隐私设置如何促进和限制不同主体的个人表达？

Big Question 3: How Do Information Economies Affect Political Life?

大问题 3：信息经济如何影响政治生活？

A postbroadcast media landscape means that news and information travel through multiple and diverse sources and in multiple directions, rather than in a unidirectional line from concentrated media conglomerates to consumers.[8] This redistribution of knowledge and information can be empowering[9] and at the same time can undermine journalistic rigor and standards of trustworthiness.[10] This new media landscape has particular relevance for the flows of politics in everyday life. Candidates’ carefully crafted images are vulnerable to disruption, and the veracity of political information is uncertain at best. The mechanisms and conditions framework can help make sense of these shifting circumstances as citizens engage in political life. Specific questions could include: How does Twitter afford political expression within tyrannical regimes? How do various social media platforms afford the disruption of mainstream political news reporting? How do algorithmic configurations affect political debate and discourse?

后广播时代的媒体格局意味着新闻和信息将通过多种多样的渠道多向传播，而不是单向 地从集中的媒体集团传播到消费者手中。8 这种知识和信息的重新分配可以增强人们的能力9 ，但同时也会破坏新闻的严谨性和可信度标准。10 这种新的媒体格局对日常生活中的政治流动具有特殊意义。候选人精心打造的形象很容易受到破坏，政治信息的真实性充其量也是不确定的。在公民参与政治生活的过程中，机制和条件框架有助于理解这些不断变化的情况。具体问题可包括推特如何在专制政权下提供政治表达？各种社交媒体平台如何干扰主流政治新闻报道？算法配置如何影响政治辩论和话语？

Big Question 4: How Will Driverless Cars Affect Urban Infrastructures?

大问题 4：无人驾驶汽车将如何影响城市基础设施？

Driverless cars are an emergent infrastructural advancement that, once fully implemented, will upend transportation systems in profound ways.[11] The range of diverse models for driverless car implementation and the features entailed therein paint drastically different portraits of infrastructural planning in the near future.[12] For instance, individual driverless cars look quite different from shared driverless fleets, and each requires distinct arrangements of roadways, schedules, and time. In turn, driverless vehicles will have distinct implications for a range of subjects. Driverless cars offer autonomy for previously immobilized persons (including elderly adults, people with certain disabilities, children, and those without a license). At the same time, the arrangement of vehicles and their availability may create barriers to access, thus reinforcing or even enhancing patterned exclusions from public space. The mechanisms and conditions framework lets us approach a range of questions about driverless vehicles in the city, such as: How do driverless vehicles afford autonomy for older adults? How do private vehicles and public fleets afford access to public space across demographic lines? How do the features of driverless vehicle systems reconfigure divisions between urban, rural, and suburban life?

无人驾驶汽车是一种新兴的基础设施进步，一旦全面实施，将以深刻的方式颠覆交通系统。11 无人驾驶汽车的实施模式多种多样，其特点也各不相同，为不久的将来的基础设施规划描绘了一幅截然不同的图景。12 例如，单独的无人驾驶汽车与共享的无人驾驶车队看起来截然不同，每种模式都需要对道路、时间表和时间做出不同的安排。反过来，无人驾驶汽车也会对一系列主题产生不同的影响。无人驾驶汽车为以前无法动弹的人（包括老年人、某些残疾人、儿童和没有驾照的人）提供了自主权。与此同时，车辆的安排及其可用性可能会造成通行障碍，从而强化甚至加剧公共空间的模式化排斥。通过机制和条件框架，我们可以探讨城市中无人驾驶汽车的一系列问题，例如：无人驾驶汽车如何提供自主性？无人驾驶汽车如何为老年人提供自主权？私家车和公共车队如何跨越人口界限进入公共空间？无人驾驶汽车系统的特点如何重构城市、农村和郊区生活的分界线？

Big Question 5: How Do Medical Technologies Afford Embodied Relations to Health?

大问题 5：医疗技术如何承载与健康的具身关系？

The medical field is rife with technological advancement. Pharmaceutical companies are making compounds at rapid speeds, medical tracking technologies are an integral part of formal and informal care, the work of diagnosis and treatment is getting outsourced to automated systems, gene editing has now been approved for multiple clinical trials in the United States, and a scientist in China has already modified embryos.[13] These technologies affect treatment and care but also inevitably affect one’s relationship to the body. Both self-guided and physician-imposed medical tracking systems materialize distinct definitions of wellness, morality, and governance,[14] large datasets normalize and objectify bodily processes,[15] and gene therapies trouble entrenched notions of “nature.” The mechanisms and conditions framework can help answer critical questions about how medical technologies reconfigure the body, for whom, and under what circumstances. For instance, we might ask: How do self-tracking devices afford body knowledge and health practices? How do embedded devices afford patient-practitioner interactions? How do biodata databases engrain or subvert normalization of body ideals? How does the automation of medical care variously afford autonomy, constriction, access, and wellness for patients in public and private markets? How does gene adaptability afford health and wellness across class lines?

医疗领域充斥着技术进步。制药公司正在以飞快的速度制造化合物，医疗追踪技术已成为正规和非正规医疗服务不可或缺的一部分，诊断和治疗工作正逐渐外包给自动化系统，基因编辑技术现已获准在美国进行多项临床试验，而中国的一位科学家已经对胚胎进行了改造。13 这些技术在影响治疗和护理的同时，也不可避免地影响着人们与身体的关系。自我指导和医生强制的医疗跟踪系统都实现了对健康、道德和管理的不同定义，14 大型数据集将身体过程规范化和客观化，15 基因疗法则对根深蒂固的 "自然 "概念提出了质疑。机制与条件框架有助于回答医疗技术如何重构身体、为谁重构身体以及在什么情况下重构身体等关键问题。例如，我们可以问：自我跟踪设备如何提供身体知识和健康实践？嵌入式设备如何实现患者与医生之间的互动？生物数据数据库如何植入或颠覆正常化的身体理想？在公共和私人市场中，医疗自动化如何为患者提供自主、限制、获取和健康？基因的适应性如何跨越阶级界限带来健康和福祉？

Moving Forward

向前迈进

I set forth the above big questions and small exemplar cases to inspire designers, makers, and social science researchers to put the mechanisms and conditions framework into practice. In chapter 2, I mentioned that affordances have been at once over- and undertheorized. I hope that this book has found a middle ground. My goal was to theorize affordances just enough so that the concept remains useful in a way that we do not need to keep coming back and fleshing out the minutia. Moving forward, I want to see the mechanisms and conditions framework of affordances in action. This means evaluating existing technologies and systems, editing those systems when appropriate, and using the framework in the design process to map power, politics, and values from the onset.

我提出了上述大问题和小案例，以启发设计师、制造者和社会科学研究人员将机制和条件框架付诸实践。在第2章中，我提到，承受能力既被过度理论化，又被理论化不足。我希望本书能找到一个中间立场。我的目标是将 "可承受性 "理论化，使这个概念在我们不需要不断回过头来充实细枝末节的情况下仍然有用。展望未来，我希望看到负担能力的机制和条件框架付诸实施。这意味着要对现有的技术和系统进行评估，在适当的时候对这些系统进行编辑，并在设计过程中使用该框架，从一开始就绘制权力、政治和价值观的地图。

Part of moving forward includes analyses of multifaceted assemblages. Although this book has focused on human-technology relations, the mechanisms and conditions framework assumes and is readily applicable to complex groupings that include technology-technology relations. Sociotechnical systems entail engagement between humans and machines and also between multiple technical elements. I focus the book around human-technology relations for reasons of simplicity. As an introduction to the mechanisms and conditions framework, the goal was to highlight how technologies afford in socially and politically relevant ways. To present a new orienting question and analytic framework, I selected relatively simple examples that show the relation between human subjects and technological objects.

前进的一部分包括对多方面组合的分析。虽然本书的重点是人与技术的关系，但机制和条件框架假定并易于适用于包括技术与技术关系在内的复杂组合。社会技术系统需要人类与机器之间以及多种技术元素之间的互动。为了简单起见，我将本书的重点放在人与技术的关系上。作为对机制与条件框架的介绍，本书的目标是强调技术如何以与社会和政治相关的方式承担责任。为了提出一个新的方向性问题和分析框架，我选择了一些相对简单的例子来展示人类主体与技术客体之间的关系。

However, I remain keenly aware that assemblages are rarely only two-part systems and that technologies intertwine with each other. For instance, the simple act of writing on paper includes relationships between a writing subject, the pen, the ink, the paper, the table on which the paper rests, and myriad other apparatuses. The pen encourages writing for the subject, and the paper also requests visibility for the pen. In turn, the table encourages stability for the paper, without which the paper, with its flimsy material makeup, would discourage transfer from both pen and ink. The point is that technologies are multiply relational. This is not a new point. Multifaceted assemblages are integral in science and technology studies more generally and within affordance theory, in particular. The mechanisms and conditions framework can elucidate multifaceted assemblages in the same ways I’ve demonstrated throughout this text with primarily dyadic examples of human-technology relations.

不过，我仍然敏锐地意识到，组合作品很少只有两部分系统，各种技术相互交织。例如，在纸上书写这一简单的行为包括书写主体、笔、墨水、纸张、放置纸张的桌子以及无数其他装置之间的关系。笔促使书写者书写，纸张也要求笔的可见性。反过来，纸桌也有助于纸张的稳定，如果没有稳定的纸张，其脆弱的材料构成将阻碍笔和墨水的转移。问题的关键在于，技术具有多重关系。这并不是一个新观点。在一般的科技研究中，特别是在负担能力理论中，多方面的组合是不可或缺的。机制与条件框架可以阐明多方面的组合，正如我在本文中以人类与技术关系的二元实例所展示的一样。

The mechanisms and conditions framework attends to the complexities of sociotechnical systems, in their various forms. It does so with power and politics at the center. The framework moves along with sociotechnical changes and sets a shared vocabulary for argumentation. With the mechanisms and conditions framework, analysts and practitioners can vigorously debate about the implications of sociotechnical change and the appropriate pathways forward. The mechanisms and conditions framework is a simple tool that packs a big punch. Having laid out the model, it is now time to get to work.

机制和条件框架关注各种形式的社会技术系统的复杂性。它以权力和政治为中心。该框架随着社会技术的变化而变化，并为论证设置了共同的词汇。有了机制与条件框架，分析师和实践者就可以就社会技术变革的影响和适当的前进道路展开激烈辩论。机制与条件框架是一个简单的工具，却能发挥巨大的作用。在建立了模型之后，现在是时候开始工作了。

Notes

说明

Acknowledgments

致谢

1. Jenny Davis, “Theorizing Affordances,” Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, February 16, 2015, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/02/16/theorizing-affordances; Jenny Davis, “A Short History of Affordances,” Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, July 13, 2015, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/07/13/a-short-history-of-affordances.

1.Jenny Davis，"Theorizing Affordances，"Cyborgology（博客），The Society Pages，2015 年 2 月 16 日，https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/02/16/theorizing-affordances；Jenny Davis，"A Short History of Affordances，"Cyborgology（博客），The Society Pages，2015 年 7 月 13 日，https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/07/13/a-short-history-of-affordances。

2. Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36, no. 4 (June 16, 2017): 241–248, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0270467617714944.

2.Jenny L. Davis 和 James B. Chouinard，"Theorizing Affordances：From Request to Refuse," Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36, no.4 (June 16, 2017)：241–248, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0270467617714944.

3. The Autonomy, Agency and Assurance Innovation (3Ai) Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, https://3ainstitute.cecs.anu.edu.au.

3.澳大利亚国立大学自治、代理和保证创新（3Ai）研究所，堪培拉，https://3ainstitute.cecs.anu.edu.au。

4. Noah Jerome Springer, “Publics and Counterpublics on the Front Page of the Internet: The Cultural Practices, Technological Affordances, Hybrid Economics and Politics of Reddit’s Public Sphere” (PhD diss., Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Colorado, 2015), https://search.proquest.com/docview/1719155030?pq-origsite=gscholar.

4.Noah Jerome Springer, "Publics and Counterpublics on the Front Page of the Internet：The Cultural Practices, Technological Affordances, Hybrid Economics and Politics of Reddit's Public Sphere" (PhD diss., Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Colorado, 2015), https://search.proquest.com/docview/1719155030?pq-origsite=gscholar.

5. Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology.

5.Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology.

6. Theorizing the Web (conference), https://theorizingtheweb.org.

6.网络理论化（会议），https://theorizingtheweb.org。

Chapter 1

第 1 章

1. Canberra is relatively small for a capital city and has a suburban feel. When I moved there in 2017, coin-locked shopping carts were still new. Although they felt unusual to me, my husband, who grew up in New York City, used them regularly in the stores where his family shopped. He was amused by my confusion and slow uptake.

1.作为首都，堪培拉相对较小，有郊区的感觉。2017 年我搬到那里时，投币式购物车还是新生事物。虽然我觉得它们很不寻常，但我在纽约长大的丈夫却经常在他家购物的商店里使用它们。他对我的困惑和迟钝感到好笑。

2. For literature on the merging of productive labor with consumption practices (“prosumption”), see Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: Bantam Books, 1980); George Ritzer, Paul Dean, and Nathan Jurgenson, “The Coming of Age of the Prosumer,” American Behavioral Scientist 56, no. 4 (2012): 379–398; George Ritzer and Nathan Jurgenson, “Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of the Digital ‘Prosumer,’” Journal of Consumer Culture 10, no. 1 (2010): 13–36.

2.关于生产劳动与消费实践（"消费"）融合的文献，见 Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: Bantam Books, 1980)；George Ritzer, Paul Dean, and Nathan Jurgenson, "The Coming of Age of the Prosumer," American Behavioral Scientist 56, no.4 (2012):379-398; George Ritzer and Nathan Jurgenson, "Production, Consumption, Prosumption：消费文化杂志》10，第 1 期（2010 年）：13-36.

3. This history of the shopping cart was constructed using historical analysis and patent records from the following sources: Jacques Ricouard and Claude Chappoux, “Coin Lock Device for Shopping Trolleys,” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1074, issue 3, January 20, 1987, p. 1449 (Google Patents, 1987); Aage Lenander, “Coin-Operated Lock for a Trolley System Including Especially Shopping and Luggage Trolleys,” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1047, issue 1, October 2, 1984, p. 142 (Google Patents, 1984); Frederik R. L. Rheeder and Deon Dixon, “Trolley Locking Device,” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1064, issue 1, March 4, 1986, p. 133 (Google Patents, 1986); Ellen Ruppel Shell, Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture (New York: Penguin, 2009); Sylvan N Goldman, “Commodity Accommodation and Vending Rack,” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1074, issue 3, January 20, 1987, p. 1449 (Google Patents, 1938); Franck Cochoy, “Driving a Shopping Cart from STS to Business, and the Other Way Round: On the Introduction of Shopping Carts in American Grocery Stores (1936–1959),” Organization 16, no. 1 (2009): 31–55.

3.购物车的历史是通过历史分析和以下来源的专利记录构建的：Jacques Ricouard 和 Claude Chappoux，"用于购物手推车的硬币锁装置"，《美国专利商标局官方公报》，第 1074 卷，第 3 期，1987 年 1 月 20 日，第 1449 页（谷歌专利，1987 年）；Aage Lenander，"用于手推车系统的硬币操作锁，尤其包括购物手推车和行李手推车"，《美国专利商标局官方公报》，第 1047 卷，第 1 期，1984 年 10 月 2 日，第 142 页（谷歌专利，1984 年）；Frederik R.R.，"用于购物手推车的硬币操作锁"，《美国专利商标局官方公报》，第 1047 卷，第 1 期，1984 年 10 月 2 日，第 142 页（谷歌专利，1984 年）。1047, issue 1, October 2, 1984, p. 142 (Google Patents, 1984); Frederik R. L. Rheeder and Deon Dixon, "Trolley Locking Device," Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1064, issue 1, March 4, 1986, p. 133 (Google Patents, 1986); Ellen Ruppel Shell, Cheap：The High Cost of Discount Culture》（纽约：企鹅出版社，2009 年）；Sylvan N Goldman，"Commodity Accommodation and Vending Rack"，《美国专利商标局官方公报》，第 1074 卷，第 3 期，1987 年 1 月 20 日，第 1449 页（谷歌专利，1938 年）；Franck Cochoy，"Driving a Shopping Cart from STS to Business, and the Other Way Round：On the Introduction of Shopping Carts in American Grocery Stores (1936-1959)," Organization 16, no：31-55.

4. Samer Faraj and Bijan Azad, “The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective,” Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, ed. Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis Kallinikos (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 254

4.Samer Faraj 和 Bijan Azad，"The Materiality of Technology：A Affordance Perspective," Materiality and Organizing：4. Samer Faraj and Bijan Azad, "The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective," Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, ed..Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis Kallinikos (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 254

5. Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, “Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no. 1 (2017): 36.

5.Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, "Explicating Affordances：A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no：36.

6. James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Oxford: Houghton Mifflin, 1966); James J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition (New York: Psychology Press, 2014).

6.James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Oxford: Houghton Mifflin, 1966); James J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Classic Edition (New York: Psychology Press, 2014)：经典版》（纽约：心理学出版社，2014 年）。

7. Donald A. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things (New York: Basic Books, 1988); Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).

7.Donald A. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things (New York: Basic Books, 1988); Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).

8. Donald A. Norman, “The Way I See It: Signifiers, Not Affordances,” Interactions 15, no. 6 (2008): 18–19; Martin Oliver, “The Problem with Affordance,” E-Learning and Digital Media 2, no. 4 (2005): 402–413.

8.Donald A. Norman, "The Way I See It：Signifiers, Not Affordances," Interactions 15, no：18-19; Martin Oliver, "The Problem with Affordance," E-Learning and Digital Media 2, no.4 (2005):402-413.

9. The first articulation of the mechanisms and conditions framework can be found in Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, no. 4 (2016): 241–248.

9.Jenny L. Davis 和 James B. Chouinard 的 "Theorizing Affordances：From Request to Refuse," Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, no.4 (2016): 241-248.

10. For this Carnegie Mellon University study, see Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta, “Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings,” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2015, no. 1 (2015): 92–112.

10.关于卡内基梅隆大学的这项研究，见 Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta, "Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings," Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2015, no. 1 (2015): 92-112。

11. Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2018).

11.Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2018)。

12. Safiya Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism (New York: NYU Press, 2018).

12.Safiya Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression：搜索引擎如何强化种族主义》（纽约：纽约大学出版社，2018 年）。

13. Batya Friedman, “Value-Sensitive Design,” Interactions 3, no. 6 (1996): 16–23; Batya Friedman, P. Kahn, and Alan Borning, “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems,” in Human-Computer Interaction In Management Information Systems: Foundations, ed. Ping Zhang and Dennis F. Galletta, 348–372 (New York: Routledge, 2006); Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren, “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems,” in Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, ed. Neelke Doorn, Dean Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman, 55–95 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013); Jeroen Van der Hoven and Noemi Manders-Huits, Value-Sensitive Design (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009); Till Winkler and Sarah Spiekermann, “Twenty Years of Value Sensitive Design: A Review of Methodological Practices in VSD Projects,” Ethics and Information Technology (2018): 1–5; Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019). See Value Sensitive Design Research Lab, Information School and Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, https://vsdesign.org, for an overview and further relevant works.

13.Batya Friedman, "Value-Sensitive Design," Interactions 3, no：16-23; Batya Friedman, P. Kahn, and Alan Borning, "Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems," in Human-Computer Interaction In Management Information Systems：基础》，张平、丹尼斯-F.Ping Zhang and Dennis F. Galletta, 348-372 (New York: Routledge, 2006); Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren, "Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems," in Early Engagement and New Technologies：开放实验室》，编者：Neelke Doorn、Dean Sch.Neelke Doorn, Dean Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman, 55-95 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013)；Jeroen Van der Hoven and Noemi Manders-Huits, Value-Sensitive Design (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009)；Till Winkler and Sarah Spiekermann, "Twenty Years of Value Sensitive Design：价值敏感设计项目方法论实践回顾》，《伦理与信息技术》（2018 年）：1-5; Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design：用道德想象塑造技术》（马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社，2019 年）。参见华盛顿大学信息学院和计算机科学与工程系价值敏感设计研究实验室，https://vsdesign.org，了解概述和更多相关著作。

14. Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum, Values at Play in Digital Games (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014).

14.Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum, Values at Play in Digital Games (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014)。

15. Eubanks, Automating Inequality, 11.

15.Eubanks, Automating Inequality, 11.

16. The political economy of technology is a robust and longstanding field in the social sciences. These two works were chosen for their exemplary quality and contemporary relevance. For more examples from this tradition see: Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018); Cathy O’Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (New York: Broadway Books, 2016); Paul Dourish, The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017); Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?,” Daedalus 109, no. 1 (1980): 121–136; Steve Woolgar and Geoff Cooper, “Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&Ts,” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 433–449; Lucas Introna and David Wood, “Picturing Algorithmic Surveillance: The Politics of Facial Recognition Systems,” Surveillance & Society 2, no. 2/3 (2002); Kate Crawford, “Can an Algorithm Be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics,” Science, Technology & Human Values 41, no. 1 (2016): 77–92; Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015); Marc Berg, “The Politics of Technology: On Bringing Social Theory into Technological Design,” Science, Technology & Human Values 23, no. 4 (1998): 456–490; Judy Wajcman, “The Gender Politics of Technology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, ed. Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly, 707–721 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Ruha Benjamin, “Catching Our Breath: Critical Race STS and the Carceral Imagination,” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2 (2016): 145–156.

16.技术政治经济学是社会科学中一个强大而悠久的领域。之所以选择这两部著作，是因为它们具有典范性和当代意义。有关这一传统的更多例子，请参阅Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media：Facebook 如何让我们断绝联系并破坏民主》（纽约：牛津大学出版社，2018 年）；凯茜-奥尼尔：《数学毁灭武器》（Weapons of Math Destruction：大数据如何加剧不平等并威胁民主》（纽约：百老汇图书公司，2016 年）；保罗-杜里什：《比特之物》（The Stuff of Bits：An Essay on the Materialities of Information (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017)；Langdon Winner, "Do Artifacts Have Politics?", Daedalus 109, no：121-136；Steve Woolgar 和 Geoff Cooper，"人工制品有矛盾性吗？Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&Ts,” Social Studies of Science 29, no.3 (1999):433-449; Lucas Introna and David Wood, "Picturing Algorithmic Surveillance：2/3 (2002); Kate Crawford, "Can an Algorithm Be Agonistic?10 Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics," Science, Technology & Human Values 41, no：77-92; Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society：控制金钱和信息的秘密算法》（马萨诸塞州剑桥市：哈佛大学出版社，2015 年）；马克-伯格：《技术的政治学》：将社会理论带入技术设计"，《科学、技术与人类价值》第 23 卷第 4 期（1998 年）："技术的政治学：将社会理论带入技术设计"。4 (1998):456-490; Judy Wajcman, "The Gender Politics of Technology," in The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, ed., Oxford University Press, 2015.Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly, 707-721 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)；Ruha Benjamin, "Catching Our Breath：Critical Race STS and the Carceral Imagination," Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2 (2016)：145-156.

17. Noble, Algorithms of Oppression, 90.

17.Noble, Algorithms of Oppression, 90.

