do-it-yourself devices personal fabrication of ‘consumer

Do-It-Yourself DevicesPersonal Fabrication of ‘Consumer’ Electronics David A. Mellis, September 24, 2014

Proposal for PhD in Media Arts and Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Executive Summary

Despite the increasing ubiquity of electronic devices in our daily lives, most people have no involvement in or understanding of the way that those devices are produced. (The dominant means by which we acquire these devices – purchasing them from large companies – is even reflected in the name that we give them: ‘consumer’ electronics.) Technologies like computer-aided design and digital fabrication suggest an alternative approach, in which individuals design devices digitally, produce them in small quantities, and share the designs for others to reproduce or modify to their own needs. This personal fabrication approach allows for collaboration between diverse individuals with different needs, skills, and interests – and offers the potential to increase the diversity of our devices and the extent to which individuals understand and control their creation.

The proposed dissertation presents multiple case studies applying personal fabrication to the creation of electronic devices for use in daily life. These case studies span the design space, varying in the complexity and diversity of the devices produced. For each, I create custom electronic circuit boards and fabricated enclosures as a means of mapping out a space of design possibilities. Then, I teach workshops in which participants build devices for themselves as a way of understanding the possibilities for engaging people in making technology. I’ve completed several case studies, which focused on engaging people in producing devices: radios, speakers, computer mice, and (most in-depth) cellphones. I’m proposing two additional case studies, which will emphasize engaging people in a design activity: circuit board layout in the case of the proposed night lights, and embedded software development in the case of the proposed connected devices.

Overall, the dissertation addresses research questions in four categories: the design and fabrication of the devices themselves; the tools and resources that help people make them; the opportunities for customization and collaboration; and the general implications for people and their relationships with the technology in their lives. This document places these questions in the context of the relevant technical background and related research – and articulates a framework for addressing them through the case studies over the course of the coming academic year.

Advisor: Prof. Mitchel Resnick, Lifelong Kindergarten Group, MIT Media Lab

Do-It-Yourself DevicesPersonal Fabrication of ‘Consumer’ Electronics David A. Mellis


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mitchel Resnick LEGO Papert Professor of Learning Research Academic Head, Program in Media Arts and Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Leah Buechley Former Associate Professor of Media Arts and Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Björn HartmannAssistant Professor, Computer Science Division University of California, Berkeley

Contents Introduction 6

Background 10

Related Work 11

Research Questions & Framework 13

Research Investigations 17

Expected Contributions 20

Research Plan and Timeline 20

Required Resources 21

References 22

Committee Biographies 26

Do-It-Yourself DevicesPersonal Fabrication of ‘Consumer’ Electronics !Introduction A range of new technologies is bringing many of the affordances of software to the creation of physical objects. We can design objects on the computer, produce them using digital fabrication machines, control their behavior using embedded software, and connect them to the internet or software applications. These processes are more accessible and flexible than mass production, increasing the potential of individuals to design, produce, and understand the objects in their lives. At the same time, they allow for a precision, complexity, and reproducibility that is difficult to achieve with manual craft methods. In addition, they yield design files that can be shared with others, reproduced, or customized to fit specific needs or tastes – allowing for new forms of collaboration between individuals with different skills and interests.

In fact, there are thriving communities of hobbyists making things using digital fabrication, a practice referred to as ‘personal fabrication’. This practice is facilitated by inexpensive and open-source software design tools, online fabrication services, numerous tutorials, and repositories of open designs. A new generation of low-cost 3D printers and other machines are allowing many more people to get direct access to digital fabrication, facilitating iteration and experimentation. A host of new community spaces provide access to technology, machines, and supportive peers. Many people freely share digital design files with others, a practice known as open-source hardware. 1

At the same time, many people are experimenting with electronics. A variety of toolkits help people tinker with circuits, quickly prototyping diverse functionality and behaviors. (Before starting my PhD, I co-founded Arduino, one of the popular platforms for electronics hobbyists.) Online retailers offer millions of electronic components for sale to individual consumers. Community websites, print publications, and in-person events provide inspiration for do-it-yourself (DIY) electronics hobbyists in the form of tutorials, project ideas, and role models.

