Legal affordances arise from relations within and between bodies of law at different scales, where questions of definition, jurisdiction and applicability configure the legal space of NAPFs’ strategy and the physical space of operations. We highlight how a focus on legal affordances as comprised of absences, ambiguity and arbitrage allows us to see how NAPFs use legal and spatial scaling to connect the local to the transnational. We also suggest that social activism concerned with property, labor, and public thoroughfare rights can challenge legal affordances. These challenges can then be pushed at different scales where adjudication may be on offer, but are also limited given that NAPFs have considerable resources to spend in fending off legal challenges.

NAPFs combine the opportunistic use of bodies of law, the spatial demarcation of the firm's corporate structure, and economic activities occurring in bounded local spaces. These firms do not use bodies of law as external resources, but integrate legal and spatial scaling into their everyday operations. Legal affordances are a privilege supported by a transnational interpretative community of professionals that promotes their widespread recognition through “embedded spaces of social practice” (Faulconbridge, 2007; Harrington and Seabrooke 2020). Legal affordance differs from legal provision, which is a granted right and commonly viewed as fixed and static external resources. As we clarify below, NAPFs use legal affordances to construct what David Harvey (1973, 2006) referred to as relational space that empowers their capacity to exploit other people's assets and avoid regulatory burdens.

if you're going to try to claim he's somehow "privileged"

Note: The standard variant of the TextField is no longer documented in the Material Design guidelines (here's why), but Material-UI will continue to support it.

Enclosed text fields with a rectangular (box) shape performed better than those with a line affordance

Negative affordances are used when conveying a lack of function or interactivity.

An example of this would be a button that looks clickable but isn’t, underlined text that doesn’t contain a link, or a TV remote that turns on your lights but not the TV. False affordances are often present by mistake or occur due to lack of effective design techniques.

False affordances occur when a feature of an item suggests a use that the item can’t actually perform.

Explicit affordances are obvious, perceptual features of an item that clue you in on how it is to be used. With explicit affordances, physical appearance and any accompanying language or text inform the user of how an object is to be used.

Hidden affordances are implicit features of an object. The clues that indicate an items function are not obvious and may not even be displayed until the action is being taken.

“when affordances are taken advantage of, the user knows what to do just by looking: no picture, label, or instruction needed.”

For instance, when you see a door handle, you assume its function is to open a door. When you see a light switch, you assume it can be flicked to turn on a light. When looking at a chair, you know it can be sat in. All of these are affordances. Don Norman refers to affordances as relationships in his book The Design of Everyday Things. He goes on to say that, “when affordances are taken advantage of, the user knows what to do just by looking: no picture, label, or instruction needed.”

What is an affordance? An affordance is a compelling indicator as to how an item operates and includes both its perceived and actual functions.

Many designers strive to create products that are so easy to navigate, their users can flow through them at first glance. To design something with this level of intuitiveness, it’s imperative designers understand affordances—what they are and how to use them.

To what extend does that what is perceived as human agency actually emerge from what is afforded by the ecologies in which humans operate?

affordance 

As Rosner [35] explains, this goes beyond the “affordances” of objects [28] and instead goes to what the tools represent to their craft and their expert execution of w