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.