The combination of personal fabrication and DIY electronics offers powerful possibilities for individuals to produce sophisticated electronic products. Complex and optimized printed circuit boards

�6

For more information on open-source hardware, see: http://www.oshwa.org1

http://www.oshwa.org

(PCBs) can be designed using open-source or inexpensive software, precisely fabricated in small quantities using relatively low-cost digital fabrication machines or on-demand online vendors. When combined with the broad range of available electronic components, these PCBs can reliably yield a unique electronic circuit. Together with enclosures produced using 3d-printing, laser-cutting, or other fabrication processes, these circuits can be complete, attractive, and robust electronic products, produced in small quantities or as one-offs.

This combination of electronics and fabrication contrasts with a more popular approach to helping people build electronic devices for themselves: toolkits of high-level modular building blocks. In comparison with digitally-fabricated PCBs, these toolkits impose many constraints on the devices made with them. By making it easy to connect and disconnect various components, they can lessen the robustness of finished projects. By providing higher-level modules that are easy to work with, they constrain the size, shape, and appearance of assembled devices. By creating systems of parts that work well together, they may make it more difficult to incorporate components that aren’t part of the system.

The power of digital fabrication also helps to transcend some of the limitations found in electronic kits, like those from Heathkit popular in the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s or today’s Velleman kits. With these kits, individuals receive a standard circuit board, which can be difficult to modify or reproduce. With the spread of electronics CAD tools and low-volume PCB manufacturing, individuals can create custom variations on a circuit board and assemble them into one-off products. In addition, other forms of digital fabrication facilitate the creation of enclosures or other parts that precisely correspond with the design of the PCB, easing the process of producing complete products around a given circuit.

Despite the potential of digital fabrication to overcome these limitations, there are few examples of individuals or small groups combining DIY electronics and fabricated forms into complete electronic products – and the vast majority of the electronic devices that most people use in their daily live (in the Western world, at least) are off-the-shelf, proprietary, and mass-produced. The proposed dissertation explores personal fabrication as an alternative to mass production for the creation of these so-called ‘consumer’ electronic devices. This raises a number of research questions:

• Design and Fabrication. How do devices change when they're designed for personal fabrication? What are best practices for doing so?

�7

• Tools and Resources. How can we make it easier for people to make their own devices? What roles do technologies, tools, examples, activities, tutorials, and other resources play in this process?

• Customization and Collaboration. What are the ways in which people will want to customize devices? What will support or hinder them in that process? What tools or approaches can improve collaboration on the design of devices?

• People and Meaning. How does making a device for oneself affect an individual's relationship with it? How can the process relate to people's existing skills and interests? How can it affect their overall understanding of and relationship with technology?

To investigate these questions, I’ve been developing a series of electronic devices for personal fabrication and use (Figure 1): radios [Mellis et al, 2010], speakers and mice [Mellis & Buechley, 2012], cellphones [Mellis & Buechley, 2014], and more. In addition to designing and producing the devices myself, I’m teaching workshops in which others make and modify them for themselves. I’ve posted their design files online for others to reproduce or build on. Furthermore, I’ve been taking an autobiographical research approach by using the DIY cellphone as my main mobile device and recording my experiences. This hands-on approach allows me to gain insight into the details of DIY devices and the process of making them, revealing lessons that might not have been apparent through studies of existing DIY device examples.

This document describes several projects that I’ve undertaken – the radio, speakers, mice, and the DIY cellphone – and two that I propose – night lights and connected devices. Together, they map out diverse portions of the space of possibilities for the personal fabrication of electronic devices. Specifically, I’m investigating different trade-offs between the diversity and complexity of the devices that can be built with a given amount of effort and experience (and given a certain quality of supporting tools and resources), see Figure 2. When learning to build projects with Arduino, for example, a novice can relatively quickly and easily make a great diversity of different projects, but each is likely to be fairly simple. The DIY cellphone is at the opposite end of the

�8

Figure 1. The radio, speakers, mouse, and cellphone.

spectrum: a fairly complex device for the amount of effort required to assemble it, but also relatively constrained in its design. With the night lights and connected devices, I’m interested in exploring the space in between: supporting people in producing diverse takes on a specific device class.