18. Winkler and Spiekermann, “Twenty Years of Value Sensitive Design.”

18.Winkler 和 Spiekermann，"价值敏感设计二十年"。

19. Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)

19.Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social：行为者-网络理论导论》（纽约：牛津大学出版社，2005 年）。

20. Ernst Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” Theory & Psychology 19, no. 2 (2009): 296–312.

20.Ernst Schraube, "Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences," Theory & Psychology 19, no：296-312.

Chapter 2

第二章

1. For critiques of the misuse, overuse, and undertheorization of affordances, see Leonardo Burlamaqui and Andy Dong, “The Use and Misuse of the Concept of Affordance,” in Design Computing and Cognition , ed. John S. Gero and Sean Hanna, 295–311 (New York: Springer, 2015); Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, “Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no. 1 (2017): 35–52; Tim Ingold, “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances,” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8, no. 1–2 (2018): 39–44; Keith S. Jones, “What Is an Affordance?,” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003):107–114; Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho, “Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept,” Proceedings of the Graphics Interface 2000: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–17 May 2000 (Montreal: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 2000); Martin Oliver, “The Problem with Affordance,” E-Learning and Digital Media 2, no. 4 (2005): 402–413; Donald A. Norman, “The Way I See It: Signifiers, Not Affordances,” Interactions 15, no. 6 (2008): 18–19.

1.For critiques of the misuse, overuse, and undertheorization of affordances, see Leonardo Burlamaqui and Andy Dong, “The Use and Misuse of the Concept of Affordance,” in Design Computing and Cognition , ed.John S. Gero and Sean Hanna, 295-311 (New York: Springer, 2015)；Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, "Explicating Affordances：A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no：35-52; Tim Ingold, "Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances," HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8, no：2 (2003):107-114; Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho, "Affordances：明确并发展一个概念"，《2000 年图形界面会议记录》：加拿大魁北克蒙特利尔，2000 年 5 月 15-17 日（蒙特利尔：加拿大人机通信学会，2000 年）；Martin Oliver，"Affordance 的问题"，《电子学习与数字媒体》第 2 期，第 4 页（2005 年）："Affordance 的问题"。4 (2005):402-413; Donald A. Norman, "The Way I See It：Signifiers, Not Affordances," Interactions 15, no：18-19.

2. James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966); James J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1979).

2.詹姆斯-吉布森，《作为感知系统的感官》（波士顿：霍顿-米夫林，1966 年）；詹姆斯-吉布森，《视觉感知的生态学方法》（波士顿：霍顿-米夫林，1979 年）。

3. Russell Kahl, ed., Selected Writings of Hermann Von Helmholtz (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1971).

3.Russell Kahl 编辑，《赫尔曼-冯-亥姆霍兹文选》（康涅狄格州米德尔敦：卫斯理安大学出版社，1971 年）。

4. James J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition (New York: Psychology Press, 2014).

4.James J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception：经典版》（纽约：心理学出版社，2014 年）。

5. Edward S. Reed, “The Affordances of the Animate Environment: Social Science from the Ecological Point of View,” in What Is an Animal?, ed. Tim Ingold, 110–126 (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1988).

5.Edward S. Reed, "The Affordances of the Animate Environment：从生态学角度看社会科学》，载于《什么是动物》，Tim Ingold 编辑，110-126 页（阿宾顿，英国：Routledge, 1988 年）。Tim Ingold, 110-126 (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1988)。

6. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, 285

6.Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, 285

7. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 127 (emphasis in the original).

7.Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 127 (emphasis in the original).

8. Dobromir G. Dotov, Lin Nie, and Matthieu M. De Wit, “Understanding Affordances: History and Contemporary Development of Gibson’s Central Concept,” Avant: The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard 3, no. 2 (2012): 30.

8.Dobromir G. Dotov, Lin Nie, and Matthieu M. De Wit, "Understanding Affordances：吉布森中心概念的历史与当代发展"，《前卫：3, no. 2 (2012)：30.

9. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 127.

9.Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 127.

10. Kurt Koffka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt, 1935); Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers, trans. by Donald K. Adams and Karl E. Zener (New York: McGraw, 1935).

10.Kurt Koffka，《格式塔心理学原理》（纽约：Harcourt，1935 年）；Kurt Lewin，《人格动态理论》：唐纳德-K.-亚当斯和卡尔-E.-泽纳译本（纽约：麦格劳，1935 年）。

11. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 130.

11.Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 130.

12. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 130.

12.Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 130.

13. Donald A. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things (New York: Basic Books, 1988).

13.唐纳德-A-诺曼，《日常事物心理学》（纽约：基础书籍，1988 年）。

14. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things, 9

14.Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things, 9

15. Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).

15.Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).

16. See Oliver, “The Problem with Affordance.”

16.见 Oliver, "The Problem with Affordance"。

17. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, 41.

17.Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, 41.

18. Ingold, “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances”; Tim Ingold, Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description (New York: Routledge, 2011); Tim Ingold, “Culture and the Perception of the Environment,” in Bush Base, Forest Farm: Culture, Environment, and Development, ed. Elisabeth Croll and David Parkin, 51–68 (London: Routledge, 2002); Bryan Pfaffenberger, “Social Anthropology of Technology,” Annual Review of Anthropology 21, no. 1 (1992): 491–516.

18.Ingold, "Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances"; Tim Ingold, Being Alive：Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description (New York: Routledge, 2011)；Tim Ingold, "Culture and the Perception of the Environment," in Bush Base, Forest Farm：文化、环境与发展》，Elisabeth Croll 和 David Park 编辑。Elisabeth Croll and David Parkin, 51-68 (London: Routledge, 2002); Bryan Pfaffenberger, "Social Anthropology of Technology," Annual Review of Anthropology 21, no：491-516.

19. Ingold, “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances,” 40.

19.Ingold, "Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances," 40.

20. Pfaffenberger, “Social Anthropology of Technology,” 497.

20.Pfaffenberger, "Social Anthropology of Technology," 497。

21. Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, “Affordance Based Design: A Relational Theory for Design,” Research in Engineering Design 20, no. 1 (2009): 13–27; Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, “Affordance-Based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering,” Research In Engineering Design 20, no. 4 (2009): 225; Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, “Affordance: The Fundamental Concept in Engineering Design,” Paper No. Detc2001/Dtm-21700, ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2001.

21.Jonathan R. A. Maier 和 Georges M. Fadel, "Affordance Based Design：13-27; Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, "Affordance Based Design: A Relational Theory for Design," Research in Engineering Design 20, no：13-27; Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, "Affordance-Based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering," Research In Engineering Design 20, no.4 (2009):225; Jonathan R. A. Maier and Georges M. Fadel, "Affordance：Detc2001/Dtm-21700, ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2001.

22. See Samer Faraj and Bijan Azad, “The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective,” in Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, ed. Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis Kallinikos, 237–258 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); William W. Gaver, “Situating Action II: Affordances for Interaction. The Social Is Material for Design,” Ecological Psychology 8, no. 2 (1996): 111–129; Tarleton Gillespie, “The Politics of ‘Platforms,’” New Media & Society 12, no. 3 (2010): 347–364; Ian Hutchby, “Technologies, Texts and Affordances,” Sociology 35, no. 2 (2001): 441–456; Paul M. Leonardi, “When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies,” MIS Quarterly 35, no.1 (2011): 147–167; Paul M. Leonardi, “Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality,” Information and Organization 23, no. 2 (2013): 59–76; Jeffrey W. Treem and Paul M. Leonardi, “Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association,” Annals of the International Communication Association 36, no. 1 (2013): 143–189.

22.见 Samer Faraj 和 Bijan Azad，"The Materiality of Technology：An Affordance Perspective," in Materiality and Organizing：技术世界中的社会互动》，Paul M. Leonardi、Bonnie A. Nardi 和 Bijan Azad 编辑。Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis Kallinikos, 237-258 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)；William W. Gaver, "Situating Action II：互动情境。社会是设计的材料"，《生态心理学》第 8 期，第 2 号（1996 年）：111-129; Tarleton Gillespie, "The Politics of 'Platforms'," New Media & Society 12, no.3 (2010):3 (2010): 347-364; Ian Hutchby, "Technologies, Texts and Affordances," Sociology 35, no：441-456; Paul M. Leonardi, "When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies：Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies," MIS Quarterly 35, no.1 (2011)：147-167; Paul M. Leonardi, "Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality," Information and Organization 23, no：59-76; Jeffrey W. Treem and Paul M. Leonardi, "Social Media Use in Organizations：1 (2013)：143-189.

23. See danah boyd, “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications,” in A Networked Self, ed. Zizi Papacharissi, 47–66 (New York: Routledge, 2010); Andrew Richard Schrock, “Communicative Affordances of Mobile Media: Portability, Availability, Locatability, and Multimediality,” International Journal of Communication 9 (2015): 1229–1246; Jenny Davis, “Architecture of the Personal Interactive Homepage: Constructing the Self through Myspace,” New Media & Society 12, no. 7 (2010): 1103–1109; Kate Sarah Raynes-Goldie, “Privacy in the Age of Facebook: Discourse, Architecture, Consequences” (PhD diss., Curtin University, 2012).

23.见 danah boyd，"Social Network Sites as Networked Publics：Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications,” in A Networked Self, ed.Zizi Papacharissi, 47-66 (New York: Routledge, 2010)；Andrew Richard Schrock, "Communicative Affordances of Mobile Media：Portability, Availability, Locatability, and Multimediality," International Journal of Communication 9 (2015): 1229-1246; Jenny Davis, "Architecture of the Personal Interactive Homepage：通过 Myspace 构建自我"，《新媒体与社会》12，第 7 期（2010 年）：1103-1109; Kate Sarah Raynes-Goldie, "Privacy in the Age of Facebook：话语、架构、后果"（科廷大学博士论文，2012 年）。

24. See Jennifer L. Gibbs, Nik Ahmad Rozaidi, and Julia Eisenberg, “Overcoming the ‘Ideology of Openness’: Probing the Affordances of Social Media for Organizational Knowledge Sharing,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no. 1 (2013): 102–120; Ann Majchrzak, Samer Faraj, Gerald C. Kane, and Bijan Azad, “The Contradictory Influence of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no. 1 (2013): 38–55.

24.见 Jennifer L. Gibbs、Nik Ahmad Rozaidi 和 Julia Eisenberg，"克服'开放意识形态'：Probing the Affordances of Social Media for Organizational Knowledge Sharing," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no：102-120; Ann Majchrzak, Samer Faraj, Gerald C. Kane, and Bijan Azad, "The Contradictory Influence of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no：38-55.

25. See Kate Crawford and Tarleton Gillespie, “What Is a Flag For? Social Media Reporting Tools and the Vocabulary of Complaint,” New Media & Society 18, no. 3 (2016): 410–428; Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018); Adrienne Massanari, “# Gamergate and the Fappening: How Reddit’s Algorithm, Governance, and Culture Support Toxic Technocultures,” New Media & Society 19, no. 3 (2017): 329–346.

25.见 Kate Crawford 和 Tarleton Gillespie，"What Is a Flag For?社交媒体举报工具与投诉词汇》，《新媒体与社会》18，no.3 (2016):410-428; Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet：Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018)；Adrienne Massanari, "# Gamergate and the Fappening：Reddit's Algorithm, Governance, and Culture Support Toxic Technocultures," New Media & Society 19, no.3 (2017):329-346.

26. See André Brock, “From the Blackhand Side: Twitter as a Cultural Conversation,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 4 (2012): 529–549; Jenny L. Davis, “Triangulating the Self: Identity Processes in a Connected Era,” Symbolic Interaction 37, no. 4 (2014): 500–523; Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd, “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience,” New Media & Society 13, no. 1 (2011): 114–133.

26.见 André Brock，"From the Blackhand Side：Twitter as a Cultural Conversation," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no.4 (2012):529-549; Jenny L. Davis, "Triangulating the Self: Identity Processes in a Connected Era," Symbolic Interaction 37, no.4 (2014):500-523; Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd, "I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately：新媒体与社会》13，第 1 期（2011 年）：114-133.

27. See Gale Parchoma, “The Contested Ontology of Affordances: Implications for Researching Technological Affordances for Collaborative Knowledge Production,” Computers in Human Behavior 37, no. Supp. C (2014): 360–368; Steve Wright and Gale Parchoma, “Technologies for Learning? An Actor-Network Theory Critique of ‘Affordances’ in Research on Mobile Learning,” Research in Learning Technology 19, no. 3 (2011): 247–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624168.

27.见 Gale Parchoma，"The Contested Ontology of Affordances：Implications for Researching Technological Affordances for Collaborative Knowledge Production," Computers in Human Behavior 37, no.C (2014)：360-368; Steve Wright and Gale Parchoma, "Technologies for Learning?Actor-Network Theory Critique of 'Affordances' in Research on Mobile Learning," Research in Learning Technology 19, no.3 (2011):247–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624168.

28. Roy D. Pea, “Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs for Education,” Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations 11 (1993): 47–87.

28.Roy D. Pea, "Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs for Education," Distributed Cognitions：Psychological and Educational Considerations 11 (1993)：47-87.

29. Diana Laurillard, Matthew Stratfold, Rose Luckin, Lydia Plowman, and Josie Taylor, “Affordances for Learning in a Non-Linear Narrative Medium,” Journal of Interactive Media in Education, no. 2 (2000): 1–19.

29.Diana Laurillard, Matthew Stratfold, Rose Luckin, Lydia Plowman, and Josie Taylor, "Affordances for Learning in a Non-Linear Narrative Medium," Journal of Interactive Media in Education, no：1-19.

30. Daniel D. Suthers, “Technology Affordances for Intersubjective Meaning Making: A Research Agenda for CSCL,” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1, no. 3 (2006): 315–337.

30.Daniel D. Suthers, "Technology Affordances for Intersubjective Meaning Making：A Research Agenda for CSCL," International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1, no.3 (2006):315-337.

31. Grainne Conole and Martin Dyke, “What Are the Affordances of Information and Communication Technologies?,” ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 12, no. 2 (2004): 113–124.

31.Grainne Conole and Martin Dyke, "What Are the Affordances of Information and Communication Technologies?" ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 12, no：113-124.

32. William M. Mace, “James J. Gibson’s Ecological Approach: Perceiving What Exists,” Ethics and the Environment 10, no. 2 (2005): 195–216.

32.William M. Mace, "James J. Gibson's Ecological Approach：Perceiving What Exists," Ethics and the Environment 10, no：195-216.

33. William H. Warren, “Perceiving Affordances: Visual Guidance of Stair Climbing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, no. 5 (1984): 683–703.

33.William H. Warren, "Perceiving Affordances：爬楼梯的视觉引导"，《实验心理学杂志：人类感知与表现》第 10 期，第 5 号（1984 年）："爬楼梯的视觉引导"。5 (1984):683-703.

34. See Claire F. Michaels, “Affordances: Four Points of Debate,” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 135–148; Claire F. Michaels and Claudia Carello, Direct Perception (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981); Robert Shaw, “Ecological Psychology: The Consequence of a Commitment to Realism,” Cognition and the Symbolic Processes, ed. Walter B. Weimer and David S. Palermo, 159–226 (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982); Michael T. Turvey, “Affordances and Prospective Control: An Outline of the Ontology,” Ecological Psychology 4, no. 3 (1992): 173–187.

34.见 Claire F. Michaels, "Affordances：135-148; Claire F. Michaels and Claudia Carello, Direct Perception (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice)：135-148; Claire F. Michaels and Claudia Carello, Direct Perception (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981); Robert Shaw, "Ecological Psychology：罗伯特-肖：《生态心理学：对现实主义承诺的后果》，《认知与符号过程》，沃尔特-B.Walter B. Weimer and David S. Palermo, 159-226 (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982)；Michael T. Turvey, "Affordances and Prospective Control：本体论大纲》，《生态心理学》4，no.3 (1992):173-187.

35. Dotov, Nie, and De Wit, “Understanding Affordances,”31.

35.Dotov、Nie 和 De Wit，"Understanding Affordances"，31。

36. See James E. Cutting, “Two Ecological Perspectives: Gibson vs. Shaw and Turvey,” American Journal of Psychology 95, no. 2 (1982): 199–222.

36.见 James E. Cutting, "Two Ecological Perspectives：Gibson vs. Shaw and Turvey," American Journal of Psychology 95, no：199-222.

37. Turvey, “Affordances and Prospective Control,” 180.

37.Turvey, "Affordances and Prospective Control," 180.

38. McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances.”

38.McGrenere 和 Ho，"Affordances"。

39. Benjamin T. Ciavola and John K. Gershenson, “Affordance Theory for Engineering Design,” Research in Engineering Design 27, no. 3 (2016): 251–263.

39.Benjamin T. Ciavola and John K. Gershenson, "Affordance Theory for Engineering Design," Research in Engineering Design 27, no.3 (2016): 251-263.

40. Ciavola and Gershenson, “Affordance Theory for Engineering Design,” 254.

40.Ciavola 和 Gershenson，"Affordance Theory for Engineering Design"，254。

41. Anthony Chemero, “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances,” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 181–195.

41.Anthony Chemero, "An Outline of a Theory of Affordances," Ecological Psychology 15, no：181-195.

42. Hutchby, “Technologies, Texts and Affordances,” 415.

42.Hutchby, "Technologies, Texts and Affordances," 415。

43. Andrea Scarantino, “Affordances Explained,” Philosophy of Science 70, no. 5 (2003): 960.

43.Andrea Scarantino, "Affordances Explained," Philosophy of Science 70, no.5 (2003):960.

44. Richard C. Schmidt, “Scaffolds for Social Meaning,” Ecological Psychology 19, no. 2 (2007):137.

44.Richard C. Schmidt, "Scaffolds for Social Meaning," Ecological Psychology 19, no.

45. Lee Humphreys, Veronika Karnowski, and Thilo von Pape, “Smartphones as Metamedia: A Framework for Identifying the Niches Structuring Smartphone Use,” International Journal of Communication 12 (2018): 2793–2809); Maier and Fadel, “Affordance Based Design”; Parchoma, “The Contested Ontology of Affordances”; Dhaval Vyas, Cristina M. Chisalita, and Alan Dix, “Organizational Affordances: A Structuration Theory Approach to Affordances,” Interacting with Computers 29, no. 2 (2017): 117–131.

45.Lee Humphreys, Veronika Karnowski, and Thilo von Pape, "Smartphones as Metamedia：A Framework for Identifying the Niches Structuring Smartphone Use," International Journal of Communication 12 (2018): 2793-2809); Maier and Fadel, "Affordance Based Design"; Parchoma, "The Contested Ontology of Affordances"; Dhaval Vyas, Cristina M. Chisalita, and Alan Dix, "Organizational Affordances：A Structuration Theory Approach to Affordances," Interacting with Computers 29, no：117-131.

46. Leslie Z. McArthur and Reuben M. Baron, “Toward an Ecological Theory of Social Perception,” Psychological Review 90, no. 3 (1983): 215.

46.Leslie Z. McArthur and Reuben M. Baron, "Toward an Ecological Theory of Social Perception," Psychological Review 90, no.3 (1983):215.

47. Schmidt, “Scaffolds for Social Meaning.”

47.施密特，"社会意义的支架"。

48. Leonardi, “When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies”; Leonardi, “Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality”; Treem and Leonardi, “Social Media Use in Organizations.”

48.Leonardi 著，"当灵活的常规遇到灵活的技术"；Leonardi 著，"社会物质性研究的理论基础"；Treem 和 Leonardi 著，"组织中的社交媒体使用"。

49. See Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36 no. 4 (2016): 241–248; Evans, Pearce, Vitak, and Treem, “Explicating Affordances”; Jones, “What Is an Affordance?”; McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances”; Oliver, “The Problem with Affordance”; Thomas A. Stoffregen, “Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System,” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 115–134; Gerard Torenvliet, “We Can’t Afford It! The Devaluation of a Usability Term,” Interactions 10, no. 4 (2003): 12–17.

49.见 Jenny L. Davis 和 James B. Chouinard，"Theorizing Affordances：4 (2016): 241-248; Evans, Pearce, Vitak, and Treem, "Explicating Affordances"; Jones, "What Is an Affordance?"; McGrenere and Ho, "Affordances"; Oliver, "The Problem with Affordance"; Thomas A. Stoffregen, "Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System," Ecological Psychology 15, no：115-134; Gerard Torenvliet, "We Can't Afford It！可用性术语的贬值"，《互动》10，no.4 (2003):12-17.

50. Ingold, “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances,” 39.

50.Ingold, "Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances," 39.

51. Norman, “The Way I See It: Signifiers, Not Affordances.”

51.Norman, "The Way I See It：符号，而非能力"。

52. See Evans, Pearce, Vitak, and Treem, “Explicating Affordances”; Hutchby, “Technologies, Texts and Affordances”; McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances”; Peter Nagy and Gina Neff, “Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory,” Social Media + Society 1, no. 2 (2015); Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 2 (2012): 299–313.

52.见 Evans、Pearce、Vitak 和 Treem，"Explicating Affordances"；Hutchby，"Technologies, Texts and Affordances"；McGrenere 和 Ho，"Affordances"；Peter Nagy 和 Gina Neff，"Imagined Affordance：2 (2015); Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, "Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no：299-313.

53. McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances,” 7.

53.McGrenere and Ho, "Affordances," 7.

54. See Chemero, “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances”; McGrenere and Ho, “Affordances”; Nagy and Neff, “Imagined Affordance”; Neff, Jordan, McVeigh-Schultz, and Gillespie, “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production”; Scarantino, “Affordances Explained.”

54.参见 Chemero, "An Outline of a Theory of Affordances"; McGrenere and Ho, "Affordances"; Nagy and Neff, "Imagined Affordance"; Neff, Jordan, McVeigh-Schultz, and Gillespie, "Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production"; Scarantino, "Affordances Explained".

55. Nagy and Neff, “Imagined Affordance.”

55.Nagy 和 Neff，"Imagined Affordance"。

56. Evans, Pearce, Vitak, and Treem, “Explicating Affordances.”

56.Evans、Pearce、Vitak 和 Treem，"Explicating Affordances"。

57. Jun Hu and George M. Fadel, “Categorizing Affordances for Product Design” (paper presented at the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, August 2012); Maier and Fadel, “Affordance-Based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering”; Ivan Mata, Georges Fadel, and Gregory Mocko, “Toward Automating Affordance-Based Design,” AI EDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29, no. 3 (2015): 297–305.

57.Jun Hu 和 George M. Fadel，"Categorizing Affordances for Product Design"（在 ASME 2012 国际设计工程技术会议和工程中的计算机与信息会议上提交的论文，2012 年 8 月）；Maier 和 Fadel，"Affordance-Based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering"；Ivan Mata、Georges Fadel 和 Gregory Mocko，"Toward Automating Affordance-Based Design"，AI EDAM：Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29，no.3 (2015): 297-305.

