Digital Craftsmanship: HCI Takes onTechnology as an Expressive Medium

Jennifer JacobsMIT Media LabCambridge, MA, USAjacobsj@media.mit.edu

Joel BrandtAdobe ResearchSan Francisco, CA, USAjoel.brandt@adobe.com

David MellisUC-BerkeleyBerkeley, CA, USAmellis@berkeley.edu

Joshua TanenbaumUC-IrvineIrvine, CA, USAjoshua.tanenbaum@uci.edu

Amit ZoranThe Hebrew University ofJerusalemJerusalem, Israelzoran@cs.huji.ac.il

Cesar TorresUC-BerkeleyBerkeley, CA, USAcearto@berkeley.edu

AbstractTraditional HCI goals like efficiency and ease-of-use, whileimportant, are not sufficient for digital technology to functionas an expressive medium. This digital craftsmanship alsorequires diversity, risk, personal taste, mastery, and respectfor materials. We discuss how digital tools can support ex-pressive practices and highlight multiple strands of relevantHCI research. This workshop brings together tool develop-ers, practitioners, ethnographers, and others engaged withdigital technology as an expressive medium. It highlightsdigital craftsmanship as a distinct domain for HCI researchand seeks to distill insights and best practices for the HCIcommunity.

Author KeywordsExpressiveness; Fabrication, Design, Craft; CAD; Materials

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.2 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Interactionstyles; D.2.2 [Design Tools and Techniques]: User inter-faces

IntroductionDigital technology creates new opportunities for the exer-cise of craftsmanship. It extends the possibilities of ex-isting expressive mediums and promotes creation of oth-ers. Domains like computer-aided design (CAD) [7], elec-

tronic crafts [2, 9, 10], procedural design [5, 11], and hybridhuman-computer digital fabrication [4, 15, 16] provide newopportunities for artists, designers, and craftspeople. Yetintegrating digital technology and craftsmanship is not easy.The abstractions required to build technological systemsimpose a separation between craftspeople and their ma-terials. Technological systems often are brittle, requiringthe correctness of low-level elements to function. Digitaltechnology changes rapidly, making it difficult for craftspeo-ple to continuously master emerging tools and interfaces.The availability of technological components may imposeconstraints on the form or function of the works that can bebuilt using them, which then may constrain artistic practice.Even successful digital crafting technologies can disruptcultures of practice by de-skilling the craftsperson.

Figure 1: Procedurally designedlaser-cut lamps created usingCodeable Objects.

Figure 2: Processing is asimplified programming languageand development environmentused across the visual artscommunity in professional andnovice practices.

Applying HCI to digital craftsmanship requires a different fo-cus than traditional HCI goals of efficiency and ease-of-use.Expressive mediums allow for continuous work, engage-ment, and varied outcomes. Such mediums provide oppor-tunities for individual mastery and enable communities ofpractice [7]. Developing and supporting expressive techno-logical mediums requires an understanding of the nature ofcreative practice, something that is not discussed in manyareas of HCI research. We question how technology andcraftsmanship can be reconciled to enable diverse formsof expressive practice by many different people. How canwe build interfaces to allow direct manipulation of algorith-mic processes? What does it mean to treat microcontrollersas craft material? How can a computer guide, but not de-termine, a sculptor’s hand movement? Answering suchquestions requires research in multiple technological andtraditional disciplines. In the following, we describe domainsof HCI research that are relevant to digital craftsmanship.This is followed by a list of topics of interest and a summaryof the goals of the proposed workshop.

HCI Perspectives on Digital CraftsmanshipOur workshop invites submissions that inform digital crafts-manship in any of the following areas.

Building expressive computational toolsWe focus on tool- and systems-building research that si-multaneously lowers technical barriers and refines tech-nical interactions to enable expressive and open-endedpractice. In the domain of programming, Processing simpli-fies and contextualizes programming within visual art anddesign while supporting extensibility through extensionsand community development (Figure 2). In CAD, Mesh-mixer applies a collaging interaction to fluidly compositemultiple high-density meshes, enabling easy entry to 3Dmodeling and production of sophisticated sculptural formsthrough extended practice [12]. MetaMorphe applies a web-programming metaphor to parametric design, which makesit accessible to users familiar with HTML and CSS, and en-ables transparent modeling of design processes through a"view-source" interaction [14].