Altogether, I expect these investigations to provide multiple contributions. Some of them stem from making the devices, like best practices for applying personal fabrication to consumer electronics and an understanding of the constraints and limitations of this process. Others come from interactions with people, like an understanding of the supports required to help individuals make their own devices and a breakdown of the various dimensions of diversity possible in the process. I also hope to draw lessons from the broader dissemination of my devices – the sharing of their design files and the extent to which and ways in which they are reproduced or modified by others. Finally, I think these investigations will yield broader insights about people’s relationship with the technology in their daily lives and the extent to which they feel they can understand or control it.

In the following section, I provide an overview of the technological and social background of the dissertation. Then, I survey related research. The subsequent section lays out a framework for the dissertation, expanding on the research questions above. This is followed by a description of my investigations, both completed and proposed. I finish with an overview of the proposed contributions and a research plan.

�9

Figure 2(a). Mapping the projects according to complexity and diversity. The curved line denotes constant effort with similar-quality support.

Figure 2(b). Ways to push the curve include increased effort, better tools, a more supportive context, etc.

Background The dissertation draws on three main realms of technological possibilities: open-source and peer production; modern DIY and maker culture; and personal use of digital fabrication.

Open-Source and Peer Production

The spread of computers and the internet is enabling new forms of distributed collaboration, sometimes referred to as “peer production” [Benkler, 2002]. This practice involves combining the work of many people without coordination by markets or firms. Instead, it relies on the self-assignment of people to tasks, a process enabled by problem domains amenable to modularization and by tools that allow for light-weight testing and merging of individual efforts. Probably the most well-known example of peer production is open-source software, the practice behind many popular and widely-used projects like Gnu/Linux, Mozilla Firefox, and more. Open-source software has been widely studied, for example in [Feller et al, 2007]. Another well-known example of peer production is Wikipedia, the online collaboratively produced encyclopedia. As physical objects become increasingly possible to design (and simulate) in CAD software, people are beginning to share and collaborate on these digital models – the practice of open-source hardware ([Raasch et al, 2009], [de Bruijn, 2010]). Currently, though, the processes and products of open-source hardware lack the maturity and robustness of those that have been developed for open-source software and other purely digital peer production efforts – making this an interesting area for investigation.

Modern Do-It-Yourself (DIY) and Maker Culture

Advances in technology frequently spawn new communities of hobbyists producing and tinkering with those technologies. Examples include the early days of radio, the origins of the personal computer industry (described, for example, in [Levy, 1984]), and the early days of the internet. In the past decade or so, the confluence of a number of initiatives has been described as a new “maker movement”. These include Make Magazine (founded in 2005) and Maker Faire (2006), dedicated to DIY projects and enthuasists; Instructables (2006), a website for sharing project tutorials; MakerBot (2009) and other producers of low-cost 3D printers; Google SketchUp (2006), a free, easy-to-use CAD tool; Arduino (2005), an open-source microcontroller development platform; Ponoko (2007) and Shapeways (2007), online digital fabrication vendors; SparkFun (2003) and Adafruit (2005), producers and online retailers of hobbyist electronics. Perhaps the clearest distinction between the current maker movement and past communities of technological hobbyists is the existence of the internet, which provides increased

�10

access to other hobbyists, knowledge, and materials. The internet is particularly important given the social nature of much DIY and hobbyist activity, a connection discussed in [Gauntlett, 2011]. It remains, however, unclear to what extent this maker movement will affect the technologies that people use in their daily lives, which is part of the motivation for the research described here.

Personal Fabrication

Digital fabrication allows for the translation of digital information (bits) into physical objects (atoms). Although the technology has been developed for decades, only recently is it becoming available to a significant number of individual practitioners and hobbyists [Gershenfeld, 2012]. This can take the form of low-cost fabrication machines, community centers providing access to more expensive machines, or online services allowing individuals to make use of high-end equipment. Personal fabrication allows individuals to create precise, one-off artifacts in ways that are difficult to replicate with either manual crafting or mass production. The technology is being used by hobbyists and small businesses to create jewelry, housewares, furniture, and many other products.

