from the form and materials of the artifact itself to lightweight surface symbols?

[keannu]

Can you deliver an artifact's usage meaning by its form and materials? For example, if you shape a door knob 's left end by an arrow, it may mean turn left to open. Does the underlined mean what I just explained?
I mean, the sentence is saying the form and materials can be made to mean the usage of an artifact, but it's harder than than surface symbols. Right?

ex) Sheets of paper exist almost entirely for the purpose of carrying information, so we tend to think of them as neutral objects. We rarely interpret marks on paper as references to the paper itself. However, when we see the text, characters, and images on artifacts that serve other purposes, we generally interpret these marks as labels that do refer to their carriers. Natural objects do not come with labels, of course, but these days, most physical artifacts do. That is, their designers have chosen to shift part of the burden of communication from the form and materials of the artifact itself to lightweight surface symbols. So, for example, a designer of door handles might not worry about communicating their functions through their shapes, but might simply mark them ‘push’ and ‘pull.’

[Raymott]

Can you deliver an artifact's usage meaning by its form and materials?
Yes, if you mean, "Can you deduce an artifact's purpose from its form and materials?" That is what the passage below says traditionally happens if you don't label something.

For example, if you shape a door knob 's left end by an arrow, it may mean turn left to open. Does the underlined mean what I just explained?
I don't think so. That sounds intermediate between a simple knob and a knob with "turn left" stamped on it. A knob in the shape of an arrow is not an example of a light-weight surface symbol. An arrow etched into a knob would be.

I mean, the sentence is saying the form and materials can be made to mean the usage of an artifact, but it's harder than than surface symbols. Right?
No, now you're asking a different and contradictory question. You could argue from this passage that designers believe it's easier to tell the function of an object from surface symbols, not harder.

ex) Sheets of paper exist almost entirely for the purpose of carrying information, so we tend to think of them as neutral objects. We rarely interpret marks on paper as references to the paper itself. However, when we see the text, characters, and images on artifacts that serve other purposes, we generally interpret these marks as labels that do refer to their carriers. Natural objects do not come with labels, of course, but these days, most physical artifacts do. That is, their designers have chosen to shift part of the burden of communication from the form and materials of the artifact itself to lightweight surface symbols. So, for example, a designer of door handles might not worry about communicating their functions through their shapes, but might simply mark them ‘push’ and ‘pull.’

You sound confused. The underlined sentence means that the function is now being suggested by symbols on the surface, not by the form and materials of the object. Eg. A label "coffee cup" on a coffee cup - you know you are meant to use it for drinking coffee out of because it has a label "coffee cup" on it, whereas before, you had to intuit the function from what it looked like.

[keannu]

You sound confused. The underlined sentence means that the function is now being suggested by symbols on the surface, not by the form and materials of the object. Eg. A label "coffee cup" on a coffee cup - you know you are meant to use it for drinking coffee out of because it has a label "coffee cup" on it, whereas before, you had to intuit the function from what it looked like.

No, that's what I meant as you did. I was just asking if it is also possible to deliver the usage by its shape or material even though it's more inconvenient that lables. Shapes are a good way, but how can materials do that? If the coffee cup's material is wooden or plastic, does it make any difference?

[Raymott]

No, that's what I meant as you did. I was just asking if it is also possible to deliver the usage by its shape or material even though it's more inconvenient that lables. Shapes are a good way, but how can materials do that? If the coffee cup's material is wooden or plastic, does it make any difference?

If a cup-shaped object is made out of tissue paper, it's not a coffee cup.