58. Davis and Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse.”

58.Davis 和 Chouinard，"Theorizing Affordances：从请求到拒绝"。

59. Brooke Dinsmore, “Contested Affordances: Teachers and Students Negotiating the Classroom Integration of Mobile Technology,” Information, Communication & Society 22, no. 5 (2019): 664–677; Kate Mannell, “A Typology of Mobile Messaging’s Disconnective Affordances,” Mobile Media & Communication 7, no. 1 (2019): 76–93; Apryl A. Williams, Zaida Bryant, and Christopher Carvell, “Uncompensated Emotional Labor, Racial Battle Fatigue, and (In)Civility in Digital Spaces,” Sociology Compass 13, no. 2 (2019): e12658.

59.Brooke Dinsmore, "Contested Affordances：师生协商移动技术的课堂整合》，《信息、传播与社会》第 22 期（2019 年）：664-677；Kate Mannell, "A Typesology of Mobile Messaging's Disconnective Affordances," 《移动信息的互不关联性类型学》，《信息、传播与社会》第 22 期（2019 年）：664-677。5 (2019): 664-677; Kate Mannell, "A Typology of Mobile Messaging's Disconnective Affordances," Mobile Media & Communication 7, no. 1 (2019): 76-93; Apryl A. Williams, Zaida Bryant, and Christopher Carvell, "Uncompensated Emotional Labor, Racial Battle Fatigue, and (In)Civility in Digital Spaces," Sociology Compass 13, no. 2 (2019): e12658.

60. Jennifer C. Mueller, “Racial Ideology or Racial Ignorance? An Alternative Theory of Racial Cognition,” Open Science Framework, March 2, 2019, https://osf.io/fw23k.

60.Jennifer C. Mueller, "Racial Ideology or Racial Ignorance?种族认知的另一种理论》，《开放科学框架》，2019 年 3 月 2 日，https://osf.io/fw23k。

Chapter 3

第三章

1. Taina Bucher, If . . . Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).

1.Taina Bucher，《如果......》。Then：算法权力与政治》（纽约：牛津大学出版社，2018 年）。

2. See Lucas D. Introna, “The Enframing of Code: Agency, Originality and the Plagiarist,” Theory, Culture & Society 28, no. 6 (2011): 113–141; Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Martin Müller, “Assemblages and Actor-Networks: Rethinking Socio-Material Power, Politics and Space,” Geography Compass 9, no. 1 (2015): 27–41; Phillip Vannini, “Non-Representational Research Methodologies: An Introduction,” in Non-Representational Methodologies: Reenvisioning Research, ed. Phillip Vannini, 11–28 (New York: Routledge, 2015); Peter-Paul Verbeek, “Materializing Morality: Design Ethics and Technological Mediation,” Science, Technology & Human Values 31, no. 3 (2006): 361–380.

2.见 Lucas D. Introna, "The Enframing of Code：113-141; Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social: the Plagiarist," Theory, Culture & Society 28, no：113-141; Bruno Latour, Reassembling the Social：纽约：牛津大学出版社，2005 年）；Martin Müller，"Assemblages and Actor-Networks：9, no. 1 (2015): 27-41; Phillip Vannini, "Non-Representational Research Methodologies：An Introduction," in Non-Representational Methodologies：Reenvisioning Research》，ed.Phillip Vannini, 11-28 (New York: Routledge, 2015)；Peter-Paul Verbeek, "Materializing Morality：Design Ethics and Technological Mediation," Science, Technology & Human Values 31, no.3 (2006):361-380.

3. Ernst Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” Theory & Psychology 19, no. 2 (2009): 296–312.

3.Ernst Schraube，"作为物化行动的技术及其矛盾性"，《理论与心理学》第 19 卷第 2 期（2009 年）：296-312.

4. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).

4.马歇尔-麦克卢汉，《理解媒体：The Extensions of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).

5. Latour, Reassembling the Social.

5.Latour, Reassembling the Social.

6. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences.”

6.Schraube, "作为物质化行动的技术及其矛盾性"。

7. Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?,” Daedalus 109, no. 1 (1980): 121–136.

7.Langdon Winner, "Do Artifacts Have Politics?", Daedalus 109, no：121-136.

8. McLuhan, Understanding Media.

8.麦克卢汉，《理解媒体》。

9. See Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications (New York: Free Press, 1966); Jefferson Pooley and Elihu Katz, “Further Notes on Why American Sociology Abandoned Mass Communication Research,” Journal of Communication 58, no. 4 (2008): 767–786.

9.见 Elihu Katz 和 Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence：The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications (New York: Free Press, 1966); Jefferson Pooley and Elihu Katz, "Further Notes on Why American Sociology Abandoned Mass Communication Research," Journal of Communication 58, no.4 (2008):767-786.

10. McLuhan, Understanding Media, 10.

10.麦克卢汉，《理解媒体》，第 10 页。

11. See Latour, Reassembling the Social; Michel Callon, “The Sociology of An Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle,” in Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, ed. Michel Callon, John Law, and Arie Rip, 19–34 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1986); Michel Callon and John Law, “After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society,” Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 22, no. 2 (1997): 165–182; John Law, “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics,” in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. Brian S. Turner, 141–158 (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

11.见拉图尔：《重新组合社会》；米歇尔-卡隆：《行为者网络社会学》，《电动汽车案例》，载于《绘制科学与技术的动 力：科学与技术的发展》：Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology：米歇尔-卡隆，"行为者-网络社会学：电动汽车案例"，《绘制科技动态：现实世界中的科学社会学》，米歇尔-卡隆、约翰-罗和米歇尔-卡隆编著。Michel Callon, John Law, and Arie Rip, 19-34 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1986); Michel Callon and John Law, "After the Individual in Society：165-182; John Law, "Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society," Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 22, no：165-182; John Law, "Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics," in The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. Brian S. Turner, 141-158 (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

12. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi (London: Continuum, 1987).

12.Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi (London: Continuum, 1987)。Brian Massumi（伦敦：Continuum，1987 年）。

13. David Banks, “A Brief Summary of Actor Network Theory,” Cyborgology (blog), The Society Pages, 2011, https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-of-actor-network-theory.

13.David Banks，"A Brief Summary of Actor Network Theory"，Cyborgology (blog)，The Society Pages，2011，https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-of-actor-network-theory。

14. See Warwick Anderson, “From Subjugated Knowledge to Conjugated Subjects: Science and Globalisation, or Postcolonial Studies of Science?,” Postcolonial Studies 12, no. 4 (2009): 389–400; David Bloor, “Anti-Latour,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30, no. 1 (1999): 81–112; Sandra Harding, I. Grewal, C. Kaplan, and R. Wiegman, Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008); Sal Restivo, “Review Essays: Politics of Latour,” Organization & Environment 18, no. 1 (2005): 111–115.

14.见 Warwick Anderson, "From Subjugated Knowledge to Conjugated Subjects：见 Warwick Anderson, "From Subjugated Knowledge to Conjugated Subjects: Science and Globalisation, or Postcolonial Studies of Science?" Postcolonial Studies 12, no.4 (2009):389-400; David Bloor, "Anti-Latour," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30, no：81-112; Sandra Harding, I. Grewal, C. Kaplan, and R. Wiegman, Sciences from Below：Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008)；Sal Restivo, "Review Essays：Politics of Latour," Organization & Environment 18, no：111-115.

15. See Kim Fortun, “From Latour to Late Industrialism,” Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4, no. 1 (2014): 309–329; Harding, Grewal, Kaplan, and Wiegman, Sciences from Below; Judy Wajcman, “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In What State Is the Art?,” Social Studies of Science 30, no. 3 (2000): 447–464.

15.见 Kim Fortun，"From Latour to Late Industrialism，" Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4，no：309-329; Harding, Grewal, Kaplan, and Wiegman, Sciences from Below; Judy Wajcman, "Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies：In What State Is the Art?" Social Studies of Science 30, no.3 (2000):447-464.

16. Mark Andrejevic, “Data Collection without Limits: Automated Policing and the Politics of Framelessness,” in Big Data, Crime and Social Control, ed. Ales Zavrsnik, 111–125 (London: Routledge, 2017); Sarah Brayne, “Big Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing,” American Sociological Review 82, no. 5 (2017): 977–1008.

16.Mark Andrejevic, "Data Collection Without Limits：Automated Policing and the Politics of Framelessness,” in Big Data, Crime and Social Control, ed.Ales Zavrsnik, 111-125 (London: Routledge, 2017)；Sarah Brayne, "Big Data Surveillance：The Case of Policing," American Sociological Review 82, no.5 (2017):977-1008.

17. Richard Dyer, White: Essays on Race and Culture, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2017).

17.Richard Dyer，White：Essays on Race and Culture, 2nd ed. （London: Routledge, 2017）。

18. Kevin Granville, “Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: What You Need to Know as Fallout Widens,” New York Times, March 19, 2018; Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).

18.凯文-格兰维尔，《Facebook 和剑桥分析：What You Need to Know as Fallout Widens》，《纽约时报》，2018 年 3 月 19 日；Siva Vaidhyanathan，Antisocial Media：Facebook 如何让我们断绝联系并破坏民主》（How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy）（牛津：牛津大学出版社，2018 年）。

19. Edwin Sayes, “Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Just What Does It Mean to Say That Nonhumans Have Agency?,” Social Studies of Science 44, no. 1 (2014): 134–149.

19.Edwin Sayes, "Actor-Network Theory and Methodology：Just What Does It Mean to Say That Nonhumans Have Agency?", Social Studies of Science 44, no：134-149.

20. Winner, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?”

20.获胜者，"人工制品有政治性吗？"

21. Selena Savić and Gordan Savičić, “Unpleasant Design: Designing Out Unwanted Behaviour,” in A Matter of Design: Making Society through Science and Technology. Proceedings of the Fifth STS Italia Conference (Rome: Società Italiana di Studi sulla Scienza la Tecnologia, 2014).

21.Selena Savić 和 Gordan Savičić，"不愉快的设计：Designing Out Unwanted Behaviour," in A Matter of Design：通过科技创造社会。第五届 STS 意大利会议论文集》（罗马：Società Italiana di Studi sulla Scienza la Tecnologia, 2014 年）。

22. Patrick Marshall, “Algorithms Can Mask Biases in Hiring,” Sage Business Researcher, February 15, 2016.

22.Patrick Marshall，"Algorithms Can Mask Biases in Hiring"，Sage Business Researcher，2016 年 2 月 15 日。

23. Matthew Adam Bruckner, “The Promise and Perils of Algorithmic Lenders’ Use of Big Data,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 93, no. 1 (2018): 3.

23.Matthew Adam Bruckner，"The Promise and Perils of Algorithmic Lenders' Use of Big Data"，《芝加哥-肯特法律评论》第 93 期（2018 年）：3.

24. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 298.

24.Schraube, "Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences," 298。

25. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 299–300.

25.Schraube, "Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences," 299-300.

26. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 300.

26.Schraube, "Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences," 300。

27. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 205.

27.Schraube, "Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences," 205。

28. Kate Crawford and Meredith Whittaker, “The AI Now Report: The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near-Term,” AI Now Institute, September 22, 2016, https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2016_Report.pdf.

28.凯特-克劳福德（Kate Crawford）和梅雷迪斯-惠特克（Meredith Whittaker）：《人工智能报告》（The AI Now Report）：The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near-Term," AI Now Institute, September 22, 2016, https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2016_Report.pdf.

29. Meredith Broussard, Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018).

29.Meredith Broussard，Artificial Unintelligence：计算机如何误解世界》（马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社，2018 年）。

30. Frank Pasquale, “Algorithms Can Be a Digital Star Chamber,” Aeon, no. 8 (2015), https://acon.co.essays/judge-jury-and-executioner-the-unaccountable-algorithm.

30.Frank Pasquale，"算法可以成为数字星室"，《Aeon》，第 8 期（2015 年），https://acon.co.essays/judge-jury-and-executioner-the-unaccountable-algorithm。

31. Verbeek, “Materializing Morality.”

31.Verbeek, "道德的物质化"。

32. Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” 306.

32.Schraube, "Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences," 306。

33. Don Ihde, Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).

33.Don Ihde, Technology and the Lifeworld：从花园到地球》（布卢明顿：印第安纳大学出版社，1990 年）。

34. Zeynep Tufekci, Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017).

34.Zeynep Tufekci，Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest（康涅狄格州纽黑文：耶鲁大学出版社，2017 年）。

Chapter 4

第 4 章

1. William H. Warren, “Perceiving Affordances: Visual Guidance of Stair Climbing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, no. 5 (1984): 683–703.

1.William H. Warren, "Perceiving Affordances：爬楼梯的视觉引导"，《实验心理学杂志：人类感知与表现》第 10 期，第 5 页（1984 年）。5 (1984):683-703.

2. Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, “Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no. 1 (2017): 35–52.

2.Sandra K. Evans, Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem, "Explicating Affordances：A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no：35-52.

3. Rob Withagen, Duarte Araújo, and Harjo J. de Poel, “Inviting Affordances and Agency,” New Ideas in Psychology 45 (2017): 11–18.

3.Rob Withagen, Duarte Araújo, and Harjo J. de Poel, "Inviting Affordances and Agency," New Ideas in Psychology 45 (2017)：11-18.

4. For further explication of this critique, see Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho, “Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept,” in Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–17 May 2000 (Montreal: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 2000); Peter Nagy and Gina Neff, “Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory,” Social Media + Society 1, no. 2 (2015); Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 2 (2012): 299–313; Gale Parchoma, “The Contested Ontology of Affordances: Implications for Researching Technological Affordances for Collaborative Knowledge Production,” Computers in Human Behavior 37, no. Suppl. C (2014): 360–368; Steve Wright and Gale Parchoma, “Technologies for Learning? An Actor-Network Theory Critique of ‘Affordances’ in Research on Mobile Learning,” Research in Learning Technology 19, no. 3 (2011): 247–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624168.

4.对这一批评的进一步阐述，见 Joanna McGrenere 和 Wayne Ho，"Affordances：Clarifying and Evolving a Concept," in Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000：加拿大魁北克蒙特利尔，2000 年 5 月 15-17 日（蒙特利尔：加拿大人机通信学会，2000 年）；Peter Nagy 和 Gina Neff，"想象中的 Affordance：2 (2015); Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, "Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no：299-313; Gale Parchoma, "The Contested Ontology of Affordances：对研究协作知识生产的技术亲和力的影响》，《人类行为中的计算机》第 37 期（2012 年）：299-313；Gale Parchoma, "The Contest Ontology of Affordances.Suppl.C (2014):360-368; Steve Wright and Gale Parchoma, "Technologies for Learning?Actor-Network Theory Critique of 'Affordances' in Research on Mobile Learning," Research in Learning Technology 19, no.3 (2011):247–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624168.

5. Danny Wicentowski, “Defying Police ‘Do Not Cross’ Line Would Be a Crime under Proposed Missouri Bill,” River Front Times (blog), February 23, 2016, https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/12/23/defying-police-do-not-cross-line-would-be-a-crime-under-proposed-missouri-bill.

5.Danny Wicentowski，"根据拟议的密苏里州法案，违抗警方'请勿越线'规定将构成犯罪"，River Front Times (博客)，2016 年 2 月 23 日，https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/12/23/defying-police-do-not-cross-line-would-be-a-crime-under-proposed-missouri-bill。

6. HB37 died in committee, leaving the offense punishable by an up to $500 fine and community service.

6.HB37 法案在委员会中被否决，该法案规定对违法行为处以最高 500 美元的罚款和社区服务。

7. See Jefferson D. Pooley, “Open Media Scholarship: The Case for Open Access in Media Studies,” International Journal of Communication 10 (2016): 6148–6164.

7.见 Jefferson D. Pooley, "Open Media Scholarship：The Case for Open Access in Media Studies," International Journal of Communication 10 (2016)：6148-6164.

8. Rena Bivens, “The Gender Binary Will Not Be Deprogrammed: Ten Years of Coding Gender on Facebook,” New Media & Society 19, no. 6 (2017): 880–898.

8.Rena Bivens, "The Gender Binary Will Not Be Deprogrammed：10 Years of Coding Gender on Facebook》，New Media & Society 19, no：880-898.

9. Ernst Schraube, “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences,” Theory & Psychology 19, no. 2 (2009): 296–312.

9.Ernst Schraube, "Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences," Theory & Psychology 19, no：296-312.

10. Brian Wansink, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter, “Ice Cream Illusions: Bowls, Spoons, and Self-Served Portion Sizes,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 31, no. 3 (2006):240–243.

10.Brian Wansink, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter, "Ice Cream Illusions：Bowls, Spoons, and Self-Served Portion Sizes," American Journal of Preventive Medicine 31, no.3 (2006):240-243.

11. Portions Master, “Products: 125lbs/57kg Skinny Plate,” https://portionsmaster.com/products/view/125lbs-57kg-portions-master.

11.份量大师，"产品：125lbs/57kg Skinny Plate，" https://portionsmaster.com/products/view/125lbs-57kg-portions-master。

12. Jenny L. Davis, “Authenticity, Digital Media, and Person Identity Verification,” in Identities in Everyday Life, ed. Jan E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, 93–111 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

12.Jenny L. Davis, "Authenticity, Digital Media, and Person Identity Verification," in Identities in Everyday Life, ed. Jan E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, 93-111 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019)。Jan E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, 93-111 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019)。

13. Noah J. Springer, “Publics and Counterpublics on the Front Page of the Internet: The Cultural Practices, Technological Affordances, Hybrid Economies, and Politics of Reddit’s Public Sphere” (PhD diss., University of Colorado, Boulder, 2015); Malte Ziewitz, “Evaluation as Governance: The Practical Politics of Reviewing, Rating and Ranking on the Web” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2013).

13.Noah J. Springer, "Publics and Counterpublics on the Front Page of the Internet：The Cultural Practices, Technological Affordances, Hybrid Economies, and Politics of Reddit's Public Sphere" (PhD diss., University of Colorado, Boulder, 2015); Malte Ziewitz, "Evaluation as Governance：The Practical Politics of Reviewing, Rating and Ranking on the Web"（牛津大学博士论文，2013 年）。

14. Christopher M. Julien, “The Iconic Ghetto, Color-Blind Racism and White Masculinities: A Content and Discourse Analysis of Black Twitter on www.Imgur.com” (MA thesis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, 2017).

14.Christopher M. Julien, "The Iconic Ghetto, Color-Blind Racism and White Masculinities：A Content and Discourse Analysis of Black Twitter on www.Imgur.com"（硕士论文，北卡罗来纳大学格林斯博罗分校，2017 年）。

15. Bernward Joerges, “Do Politics Have Artefacts?,” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 411–431; Steve Woolgar and Geoff Cooper, “Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&Ts,” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 433–449.

15.Bernward Joerges, "Do Politics Have Artefacts?" Social Studies of Science 29, no.3 (1999):411-431; Steve Woolgar and Geoff Cooper, "Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence?摩西之桥、胜利者之桥及其他科技领域的都市传奇》，《科学社会研究》第 29 卷第 3 期（1999 年）：411-431；Steve Woolgar 和 Geoff Cooper，《人工制品是否具有矛盾性？3 (1999):433-449.

16. See Nathan Jurgenson, The Social Photo: On Photography and Social Media (London: Verso, 2019).

16.见 Nathan Jurgenson, The Social Photo：论摄影与社交媒体》（伦敦：Verso，2019 年）。

17. Julia Angwin, Madeleine Varner, and Ariana Tobin, “Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach ‘Jew Haters,’” ProPublica, September 4, 2017, https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters.

17.Julia Angwin、Madeleine Varner 和 Ariana Tobin，"Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach 'Jew Haters'"，ProPublica，2017 年 9 月 4 日，https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters。

18. Alex Kantrowitz, “Google Allowed Advertisers to Target People Searching Racist Phrases,” BuzzFeed News, September 16, 2017, https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/google-allowed-advertisers-to-target-jewish-parasite-black?utm_term=.px1Y52YxQ#.pqB54857A.

18.Alex Kantrowitz, "Google Allowed Advertisers to Target People Searching Racist Phrases," BuzzFeed News, September 16, 2017, https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/google-allowed-advertisers-to-target-jewish-parasite-black?utm_term=.px1Y52YxQ#.pqB54857A.

Chapter 5

第 5 章

1. Chelsea Gorrow, “Bystander Arrested as Police Handle Standoff,” Register-Guard (Eugene, OR), August 22, 2014, http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32047393-75/woman-arrested-for-crossing-police-line.html.csp.

1.Chelsea Gorrow，"Bystander Arrested as Police Handle Standoff"，Register-Guard（俄勒冈州尤金市），2014 年 8 月 22 日，http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32047393-75/woman-arrested-for-crossing-police-line.html.csp。

2. “Jefferson Westside, Eugene, OR Livability,” Areavibes, https://www.areavibes.com/eugene-or/jefferson+westside/livability.

2."Jefferson Westside, Eugene, OR Livability," Areavibes, https://www.areavibes.com/eugene-or/jefferson+westside/livability.

3. Jenny L. Davis and James B. Chouinard, “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, no. 4 (2016): 245

3.Jenny L. Davis 和 James B. Chouinard，"Theorizing Affordances：From Request to Refuse," Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, no.4 (2016): 245

4. Joanna McGrenere and Wayne Ho, “Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept,” in Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–17 May 2000 (Montreal: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 2000), 7.

4.Joanna McGrenere 和 Wayne Ho，"Affordances：Clarifying and Evolving a Concept," in Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000：加拿大魁北克蒙特利尔，2000 年 5 月 15-17 日》（蒙特利尔：加拿大人机通信学会，2000 年），第 7 页。

5. Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019).

5.Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design：用道德想象塑造技术》（马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社，2019 年）。

6. Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).

6.Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).

7. Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 2 (2012): 304.

7.Gina Neff, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie, "Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no：304.

8. See José Van Dijck, The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Taina Bucher, If . . . Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018); Jenny L. Davis, “Curation: A Theoretical Treatment,” Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 5 (2017): 770–793.

8.见 José Van Dijck, The Culture of Connectivity：A Critical History of Social Media (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)；Taina Bucher, If .Then：.Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics》（纽约：牛津大学出版社，2018 年）；Jenny L. Davis，"Curation：A Theoretical Treatment," Information, Communication & Society 20, no.5 (2017):770-793.

9. Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015); Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018); Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).

9.Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society：The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015)；Siva Vaidhyanathan, Antisocial Media：Facebook 是如何让我们断开联系并破坏民主的》（牛津：牛津大学出版社，2018 年）；塔莱顿-吉莱斯皮：《互联网的监护人》（Custodians of the Internet：Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media（纽黑文：耶鲁大学出版社，2018 年）。

10. See Michael Oliver and Colin Barnes, The New Politics of Disablement (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

10.见 Michael Oliver 和 Colin Barnes, The New Politics of Disablement (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012)。

11. William H. Warren, “Perceiving Affordances: Visual Guidance of Stair Climbing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, no. 5 (1984): 683–703.

11.William H. Warren, "Perceiving Affordances：爬楼梯的视觉引导》，《实验心理学杂志：人类感知与表现》第 10 期，第 5 页（1984 年）。5 (1984):683-703.

12. Andrew Kirkpatrick, Joshue O’Connor, Alastair Campbell, and Michael Cooper, “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1,” W3C Recommendation 05 June 2018, World Wide Web Consortium, https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21.