The production of printed circuit boards (PCBs) can also be seen as a kind of digital fabrication, because it starts from a digital design file and can be used to produce small quantities of PCBs. A variety of online service providers will fabricate boards for individual customers. Many PCB designs are shared online as open-source hardware, for example on the website of OSH Park, a PCB vendor. There are some examples of people combining custom PCBs with digitally-fabricated enclosures to create complete electronic products (with varying degrees of user-assembly required). For example, Adafruit sells a variety of clock kits on their website, combining various electronic displays with laser-cut acrylic or other enclosures. The relative scarcity of these devices is another part of what has motivated me to develop my own – and to try to gain a more in-depth understanding of the implications of this approach.

Related Work Relevant work from the human-computer interaction (HCI) research community falls into a few different categories: electronics toolkits and workshops, interfaces for digital fabrication, and studies of the effect of digital technology on craft or DIY practices. Additionally, some of the work in these areas follows a methodology similar to that proposed here: artifact design and workshops as a method for discovering general principles about the relationship between people and technology.

�11

Electronics Toolkits & Workshops

Electronics prototyping and toolkits have a long history, both within and outside of the HCI community. Mitchel Resnick and collaborators have developed a series of projects to introduce programming and engineering to children ([Resnick, 1993], [Resnick et al, 1998]). Their work often involves the development of a technological toolkit or tool, its use in workshops, and reflection on these experiences to derive more general insights, some of which they’ve summarized in dedicated publications (e.g. [Resnick et al, 1996], [Resnick & Silverman, 2005]). Their work has helped to inspire commercial toolkits like the LEGO Mindstorms and PicoCrickets.

Leah Buechley and her students have explored various combinations of electronics with craft practices and materials, through the development of toolkits, example works, and workshops [Buechley & Perner-Wilson, 2012]. Their research includes the LilyPad Arduino toolkit [Buechley, 2010], techniques for constructing textile sensors [Perner-Wilson et al, 2011], and work on paper circuits [Qi & Buechley, 2014]. Again, much of this work reflects on the experience and comments of workshop participants to gain general insights about the culture and form of technology.

Other toolkits have focused more specifically on designers, like Phidgets [Greenberg & Fitchett, 2001]. Popular commercial products include Basic Stamp, Arduino, and the Raspberry Pi. Some platforms, like d.tools [Hartmann et al, 2006], combine electronics modules with tools to help in the creation of on-screen interfaces. More recently, some projects – like .NET Gadgeteer [Villar et al, 2012] – have started to look at the combination of an electronics toolkit with digital fabrication. Electronics toolkits can also be seen as a special case of the notion of a toolkit as discussed in [von Hippel & Katz, 2002]: a method for transferring expertise from the maker of a technology to its users.

Other research has focused more specifically on the combination of custom tools or toolkits with workshops as a means of deriving lessons about people and technology. [Moriwaki & Brucker-Cohen, 2006] describe the ‘scrapyard challenge’, a series of workshops using found materials with simple circuits to introduce novices to electronics. [Kuznetsov et al, 2011] conducted workshops in which participants constructed air quality-sensing balloons as means of generating public awareness and discussion of environmental issues. [Ratto, 2011] proposes critical making as an approach for tying hands-on activities to reflection on broader issues about technology and society.

This dissertation goes beyond prototypes to looking at ways to help people assemble finished devices for use in their daily lives. In this

�12

way, I’m inspired by tools like Fritzing [Knörig et al, 2009], that help people translate electronic prototypes into fabricated circuit boards.

Interfaces for Digital Fabrication

In recent years, a variety of research projects have looked at the intersection of digital fabrication and human-computer interaction, a topic summarized in a workshop at last year’s CHI [Mellis et al, 2013]. Some have focused on creating new interfaces for computer-aided design or fabrication. These include a number of systems for real-time, interactive control of fabrication machines ([Follmer et al, 2010], [Mueller et al, 2012]). Others provide tangible or software interfaces for computer modeling for fabrication ([Saul et al, 2011], [Follmer & Ishii, 2012], [Jacobs & Buechley, 2013]). The latter uses workshops in which participants interact with a custom software tools in order to draw more general lessons about people’s interest in programming and digital fabrication.

