[seanwilson]

Feels like there needs to be more intuitive terminology and for it to only be used when it's helpful to the discussion because most of the time I see the word "affordance" used, it's dropped in unnecessarily into the conversation where the poster should know the other commenters aren't going to know what it means, or it devolves into a discussion about the definition (see here). I've don't hear it used outside UX circles.

During UX work on projects, it's simple enough and comes naturally to most for everyone involved to phrase it something like "we should add X so it's more obvious you can Y". I'm don't see the gain in breaking it down more outside of more academic discussions, and introducing unnecessary terminology creates a barrier for communication.

[_a_a_a_]

A while back someone, replying to one of my comments, mentioned affordances in C#. He simply meant procedure or function, but chose to use a fancier sanding, more abstract word which really confused me. There is too much misuse of pompous language happening where simpler, plainer descriptions work better (yes, language is also a user interface of sorts).

[smcin]

Right. "visual hint" is self-explanatory and cannot be misinterpreted, and seems to be a more common term. As a non-UX person I've never heard the UX jargon "affordance", but I've heard "visual hint" tons.