12.Andrew Kirkpatrick、Joshue O'Connor、Alastair Campbell 和 Michael Cooper，"网络内容可访问性指南（WCAG）2.1"，W3C 建议，2018 年 6 月 5 日，万维网联盟，https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21。

13. Stefanie Duguay, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor, “Queer Women’s Experiences of Patchwork Platform Governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technology (June 19, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856518781530.

13.Stefanie Duguay, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor, "Queer Women's Experiences of Patchwork Platform Governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine," Convergence：新媒体技术研究国际期刊》（2018 年 6 月 19 日），https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856518781530。

14. Tinder has since made its flagging feature more prominent.

14.此后，Tinder 的标记功能变得更加突出。

15. Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe, “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, no. 4 (2007): 1143–1168; Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe, “Connection Strategies: Social Capital Implications of Facebook-Enabled Communication Practices,” New Media & Society 13, no. 6 (2011): 1873–1892.

15.Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe, "The Benefits of Facebook 'Friends'：Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites," Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, no.4 (2007):1143-1168; Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe, "Connection Strategies：6 (2011)：1873-1892.

16. Hua Wang, Renwen Zhang, and Barry Wellman, “Are Older Adults Networked Individuals? Insights from East Yorkers’ Network Structure, Relational Autonomy, and Digital Media Use,” Information, Communication & Society 21, no. 5 (2018): 681–696; Anabel Quan-Haase, Guang Ying Mo, and Barry Wellman, “Connected Seniors: How Older Adults in East York Exchange Social Support Online and Offline,” Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 7 (2017): 967–983.

16.Hua Wang, Renwen Zhang, and Barry Wellman, "Are Older Adults Networked Individuals?从东约克人的网络结构、关系自主性和数字媒体使用中得到的启示》，《信息、传播与社会》21，no.5 (2018):681-696; Anabel Quan-Haase, Guang Ying Mo, and Barry Wellman, "Connected Seniors：东纽约的老年人如何在线和离线交换社会支持》，《信息、传播与社会》20，第 7 期（2017 年）：967-983.

17. Alice Marwick, Claire Fontaine, and danah boyd, “‘Nobody Sees It, Nobody Gets Mad’: Social Media, Privacy, and Personal Responsibility among Low-SES Youth,” Social Media + Society 3, no. 2 (2017); Robin Stevens, Stacia Gilliard-Matthews, Jamie Dunaev, Marcus K. Woods, and Bridgette M. Brawner, “The Digital Hood: Social Media Use among Youth in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods,” New Media & Society 19, no. 6 (2017): 950–967.

17.Alice Marwick, Claire Fontaine, and danah Boyd, "'没人看到，没人生气'：2 (2017); Robin Stevens, Stacia Gilliard-Matthews, Jamie Dunaev, Marcus K. Woods, and Bridgette M. Brawner, "The Digital Hood: Social Media Use among Youth in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods," New Media & Society 19, no：950-967.

18. Saudi Arabia was the last country to maintain legal bans against women drivers.

18.沙特阿拉伯是最后一个在法律上禁止女司机的国家。

Chapter 6

第 6 章

1. André Brock, “Life on the Wire: Deconstructing Race on the Internet,” Information, Communication & Society 12, no. 3 (2009): 344–363; André Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 1012–1033.

1.André Brock, "Life on the Wire：Deconstructing Race on the Internet," Information, Communication & Society 12, no.3 (2009):344-363; André Brock, "Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis," New Media & Society 20, no.3 (2018):1012-1033.

2. Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” 1016.

2.Brock, "Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis," 1016。

3. Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” 1020 (emphasis in original).

3.Brock, "Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis," 1020 (emphasis in original).

4. Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” 1023.

4.Brock, "Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis," 1023。

5. Sonia Livingstone, “On the Material and the Symbolic: Silverstone’s Double Articulation of Research Traditions in New Media Studies,” New Media & Society 9, no. 1 (2007): 16–24.

5.Sonia Livingstone, "On the Material and the Symbolic：Silverstone's Double Articulation of Research Traditions in New Media Studies," New Media & Society 9, no：16-24.

6. Ronald E. Day, “Kling and the ‘Critical’: Social Informatics and Critical Informatics,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, no. 4 (2007): 575–582.

6.Ronald E. Day, "Kling and the 'Critical'：6. Ronald E. Day, "Kling and 'Critical': Social Informatics and Critical Informatics," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, no.4 (2007):575-582.

7. Lisa Nakamura, “Cultural Difference, Theory and Cyberculture Studies: A Case of Mutual Repulsion,” in Critical Cyberculture Studies, ed. David Silver and Adrienne Massanari, 29–36 (New York: New York University Press, 2006).

7.Lisa Nakamura，"文化差异、理论与网络文化研究：A Case of Mutual Repulsion," in Critical Cyberculture Studies, ed. David Silver and Adrienne Massanari, 29-36 (New York: New York University Press, 2006)。David Silver and Adrienne Massanari, 29-36 (New York: New York University Press, 2006)。

8. Jenny L. Davis, “The End of What People Do Online,” New Criticals (blog), 2017, http://www.newcriticals.com/the-end-of-what-people-do-online.

8.珍妮-L-戴维斯：《人们在网上所作所为的终结》，《新批评》（博客），2017 年，http://www.newcriticals.com/the-end-of-what-people-do-online。

9. Roger S. Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).

9.Roger S. Pressman, Software Engineering：A Practitioner's Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).

10. Ben Light, Jean Burgess, and Stefanie Duguay, “The Walkthrough Method: An Approach to the Study of Apps,” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 881–900.

10.Ben Light, Jean Burgess, and Stefanie Duguay, "The Walkthrough Method：一种研究应用程序的方法》，《新媒体与社会》20，no.3 (2018):881-900.

11. Michael E. Fagan, “Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development,” IBM Systems Journal 38, no. 2/3 (1999): 258.

11.Michael E. Fagan, "Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development," IBM Systems Journal 38, no：258.

12. Light, Burgess, and Duguay, “The Walkthrough Method.”

12.Light、Burgess 和 Duguay，"演练法"。

13. Susan Leigh Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” American Behavioral Scientist 43, no. 3 (1999): 377–391.

13.Susan Leigh Star, "The Ethnography of Infrastructure," American Behavioral Scientist 43, no.3 (1999):377-391.

14. Light, Burgess, and Duguay, “The Walkthrough Method,” 883.

14.Light、Burgess 和 Duguay 著，"演练法"，第 883 页。

15. See Stefanie Duguay, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor, “Queer Women’s Experiences of Patchwork Platform Governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies (June 19, 2018).

15.见 Stefanie Duguay、Jean Burgess 和 Nicolas Suzor，"Queer Women's Experiences of Patchwork Platform Governance on Tinder，Instagram，and Vine，"Convergence：新媒体技术研究国际期刊》（2018 年 6 月 19 日）。

16. Light, Burgess, and Duguay, “The Walkthrough Method,” 887.

16.Light、Burgess 和 Duguay 著，"演练法"，第 887 页。

17. Edwin Sayes, “Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Just What Does It Mean to Say That Nonhumans Have Agency?,” Social Studies of Science 44, no. 1 (2014): 134–149.

17.Edwin Sayes, "Actor-Network Theory and Methodology：Just What Does It Mean to Say That Nonhumans Have Agency?" Social Studies of Science 44, no：134-149.

18. Rena Bivens and Amy Adele Hasinoff, “Rape: Is There an App for That? An Empirical Analysis of the Features of Anti-Rape Apps,” Information, Communication & Society 21, no. 8 (2018): 1051.

18.Rena Bivens and Amy Adele Hasinoff, "Rape: Is There an App for That?反强奸应用程序功能的实证分析》，《信息、传播与社会》21，第 8 期（2018 年）：1051.

19. Bivens and Hasinoff, “Rape: Is There an App for That?”

19.Bivens 和 Hasinoff，"强奸：有应用程序吗？

20. Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Miriam Gleckman-Krut, and Lanora Johnson, “Silence, Power, and Inequality: An Intersectional Approach to Sexual Violence,” Annual Review of Sociology 44 (2018): 99–122.

20.Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Miriam Gleckman-Krut, and Lanora Johnson, "Silence, Power, and Inequality：An Intersectional Approach to Sexual Violence," Annual Review of Sociology 44 (2018)：99-122.

21. Bivens and Hasinoff, “Rape: Is There an App for That?,” 1052.

21.Bivens and Hasinoff, "Rape: Is There an App for That?", 1052.

22. Bivens and Hasinoff, “Rape: Is There an App for That?,” 1053.

22.Bivens and Hasinoff, "Rape: Is There an App for That?", 1053.

23. Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019); Batya Friedman, P. Kahn, and Alan Borning, “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems,” in Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems: Foundations, ed. Ping Zhang and Dennis F Galletta, 348–372 (New York: Routledge, 2006).

23.Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry, Value Sensitive Design：Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019); Batya Friedman, P. Kahn, and Alan Borning, "Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems," in Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems：基础》，张平、Dennis F Gallet 编辑。Ping Zhang and Dennis F Galletta, 348-372 (New York: Routledge, 2006)。

24. Alexei Czeskis et al., “Parenting from the Pocket: Value Tensions and Technical Directions for Secure and Private Parent-Teen Mobile Safety,” in SOUPS ’10: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. Redmond, Washington, USA, July 14–16 2010 (New York: ACM, 2010); Mary Flanagan, Daniel C. Howe, and Helen Nissenbaum, “Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-Oriented Game Design,” in CHI ’05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Portland, Oregon, USA, April 02–07 2005, 751–760 (New York: ACM, 2005); Batya Friedman and David Hendry, “The Envisioning Cards: A Toolkit for Catalyzing Humanistic and Technical Imaginations,” in CHI ’12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Austin, Texas, USA, May 05–10 2012, 1145–1148 (New York: ACM, 2012); Lisa P. Nathan, Predrag V. Klasnja, and Batya Friedman, “Value Scenarios: A Technique for Envisioning Systemic Effects of New Technologies,” in Proceedings of CHI ’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, April 28–May 3, 2007, 2585–2590 (New York: ACM, 2007)); Katie Shilton, “Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design,” Science, Technology & Human Values 38, no. 3 (2013): 374–397.

24.Alexei Czeskis 等人，"Parenting from the Pocket：安全和隐私的家长-青少年移动安全的价值张力和技术方向"，《SOUPS '10：第六届可用隐私和安全研讨会论文集》。美国华盛顿州雷德蒙德，2010 年 7 月 14-16 日（纽约：ACM，2010 年）；Mary Flanagan、Daniel C. Howe 和 Helen Nissenbaum，"Values at Play：以社会为导向的游戏设计中的设计权衡"，《CHI '05：计算机系统中的人为因素 SIGCHI 会议论文集》，美国俄勒冈州波特兰。美国俄勒冈州波特兰，2005 年 4 月 2 日至 7 日，751-760 页（纽约：ACM，2005 年）；Batya Friedman 和 David Hendry，"设想卡：催化人文和技术想象力的工具包"，《CHI '12：计算机系统中的人为因素 SIGCHI 会议论文集》。美国德克萨斯州奥斯汀，2012 年 5 月 5-10 日，1145-1148（纽约：ACM，2012 年）；Lisa P. Nathan、Predrag V. Klasnja 和 Batya Friedman，"Value Scenarios：A Technique for Envisioning Systemic Effects of New Technologies," in Proceedings of CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, April 28-May 3, 2007, 2585-2590 (New York: ACM, 2007)); Katie Shilton, "Values Levers：科学、技术与人类价值 38, no.3 (2013):374-397.

25. Katie Shilton, Jes A. Koepfler, and Kenneth R. Fleischmann, “How to See Values in Social Computing: Methods for Studying Values Dimensions,” in Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Baltimore, MD, February 15–19, 2014, 426–435 (New York: ACM, 2014); Katie Shilton, “Engaging Values Despite Neutrality: Challenges and Approaches to Values Reflection during the Design of Internet Infrastructure,” Science, Technology & Human Values 43, no. 2 (2018): 247–269.

25.Katie Shilton, Jes A. Koepfler, and Kenneth R. Fleischmann, "How to See Values in Social Computing：How to See Values in Social Computing: Methods for Studying Values Dimensions," in Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Baltimore, MD, February 15-19, 2014, 426-435 (New York: ACM, 2014); Katie Shilton, "Engaging Values Despite Neutrality：互联网基础设施设计过程中价值观反思的挑战与方法》，《科学、技术与人类价值观》第 43 期，第 2 号（2018 年）：247-269。

26. Shilton, “Engaging Values Despite Neutrality.”

26.Shilton, "Engaging Values Despite Neutrality".

27. Carl DiSalvo, Adversarial Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012).

27.Carl DiSalvo, Adversarial Design (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012)。

28. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects (Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2001).

28.Anthony Dunne 和 Fiona Raby，《黑色设计：电子物品的秘密生活》（柏林：Springer Science & Business Media，2001 年）。

29. Chantal Mouffe, “Some Reflections on an Agonistic Approach to the Public,” in Making Things Public, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 804–807 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).

29.Chantal Mouffe, "Some Reflections on an Agonistic Approach to the Public," in Making Things Public, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 804-807 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).

30. DiSalvo, Adversarial Design.

30.DiSalvo, Adversarial Design.

31. DiSalvo, Adversarial Design, 113

31.DiSalvo, Adversarial Design, 113

32. Mark Shepard, “Sentient City Survival Kit: Archaeology of the Near Future,” in Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference, 2009. After Media: Embodiment and Context, University of California, Irvine, December 12–15, 2009.

32.Mark Shepard，"智能城市生存工具包：近未来考古学》，《数字艺术与文化会议论文集》，2009 年。媒体之后：体现与语境》，加利福尼亚大学欧文分校，2009 年 12 月 12-15 日。

33. See George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society, vol. 111 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934); Jenny L. Davis and Tony P. Love, “Self-in-Self, Mind-in-Mind, Heart-in-Heart: The Future of Role-Taking, Perspective Taking, and Empathy,” in Advances in Group Processes, ed. Shane R. Thye and Edward J. Lawler, 151–174 (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing, 2017); Michael L. Schwalbe, “Role Taking Reconsidered: Linking Competence and Performance to Social Structure,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 18, no. 4 (1988): 411–436.

33.见 George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society, vol. 111 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934); Jenny L. Davis and Tony P. Love, "Self-in-Self, Mind-in-Mind, Heart-in-Heart：角色扮演、透视和移情的未来"，《团体进程的进展》，Shane R. Thye 和 Edward P. Love 编辑。Shane R. Thye and Edward J. Lawler, 151-174 (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing, 2017)；Michael L. Schwalbe, "Role Taking Reconsidered：Linking Competence and Performance to Social Structure," Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 18, no.4 (1988):411-436.

Chapter 7

第 7 章

1. James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 285.

1.James J. Gibson, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 285.

2. Humanising Machine Intelligence, https://hmi.anu.edu.au.

2.机器智能人性化》，https://hmi.anu.edu.au。

3. Cambridge Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI) (http://lcfi.ac.uk/); Oxford Artificial Intelligence Society (http://oxai.org), Future of Humanity Institute (https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk), and Centre for Governance of AI (https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/govai/); Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (https://hai.stanford.edu); Tsinghua University Institute for Artificial Intelligence (https://gbtimes.com/tsinghua-university-establishes-institute-of-artificial-intelligence); AI Now Institute (https://ainowinstitute.org); DeepMind (https://deepmind.com); OpenAI (https://openai.com); Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (https://allenai.org).

3.剑桥 Leverhulme 未来智能中心（CFI）( http://lcfi.ac.uk/)；牛津人工智能学会( http://oxai.org)、人类未来研究所( https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk)和人工智能治理中心( https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/govai/)；斯坦福以人为本人工智能研究所( https://hai.stanford.edu)；清华大学人工智能研究所( https://gbtimes.com/tsinghua-university-establishes-institute-of-artificial-intelligence)；AI Now 研究所( https://ainowinstitute.org)；DeepMind( https://deepmind.com)；OpenAI( https://openai.com)；艾伦人工智能研究所( https://allenai.org)。

4. Laura Robinson et al., “Digital Inequalities and Why They Matter,” Information, Communication & Society 18, no. 5 (2015): 569–582.

4.Laura Robinson et al., "Digital Inequalities and Why They Matter," Information, Communication & Society 18, no.5 (2015):569-582.

5. André Brock, “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis,” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 1012–1030.

5.André Brock, "Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis," New Media & Society 20, no.3 (2018):1012-1030.

6. Philippe Verduyn et al., “Do Social Network Sites Enhance or Undermine Subjective Well-Being? A Critical Review,” Social Issues and Policy Review 11, no. 1 (2017): 274–302.

6.Philippe Verduyn 等人，《社交网站会提升还是削弱主观幸福感？批判性评论》，《社会问题与政策评论》第 11 期（2017 年）：274-302.

7. Amy Orben and Andrew K. Przybylski, “The Association between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use,” Nature Human Behaviour 3, no. 2 (2019): 173–182.

7.Amy Orben and Andrew K. Przybylski, "The Association between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use," Nature Human Behaviour 3, no：173-182.

8. Markus Prior, Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

8.Markus Prior, Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

9. Manuel Castells, Communication Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

9.Manuel Castells，《传播权力》（牛津：牛津大学出版社，2013 年）。

10. Jonathan Hopkin and Ben Rosamond, “Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK,” New Political Economy 23, no. 6 (2017): 641–655; Stephen Barnard, Citizens at the Gates (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

10.Jonathan Hopkin and Ben Rosamond, "Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas：Deficit Fetishism' in the UK," New Political Economy 23, no：641-655; Stephen Barnard, Citizens at the Gates (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

11. Maya Indira Ganesh, “Entanglement: Machine Learning and Human Ethics in Driver-Less Car Crashes,” APRJA, http://www.aprja.net/entanglement-machine-learning-and-human-ethics-in-driver-less-car-crashes (2017); Robert Sparrow and Mark Howard, “When Human Beings Are Like Drunk Robots: Driverless Vehicles, Ethics, and the Future of Transport,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 80 (2017): 206–215.

11.Maya Indira Ganesh，"Entanglement：机器学习与无人驾驶汽车碰撞中的人类伦理》，APRJA, http://www.aprja.net/entanglement-machine-learning-and-human-ethics-in-driver-less-car-crashes (2017)；Robert Sparrow 和 Mark Howard, "When Human Beings Are Like Drunk Robots：无人驾驶汽车、伦理与运输的未来》，《运输研究》C 部分：新兴技术 80（2017 年）：206-215.

12. Matthew Claudel and Carlo Ratti, “Full Speed Ahead: How the Driverless Car Could Transform Cities,” McKinsey & Company (2015), https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/full-speed-ahead-how-the-driverless-car-could-transform-cities.

12.Matthew Claudel 和 Carlo Ratti，"全速前进：无人驾驶汽车如何改变城市》，麦肯锡公司（2015 年），https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/full-speed-ahead-how-the-driverless-car-could-transform-cities。

13. “World’s First Gene-Edited Babies Created in China, Claims Scientist,” The Guardian, November 26, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist.

13."科学家称世界首例基因编辑婴儿在中国诞生"，《卫报》，2018 年 11 月 26 日，https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist。

14. Deborah Lupton, “Quantifying the Body: Monitoring and Measuring Health in the Age of mHealth Technologies,” Critical Public Health 23, no. 4 (2013): 393–403; Deborah Lupton and Gavin J. D. Smith, “‘A Much Better Person’: The Agential Capacities of Self-Tracking Practices,” in Metric Culture: Ontologies of Self-Tracking Practices, ed. Btijah Ajana, 57–75 (London: Emerald Publishing, 2018); Gina Neff and Dawn Nafus, Self-Tracking (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016).

14.Deborah Lupton, "Quantifying the Body：14. Deborah Lupton, "Quantifying Body: Monitoring and Measuring Health in the Age of mHealth Technologies," Critical Public Health 23, no.4 (2013):393-403; Deborah Lupton and Gavin J. D. Smith, "A 'A Much Better Person'：自我追踪实践的行动能力"，载于《度量文化》：Btijah Ajana 编辑，57-75（伦敦：Emerald 出版社，2018 年）；Gina Neff 和 Dawn Nafus，《自我跟踪》（马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社，2016 年）。

15. Gabi Schaffzin, “Reclaiming the Margins in the Face of the Quantified Self,” Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal 14, no. 2 (2018).

15.Gabi Schaffzin, "Reclaiming the Margins in the Face of the Quantified Self," Review of Disability Studies：14, no. 2 (2018)。

Bibliography

参考书目

Anderson, Warwick. “From Subjugated Knowledge to Conjugated Subjects: Science and Globalisation, or Postcolonial Studies of Science?” Postcolonial Studies 12, no. 4 (2009): 389–400.

Anderson, Warwick."从被征服的知识到被征服的主体：科学与全球化，还是科学的后殖民研究？"Postcolonial Studies 12, no.4 (2009):389-400.

Andrejevic, Mark. “Data Collection without Limits: Automated Policing and the Politics of Framelessness.” In Big Data, Crime and Social Control, edited by Ales Zavrsnik, 111–125. New York: Routledge, 2017.

Andrejevic, Mark."无限制的数据收集：自动化警务与无框架政治"。大数据、犯罪与社会控制》，Ales Zavrsnik 编辑，111-125 页。New York：Routledge, 2017.

Angwin, Julia, Madeleine Varner, and Ariana Tobin. “Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach ‘Jew Haters.’” ProPublica, September 4, 2017, https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters.

Angwin、Julia、Madeleine Varner 和 Ariana Tobin。"Facebook让广告商接触到'仇视犹太人的人'"。ProPublica，2017 年 9 月 4 日，https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters。

Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Miriam Gleckman-Krut, and Lanora Johnson. “Silence, Power, and Inequality: An Intersectional Approach to Sexual Violence.” Annual Review of Sociology 44 (2018): 99–122.

Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Miriam Gleckman-Krut, and Lanora Johnson."沉默、权力与不平等：性暴力的交叉方法"。Annual Review of Sociology 44 (2018)：99-122.

Banks, David. “A Brief Summary of Actor Network Theory.” Cyborgology (blog). The Society Pages, 2011. https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-of-actor-network-theory.

Banks, David."行为者网络理论简述"。Cyborgology (blog).The Society Pages, 2011. https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-of-actor-network-theory.

Barnard, Stephen. Citizens at the Gates. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

巴纳德，斯蒂芬。门口的公民》。纽约：Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.

Benjamin, Ruha. “Catching Our Breath: Critical Race STS and the Carceral Imagination.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2 (2016): 145–156.

本杰明、鲁哈"Catching Our Breath：Critical Race STS and the Carceral Imagination."Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2 (2016)：145-156.

Berg, Marc. “The Politics of Technology: On Bringing Social Theory into Technological Design.” Science, Technology & Human Values 23, no. 4 (1998): 456–490.

Berg, Marc."技术的政治学：论将社会理论引入技术设计"。Science, Technology & Human Values 23, no.4 (1998):456-490.

Bivens, Rena. “The Gender Binary Will Not Be Deprogrammed: Ten Years of Coding Gender on Facebook.” New Media & Society 19, no. 6 (2017): 880–898.

Bivens, Rena."性别二元不会被去编程化：Facebook 上的性别编码十年"。New Media & Society 19, no：880-898.