Other projects look at ways to use digital fabrication to create interfaces that integrate with various forms of sensing or actuation ([Savage et al, 2012], [Willis et al, 2012]). Still others have created new fabrication machines with interactive capabilities ([Willis et al, 2012], [Zoran & Paradiso, 2013]). In my work, instead of building new tools and technologies, I’ve explored the ways in which existing ones can be applied to the creation of devices for use in everyday life. In the process, I’ve discovered opportunities and lessons for improving existing tools and creating new ones.

Technology and Craft / DIY

Another strand of HCI research has looked at the effect of technology on DIY and craft practices, both traditional and technological ([Buechley et al, 2009]). For example, [Kuznetsov & Paulos, 2010] surveyed contributors to online DIY communities and [Torrey et al, 2009] studied the ways that people search for craft knowledge online. [Tanenbaum et al, 2013] examines maker culture more broadly. Other work has focused specifically on repair as a form of DIY and creativity ([Maestri & Wakkary, 2011]). Other researchers have looked at technology and DIY practice within specific domains, such as furniture hacking [Rosner & Bean, 2009] or knitting and gardening [Goodman & Rosner, 2011]. This research provides a context for reflecting on the implications of the case studies composing the dissertation.

Research Questions & Framework This section revisits the research questions from the introduction, explaining how they are addressed by the completed and proposed work.

�13

Design and FabricationHow do devices change when they're designed for personal fabrication?What are best practices for doing so?

As designers gain experience with a production process, they develop an understanding of its possibilities and limitations and evolve best practices for working with it. Lacking the tradition of more established manufacturing processes, digital fabrication offers an opportunity to discover new design guidelines and processes. To investigate the possibilities, I’m building devices that differ along multiple dimensions: complexity, fabrication processes used, physical form and interface, etc. In doing so, I’m developing guidelines for combining the following distinct elements into robust and attractive devices:

• Digital (CAD) Files. While these form the core of a device’s design, there’s a lot involved in translating them into the actual physical product. I’m discovering lessons about what required information is and isn’t captured in the digital files and about which geometries lend themselves to fabrication, assembly, and customization.

• Fabrication Processes and Materials. By building devices that incorporate a number of different digital fabrication processes and materials, I’ve developing insights into how to use them effectively. That includes techniques for optimizing for particular machines, lessons about the aesthetics and robustness of various fabricated materials, the design freedom offered by different processes, etc. I’m also interested in understanding the role of manual assembly in the fabrication process – the limits it can impose but also the opportunities it offers for learning, engagement, and meaning.

• Electronic Components. While the case studies involve individuals building electronic products for themselves, they still largely depend on the use of components mass-produced by large companies. I’m interested in understanding the range of devices that individuals can produce using these components and how those possibilities compare with the use of mass-produced finished electronic products. In building the case studies, I’m also developing a sense for the range of components that are accessible and the nature of the constraints that this limited set of parts imposes on the design of devices. (For example, many parts are not sold to individuals, are not publicly-documented, or are too small to assemble without expensive tools.)

• Embedded Software. Developing the embedded software that runs on a custom device has specific challenges not found in other kinds of open-source software, e.g. testing or contributing to the code without access to the device, and synchronizing changes to the code with changes to the hardware. My experience is revealing ways in which existing software development tools and workflows can be

�14

adapted to work with custom devices and some of the difficulties and obstacles that remain.

In addition, building devices yields lessons about the process itself: methods for efficient prototyping or testing new designs, errors or imprecisions that might occur, opportunities and limitations of manual assembly steps, etc. By reflecting on my own experiences and using them to better understand the implications of existing examples of fabricated devices, I plan to distill general design principles for personal fabrication of electronic devices.