Blending the digital and physicalOther HCI research focuses on the role of digital technologyin the crafting of physical artifacts. Some work explores theintegration of electronics and physical materials. Mellis etal. [9] emphasize the importance of tightly integrating elec-tronic components with craft materials and practices (Figure4). Perner-Wilson et al. [10] demonstrate how construct-ing sensors from conductive textiles yields diverse formsand aesthetics. Other research leverages digital fabrica-tion. Codeable Objects [5] makes computer programmingrelevant to people interested in aesthetics by combiningprogramming and craft through digital fabrication (Figure1). Zoran et al. [16] use parametric models to inform thebehavior of a hand-held tool. This extends the fabrication

capabilities of practitioners while preserving the ability forselective manual control (Figure 5).

Figure 3: Meshmixer allows forsculpting and manipulation of 3Dmeshes.

Figure 4: Mellis et al. coupleelectronic components with craftmaterials to leverage theaccessibility and expressivity ofdrawing.

Figure 5: FreeD is an augmentedsculpting tool that guides usermovement.

Research through artifact creation or in-the-wild studiesProducing technological artifacts and examining real-worldtechnological practice helps researchers understand howdigital technology enhances or conflicts with existing formsof making and creates opportunities for new forms. Mel-lis and Buechley use the process of designing and fabri-cating a cell phone to explore the limits and opportunitiesof high-tech DIY [8]. Artifact development can help bridgetechnological and cultural differences, as Jacobs and Zorandemonstrate through collaboration with Namibian craftspeo-ple [6]. HCI also provides a context to examine real-worldpractitioners, thereby revealing opportunities for future de-velopment. Brandt et. al’s observations of programmers’behavior reveals how they use online resources with multi-ple intentions [1]. Tanenbaum et. al’s study of maker culturereveals how craftspeople value utility, expressiveness, andengagement, suggesting that future tools for making shouldbalance these qualities [13]. Cheatle and Jackson observehow incorporation of digital technologies in a furniture-making studio reveals aspects of manual production thatmachines cannot yet replace [3].

Workshop Goals and OutcomesThe proposed workshop is a forum for discussion of dig-ital craftsmanship as a domain of HCI research. We willsolicit participation from academia, industry, and art, includ-ing developers of software-design tools, educators, artistsusing technology in their work, and ethnographers explor-ing the use of digital technologies in creative communities.The workshop provides an opportunity for these practition-ers to share knowledge and experience, showcase relevantprojects, receive feedback, identify areas for investigation,and establish collaborations. We are particularly interested

in exploring ways to overcome tensions between digitaltechnology and craftsmanship and to consider strategiesfor evaluating the expressiveness of digital tools and inter-faces. We plan to highlight the importance of craftsmanshipin design and use of technological systems, and to distillbest practices for the HCI community. We will submit ourresults as an article to ACM Interactions.

Workshop StructureThe one-day workshop will begin with introduction of theworkshop by organizers and introduction of participantsto one another. Then an hour will be devoted to ‘"science-fair-style" sharing of participant work, such as artifacts andartwork, interactive demonstrations of tools and interfaces,and documentation of ethnographic research. Next, we willfacilitate a group brainstorming of themes for further exam-ination during two 90-minute breakout sessions. Possibletopics include ways to support collaboration and dialog be-tween researchers and creative practitioners, delineatingrelevant evaluation criteria and methodology, and identifyingnew creative communities and mediums for future explo-ration. The workshop will end with a sharing by participantsof the results of the breakout discussions and a facilitateddiscussion of the overall workshop themes. During this, wewill work to collectively articulate a summary of the implica-tions of the workshop for the broader HCI community. Werequire space for 10-25 participants to present interactivetools, systems, and artifacts.