Bivens, Rena, and Amy Adele Hasinoff. “Rape: Is There an App for That? An Empirical Analysis of the Features of Anti-Rape Apps.” Information, Communication & Society 21, no. 8 (2018): 1050–1067.

Bivens, Rena, and Amy Adele Hasinoff."强奸：有适用的应用程序吗？反强奸应用程序功能的实证分析"。信息、通信与社会》21，第 8 期（2018 年）：1050-1067.

Bloor, David. “Anti-Latour.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30, no. 1 (1999): 81–112.

Bloor, David."Anti-Latour.科学史与科学哲学研究》A 部分 30，第 1 期（1999 年）：81-112.

boyd, danah. “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In A Networked Self, edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 47–66. New York: Routledge, 2010.

BOYD, DANAH."社交网站作为网络化的公众：Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications." In A Networked Self, edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 47-66.In A Networked Self, edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 47-66.New York：Routledge, 2010.

Brayne, Sarah. “Big Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing.” American Sociological Review 82, no. 5 (2017): 977–1008.

Brayne, Sarah."大数据监控：警务案例"。American Sociological Review 82, no.5 (2017):977-1008.

Brock, André. “Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis.” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 1012–1030.

Brock, André."批判性技术文化话语分析"。New Media & Society 20, no.3 (2018):1012-1030.

Brock, André. “From the Blackhand Side: Twitter as a Cultural Conversation.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 4 (2012): 529–549.

Brock, André."来自黑手党：推特作为一种文化对话"。Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no.4 (2012):529-549.

Brock, André. “Life on the Wire: Deconstructing Race on the Internet.” Information, Communication & Society 12, no. 3 (2009): 344–363.

Brock, André."电线上的生活：解构互联网上的种族"。Information, Communication & Society 12, no.3 (2009):344-363.

Broussard, Meredith. Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018.

Broussard, Meredith.人工智能：How Computers Misunderstand the World.马萨诸塞州剑桥市：麻省理工学院出版社，2018 年。

Bruckner, Matthew Adam. “The Promise and Perils of Algorithmic Lenders’ Use of Big Data.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 93, no. 1 (2018): 3.

布鲁克纳，马修-亚当。"算法贷款人使用大数据的承诺与危险"。Chicago-Kent Law Review 93, no. 1 (2018)：3.

Bucher, Taina. If . . . Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.

布赫，泰娜如果 . . .然后：算法权力与政治》。牛津大学出版社，2018 年：牛津大学出版社，2018 年。

Burlamaqui, Leonardo, and Andy Dong. “The Use and Misuse of the Concept of Affordance.” In Design Computing and Cognition ’14, edited by John S. Gero and Sean Hanna, 295–311. Basel: Springer, 2015.

Burlamaqui, Leonardo, and Andy Dong."The Use and Misuse of the Concept of Affordance." In Design Computing and Cognition '14, edited by John S. Gero and Sean Hanna, 295-311.In Design Computing and Cognition '14, edited by John S. Gero and Sean Hanna, 295-311.巴塞尔：Springer, 2015.

Callon, Michel. “The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle.” In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World, edited by Michel Callon, John Law, and Arie Rip, 19–34. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1986.

Callon, Michel."行为者网络社会学：电动汽车案例"。In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology：由 Michel Callon、John Law 和 Arie Rip 编辑，19-34。伦敦：伦敦：帕尔格雷夫-麦克米伦出版社，1986 年。

Callon, Michel, and John Law. “After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society.” Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 22, no. 2 (1997): 165–182.

卡隆、米歇尔和约翰-劳。"社会中的个人之后：从科学、技术和社会中汲取集体主义的教训"。Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 22, no：165-182.

Castells, Manuel. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Castells, Manuel.Communication Power.牛津大学出版社，2013 年：牛津大学出版社，2013 年。

Chemero, Anthony. “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances.” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 181–195.

Chemero, Anthony."情境理论概要"。Ecological Psychology 15, no：181-195.

Ciavola, Benjamin T., and John K. Gershenson. “Affordance Theory for Engineering Design.” Research in Engineering Design 27, no. 3 (2016): 251–263.

Ciavola, Benjamin T., and John K. Gershenson."工程设计的承受力理论"。工程设计研究》第 27 卷第 3 期（2016 年）：251-263。3 (2016): 251-263.

Claudel, Matthew, and Carlo Ratti. “Full Speed Ahead: How the Driverless Car Could Transform Cities.” McKinsey & Company, 2015. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/full-speed-ahead-how-the-driverless-car-could-transform-cities.

Claudel, Matthew 和 Carlo Ratti."全速前进：无人驾驶汽车如何改变城市"。麦肯锡公司，2015 年。https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/full-speed-ahead-how-the-driverless-car-could-transform-cities。

Cochoy, Franck. “Driving a Shopping Cart from STS to Business, and the Other Way Round: On the Introduction of Shopping Carts in American Grocery Stores (1936–1959).” Organization 16, no. 1 (2009): 31–55.

Cochoy, Franck."驾驶购物车从 STS 到商业，以及反其道而行之：论美国杂货店引入购物车（1936-1959 年）"。Organization 16, no：31-55.

Conole, Grainne, and Martin Dyke. “What Are the Affordances of Information and Communication Technologies?” ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 12, no. 2 (2004): 113–124.

Conole, Grainne, and Martin Dyke."信息与传播技术的优势是什么？"ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology 12, no：113-124.

Cooper, Alan, Robert Reimann, and David Cronin. About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2007.

Cooper, Alan, Robert Reimann, and David Cronin.About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design.新泽西州霍博肯：Wiley，2007 年。

Crawford, Kate. “Can an Algorithm Be Agonistic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics.” Science, Technology & Human Values 41, no. 1 (2016): 77–92.

Crawford, Kate."算法也会有争论吗？计算公共生活中的十个场景"。科学、技术与人类价值》第 41 期（2016 年）：77-92.

Crawford, Kate, and Tarleton Gillespie. “What Is a Flag For? Social Media Reporting Tools and the Vocabulary of Complaint.” New Media & Society 18, no. 3 (2016): 410–428.

克劳福德、凯特和塔莱顿-吉莱斯皮。"旗帜有什么用？社交媒体报道工具与投诉词汇"。New Media & Society 18, no.3 (2016):410-428.

Crawford, Kate, and Meredith Whittaker. “The AI Now Report: The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near-Term.” AI Now Institute, September 22, 2016. https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2016_Report.pdf.

Crawford, Kate, and Meredith Whittaker."人工智能报告：近期人工智能技术的社会和经济影响"。AI Now 研究所，2016 年 9 月 22 日。https://ainowinstitute.org/AI_Now_2016_Report.pdf。

Cutting, James E. “Two Ecological Perspectives: Gibson vs. Shaw and Turvey.” American Journal of Psychology 95, no. 2 (1982): 199–222.

Cutting, James E. "Two Ecological Perspectives：Gibson vs. Shaw and Turvey."American Journal of Psychology 95, no：199-222.

Czeskis, Alexei, Ivayla Dermendjieva, Hussein Yapit, Alan Borning, Batya Friedman, Brian Gill, and Tadayoshi Kohno. “Parenting from the Pocket: Value Tensions and Technical Directions for Secure and Private Parent-Teen Mobile Safety.” In SOUPS ’10: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. Redmond, Washington, USA, July 14–16 2010. New York: ACM, 2010.

Czeskis, Alexei, Ivayla Dermendjieva, Hussein Yapit, Alan Borning, Batya Friedman, Brian Gill, and Tadayoshi Kohno."口袋里的父母：安全私密的亲子移动安全的价值张力和技术方向"。In SOUPS '10: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security.美国华盛顿州雷德蒙德，2010 年 7 月 14-16 日。纽约：ACM, 2010.

Datta, Amit, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta. “Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings.” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2015, no. 1 (2015): 92–112.

Datta, Amit, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta."广告隐私设置自动实验"。1 (2015): 92-112.

Davis, Jenny. “Architecture of the Personal Interactive Homepage: Constructing the Self through Myspace.” New Media & Society 12, no. 7 (2010): 1103–1109.

Davis, Jenny.个人互动主页的架构：通过 Myspace 构建自我"：通过 Myspace 构建自我"。New Media & Society 12, no：1103-1109.

Davis, Jenny L. “Authenticity, Digital Media, and Person Identity Verification.” In Identities in Everyday Life, edited by Jan E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, 93–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Davis, Jenny L. "Authenticity, Digital Media, and Person Identity Verification." In Identities in Everyday Life, edited by Jan E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, 93-111.In Identities in Everyday Life, edited by Jan E. Stets and Richard T. Serpe, 93-111.牛津大学出版社，2019 年：牛津大学出版社，2019 年。

Davis, Jenny L. “Curation: A Theoretical Treatment.” Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 5 (2017): 770–783.

Davis, Jenny L. "Curation：A Theoretical Treatment."Information, Communication & Society 20, no.5 (2017):770-783.

Davis, Jenny L. “The End of What People Do Online.” New Criticals (blog), 2017. http://www.newcriticals.com/the-end-of-what-people-do-online.

戴维斯、珍妮-L. "人们在网上所作所为的终结"。新批评》（博客），2017 年。http://www.newcriticals.com/the-end-of-what-people-do-online。

Davis, Jenny L. “Triangulating the Self: Identity Processes in a Connected Era.” Symbolic Interaction 37, no. 4 (2014): 500–523.

Davis，Jenny L. "Triangulating the Self：Identity Processes in a Connected Era"。Symbolic Interaction 37, no.4 (2014):500-523.

Davis, Jenny L., and James B. Chouinard. “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, no. 4 (2016): 241–248.

Davis, Jenny L., and James B. Chouinard."Theorizing Affordances：从请求到拒绝"。Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36, no.4 (2016): 241-248.

Davis, Jenny L., and Tony P. Love. “Self-in-Self, Mind-in-Mind, Heart-in-Heart: The Future of Role-Taking, Perspective Taking, and Empathy.” In Advances in Group Processes, edited by Shane R. Thye and Edward J. Lawler, 151–174. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing, 2017.

戴维斯、珍妮-L.和托尼-P.-洛夫。"我中有我，我中有你，心心相印：角色扮演、视角把握和移情的未来"。小组进程的进展》，Shane R. Thye 和 Edward J. Lawler 编辑，151-174 页。英国宾利：Emerald 出版社，2017 年。

Day, Ronald E. “Kling and the “Critical”: Social Informatics and Critical Informatics.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, no. 4 (2007): 575–582.

Day, Ronald E. "Kling and the "Critical"：社会信息学与批判信息学"。Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, no.4 (2007):575-582.

Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus. Translated by Brian Massumi. London: Continuum, 1987.

德勒兹、吉尔和费利克斯-瓜塔里。千高原》。布莱恩-马苏米译。伦敦：Continuum, 1987.

Dinsmore, Brooke. “Contested Affordances: Teachers and Students Negotiating the Classroom Integration of Mobile Technology.” Information, Communication & Society 22, no. 5 (2019): 664–677.

Dinsmore, Brooke."有争议的使用权：师生协商移动技术的课堂整合"。Information, Communication & Society 22, no.5 (2019): 664-677.

DiSalvo, Carl. Adversarial Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.

DiSalvo, Carl.Adversarial Design.马萨诸塞州剑桥市：麻省理工学院出版社，2012 年。

Dotov, Dobromir G., Lin Nie, and Matthieu M. De Wit. “Understanding Affordances: History and Contemporary Development of Gibson’s Central Concept.” Avant: The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard 3, no. 2 (2012): 28–39.

Dotov, Dobromir G., Lin Nie, and Matthieu M. De Wit."Understanding Affordances：吉布森中心概念的历史与当代发展"。前卫：3, no. 2 (2012)：28-39.

Dourish, Paul. The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.

Dourish, Paul.The Stuff of Bits：信息物质性论文集》。马萨诸塞州剑桥市：MIT Press, 2017.

Duguay, Stefanie, Jean Burgess, and Nicolas Suzor. “Queer Women’s Experiences of Patchwork Platform Governance on Tinder, Instagram, and Vine.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies (June 19, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856518781530.

Duguay、Stefanie、Jean Burgess 和 Nicolas Suzor。"同性恋女性在 Tinder、Instagram 和 Vine 上的拼凑平台治理体验"。聚合：新媒体技术研究国际期刊》（2018 年 6 月 19 日）。https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856518781530。

Dunne, Anthony, and Fiona Raby. Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2001.

Dunne, Anthony, and Fiona Raby.黑色设计：电子物品的秘密生活》。柏林：Springer Science & Business Media, 2001.

Dyer, Richard. White: Essays on Race and Culture. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2017.

戴尔，理查德White：种族与文化论文集》。第 2 版。伦敦：Routledge, 2017.

Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends’: Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, no. 4 (2007): 1143–1168.

Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe."Facebook'好友'的好处：社会资本与大学生使用在线社交网站"。Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, no.4 (2007):1143-1168.

Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. “Connection Strategies: Social Capital Implications of Facebook-Enabled Communication Practices.” New Media & Society 13, no. 6 (2011): 873–892.

Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe."连接策略：社会资本对 Facebook 传播实践的影响"。New Media & Society 13, no：873-892.

Eubanks, Virginia. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2018.

Eubanks, Virginia.Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor.纽约：圣马丁出版社，2018 年。

Evans, Sandra K., Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem. “Explicating Affordances: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no. 1 (2017): 35–52.

Evans, Sandra K., Katy E. Pearce, Jessica Vitak, and Jeffrey W. Treem."Explicating Affordances：A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Affordances in Communication Research."Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22, no：35-52.

Fagan, Michael E. “Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development.” IBM Systems Journal 38, no. 2/3 (1999): 258.

Fagan, Michael E. "设计和代码检查以减少程序开发中的错误"。IBM Systems Journal 38, no：258.

Faraj, Samer, and Bijan Azad. “The Materiality of Technology: An Affordance Perspective.” In Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, edited by Paul M. Leonardi, Bonnie A. Nardi, and Jannis Kallinikos, 237–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Faraj, Samer, and Bijan Azad."技术的物质性：从 "可承受性 "的角度"。In Materiality and Organizing：由 Paul M. Leonardi、Bonnie A. Nardi 和 Jannis Kallinikos 编辑，237-258。牛津大学出版社，2012 年：牛津大学出版社，2012 年。

Flanagan, Mary, Daniel C. Howe, and Helen Nissenbaum. “Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-Oriented Game Design.” In CHI ’05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Portland, Oregon, USA, April 02–07 2005, 751–760. New York: ACM, 2005.

Flanagan, Mary, Daniel C. Howe, and Helen Nissenbaum."游戏中的价值观：面向社会的游戏设计中的设计权衡"。In CHI '05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.美国俄勒冈州波特兰，2005 年 4 月 2-07 日，751-760 页。ACM, 2005：ACM, 2005.

Flanagan, Mary, and Helen Nissenbaum. Values at Play in Digital Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014.

Flanagan, Mary, and Helen Nissenbaum.数字游戏中的价值观》。马萨诸塞州剑桥市：麻省理工学院出版社，2014 年。

Fortun, Kim. “From Latour to Late Industrialism.” Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4, no. 1 (2014): 309–329.

Fortun, Kim."从拉图尔到晚期工业主义"。人种学理论期刊》第 4 期（2014 年）：309-329.

Friedman, Batya. “Value-Sensitive Design.” Interactions 3, no. 6 (1996): 16–23.

Friedman, Batya."价值敏感型设计"。Interactions 3, no. 6 (1996)：16-23.

Friedman, Batya, and David Hendry. “The Envisioning Cards: A Toolkit for Catalyzing Humanistic and Technical Imaginations.” In CHI ’12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Austin, Texas, USA, May 05–10 2012, 1145–1148. New York: ACM, 2012.

Friedman, Batya, and David Hendry."设想卡：催化人文和技术想象力的工具包"。In CHI '12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.美国德克萨斯州奥斯汀，2012 年 5 月 5-10 日，1145-1148。纽约：ACM, 2012.

Friedman, Batya, and David G. Hendry. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019.

Friedman, Batya, and David G. Hendry.价值敏感设计：用道德想象塑造技术》。马萨诸塞州剑桥市：麻省理工学院出版社，2019 年。

Friedman, Batya, P. Kahn, and Alan Borning. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems: Foundations, edited by Ping Zhang and Dennis F. Galletta, 348–372. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Friedman, Batya, P. Kahn, and Alan Borning."价值敏感设计与信息系统》。管理信息系统中的人机交互：基础》，张平、Dennis F. Galletta 编辑，348-372 页。New York：Routledge, 2006.

Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory, edited by Neelke Doorn, Dean Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman, 55–95. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013.

Friedman, Batya, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren."价值敏感设计与信息系统》。早期参与与新技术》：开放实验室》，Neelke Doorn、Dean Schuurbiers、Ibo van de Poel 和 Michael E. Gorman 编辑，55-95 页。多德雷赫特：施普林格出版社，2013 年。

Ganesh, Maya Indira. “Entanglement: Machine Learning and Human Ethics in Driver-Less Car Crashes.” APRJA (2017). http://www.aprja.net/entanglement-machine-learning-and-human-ethics-in-driver-less-car-crashes.

加内什、玛雅-英迪拉"纠缠：无人驾驶汽车碰撞中的机器学习与人类伦理"。aprja（2017）. http://www.aprja.net/entanglement-machine-learning-and-human-ethics-in-driver-less-car-crashes.

Gaver, William W. “Situating Action II: Affordances for Interaction: The Social Is Material for Design.” Ecological Psychology 8, no. 2 (1996): 111–129.

Gaver, William W. "Situating Action II：互动的亲和力：社会是设计的材料"。生态心理学》第 8 期，第 2 号（1996 年）：111-129.

Gibbs, Jennifer L., Nik Ahmad Rozaidi, and Julia Eisenberg. “Overcoming the ‘Ideology of Openness’: Probing the Affordances of Social Media for Organizational Knowledge Sharing.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no. 1 (2013): 102–120.

Gibbs, Jennifer L., Nik Ahmad Rozaidi, and Julia Eisenberg."克服'开放意识形态'：探究社交媒体对组织知识共享的影响"。Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no：102-120.

Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.

Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.波士顿：霍顿-米夫林，1979 年。

Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition. New York: Psychology Press, 2014.

Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception：经典版。纽约：心理学出版社，2014 年：心理学出版社，2014 年。

Gibson, James J. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.

Gibson, James J. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems.波士顿：霍顿-米夫林，1966 年。

Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018.

Gillespie, Tarleton.Custodians of the Internet：平台、内容节制和塑造社交媒体的隐性决策》。康涅狄格州纽黑文：耶鲁大学出版社，2018 年。

Gillespie, Tarleton. “The Politics of ‘Platforms.’” New Media & Society 12, no. 3 (2010): 347–364.

Gillespie, Tarleton."'平台'的政治学"。New Media & Society 12, no.3 (2010):347-364.

Goldman, Sylvan N. “Commodity Accommodation and Vending Rack.” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 493, August 2, 1938, p. 106. Google Patents, 1938.

Goldman, Sylvan N. "Commodity Accommodation and Vending Rack"。美国专利商标局官方公报》，第 493 卷，1938 年 8 月 2 日，第 106 页。谷歌专利，1938 年。

Gorrow, Chelsea. “Bystander Arrested as Police Handle Standoff.” Register-Guard (Eugene, OR), August 22, 2014. http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32047393-75/woman-arrested-for-crossing-police-line.html.csp.

戈罗，切尔西"警方处理对峙事件时旁观者被捕"。Register-Guard（俄勒冈州尤金市），2014 年 8 月 22 日。http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32047393-75/woman-arrested-for-crossing-police-line.html.csp。

Granville, Kevin. “Facebook and Cambridge Analytica: What You Need to Know as Fallout Widens.” New York Times, March 19, 2018.

Granville, Kevin."Facebook与剑桥分析公司：随着余波扩大，你需要知道什么"。纽约时报》，2018 年 3 月 19 日。

Harding, S., I. Grewal, C. Kaplan, and R. Wiegman. Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008.

Harding, S., I. Grewal, C. Kaplan, and R. Wiegman.Sciences from Below：Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities.Durham, NC：Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008.

Hopkin, Jonathan, and Ben Rosamond. “Post-Truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK.” New Political Economy 23, no. 6 (2017): 641–655.

Hopkin, Jonathan, and Ben Rosamond."后真相政治、胡言乱语和馊主意：英国的'赤字迷信'"。New Political Economy 23, no. 6 (2017)：641-655.

Hu, Jun, and George M. Fadel. “Categorizing Affordances for Product Design.” Paper presented at ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, August 2012.

Hu、Jun 和 George M. Fadel。"产品设计中的亲和力分类"。论文发表于 ASME 2012 国际设计工程技术会议和工程中的计算机与信息会议，2012 年 8 月。

Humphreys, Lee, Veronika Karnowski, and Thilo von Pape. “Smartphones as Metamedia: A Framework for Identifying the Niches Structuring Smartphone Use.” International Journal of Communication 12 (2018): 2793–2809.

Humphreys, Lee, Veronika Karnowski, and Thilo von Pape."作为元媒体的智能手机：识别智能手机使用利基结构的框架"。International Journal of Communication 12 (2018): 2793-2809.

Hutchby, Ian. “Technologies, Texts and Affordances.” Sociology 35, no. 2 (2001): 441–456.

Hutchby, Ian."Technologies, Texts and Affordances.Sociology 35, no. 2 (2001)：441-456.

Ihde, Don. Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Ihde, Don.技术与生活世界：From Garden to Earth.布卢明顿：印第安纳大学出版社，1990 年。

Ingold, Tim. “Back to the Future with the Theory of Affordances.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8, no. 1–2 (2018): 39–44.

Ingold, Tim."回到未来的情境理论"。HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8, no. 1-2 (2018)：39-44.

Ingold, Tim. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge, 2011.

Ingold, Tim.活着》：关于运动、知识和描述的论文。伦敦：Routledge, 2011.

Ingold, Tim. “Culture and the Perception of the Environment.” In Bush Base, Forest Farm: Culture, Environment, and Development, edited by Elisabeth Croll and David Parkin, 51–68. London: Routledge, 2002.

Ingold, Tim."文化与环境感知"。In Bush Base, Forest Farm：文化、环境与发展》，Elisabeth Croll 和 David Parkin 编辑，51-68 页。伦敦：London: Routledge, 2002.

Introna, Lucas D. “The Enframing of Code: Agency, Originality and the Plagiarist.” Theory, Culture & Society 28, no. 6 (2011): 113–141.

Introna, Lucas D. "The Enframing of Code：机构、原创性与剽窃者"。Theory, Culture & Society 28, no：113-141.

Introna, Lucas, and David Wood. “Picturing Algorithmic Surveillance: The Politics of Facial Recognition Systems.” Surveillance & Society 2, no. 2/3 (2002).

Introna, Lucas, and David Wood."Picturing Algorithmic Surveillance：面部识别系统的政治学》。Surveillance & Society 2, no.

Joerges, Bernward. “Do Politics Have Artefacts?” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 411–431.

Joerges, Bernward."政治有人工制品吗？"Social Studies of Science 29, no.3 (1999):411-431.

Jones, Keith S. “What Is an Affordance?” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 107–114.