Tools and ResourcesHow can we make it easier for people to make their own devices?What roles do technologies, tools, examples, activities, tutorials, and other resources play in this process?

Much of the HCI research discussed in the related work section above focuses on building new technologies (software tools, interfaces, electronic toolkits) as the primary means of supporting people in making things with technology. In contrast, I’m interested in how other kinds of support can help people work with and benefit from existing tools and technologies. Partly, this is personal preference – I’m excited about getting DIY devices into people’s lives and don’t want to first have to reinvent the tools used to build them. Partly, though, it reflects my belief that many of the existing tools are good enough and what’s missing are the examples, instructional materials, social contexts and other complementary supports. In addition, developing a new tool or technology to the level required to support broad dissemination and use requires significant ongoing effort (a lesson I learned from my involvement with the Arduino platform). To me, there seems to be more leverage in helping people to rethink the ways that they use existing tools and technologies, ones which are already mature and supported.

Through my workshops and online dissemination of my devices, I am investigating the role of multiple factors in people’s motivation and ability to make devices. These include:

• Examples. Here, I’m interested in understanding what kinds of examples can inspire and support workshop participants in creating diverse devices. I’m investigating ways for making examples appealing, legible, and generative. In addition, I’m interested in understanding whether and how other kinds of information and activities (discussed below) can help people to transcend the functionality or aesthetics demonstrated in examples.

• Information. There’s a lot of information available about making things with technology but it’s not necessarily relevant or understandable to many audiences. I’m exploring ways for my workshop activities and documentation to serve as starting points

�15

for people to discover and make sense of existing information. I’m also interested in understanding the kinds of content and format that are most conducive to supporting independent work beyond the context of a workshop.

• Activities. The schedule and progression of a workshop has a large influence on people’s experience and outcomes. I want to understand what kinds of activities promote (or detract from) confidence and comfort in the workshop participants and the ways in which they can explicate larger questions about individuals’ relationships with the technology in their lives. This understanding will derive partly from my own experience facilitating the workshops, partly from discussion with participants, and partly from surveys results. I hope to develop strategies to balance what can sometimes be a tension between helping people successfully complete a project within a workshop and helping them acquire the knowledge they need to pursue future projects.

• Social Context. Another important factor in someone’s relation with technology construction is their background and the social context of the activity. By doing workshops with different groups of people, I hope to discover best practices for making these kinds of personal fabrication activities relevant and meaningful to diverse audiences.

Overall, I hope to discover principles for how these factors can support new audiences in building devices with existing tools and technologies – as well as gain a better understanding of the limitations of those existing tools and develop suggestions for improving them.

Customization and CollaborationWhat are the ways in which people will want to customize devices?What will support or hinder them in that process?What tools or approaches can improve collaboration on the design of devices?

Theoretically, each device made using personal fabrication could be different. Through my research, I’m developing an understanding of the kinds of customization and modification that occur in practice (both in workshops and through online dissemination) – as well as the factors that support or limit them. Modifications can include changes to the geometry of fabricated parts, decoration (e.g. custom inscriptions or patterns), changes in the electronic circuit and components, code edits, custom enclosures, material variations, etc. These can be enabled or restricted by the geometry of the original device, the functionality and usability of the software design tools, the skill of the individual, the creation of reference materials and documentation, etc. By working with audiences skilled (or not) in various design domains and by leading workshops emphasizing different types of customization, I hope to explore and document a broad range of possibilities.

�16

Customization of a device by the person making it can be seen as a specific instance of collaboration – in this case, between the designer or designers and the maker. In general, though, digital fabrication suggests many intriguing new possibilities for collaboration on the design of physical products and devices, based on distributed work on digital files in ways that parallel other forms of online peer production. By sharing the design files for my devices online, I’ve started to explore some of the possibilities and difficulties of collaboration on fabricated devices. Other people have created their own variations on my designs and suggested changes to my files – both steps towards more in-depth collaboration. The limits I’ve encountered may be partially a result of a lack of interest but I think they also reveal limitations in software design tools, testing procedures, component availability, and more. Having created a number of devices, and eager to get help on their further development, I’ve been reflecting on these obstacles and possibilities for overcoming them, both of which will be explored in the proposed work and documented in the dissertation.