OrganizersJennifer Jacobs is an artist, and Ph.D. student at the MITMedia Lab researching procedural tools for art. David Mellisis a post-doc at U.C.-Berkeley researching ways to diversifymaking of technology. Amit Zoran is a senior lecturer at theHebrew University of Jerusalem researching HCI, design,and craft. Cesar Torres is a Ph.D. student at U.C.-Berkeley

researching digital fabrication as new media. Joel Brandtis Director of Research Engineering at Adobe research-ing tools that help designers and developers be creative.Joshua Tanenbaum is an assistant professor at U.C.-Irvineresearching playful systems for transformation, and DIY andmaker cultures.

Figure 6: Workshop organizers.Clockwise from top-left: JenniferJacobs, David Mellis, Cesar Torres,Joshua Tanenbaum, Joel Brandt,and Amit Zoran.

REFERENCES1. Joel Brandt, Philip J. Guo, Joel Lewenstein, Mira

Dontcheva, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2009. Two Studiesof Opportunistic Programming: Interleaving WebForaging, Learning, and Writing Code. In CHI ’09.ACM, 1589–1598.

2. Leah Buechley and Hannah Perner-Wilson. 2012.Crafting Technology: Reimagining the Processes,Materials, and Cultures of Electronics. ACM TOCHI 19,3, Article 21 (Oct. 2012), 21 pages.

3. Amy Cheatle and Steven J. Jackson. 2015. DigitalEntanglements: Craft, Computation and Collaborationin Fine Art Furniture Production. In CSCW ’15. ACM,958–968.

4. Laura Devendorf and Kimiko Ryokai. 2015. Being theMachine: Reconfiguring Agency and Control in HybridFabrication. In CHI ’15. ACM, 2477–2486.

5. Jennifer Jacobs and Leah Buechley. 2013. CodeableObjects: Computational Design and Digital Fabricationfor Novice Programmers. In CHI ’13. ACM, 1589–1598.

6. Jennifer Jacobs and Amit Zoran. 2015. Hybrid Practicein the Kalahari: Design Collaboration Through DigitalTools and Hunter-Gatherer Craft. In CHI ’15. ACM,619–628.

7. Malcolm McCullough. 1996. Abstracting Craft: ThePracticed Digital Hand. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,USA.

8. David A. Mellis and Leah Buechley. 2014.Do-it-yourself Cellphones: An Investigation into thePossibilities and Limits of High-tech Diy. In CHI ’14.ACM, 1723–1732.

9. David A. Mellis, Sam Jacoby, Leah Buechley, HannahPerner-Wilson, and Jie Qi. 2013. Microcontrollers AsMaterial: Crafting Circuits with Paper, Conductive Ink,Electronic Components, and an "Untoolkit". In TEI ’13.ACM, 83–90.

10. Hannah Perner-Wilson, Leah Buechley, and MikaSatomi. 2011. Handcrafting Textile Interfaces from aKit-of-no-parts. In TEI ’11. ACM, 61–68.

11. Casey Reas, Chandler McWilliams, and JeroenBarendse. 2010. Form+Code in Design, Art, andArchitecture. Princeton Architectural Press.

12. Ryan Schmidt and Karan Singh. 2010. Meshmixer: AnInterface for Rapid Mesh Composition. In SIGGRAPH’10. ACM, Article 6, 1 pages.

13. Joshua G. Tanenbaum, Amanda M. Williams, AudreyDesjardins, and Karen Tanenbaum. 2013.Democratizing Technology: Pleasure, Utility andExpressiveness in DIY and Maker Practice. In CHI ’13.ACM, 2603–2612.

14. Cesar Torres and Eric Paulos. 2015. MetaMorphe:Designing Expressive 3D Models for DigitalFabrication. In C&C ’15. ACM, 73–82.

15. Karl D.D. Willis, Cheng Xu, Kuan-Ju Wu, Golan Levin,and Mark D. Gross. 2011. Interactive Fabrication: NewInterfaces for Digital Fabrication. In TEI ’11. ACM,69–72.

16. Amit Zoran and Joseph A. Paradiso. 2013. FreeD: AFreehand Digital Sculpting Tool. In CHI ’13. ACM,2613–2616.