Jones, Keith S. "What Is an Affordance?" 生态心理学 15, no.生态心理学》第 15 卷第 2 期（2003 年）：107-114.

Julien, Christopher M. “The Iconic Ghetto, Color-Blind Racism and White Masculinities: A Content and Discourse Analysis of Black Twitter on www.Imgur.com.” MA thesis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, 2017.

Julien, Christopher M. "The Iconic Ghetto, Color-Blind Racism and White Masculinities：A Content and Discourse Analysis of Black Twitter on www.Imgur.com."北卡罗来纳大学格林斯博罗分校硕士论文，2017 年。

Jurgenson, Nathan. The Social Photo: On Photography and Social Media. London: Verso, 2019.

Jurgenson, Nathan.The Social Photo：论摄影与社交媒体》。伦敦：Verso, 2019.

Kahl, Russell, ed. Selected Writings of Hermann Von Helmholtz. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1971.

Kahl，Russell，ed.赫尔曼-冯-亥姆霍兹文选》。Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1971.

Kantrowitz, Alex. “Google Allowed Advertisers to Target People Searching Racist Phrases.” BuzzFeed News, September 16, 2017. https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/google-allowed-advertisers-to-target-jewish-parasite-black?utm_term=.px1Y52YxQ#.pqB54857A.

Kantrowitz, Alex."谷歌允许广告商锁定搜索种族主义短语的人群"。BuzzFeed News，2017 年 9 月 16 日。https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/google-allowed-advertisers-to-target-jewish-parasite-black?utm_term=.px1Y52YxQ#.pqB54857A。

Katz, Elihu, and Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York: Free Press, 1966.

Katz, Elihu, and Paul F. Lazarsfeld.个人影响力：The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications.纽约：自由出版社，1966 年。

Kirkpatrick, Andrew, Joshue O Connor, Alastair Campbell, and Michael Cooper. “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1.” W3C Recommendation 05 June 2018, World Wide Web Consortium, 2017. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21.

Kirkpatrick, Andrew, Joshue O Connor, Alastair Campbell, and Michael Cooper."网页内容可访问性指南（WCAG）2.1"。W3C Recommendation 05 June 2018, World Wide Web Consortium, 2017. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21.

Koffka, Kurt. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt, 1935.

科夫卡，库尔特格式塔心理学原理》。纽约：哈科特，1935 年。

Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Latour, Bruno.Reassembling the Social：行为者-网络理论导论》。New York：牛津大学出版社，2005 年。

Laurillard, Diana, Matthew Stratfold, Rose Luckin, Lydia Plowman, and Josie Taylor. “Affordances for Learning in a Non-Linear Narrative Medium.” Journal of Interactive Media in Education no. 2 (2000): 1–19.

Laurillard, Diana, Matthew Stratfold, Rose Luckin, Lydia Plowman, and Josie Taylor."在非线性叙事媒介中学习的亲和力》。Journal of Interactive Media in Education no：1-19.

Law, John. “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics.” In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edited by Brian S. Turner, 141–158. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Law, John."Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics.In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edited by Brian S. Turner, 141-158.Oxford：Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Lenander, Aage. “Coin-Operated Lock for a Trolley System Including Especially Shopping and Luggage Trolleys.” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1047, issue 1, October 2, 1984, p. 142. Google Patents, 1984.

Lenander, Aage."投币式手推车系统锁，特别包括购物和行李手推车"。美国专利商标局官方公报》，第 1047 卷，第 1 期，1984 年 10 月 2 日，第 142 页。谷歌专利，1984 年。

Leonardi, Paul M. “Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality.” Information and Organization 23, no. 2 (2013): 59–76.

Leonardi, Paul M. "社会物质性研究的理论基础"。Information and Organization 23, no. 2 (2013)：59-76.

Leonardi, Paul M. “When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies.” MIS Quarterly 35, no. 1 (2011): 147–167.

Leonardi, Paul M. "When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies：Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies." MIS Quarterly 35, no.MIS Quarterly 35, no：147-167.

Lewin, Kurt. A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers. Translated by Donald K. Adams and Karl E. Zener. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935.

Lewin, Kurt.人格动态理论》：论文选》。唐纳德-K-亚当斯（Donald K. Adams）和卡尔-E-泽纳（Karl E. Zener）译。New York：McGraw-Hill, 1935.

Light, Ben, Jean Burgess, and Stefanie Duguay. “The Walkthrough Method: An Approach to the Study of Apps.” New Media & Society 20, no. 3 (2018): 881–900.

Light、Ben、Jean Burgess 和 Stefanie Duguay。"演练法：研究应用程序的一种方法"。New Media & Society 20, no.3 (2018):881-900.

Livingstone, Sonia. “On the Material and the Symbolic: Silverstone’s Double Articulation of Research Traditions in New Media Studies.” New Media & Society 9, no. 1 (2007): 16–24.

Livingstone, Sonia."论物质与象征：Silverstone's Double Articulation of Research Traditions in New Media Studies."New Media & Society 9, no：16-24.

Lupton, Deborah. “Apps as Artefacts: Towards a Critical Perspective on Mobile Health and Medical Apps.” Societies 4, no. 4 (2014): 606–622.

Lupton, Deborah."作为人工制品的应用程序：Towards a Critical Perspective on Mobile Health and Medical Apps."Societies 4, no.4 (2014):606-622.

Lupton, Deborah. “Quantifying the Body: Monitoring and Measuring Health in the Age of mHealth Technologies.” Critical Public Health 23, no. 4 (2013): 393–403.

Lupton, Deborah."量化身体：移动医疗技术时代的健康监测与测量"。Critical Public Health 23, no.4 (2013):393-403.

Lupton, Deborah, and Gavin J. D. Smith. “‘A Much Better Person’: The Agential Capacities of Self-Tracking Practices.” In Metric Culture: Ontologies of Self-Tracking Practices, edited by Btihaj Ajana, 57–75. London: Emerald Publishing, 2018.

Lupton, Deborah, and Gavin J. D. Smith."'一个更好的人'：自我追踪实践的行动能力"。In Metric Culture：自我追踪实践的本体论》，Btihaj Ajana 编辑，57-75 页。伦敦：Emerald Publishing, 2018.

Mace, William M. “James J. Gibson’s Ecological Approach: Perceiving What Exists.” Ethics and the Environment 10, no. 2 (2005): 195–216.

Mace, William M. "James J. Gibson's Ecological Approach：感知存在之物"。Ethics and the Environment 10, no：195-216.

Maier, Jonathan R. A., and Georges M. Fadel. “Affordance Based Design: A Relational Theory for Design.” Research in Engineering Design 20, no. 1 (2009): 13–27.

Maier, Jonathan R. A., and Georges M. Fadel."Affordance Based Design：设计的关系理论"。1 (2009)：13-27.

Maier, Jonathan R. A., and Georges M. Fadel. “Affordance-Based Design Methods for Innovative Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering.” Research in Engineering Design 20, no. 4 (2009): 225.

Maier, Jonathan R. A., and Georges M. Fadel."基于情境的创新设计、再设计和逆向工程设计方法"。Research in Engineering Design 20, no.4 (2009):225.

Maier, Jonathan R. A., and Georges M. Fadel. “Affordance: The Fundamental Concept in Engineering Design.” Paper no. DETC2001/DTM-2170 presented at the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 2001.

Maier, Jonathan R. A., and Georges M. Fadel."Affordance：工程设计中的基本概念"。Paper no.DETC2001/DTM-2170 发表于 ASME 设计理论与方法会议，宾夕法尼亚州匹兹堡，2001 年。

Majchrzak, Ann, Samer Faraj, Gerald C. Kane, and Bijan Azad. “The Contradictory Influence of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no. 1 (2013): 38–55.

Majchrzak、Ann、Samer Faraj、Gerald C. Kane 和 Bijan Azad。"社交媒体功能对在线社区知识共享的矛盾影响"。Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, no：38-55.

Mannell, Kate. “A Typology of Mobile Messaging’s Disconnective Affordances.” Mobile Media & Communication 7, no. 1 (2019): 76–93.

Mannell, Kate."移动信息的失联功能分类"。Mobile Media & Communication 7, no. 1 (2019): 76-93.

Marshall, Patrick. “Algorithms Can Mask Biases in Hiring.” Sage Business Researcher, February 15, 2016.

Marshall, Patrick."算法可掩盖招聘中的偏见"。赛奇商业研究员》，2016 年 2 月 15 日。

Marwick, Alice E., and danah boyd. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society 13, no. 1 (2011): 114–133.

Marwick, Alice E. and danah boyd."我诚实地发推，我热情地发推：推特用户、语境崩溃与想象中的受众"。New Media & Society 13, no：114-133.

Marwick, Alice, Claire Fontaine, and danah boyd. “‘Nobody Sees It, Nobody Gets Mad’: Social Media, Privacy, and Personal Responsibility among Low-SES Youth.” Social Media + Society 3, no. 2 (2017).

Marwick, Alice, Claire Fontaine, and danah Boyd."'没人看见，没人生气'：社交媒体、隐私和低社会经济地位青少年的个人责任"。Social Media + Society 3, no. 2 (2017).

Massanari, Adrienne. “# Gamergate and the Fappening: How Reddit’s Algorithm, Governance, and Culture Support Toxic Technocultures.” New Media & Society 19, no. 3 (2017): 329–346.

Massanari, Adrienne."# Gamergate and the Fappening：Reddit 的算法、管理和文化如何支持有毒的技术文化"。New Media & Society 19, no.3 (2017):329-346.

Mata, Ivan, Georges Fadel, and Gregory Mocko. “Toward Automating Affordance-Based Design.” AI EDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29, no. 3 (2015): 297–305.

Mata, Ivan, Georges Fadel, and Gregory Mocko."实现基于情境的设计自动化"。AI EDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 29, no.3 (2015): 297-305.

McArthur, Leslie Z., and Reuben M. Baron. “Toward an Ecological Theory of Social Perception.” Psychological Review 90, no. 3 (1983): 215.

McArthur, Leslie Z., and Reuben M. Baron."迈向社会感知的生态理论"。Psychological Review 90, no.3 (1983):215.

McGrenere, Joanna, and Wayne Ho. “Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept.” In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–17 May 2000. Montreal: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 2000.

McGrenere, Joanna, and Wayne Ho."Affordances：概念的澄清与演变"。2000 年图形界面会议论文集》：加拿大魁北克蒙特利尔，2000 年 5 月 15-17 日。蒙特利尔：加拿大人机通信学会，2000 年。

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

麦克卢汉，马歇尔理解媒体：The Extensions of Man.New York：McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self and Society. Vol. 111. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934.

米德、乔治-赫伯特心灵、自我与社会》。第 111 卷。芝加哥：芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，1934 年。

Michaels, Claire F. “Affordances: Four Points of Debate.” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 135–148.

Michaels, Claire F. "Affordances：四点争论"。生态心理学》第 15 卷第 2 期（2003 年）：135-148.

Michaels, Claire F., and Claudia Carello. Direct Perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.

Michaels, Claire F. 和 Claudia Carello.Direct Perception.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.

Mouffe, Chantal. “Some Reflections on an Agonistic Approach to the Public.” In Making Things Public, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 804–807. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.

Mouffe, Chantal.对 "公共性 "的争辩式方法的一些思考》。In Making Things Public, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 804-807.马萨诸塞州剑桥市：麻省理工学院出版社，2005 年。

Mueller, Jennifer C. “Racial Ideology or Racial Ignorance? An Alternative Theory of Racial Cognition.” Open Science Framework, March 2, 2019. https://osf.io/fw23k.

Mueller, Jennifer C. "种族意识形态还是种族无知？种族认知的另一种理论"。开放科学框架》，2019 年 3 月 2 日。https://osf.io/fw23k.

Müller, Martin. “Assemblages and Actor-Networks: Rethinking Socio-Material Power, Politics and Space.” Geography Compass 9, no. 1 (2015): 27–41.

Müller, Martin."Assemblages and Actor-Networks：重新思考社会物质权力、政治和空间"。Geography Compass 9, no. 1 (2015): 27-41.

Nagy, Peter, and Gina Neff. “Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory.” Social Media + Society 1, no. 2 (2015).

Nagy、Peter 和 Gina Neff。"Imagined Affordance：重构传播理论的关键词"。Social Media + Society 1, no.

Nakamura, Lisa. “Cultural Difference, Theory and Cyberculture Studies: A Case of Mutual Repulsion.” In Critical Cyberculture Studies, edited by David Silver and Adrienne Massanari, 29–36. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

Nakamura, Lisa."文化差异、理论与网络文化研究：A Case of Mutual Repulsion."In Critical Cyberculture Studies, edited by David Silver and Adrienne Massanari, 29-36.New York：New York: New York University Press, 2006.

Nathan, Lisa P., Predrag V. Klasnja, and Batya Friedman. “Value Scenarios: A Technique for Envisioning Systemic Effects of New Technologies.” Proceedings of CHI ’07: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. San Jose, CA, USA, April 28–May 03, 2007, 2585–2590. New York: ACM, 2007.

Nathan, Lisa P., Predrag V. Klasnja, and Batya Friedman."价值情景：展望新技术系统性影响的技术"。CHI '07 论文集：计算系统中人的因素扩展摘要。美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞，2007 年 4 月 28 日-5 月 3 日，2585-2590。New York：ACM, 2007.

Neff, Gina, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie. “Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no. 2 (2012): 299–313.

Neff, Gina, Tim Jordan, Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Tarleton Gillespie."Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, no：299-313.

Neff, Gina, and Dawn Nafus. Self-Tracking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016.

内夫、吉娜和道恩-纳弗斯。自我跟踪》。马萨诸塞州剑桥市：麻省理工学院出版社，2016 年。

Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: NYU Press, 2018.

诺贝尔、萨菲亚-乌莫贾压迫的算法：搜索引擎如何强化种族主义》。纽约：纽约大学出版社，2018 年。

Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.

Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things.马萨诸塞州剑桥市：麻省理工学院出版社，1998 年。

Norman, Donald A. The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books, 1988.

Norman, Donald A. The Psychology of Everyday Things.纽约：Basic Books, 1988.

Norman, Donald A. “The Way I See It: Signifiers, Not Affordances.” Interactions 15, no. 6 (2008): 18–19.

Norman, Donald A. "The Way I See It：Signifiers, Not Affordances." Interactions 15, no.Interactions 15, no：18-19.

Oliver, Martin. “The Problem with Affordance.” E-Learning and Digital Media 2, no. 4 (2005): 402–413.

Oliver, Martin."亲和力的问题"。E-Learning and Digital Media 2, no.4 (2005):402-413.

Oliver, Michael, and Colin Barnes. The New Politics of Disablement. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

奥利弗、迈克尔和科林-巴恩斯。残疾新政》。伦敦：Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Broadway Books, 2016.

O'Neil, Cathy.数学毁灭武器》（Weapons of Math Destruction：大数据如何加剧不平等并威胁民主》。纽约：Broadway Books, 2016.

Orben, Amy, and Andrew K. Przybylski. “The Association between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use.” Nature Human Behaviour 3, no. 2 (2019): 173–182.

Orben、Amy 和 Andrew K. Przybylski。"青少年福祉与数字技术使用之间的关联"。Nature Human Behaviour 3, no：173-182.

Parchoma, Gale. “The Contested Ontology of Affordances: Implications for Researching Technological Affordances for Collaborative Knowledge Production.” Computers in Human Behavior 37, no. Supp. C (2014): 360–368.

Parchoma, Gale."The Contested Ontology of Affordances：研究协作知识生产的技术能力的意义"。Computers in Human Behavior 37, no.Supp. C (2014)：360-368.

Pasquale, Frank. “Algorithms Can Be a Digital Star Chamber.” Aeon, no. 8. (2015). https://aeon.co/essays/judge-jury-and-executioner-the-unaccountable-algorithm.

Pasquale, Frank."算法可以成为数字星室"。Aeon, no.(2015). https://aeon.co/essays/judge-jury-and-executioner-the-unaccountable-algorithm.

Pasquale, Frank. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.

Pasquale, Frank.黑盒社会：控制金钱和信息的秘密算法》。马萨诸塞州剑桥市：哈佛大学出版社，2015 年。

Pea, Roy D. “Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs for Education.” Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations 11 (1993): 47–87.

Pea, Roy D. "Practices of Distributed Intelligence and Designs for Education".Distributed Cognitions：Psychological and Educational Considerations 11 (1993)：47-87.

Pfaffenberger, Bryan. “Social Anthropology of Technology.” Annual Review of Anthropology 21, no. 1 (1992): 491–516.

Pfaffenberger, Bryan."技术的社会人类学"。Annual Review of Anthropology 21, no：491-516.

Pooley, Jefferson D. “Open Media Scholarship: The Case for Open Access in Media Studies.” International Journal of Communication 10, no. 2016 (2016): 6148–6164.

Pooley, Jefferson D. "Open Media Scholarship：媒体研究中的开放存取案例"。International Journal of Communication 10, no：6148-6164.

Pooley, Jefferson, and Elihu Katz. “Further Notes on Why American Sociology Abandoned Mass Communication Research.” Journal of Communication 58, no. 4 (2008): 767–786.

Pooley, Jefferson, and Elihu Katz."关于美国社会学为何放弃大众传播研究的进一步说明》。Journal of Communication 58, no.4 (2008):767-786.

Pressman, Roger S. Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Pressman, Roger S. Software Engineering：A Practitioner's Approach.纽约：McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Prior, Markus. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Prior, Markus.Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections.Cambridge：剑桥大学出版社，2006 年。

Quan-Haase, Anabel, Guang Ying Mo, and Barry Wellman. “Connected Seniors: How Older Adults in East York Exchange Social Support Online and Offline.” Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 7 (2017): 967–983.

Quan-Haase, Anabel, Guang Ying Mo, and Barry Wellman."Connected Seniors：东纽约的老年人如何在线和离线交换社会支持"。Information, Communication & Society 20, no：967-983.

Raynes-Goldie, and Kate Sarah. “Privacy in the Age of Facebook: Discourse, Architecture, Consequences.” PhD diss., Curtin University, 2012.

Raynes-Goldie, and Kate Sarah."Facebook 时代的隐私：话语、架构、后果"。科廷大学博士论文，2012 年。

Reed, Edward S. “The Affordances of the Animate Environment: Social Science from the Ecological Point of View.” In What Is an Animal?, edited by Tim Ingold, 110–126. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1988.

Reed, Edward S. "The Affordances of the Animate Environment：从生态学角度看社会科学"。Tim Ingold 编辑，110-126 页。Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 1988.

Restivo, Sal. “Review Essays: Politics of Latour.” Organization & Environment 18, no. 1 (2005): 111–115.

雷斯蒂沃，萨尔"评论文章：Politics of Latour."Organization & Environment 18, no：111-115.

Rheeder, Frederik R. L., and Deon Dixon. “Trolley Locking Device.” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1064, issue 1, March 4, 1986. Google Patents, 1986.

Rheeder、Frederik R. L. 和 Deon Dixon。"手推车锁定装置"。美国专利商标局官方公报》，第 1064 卷，第 1 期，1986 年 3 月 4 日。谷歌专利，1986 年。

Ricouard, Jacques, and Claude Chappoux. “Coin Lock Device for Shopping Trolleys.” Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, vol. 1074, issue 3, January 20, 1987, p. 1449. Google Patents, 1987.

Ricouard、Jacques 和 Claude Chappoux。"购物手推车的硬币锁装置"。美国专利商标局官方公报》，第 1074 卷，第 3 期，1987 年 1 月 20 日，第 1449 页。谷歌专利，1987 年。

Ritzer, George, Paul Dean, and Nathan Jurgenson. “The Coming of Age of the Prosumer.” American Behavioral Scientist 56, no. 4 (2012): 379–398.

Ritzer, George, Paul Dean, and Nathan Jurgenson."专业消费者时代的到来"。American Behavioral Scientist 56, no.4 (2012):379-398.

Ritzer, George, and Nathan Jurgenson. “Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of the Digital ‘Prosumer.’” Journal of Consumer Culture 10, no. 1 (2010): 13–36.

Ritzer, George, and Nathan Jurgenson."生产、消费、消费：数字'Prosumer'时代的资本主义本质"。Journal of Consumer Culture 10, no：13-36.

Robinson, Laura, Shelia R. Cotten, Hiroshi Ono, Anabel Quan-Haase, Gustavo Mesch, Wenhong Chen, Jeremy Schulz, Timothy M. Hale, and Michael J. Stern. “Digital Inequalities and Why They Matter.” Information, Communication & Society 18, no. 5 (2015): 569–582.

Robinson, Laura, Shelia R. Cotten, Hiroshi Ono, Anabel Quan-Haase, Gustavo Mesch, Wenhong Chen, Jeremy Schulz, Timothy M. Hale, and Michael J. Stern."Digital Inequalities and Why They Matter.Information, Communication & Society 18, no.5 (2015):569-582.

Savić, Selena, and Gordan Savičić. “Unpleasant Design: Designing out Unwanted Behaviour.” In A Matter of Design: Making Society through Science and Technology. Proceedings of the Fifth STS Italia Conference. Rome: Società Italiana di Studi sulla Scienza e la Tecnologica, 2014.

Savić, Selena, and Gordan Savičić."令人不快的设计：设计出不受欢迎的行为"。In A Matter of Design：通过科技创造社会。第五届 STS 意大利会议论文集。罗马：意大利科学与技术研究学会，2014 年。

Sayes, Edwin. “Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Just What Does It Mean to Say That Nonhumans Have Agency?” Social Studies of Science 44, no. 1 (2014): 134–149.

Sayes, Edwin."Actor-Network Theory and Methodology：说非人类具有代理权意味着什么？"Social Studies of Science 44, no：134-149.

Scarantino, Andrea. “Affordances Explained.” Philosophy of Science 70, no. 5 (2003): 949–961.

Scarantino, Andrea."情境解释"。Philosophy of Science 70, no.5 (2003):949-961.

Schaffzin, Gabi. “Reclaiming the Margins in the Face of the Quantified Self.” Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal 14, no. 2 (2018).

Schaffzin, Gabi."面对量化的自我，重拾边缘"。Review of Disability Studies：14, no. 2 (2018).

Schmidt, Richard C. “Scaffolds for Social Meaning.” Ecological Psychology 19, no. 2 (2007): 137–151.

Schmidt, Richard C. "社会意义的支架"。Ecological Psychology 19, no：137-151.

Schraube, Ernst. “Technology as Materialized Action and Its Ambivalences.” Theory & Psychology 19, no. 2 (2009): 296–312.

Schraube, Ernst."作为物质化行动的技术及其矛盾性"。Theory & Psychology 19, no：296-312.

Schrock, Andrew Richard. “Communicative Affordances of Mobile Media: Portability, Availability, Locatability, and Multimediality.” International Journal of Communication 9 (2015): 1229–1246.

Schrock, Andrew Richard."移动媒体的沟通能力：便携性、可用性、可定位性和多媒介性"。International Journal of Communication 9 (2015): 1229-1246.

Schwalbe, Michael L. “Role Taking Reconsidered: Linking Competence and Performance to Social Structure.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 18, no. 4 (1988).

Schwalbe, Michael L. "Role Taking Reconsidered：将能力和表现与社会结构联系起来"。Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 18, no.4 (1988).