People and Meaning How does making a device for oneself affect an individual's relationship with it? How can the process relate to people's existing skills and interests?How can it affect their overall understanding of and relationship with technology?

Through my workshops and the other dissemination of my devices, I’m collecting perspectives about people’s experience in making their own consumer electronics and the significance and meaning they ascribe to this process. At one level, this is about the particular device they’ve designed or built: why they felt motivated to do so, what they got out of the process, why they plan to actually use the device (or not), etc. The different audiences I’ve worked with have expressed different perspectives on these issues, revealing a number of different possible ways for device fabrication to connect with people’s existing skills and interests.

More broadly, I’m exploring how making a device for oneself can affect people’s overall relationship with technology: their understanding of how it works, why it is the way it is, and their sense of control over the devices in their lives. This is not necessarily a connection that people make automatically, so I’m working on finding ways to explore these issues explicitly within my upcoming workshops. I’m not necessarily aiming to transform someone’s overall relationship with technology in a single workshop but rather hoping to develop techniques for connecting the process of making a device with discussions and reflections about these larger issues.

Research Investigations The dissertation is based on several completed investigations – the radio, speakers, and mouse from my master’s thesis and the DIY

�17

cellphone – and the proposed work on supporting individuals in designing their own devices. The latter involves two device domains: night lights, focusing on PCB design, and connected devices, focusing on programming and content.

Radio, Speakers, Mouse (completed)

These case studies (conducted as part of my master’s thesis) served as an initial exploration into the application of digital fabrication to the design and production of electronic products. All three include a custom-designed PCB. The radio and speakers are housed in a combination of laser-cut plywood and veneer, along with fabric, emphasizing physical assembly and involvement. The mouse was housed in a 3d-printed enclosure, placing more emphasis on digital, 3d-modeling skills. Together, these devices revealed overall design principles for designing such products, potential meanings and values of the process, and limitations or difficulties in building an electronic product. Events subsequent to the thesis have revealed further implications of the devices, including lessons about commercialization and obsolescence.

DIY Cellphone (completed)

In making this more complex device, I pushed on the limits of do-it-yourself practice as a means of further exploring its opportunities and limitations. The demanding requirements of a cellphone (in terms of size, battery life, functionality, robustness, etc.) as well as their ubiquity have made this a particularly revealing case study. Over the course of more than two years, I’ve built multiple versions of the phone, further developing best practices for design and iteration of electronic devices using digital fabrication. By using the DIY cellphone as my main phone for over a year and a half, I’ve gained a deeper understanding of the requirements for DIY devices. Workshops with two different groups (designer / technologists and the general public) have revealed concerns and requirements from those interested in prototyping new form factors and interfaces and those that are looking for a device to use in their daily lives. By posting instructions for building the phone on my website and creating a online forum for people interested in it, I’ve begun to understand the possibilities for independent replication and modification of an open-source hardware device.

The increased complexity of the cellphone has provided richer and deeper insights than the previous devices. It has highlighted the extent to which, despite their ubiquity, most people have no idea how a cellphone works or how they might make one for themselves. As such, the DIY cellphone offers a powerful example of the potential of people to take control over the technology in their lives. On the other hand, it highlights the obstacles to that process, which transcend expected limitations like the existence of the underlying

�18

Figure 4. Variations on the enclosure of the cellphone.

Figure 3. The circuit board of the DIY cellphone.

technology or the skill and knowledge of individuals. In particular, it points out the ways in which DIY practice exists within a broader ecosystem rather than depending solely on the ability of an individual to make everything for themselves. The decisions of other actors – whether in the electronic components (and accompanying documentation) they make available to individuals, the fabrication services they offer online, or the source code and circuit designs they open-source – has a huge impact on someone’s ability to produce a device. Furthermore, the phone has illustrated many of the implications of modern technology for DIY tools and practices, such as the need for more accessible software design tools and for rethinking notions of relevance and transparency.