Senft, Theresa M. “Microcelebrity and the Branded Self.” In A Companion to New Media Dynamics, edited by John A. M. Hartley, Jean Burgess, and Axel Bruns, 346–354. Chichester, UK: Blackwell, 2013.

Senft, Theresa M. "Microcelebrity and the Branded Self"。In A Companion to New Media Dynamics, edited by John A. M. Hartley, Jean Burgess, and Axel Bruns, 346-354.英国奇切斯特：布莱克威尔，2013 年。

Shaw, Robert. “Ecological Psychology: The Consequence of a Commitment to Realism.” In Cognition and the Symbolic Processes, edited by Walter B. Weimer and David S. Palermo, 159–226. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982.

Shaw, Robert."生态心理学：现实主义承诺的后果"。In Cognition and the Symbolic Processes, edited by Walter B. Weimer and David S. Palermo, 159-226.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982.

Shell, Ellen Ruppel. Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture. New York: Penguin, 2009.

贝壳、艾伦-鲁佩尔廉价：折扣文化的高昂成本》。纽约，企鹅出版社，2009 年：企鹅出版社，2009 年。

Shepard, Mark. “Sentient City Survival Kit: Archaeology of the Near Future.” In Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference, 2009. After Media: Embodiment and Context. University of California, Irvine, December 12–15, 2009.

Shepard, Mark."智慧城市生存工具包：近未来考古学"。数字艺术与文化会议论文集，2009 年。媒体之后：体现与语境》。加州大学欧文分校，2009年12月12-15日。

Shilton, Katie. “Engaging Values Despite Neutrality: Challenges and Approaches to Values Reflection During the Design of Internet Infrastructure.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 43, no. 2 (2018): 247–269.

Shilton, Katie."尽管中性，仍要参与价值观：互联网基础设施设计过程中价值观反思的挑战与方法"。科学、技术与人类价值观》第 43 卷第 2 期（2018 年）：247-269。

Shilton, Katie. “Values Levers: Building Ethics into Design.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 38, no. 3 (2013): 374–397.

Shilton, Katie."价值杠杆：将伦理融入设计"。Science, Technology, & Human Values 38, no.3 (2013):374-397.

Shilton, Katie, Jes A. Koepfler, and Kenneth R. Fleischmann. “How to See Values in Social Computing: Methods for Studying Values Dimensions.” In Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. Baltimore, MD, 15–19 February 2014, 426–435. New York, ACM, 2014.

Shilton, Katie, Jes A. Koepfler, and Kenneth R. Fleischmann."如何看待社会计算中的价值观：研究价值观维度的方法"。In Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.马里兰州巴尔的摩，2014 年 2 月 15-19 日，426-435。纽约，ACM，2014。

Sparrow, Robert, and Mark Howard. “When Human Beings Are Like Drunk Robots: Driverless Vehicles, Ethics, and the Future of Transport.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 80 (2017): 206–215.

斯帕罗、罗伯特和马克-霍华德。"当人类像喝醉酒的机器人：无人驾驶汽车、伦理与未来交通"。运输研究 C 部分：新兴技术 80 (2017)：206-215.

Springer, Noah Jerome. “Publics and Counterpublics on the Front Page of the Internet: The Cultural Practices, Technological Affordances, Hybrid Economics and Politics of Reddit’s Public Sphere.” Order No. 3721893, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2015. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1719155030?accountid=8330.

Springer, Noah Jerome."互联网头版上的公众与反公众：Reddit 公共领域的文化实践、技术能力、混合经济与政治"。Order No. 3721893, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2015. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1719155030?accountid=8330.

Star, Susan Leigh. “The Ethnography of Infrastructure.” American Behavioral Scientist 43, no. 3 (1999): 377–391.

Star, Susan Leigh."基础设施的民族志"。American Behavioral Scientist 43, no.3 (1999):377-391.

Stevens, Robin, Stacia Gilliard-Matthews, Jamie Dunaev, Marcus K. Woods, and Bridgette M. Brawner. “The Digital Hood: Social Media Use among Youth in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods.” New Media & Society 19, no. 6 (2017): 950–967.

Stevens, Robin, Stacia Gilliard-Matthews, Jamie Dunaev, Marcus K. Woods, and Bridgette M. Brawner."Digital Hood: Social Media Use among Youth in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods.New Media & Society 19, no：950-967.

Stoffregen, Thomas A. “Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System.” Ecological Psychology 15, no. 2 (2003): 115–134.

Stoffregen, Thomas A. "Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System".生态心理学》第 15 卷第 2 期（2003 年）：115-134.

Suthers, Daniel D. “Technology Affordances for Intersubjective Meaning Making: A Research Agenda for CSCL.” International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1, no. 3 (2006): 315–337.

Suthers, Daniel D. "Technology Affordances for Intersubjective Meaning Making：CSCL 的研究议程"。International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1, no.3 (2006):315-337.

Toffler, Alvin. The Third Wave. New York: Bantam, 1980.

托夫勒，阿尔文。The Third Wave.New York：Bantam, 1980.

Torenvliet, Gerard. “We Can’t Afford It! The Devaluation of a Usability Term.” Interactions 10, no. 4 (2003): 12–17.

杰拉德-托伦弗利特"我们负担不起！可用性术语的贬值"。Interactions 10, no.4 (2003):12-17.

Treem, Jeffrey W., and Paul M. Leonardi. “Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association.” Annals of the International Communication Association 36, no. 1 (2013): 143–189.

Treem, Jeffrey W., and Paul M. Leonardi."Social Media Use in Organizations：Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association."1 (2013)：143-189.

Tufekci, Zeynep. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.

Tufekci, Zeynep.Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest.康涅狄格州纽黑文：耶鲁大学出版社，2017 年。

Turvey, Michael T. “Affordances and Prospective Control: An Outline of the Ontology.” Ecological Psychology 4, no. 3 (1992): 173–187.

Turvey, Michael T. "Affordances and Prospective Control：本体论概要"。Ecological Psychology 4, no.3 (1992):173-187.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva.反社交媒体：Facebook 如何让我们断绝联系并破坏民主》。牛津大学出版社，2018 年：牛津大学出版社，2018 年。

Van der Hoven, Jeroen, and Noemi Manders-Huits. Value-Sensitive Design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009.

Van der Hoven、Jeroen 和 Noemi Manders-Huits。价值敏感型设计》。新泽西州霍博肯：Wiley，2009 年。

Van Dijck, José. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Van Dijck, José.The Culture of Connectivity：社交媒体批判史》。牛津大学出版社，2013 年：牛津大学出版社，2013 年。

Vannini, Phillip. “Non-Representational Research Methodologies: An Introduction.” In Non-Representational Methodologies: Reenvisioning Research, edited by Phillip Vannini, 11–28. New York: Routledge, 2015.

Vannini, Phillip."非代表性研究方法：An Introduction."In Non-Representational Methodologies：Reenvisioning Research》，Phillip Vannini 编辑，11-28 页。New York：Routledge, 2015.

Verbeek, Peter-Paul. “Materializing Morality: Design Ethics and Technological Mediation.” Science, Technology & Human Values 31, no. 3 (2006): 361–380.

Verbeek, Peter-Paul."道德物质化：设计伦理与技术中介"：设计伦理与技术中介"。Science, Technology & Human Values 31, no.3 (2006):361-380.

Verduyn, Philippe, Oscar Ybarra, Maxime Résibois, John Jonides, and Ethan Kross. “Do Social Network Sites Enhance or Undermine Subjective Well-Being? A Critical Review.” Social Issues and Policy Review 11, no. 1 (2017): 274–302.

Verduyn, Philippe, Oscar Ybarra, Maxime Résibois, John Jonides, and Ethan Kross."社交网站会提升还是削弱主观幸福感？批判性评论"。社会问题与政策评论》第 11 期（2017 年）：274-302.

Vyas, Dhaval, Cristina M. Chisalita, and Alan Dix. “Organizational Affordances: A Structuration Theory Approach to Affordances.” Interacting with Computers 29, no. 2 (2017): 117–131.

Vyas, Dhaval, Cristina M. Chisalita, and Alan Dix."Organizational Affordances：A Structuration Theory Approach to Affordances."Interacting with Computers 29, no：117-131.

Wajcman, Judy. “The Gender Politics of Technology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, edited by Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly, 707–721. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Wajcman, Judy."技术的性别政治"。In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, edited by Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly, 707-721.牛津大学出版社，2006 年：牛津大学出版社，2006 年。

Wajcman, Judy. “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In What State Is the Art?” Social Studies of Science 30, no. 3 (2000): 447–464. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285810.

Wajcman, Judy."关于性别与技术研究的思考：艺术现状如何？"Social Studies of Science 30, no.3 (2000):447-464. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285810.

Wang, Hua, Renwen Zhang, and Barry Wellman. “Are Older Adults Networked Individuals? Insights from East Yorkers’ Network Structure, Relational Autonomy, and Digital Media Use.” Information, Communication & Society 21, no. 5 (2018): 681–696.

Wang, Hua, Renwen Zhang, and Barry Wellman."老年人是网络化的个体吗？从东约克人的网络结构、关系自主性和数字媒体使用中获得的启示"。Information, Communication & Society 21, no.5 (2018):681-696.

Wansink, Brian, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter. “Ice Cream Illusions: Bowls, Spoons, and Self-Served Portion Sizes.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 31, no. 3 (2006): 240–243.

Wansink, Brian, Koert van Ittersum, and James E. Painter."冰淇淋的幻觉：碗、勺和自选份量"。American Journal of Preventive Medicine 31, no.3 (2006):240-243.

Warren, William H. “Perceiving Affordances: Visual Guidance of Stair Climbing.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, no. 5 (1984): 683–703.

Warren, William H. "Perceiving Affordances：爬楼梯的视觉引导"。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10, no.5 (1984):683-703.

Wicentowski, Danny. “Defying Police ‘Do Not Cross’ Line Would Be a Crime under Proposed Missouri Bill.” River Front Times (blog), February 23, 2016. https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/12/23/defying-police-do-not-cross-line-would-be-a-crime-under-proposed-missouri-bill.

Wicentowski, Danny."根据密苏里州拟议法案，违抗警方'请勿越线'规定将构成犯罪"。河岸时报》（博客），2016 年 2 月 23 日。https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2016/12/23/defying-police-do-not-cross-line-would-be-a-crime-under-proposed-missouri-bill。

Williams, Apryl A., Zaida Bryant, and Christopher Carvell. “Uncompensated Emotional Labor, Racial Battle Fatigue, and (in) Civility in Digital Spaces.” Sociology Compass 13, no. 2 (2019): e12658.

Williams, Apryl A., Zaida Bryant, and Christopher Carvell."数字空间中的无偿情感劳动、种族战斗疲劳和（中）文明"。Sociology Compass 13, no. 2 (2019): e12658.

Winkler, Till, and Sarah Spiekermann. “Twenty Years of Value Sensitive Design: A Review of Methodological Practices in VSD Projects.” Ethics and Information Technology (2018): 1–5.

Winkler, Till, and Sarah Spiekermann."价值敏感设计二十年：价值敏感设计项目方法论实践回顾"。伦理与信息技术》（2018 年）：1-5.

Winner, Langdon. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109, no. 1 (1980): 121–136.

Winner, Langdon."人工制品有政治性吗？"代达罗斯》第 109 期（1980 年）：121-136.

Winner, Langdon. “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 18, no. 3 (1993): 362–378.

Winner, Langdon."打开黑盒，发现里面空空如也：社会建构主义与技术哲学"。Science, Technology & Human Values 18, no.3 (1993):362-378.

Withagen, Rob, Duarte Araújo, and Harjo J. de Poel. “Inviting Affordances and Agency.” New Ideas in Psychology 45 (2017): 11–18.

Withagen, Rob, Duarte Araújo, and Harjo J. de Poel."邀请情境与代理"。心理学新思路 45 (2017)：11-18.

Woolgar, Steve, and Geoff Cooper. “Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&Ts.” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 433–449.

Woolgar, Steve, and Geoff Cooper."文物具有矛盾性吗？摩西桥、胜利者桥及其他科技领域的都市传奇"。科学的社会研究》第 29 卷第 3 期（1999 年）："Do Arfacts Have Ambivalence?3 (1999):433-449.

“World’s First Gene-Edited Babies Created in China, Claims Scientist.” The Guardian, November 26, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist.

"科学家称世界首例基因编辑婴儿在中国诞生"。卫报》，2018 年 11 月 26 日。https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist。

Wright, Steve, and Gale Parchoma. “Technologies for Learning? An Actor-Network Theory Critique of ‘Affordances’ in Research on Mobile Learning.” Research in Learning Technology 19, no. 3 (2011): 247–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624168.

Wright, Steve, and Gale Parchoma."学习技术？行动者-网络理论对移动学习研究中'Affordances'的批判"。学习技术研究》19，no.3 (2011):247–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.624168.

Ziewitz, Malte. “Evaluation as Governance: The Practical Politics of Reviewing, Rating and Ranking on the Web.” PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2013.

Ziewitz, Malte."评价即治理：网络审查、评级和排名的实用政治学"。牛津大学博士论文，2013 年。

Index

索引

Academic journal publishing paywalls, 69, 70, 78

学术期刊出版付费墙，69、70、78

Actants, 51, 53

演员，51，53

Actor-network theory (ANT), 51–54, 56, 59, 113–114

行为者网络理论 (ANT)，51-54、56、59、113-114

Adversarial design, 118–120

对抗设计，118-120

Advertising on digital media, 72–73, 82–83

数字媒体广告, 72-73, 82-83

Affordance-based design (ADB), 33

基于亲和力的设计 (ADB), 33

Affordance(s)

影响

actualization of, 29, 36, 37

实现，29，36，37

artifact-artifact affordances (AAAs), 42

器物-器物负担能力（AAA），42

artifact-environment affordances (AEAs), 42

人工制品-环境负担（AEAs），42

artifact-user affordances (AUAs), 42

工具-用户负担能力（AUAs），42

bidirectional relationality, 28, 29, 35, 36

双向关系性，28、29、35、36

as binary construct, 8, 39, 40, 41, 42, 63–65

作为二元结构，8、39、40、41、42、63-65

definitional confusion, 39–40, 41, 42

定义混乱, 39-40, 41, 42

definitions, 6, 27–28, 30

定义、6、27-28、30

depicted as universal, 10

被描绘成普遍性，10

ecological psychology origins, 6, 21, 27–29, 41

生态心理学起源, 6, 21, 27-29, 41

and effectivity, 36, 38

和有效性，36，38

failure to account for diverse subjects and contexts, 39, 40, 41, 42

未能考虑不同的主题和背景，39, 40, 41, 42

and functions, 37, 38

和功能，37、38

how they matter, 14–15

它们如何重要，14-15

imagined, 42

想象，42

interdisciplinary spread of, 29–34, 41

跨学科传播, 29-34, 41

and multifaceted assemblages, 133

和多元组合，133

objects, subjects, and contexts, 34–39

对象、主体和背景，34-39

organizational, 38

组织，38

real and perceived, 30, 31, 91

真实与感知, 30, 31, 91

scholarly application of, 7–8, 25–26

学术应用, 7-8, 25-26

shift from what to how technologies afford, 8–9, 10, 11, 13, 65

从技术负担什么转向技术负担如何，8-9、10、11、13、65

Affordance(s) (cont.)

亲和力（续

social, 38

社会，38

and social media, 124

和社交媒体，124

strength of concept, 26

概念强度，26

surefire and probabilistic, 37–38

万无一失和概率, 37-38

Agency and efficacy, 7, 46, 50–51, 56–57

机构和效力，7、46、50-51、56-57

Agonism, 118–119, 120

激动，118-119，120

AI Now Institute, New York University, 126

纽约大学 AI Now 研究所，126

Algorithms

算法

automated systems for child protection, 17, 20

儿童保护自动化系统, 17, 20

Google, 17, 20, 82–83

谷歌、17、20、82-83

and hostile architectures, 55

和敌对架构，55

human decisions behind, 57

人类决定的背后，57

and Marshall McLuhan, 50

和马歇尔-麦克卢汉，50

social media, 82–83, 92, 93

社交媒体, 82-83, 92, 93

Algorithms of Oppression (Noble), 16, 17, 20

压迫算法（诺贝尔），16、17、20

Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, 126

艾伦人工智能研究所，126

Allow (mechanism of affordance), 11, 65, 80–83

允许（承受机制），11、65、80-83

Anthropology, 32–33

人类学》，32-33

Anti-Semitism, 82

反犹太主义, 82

Antirape apps, 114–116

Antirape 应用程序，114-116

App feature analysis, 110–111, 114–116

应用程序特征分析，110-111，114-116

Application software (apps), 84, 110–116

应用软件（apps）, 84, 110-116

Artifact-artifact affordances (AAAs), 42

器物-器物负担能力（AAAs），42

Artifact-environment affordances (AEAs), 42

人工制品-环境负担能力（AEAs），42

Artifact-user affordances (AUAs), 42

器物-用户负担能力（AUAs），42

Artificial intelligence (AI), 8, 57, 125–127

人工智能（AI），8，57，125-127

Assemblages, 51, 132–133

汇编》，51，132-133

Automated systems

自动化系统

child protection, 17, 20

儿童保护，17，20

human resource management, 55

人力资源管理，55

public sector, 16–17, 19–20

公共部门, 16-17, 19-20

Automating Inequality (Eubanks), 16–17, 19–20

不平等自动化（尤班克斯），16-17，19-20

Automobiles, 48, 69, 130–131

汽车，48、69、130-131

Banking interfaces, 55

银行界面，55

Banks, David, 52

班克斯、戴维、52

Barriers and fences, 63, 64, 67–68, 69, 87–89, 97–98

障碍和栅栏，63、64、67-68、69、87-89、97-98

bin Salman, Mohammed, 103

本-萨勒曼，穆罕默德，103

Bivens, Rena, 114–116

贝文斯、瑞娜，第 114-116 页

Blenders, 81

搅拌机, 81

Bridges in New York City, 54–55, 79

纽约市的桥梁, 54-55, 79

Brock, André, 108–110

布洛克、安德烈、108-110

Burgess, Jean, 98–99

伯吉斯，让，98-99

BuzzFeed, 82

Cambridge University, Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI), 125–126

剑桥大学，Leverhulme 未来智能中心（CFI），125-126

Cameras, 7, 72, 79

照相机，7，72，79

Cars, 48, 69, 130–131

汽车、48、69、130-131

CCD-me-not Umbrella, 119–120

CCD-me-not 伞，119-120

Cell phones, 72, 77, 79, 96

手机，72、77、79、96

Chemero, Anthony, 37

切梅洛，安东尼，37 岁

Child protection automated systems, 17, 20

儿童保护自动化系统, 17, 20

Choice, and design and use of technologies, 14

技术的选择、设计和使用，14

Classroom environments, 51–52

教室环境，51-52

Coin-locks on shopping carts, 1–2, 3, 8, 9–11, 13

购物车上的投币锁，1-2、3、8、9-11、13

Collaborative research relationships, 95–96, 102–103

合作研究关系，95-96，102-103

Communication studies, 33–34, 42, 47, 53

传播研究，33-34、42、47、53

Computer-mediated communication (CMC), 6, 33–34, 124

计算机辅助传播（CMC），6，33-34，124

Computers, 78, 102

计算机，78，102

Conditions of affordance

负担得起的条件

cultural and institutional legitimacy, 11–12, 89, 90, 96–100, 101

文化和机构合法性, 11-12, 89, 90, 96-100, 101

dexterity, 11–12, 89, 90, 94–96, 101

灵巧性, 11-12, 89, 90, 94-96, 101

perception, 11, 89, 90, 91–94, 101

感知，11、89、90、91-94、101

relationship between, 90

之间的关系，90

Conole, Grainne, 34

Constraints (Norman), 30–31

制约因素（诺曼），30-31

Contextual factors in object-subject relations, 35, 37–39

客体-主体关系中的语境因素，35，37-39

Conventions (Norman), 31

公约（诺曼）, 31

Critical design, 118

关键设计，118

Critical technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA), 108–110

批判性技术文化话语分析 (CTDA)，108-110

Critical theory, 110, 112

批判理论，110，112

Cultural and institutional legitimacy, 11–12, 89, 90, 96–100, 101

文化和机构合法性，11-12、89、90、96-100、101

Cultural constraints (Norman), 30, 31

文化制约因素（诺曼）, 30, 31

Cups (drinking), 38, 91–92

杯子（饮用），38，91-92

Dating apps, 84

约会应用程序，84

DeepMind, 126

Demand (mechanism of affordance), 11, 65, 66, 68–71

需求（承受机制），11、65、66、68-71

Design of Everyday Things, The (DOET) (Norman), 30–31, 91

日常事物设计》（DOET）（诺曼），30-31，91

Design studies

设计研究

affordances in, 6, 29–31, 33, 41, 58, 63, 91, 121

负担能力，6、29-31、33、41、58、63、91、121

and politics and values of technologies, 15–16, 18–19, 20

技术的政治和价值观, 15-16, 18-19, 20

practical turn in, 16, 18, 19, 20, 57–58, 90

实践转向，16、18、19、20、57-58、90

Desks, 33

办公桌，33

Determinism. See Technological determinism, overcoming

决定论。见技术决定论，克服

Dexterity, 11–12, 89, 90, 94–96, 101

灵巧性，11-12，89，90，94-96，101

Dictionaries, 7

字典，7

Digital connectivity, 124–125

数字连接，124-125

Digital inequalities, 102, 128–129

数字不平等，102，128-129

Digital media advertising, 72–73, 82–83

数字媒体广告，72-73，82-83

Digital publishing paywalls, 69, 70, 78

数字出版付费墙，69、70、78

Digital technologies and protest movements, 58–59

数字技术与抗议运动, 58-59

Dinner plates, 73–74

餐盘，73-74

Direct perception, 27, 28, 32, 35, 41

直接感知，27、28、32、35、41

Disabilities, 94–95, 96, 102, 131

残疾, 94-95, 96, 102, 131

DiSalvo, Carl, 119–120

DiSalvo, Carl, 119-120

Discourage (mechanism of affordance), 11, 65, 71, 74–77

劝阻（负担能力机制），11、65、71、74-77

Downvotes, 76

下拉票，76

Driverless cars, 130–131

无人驾驶汽车，130-131

Driving by women, 101–102, 103, 154n18

女性驾驶，101-102，103，154n18

Drop-down menus, 7, 70

下拉菜单，7，70

Duguay, Stefanie, 98–99

Duguay, Stefanie, 98-99

Dyke, Martin, 34

马丁-戴克，34 岁

Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, The (Gibson), 28

视觉感知的生态学方法》（吉布森），28

Ecological psychology, 6, 21, 27–29, 36, 39, 41. See also Gibson, James J.

生态心理学，6、21、27-29、36、39、41。另见 Gibson, James J.

Educational technologies, 34

教育技术，34

Education and digital inequalities, 102, 129

教育与数字不平等，102，129

Effectivity-affordance duality, 36, 38

效果--资金二元性，36、38

Efficacy and agency, 7, 46, 50–51, 56–57

效能与代理，7，46，50-51，56-57

Electric fences, 63, 69

电围栏，63、69

Electric light, 49

电灯，49

Emerging technologies, effects of, 6–7

新兴技术的影响，6-7

Encourage (mechanism of affordance), 11, 65, 71–74

鼓励（承受机制），11、65、71-74

Engineering

工程学

affordances in, 33, 37, 42

负担能力，33、37、42

and politics and values of technologies, 15–16, 18, 20

技术的政治和价值，15-16、18、20

walkthroughs, 112

演练，112

Environments of expected use (apps), 112–113, 116

预期使用环境（应用程序），112-113，116

Eubanks, Virginia, 16–17, 18, 19–20

弗吉尼亚州尤班克，16-17、18、19-20

Eugene, Oregon, police barriers, 87–89

俄勒冈州尤金市的警察障碍，87-89

Evans, Sandra K., 42, 64

埃文斯、桑德拉-K.，42，64

Explicit choice, and design and use of technologies, 14

明确的选择以及技术的设计和使用，14

Facebook

脸书

advertising on, 72–73, 82

广告，72-73，82

algorithms and racism, 82–83

算法与种族主义, 82-83

engagement with, 72–73

参与，72-73

and gender, 14–15, 69–70

与性别，14-15，69-70

and MySpace, 78–79

和 MySpace，78-79

photo streams, 80

照片流，80

and politics, 73, 81–83

与政治，73，81-83

real-name policy, 14–15, 81

实名政策，14-15，81

sharing on, 72–73, 74

共享，72-73，74

unintended uses of, 59, 73

意外使用，59，73

Facial recognition software, 14

面部识别软件，14

Fadel, George M., 33

Fences and barriers, 63, 64, 67–68, 69, 87–89, 97–98

围栏和障碍，63、64、67-68、69、87-89、97-98

Field deployments (values reflection), 117

实地部署（价值反映），117

Flanagan, Mary, 16, 18–19

玛丽-弗拉纳根，16，18-19

Friedman, Batya, 16, 90

Functions and affordances, 37, 38

功能和负担能力，37、38

Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, 126

牛津大学人类未来研究所，126

Gender

性别

and digital inequalities, 129

和数字不平等，129

and Facebook, 14–15, 69–70

和 Facebook，14-15，69-70

and Google, 15, 17

和谷歌，15，17

LGBTQI people, 15, 98–99, 113, 129

女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人和两性人，15, 98-99, 113, 129

and technological competence, 101

和技术能力，101

and use of shopping carts, 3, 5, 12

和使用购物车，3、5、12

women and driving, 101–102, 103, 154n18

妇女与驾驶，101-102，103，154n18

Genes, 131, 132

基因，131，132

Gestalt psychology, 28

完形心理学，28

Gibson, James J.

吉布森，詹姆斯 J.

affordance concept introduced by, 6, 27–29, 63

6, 27-29, 63

concept modified by others, 31, 34–35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

经他人修改的概念，31、34-35、36、37、38、39、40

Glassware, 91–92

玻璃器皿，91-92

Goldman, Sylvan, 2–3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12

高尔曼、西尔万、2-3、4、5、7、9、12

Google

谷歌

algorithms and racism, 17, 20, 82–83

算法与种族主义, 17, 20, 82-83

DeepMind, 126

and gender, 15, 17

与性别，15，17

Maps, 51

地图，51

GPS tracking of shopping carts, 5, 8

购物车 GPS 跟踪，5，8

Hackers, 101

黑客, 101

Hasinoff, Amy Adele, 114–116

哈西诺夫、艾米-阿黛尔，第 114-116 页

Health and advances in medical technologies, 131–132

健康与医疗技术的进步，131-132

Helmholtz, Hermann von, 27

赫尔姆霍兹，赫尔曼-冯，27

Hendry, David G., 90

亨德利，戴维-G.，90 岁

Higdon, Galon, 68, 84–85

希格顿、加隆，第 68、84-85 页

Ho, Wayne, 90

何伟恩，90 岁

Homeless people, 10–11, 16–17, 55

无家可归者，10-11，16-17，55

Hostile architectures, 55

敌对建筑，55

House Bill 37 (HB37) (Missouri), 68, 84–85, 151n6

众议院第 37 号法案（HB37）（密苏里州），68, 84-85, 151n6

Human agency and technological efficacy, 7, 46, 50–51, 56–57

人的作用与技术功效，7、46、50-51、56-57

Human body and advances in medical technologies, 131–132

人体与医疗技术的进步, 131-132

Human-computer interaction (HCI), 29, 38

人机交互 (HCI)，29，38

Human resource management automated systems, 55

人力资源管理自动化系统，55

Human-technology asymmetry, 46, 56–57, 59–60

人与技术的不对称，46、56-57、59-60

Human-technology relations, 8, 11–12, 15, 21, 45–46, 90, 100, 132–133

人与技术的关系，8、11-12、15、21、45-46、90、100、132-133

Imagined affordances, 42

想象的负担能力，42

Imgur, 76–77

Imgur, 76-77

Implicit choice, and design and use of technologies, 14

隐性选择以及技术的设计和使用，14

Industrial revolution, 47

工业革命，47

Inferential perception, 27

推理感知，27

Information communication technologies (ICTs), 6, 33–34, 108–110

信息传播技术（ICTs），6, 33-34, 108-110

Information economies and political life, 130

信息经济与政治生活, 130

Infrastructure design, 54–55, 79, 118, 130–131

基础设施设计，54-55，79，118，130-131

Ingold, Tim, 32

英戈尔德，蒂姆，32

Instagram, 75–76, 81, 82–83, 93, 98

Instagram, 75-76, 81, 82-83, 93, 98

Interdisciplinary approach to politics and values of technology, 15–21

以跨学科方法研究技术的政治和价值，15-21

Interdisciplinary spread of affordance theory, 29–34, 41

承受能力理论的跨学科传播, 29-34, 41

Internet technologies, analysis of, 108–110

互联网技术分析，108-110

Jewish people, 82

犹太人，82

Journalism in new media landscape, 130

新媒体环境下的新闻业, 130

Julien, Christopher M., 76–77

朱利安，克里斯托弗-M.，76-77

Koffka, Kurt, 28, 29

库尔特-科夫卡，第 28、29 页

Latour, Bruno, 51–53, 56

拉图尔、布鲁诺、51-53、56

Laurillard, Diana, 34

Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI), Cambridge University, 125–126

剑桥大学 Leverhulme 未来智能中心（CFI），第 125-126 页

Lewin, Kurt, 28

卢因，库尔特，28

LGBTQI people, 15, 98–99, 113, 129

女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、变性人和两性人，15, 98-99, 113, 129

Light dimmers, 81

调光器，81

Logical constraints (Norman), 30

逻辑约束（诺曼），30

Low socioeconomic status

社会经济地位低下

and breaching of police barriers, 88

和突破警察屏障，88

and public sector automated decision systems, 16–17, 19–20

和公共部门自动决策系统, 16-17, 19-20

and urban planning, 55, 79

与城市规划，55，79

urban youth of colour, 99–100

城市有色青年, 99-100

and use of shopping carts, 10–11

和购物车的使用，10-11

Machine intelligence, 8, 57, 125–127

机器智能，8，57，125-127

Maier, Jonathan R. A., 33

Mailboxes, 28, 29

邮箱，28、29

Mapping (Norman), 33

绘图（诺曼），33

Marginalized groups, 77, 81, 90, 110, 113, 121–122. See also Homeless people

边缘化群体，77、81、90、110、113、121-122。另见无家可归者

McGrenere, Joanna, 90

McGrenere, Joanna, 90 岁

McLaughlin, Melinda, 87–88

McLaughlin, Melinda, 87-88

McLuhan, Marshall, 47–51, 56

马歇尔-麦克卢汉，47-51，56

Measuring cups, 91–92

量杯，91-92

Mechanisms and conditions framework, 11–14. See also Conditions of affordance; Mechanisms of affordance; Methodologies for mechanisms and conditions framework

机制和条件框架，11-14。另见负担能力的条件；负担能力的机制；机制和条件框架的方法论

Mechanisms of affordance

负担得起的机制

allow, 11, 65, 80–83

允许、11、65、80-83

demand, 11, 65, 66, 68–71

需求，11，65，66，68-71

discourage, 11, 65, 71, 74–77

劝阻，11，65，71，74-77

encourage, 11, 65, 71–74

鼓励、11、65、71-74

flexibility of categories, 65–66, 109

类别的灵活性，65-66，109

refuse, 11, 65, 71, 77–80

垃圾，11，65，71，77-80

request, 11, 65, 66–68

请求、11、65、66-68

Media effects, 48

媒体效应，48

Media literacy, 92–93

媒体扫盲，92-93

Medical technologies and embodied relations to health, 131–132

医疗技术与健康的体现关系，131-132

Medical tracking systems, 131, 132

医疗追踪系统，131，132

Medium is the message, the, 47–50

媒介即信息，47-50

Methodologies for mechanisms and conditions framework, 105–108. See also Conditions of affordance; Mechanisms of affordance; Mechanisms and conditions framework

机制和条件框架的方法，105-108。另见负担能力的条件；负担能力的机制；机制与条件框架

adversarial design, 118–120

对抗设计，118-120

app feature analysis, 110–111, 114–116

应用程序特征分析，110-111，114-116

critical technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA), 108–110

批判性技术文化话语分析 (CTDA)，108-110

values reflection, 116–118

价值观反思，116-118

walkthrough method, 110–114

演练法，110-114

Misinformation and social media, 92–93

错误信息和社交媒体, 92-93

Mobile technologies and protest movements, 58–59

移动技术与抗议运动，58-59

Mobility impairments, 94–95, 131

行动障碍，94-95，131

Mock-ups (values reflection), 117

模拟（价值反映），117

Moses, Robert, 55, 79

摩西、罗伯特、55、79

MySpace, 78–79

MySpace, 78-79

Nagy, Peter, 42

彼得-纳吉，42 岁

Neff, Gina, 42, 91

妮芙，吉娜，42，91

New technologies, effects of, 6–7

新技术的影响，6-7

New York City, urban planning, 54–55, 79

纽约市，城市规划，54-55，79

New York University, AI Now Institute, 126

纽约大学 AI Now 研究所，126

Nissenbaum, Helen, 16, 18–19

尼森鲍姆、海伦、16、18-19

Noble, Safiya Umoja, 16, 17–18, 20

Noble, Safiya Umoja, 16, 17-18, 20

Norman, Donald A.

诺曼，唐纳德 A.

and definitional confusion about affordances, 40

以及对负担能力的定义混淆, 40

design studies and affordances, 6, 29–31, 33, 41, 58, 63, 91, 121

设计研究和承受能力, 6, 29-31, 33, 41, 58, 63, 91, 121

human-computer interaction (HCI) and affordances, 29, 38

人机交互（HCI）和承受能力，29，38

perceptual focus of, 35, 37

感知焦点，35，37

Objects, subjects, and contexts, 34–39

对象、主体和背景，34-39

Occupy Wall Street protests, 52

占领华尔街抗议活动，52

Online learning platforms, 102

在线学习平台，102

OpenAI, 126

Organizational affordances, 38

组织能力，38

Oxford Artificial Intelligence Society, 126

牛津人工智能学会，126

Oxford University, Future of Humanity Institute, 126

牛津大学人类未来研究所，126

Pasquale, Frank, 57

Paywalls in academic journal publishing, 69, 70, 78

学术期刊出版中的付费墙, 69, 70, 78

Pea, Roy D., 34

Perceived affordances, 30, 31, 91

感知承受能力, 30, 31, 91

Perception

感知

direct, 27, 28, 32, 35, 41

直接、27、28、32、35、41

inferential, 27

推理，27

mechanisms and conditions framework, 11, 89, 90, 91–94, 101

机制和条件框架, 11, 89, 90, 91-94, 101

shared, 32

共享，32

Pfaffenberger, Bryan, 32

布莱恩-普法芬伯格，32 岁

Physical constraints (Norman), 30–31

物理限制（诺曼），30-31

Plates (dinner), 73–74

餐盘（晚餐），73-74

Poel, Harjo J. de, 64

Police tape, 67–68, 87–89, 97–98

警用胶带，67-68、87-89、97-98

Political design, 118–120

政治设计，118-120

Politics

政治

and information economies, 130

和信息经济，130

and social media, 73, 81–83, 130

与社交媒体, 73, 81-83, 130

of technologies, 14–21, 53–55, 106, 117

技术，14-21，53-55，106，117

Portions Master Skinny Plate, 74

份量大师瘦盘，74

Postboxes, 28, 29

邮筒，28、29

Power dynamics

权力动态

and adversarial design, 119, 120

和对抗设计, 119, 120

and critical technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA), 109, 110

和批判性技术文化话语分析 (CTDA)，109、110

reflected in material form, 122

反映在物质形式中，122

and social theories, 53–55

与社会理论, 53-55

technologies’ arc toward power and privilege, 14, 82, 98

技术对权力和特权的影响, 14, 82, 98

and value-sensitive design, 18

和对价值敏感的设计，18

Privacy and social media, 81

隐私与社交媒体，81

Probabilistic affordances, 37–38

概率负担能力, 37-38

Propaganda, 48, 82

宣传，48，82

ProPublica, 82

Protest movements, 52, 58–59

抗议运动，52，58-59

Prototypes (values reflection), 117

原型（价值反映），117

Psychological well-being and social media, 129

心理健康与社交媒体，129

Psychology of Everyday Things, The (POET) (Norman), 29–30

日常事物心理学》（POET）（诺曼），29-30 页

Public sector automated decision systems, 16–17, 19–20

公共部门自动决策系统, 16-17, 19-20

Public transit, 32, 55, 79

公共交通，32、55、79

Queer*-identifying people, 98–99, 113, 129. See also LGBTQI people

同性恋*认同者，98-99，113，129。另见 LGBTQI 人

Race and racism

种族与种族主义

and breaching of police barriers, 88–89

和突破警察障碍，88-89

and facial recognition software, 14

和面部识别软件，14

profiling of customers, 13

客户分析，13

and social media, 17, 20, 76–77, 82–83, 99–100

与社交媒体, 17, 20, 76-77, 82-83, 99-100

unrest in United States, 82, 84–85

美国的动乱, 82, 84-85

and urban planning, 55, 79

与城市规划，55，79

Railways, 47–48, 69

铁路，47-48，69

Real affordances, 30, 31, 91

实际支付能力，30、31、91

Refuse (mechanism of affordance), 11, 65, 71, 77–80

拒绝（承受机制），11、65、71、77-80

Request (mechanism of affordance), 11, 65, 66–68

请求（承受机制），11、65、66-68

Roadways, 69, 70, 131

道路，69、70、131

Role-taking, 121

角色扮演，121

Rope fences, 63, 67–68, 69

绳索围栏，63、67-68、69

Saudi women, 103, 154n18

沙特妇女，103，154n18

Savić, Selena, 55

萨维奇，塞莱娜，55 岁

Savičić, Gordan, 55

戈尔丹-萨维奇，55 岁

Sayes, Edwin, 54

Scarantino, Andrea, 37–38

斯卡兰蒂诺、安德烈亚、37-38

Schmidt, Robert C., 38

施密特，罗伯特 C.，38 岁

Schraube, Ernst, 46, 56–60

恩斯特-施劳贝，第 46、56-60 页

Science and technology studies (STS), 46, 47, 53–54, 59, 133

科学与技术研究（STS）, 46, 47, 53-54, 59, 133

Screen readers, 102

屏幕阅读器，102

Self-checkout machines, 80

自助收银机, 80

Sexual violence prevention, 114–116

预防性暴力，114-116

Shared perception, 32

共同感知，32

Shopping baskets, 3, 7, 12

购物篮，3、7、12

Shopping carts

购物车

coin-locks, 1–2, 3, 8, 9–11, 13

投币锁，1-2、3、8、9-11、13

evolution of, 5–6

演变，5-6

gender and use of, 3, 5, 12

性别与使用，3, 5, 12

GPS tracking devices, 5, 8

GPS 跟踪设备，5，8

invented by Sylvan Goldman, 2–3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12

由 Sylvan Goldman 发明，第 2-3、4、5、7、9、12 页

and mechanisms and conditions of affordance framework, 12–13

负担能力框架的机制和条件，12-13

socioeconomic status and use of, 10–11

社会经济地位与使用，10-11

wheel-locks, 5, 8, 9–10, 13

轮锁，5、8、9-10、13

Snapchat, 81

Social affordances, 38

社会负担能力，38

Social capital and social media, 99

社会资本和社交媒体，99

Social media. See also Facebook; Imgur; Instagram; MySpace; Snapchat; Tinder; Twitter; Vine

社交媒体。另请参阅 Facebook、Imgur、Instagram、MySpace、Snapchat、Tinder、Twitter、Vine。

affect on sociality and psychological well-being, 129

对社交和心理健康的影响，129

and affordance concept, 124

和负担能力概念，124

algorithms, 82–83, 92, 93

算法，82-83，92，93

flagging and reporting on, 98–99

标记和报告，98-99

network building, 8

网络建设，8

and politics, 73, 81–83, 130

与政治，73、81-83、130

and privacy, 81

和隐私，81

and race, 17, 20, 76–77, 82–83, 99–100

与种族，17、20、76-77、82-83、99-100

and social capital, 99

和社会资本，99

truth and trust in, 92–93

真理与信任, 92-93

user-generated content moderation, 7

用户生成内容管理，7

Social sciences and politics and values of technologies, 15–18, 19–20

社会科学、政治和技术价值观，15-18，19-20

Sociality and social media, 129

社交性和社交媒体，129

Socially intentional design practices, 19

具有社会意图的设计实践，19

Software applications (apps), 84, 110–116

软件应用程序 (应用程序), 84, 110-116

Stair climbing, 35–36, 40, 64, 94–95, 96

爬楼梯，35-36，40，64，94-95，96

Stanford Institute for Human-Centred Artificial Intelligence, 126

斯坦福以人为本人工智能研究所，126

Subjects, objects, and contexts, 34–39

主体、客体和背景，34-39

Surefire affordances, 37–38

必杀技，37-38

Suthers, Daniel D., 34

Suzor, Nicolas, 98–99

尼古拉-苏佐尔，98-99

Technological competence, 101–102

技术能力，101-102

Technological determinism, overcoming, 7, 26, 45, 50–53, 107, 109

克服技术决定论，7、26、45、50-53、107、109

Technological efficacy and human agency, 7, 46, 50–51, 56–57

技术功效与人的能动性, 7, 46, 50-51, 56-57

Technological neutrality, 47–48

技术中立, 47-48

Technologies

技术

arc towards power and privilege, 14, 82, 98

走向权力和特权的弧线, 14, 82, 98

design and use of, and choice, 14

设计、使用和选择, 14

effects of new, 6–7

新的影响，6-7

politics and values of, 14–21, 53–55, 106, 117

政治与价值观, 14-21, 53-55, 106, 117

shift from what to how they afford, 8–9, 10, 11, 13, 65

从 "负担什么 "到 "如何负担 "的转变，8-9、10、11、13、65

Technology as materialized action, 46, 56–60

作为具体行动的技术, 46, 56-60

Technology-technology relations, 133

技术与技术的关系，133

Temperature control technologies, 96–97

温度控制技术，96-97

Tinder, 98–99, 154n14

Tinder, 98-99, 154n14

Tips for service, 80

服务小费，80

Trains, 47–48, 69

火车，47-48，69

Truth and trust in social media, 92–93

社交媒体中的真相与信任，92-93

Tsinghua University Institute for Artificial Intelligence, 126

清华大学人工智能研究所，126

Tufekci, Zeynep, 58–59

Tufekci, Zeynep, 58-59

Turvey, Michael, 36

迈克尔-特维，36

Twitter, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82–83, 130

Twitter, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82-83, 130

Unpleasant design, 55

令人不快的设计，55

Upvotes, 76

向上投票，76

Urban planning, 54–55, 79, 118, 130–131

城市规划，54-55，79，118，130-131

Utility and usability, 36–37, 38

实用性和可用性，36-37，38

Value dams and flows, 117

重视水坝和水流，117

Value-sensitive design, 16, 18–19

价值敏感型设计, 16, 18-19

Values at play, 16, 19

价值观在起作用，16，19

Values at Play in Digital Games (Flanagan and Nissenbaum), 16, 18–19

数字游戏中的价值观》（弗拉纳根和尼森鲍姆），16、18-19 页

Values reflection, 116–118

价值观反思，116-118

Values scenarios, 117–118

价值情景，117-118

Values of technologies, 15–21, 117

技术的价值，15-21，117

Verbeek, Peter-Paul, 57–58

Verbeek, Peter-Paul, 57-58

Vine, 98, 99

藤蔓，98，99

Visual impairments, 95, 96, 102

视觉障碍, 95, 96, 102

Vote-curated digital platforms, 76–77

票选数字平台，76-77

Walkthrough method, 110–114

演练法，110-114

Warren, William H., 35–36, 40, 64, 95

威廉-H-沃伦，35-36、40、64、95

Website design and visual impairments, 95

网站设计与视觉障碍，95

Wheel-locks on shopping carts, 5, 8, 9–10, 13

购物车上的轮锁，5、8、9-10、13

White supremacy, 82

白人至上, 82

Winner, Langdon, 54–55

优胜者，兰登，54-55

Withagen, Rob, 64

罗伯-威萨根，64 岁

Wooden fences, 63

木栅栏, 63

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) accessibility standards, 95

万维网联盟（W3C）无障碍标准，95

Write-in boxes, 7, 70

写入盒，7，70

Youth of color, 99–100

有色人种青年，99-100

Zuckerberg, Mark, 59

马克-扎克伯格，59岁

Table of Contents

Cover

Contents

Series Foreword

Acknowledgments

1 Introduction

A Trolley Problem of a Particular Sort

Affordances

Operationalizing Affordances: The Mechanisms and Conditions Framework

How Affordances Matter

Situating the Text

Outline of the Book

2 A Brief History of Affordances

Origins in Ecological Psychology

Affordances Spread

Objects, Subjects, and Contexts

Sustained Critiques

Pathways Forward

3 Politics and Power

The Medium Is the Message: McLuhan on Technologies as Objects of Study

Actor-Network Theory: Overcoming Technological Determinism

The Politics of Artifacts

Technology as Materialized Action: Technological Efficacy and Human Agency

Chapter Summary

4 Mechanisms of Affordance

Requests and Demands

Encourage, Discourage, and Refuse

Allow

Chapter Summary

5 Conditions of Affordance

Perception

Dexterity

Cultural and Institutional Legitimacy

Chapter Summary

6 Affordances in Practice

Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis

The Walkthrough Method and App Feature Analysis

Values Reflection

Adversarial Design

Chapter Summary

7 Conclusion

Big Question 1: How Do We Identify and Equalize Digital Inequalities?

Big Question 2: How Do Social Media Affect Sociality and Psychological Well-being?

Big Question 3: How Do Information Economies Affect Political Life?

Big Question 4: How Will Driverless Cars Affect Urban Infrastructures?

Big Question 5: How Do Medical Technologies Afford Embodied Relations to Health?

Moving Forward

Notes

Bibliography

Index