Night Lights (in-progress)

For this project and the following one, I plan to focus on supporting people in designing devices for themselves, rather than assembling them from my designs. The night lights explore these possibilities within the domain of circuit board design. To do so, I will host one or more workshops in which novice participants design and fabricate a simple electronic device: an LED night light. By starting from a simple set of components, I hope to be able to guide novices through a complete design process, including industrial design, circuit board layout, microcontroller programming, and assembly / testing / debugging. For further support, I’m developing a series of examples, incorporating a variety of power supplies, sensors, behaviors, and forms, that can serve as inspiration and a starting point for workshop participants to develop their own design. My hypothesis is that while designing complex PCBs may be a difficult process, appropriate context and support can make the design and fabrication of simple circuit boards an appropriate introduction to electronics. I’m also interested in understanding what supports will make individuals feel able to continue with PCB design on their own and what obstacles will stand in their way.

Connected Devices (proposed)

The goals of this project are similar to the previous one but within a different design space. Rather than circuit board design and layout, this project will focus on connections to online content and web services, placing increased emphasis on programming as a means of defining a device’s functionality. To explore these possibilities, I will hold one (or more) workshops in which novices create their own

�19

Figure 5. Example night lights.

connected device (i.e. an electronic circuit that connects to a web service or mobile application platform). I plan to provide a simple configuration of electronic components or modules (or multiple configurations) that can allow for a variety of different functions based primarily on the code that an individual writes. By allowing participants to select and connect their devices to a personally relevant piece of online content or application, I hypothesize that they will be able to build a useful or meaningful device through relatively simple technical activities.

Expected Contributions Expected contributions of the proposed dissertation include:

• Design and Fabrication: best practices and design guidelines for creating electronics devices using personal fabrication, insights into the technological, business, and social ecosystem that surrounds the DIY production of an electronic device.

• Tools and Resources: guidelines for support structures to help people to design their own devices, discussion of the limitations of and suggestions for improvements to current tools and technologies.

• Customization and Collaboration: analysis of the dimensions of customization possible with personally-fabricated electronic devices, examples of and lessons from the open-source dissemination of electronic devices and collaboration on their development.

• People and Meaning: discussion of the processes and reactions of different groups of people in making their own devices (from workshop participants and others), lessons that this reveals about the relationship between DIY practice and people’s relationships with technology, general thoughts on the implications of digital technology for do-it-yourself practice.

Research Plan and Timeline 2014

October: night light workshop

November – December: preparation for connected devices workshop(s)

2015

January: connected devices workshop(s)

�20

February – April: dissertation writing

May: dissertation defense

June – August: dissertation revision

Required Resources The proposed research will require continued access to the Media Lab shop, and a few thousand dollars for materials and fabrication services.

�21

References Benkler, B. Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm. Yale Law Journal, 112, 3 (2002), 367–445.

Buechley, L., and Perner-Wilson, H. Crafting technology: Reimagining the processes, materials, and cultures of electronics. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 19, 3 (Oct. 2012), 21:1–21:21.

Leah Buechley and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2010. LilyPad in the wild: how hardware's long tail is supporting new engineering and design communities. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 199-207.

Buechley, L., Rosner, D. K., Paulos, E., and Williams, A. DIY for CHI: methods, communities, and values of reuse and customization. In CHI EA ’09, ACM (2009), 4823–4826.

E. de Bruijn, “On the Viability of the Open Source Development Model for the Design of Physical Objects: Lessons Learned From the RepRap Project” (master’s thesis,Tilburg University, 2010).

Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hissam, S.A., and Lakhani, K.R. (eds). Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. MIT Press (2007).

Follmer, S., Carr, D., Lovell, E., and Ishii, H. Copycad: remixing physical objects with copy and paste from the real world. In UIST ’10, ACM (2010), 381–382.

Follmer, S., and Ishii, H. Kidcad: digitally remixing toys through tangible tools. In CHI ’12, ACM (2012), 2401–2410.

Gauntlett, D. Making is Connecting. Polity (2011).

Gershenfeld, N. Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop – From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication. Basic Books, Inc. (2007), New York, NY, USA.

Goodman, E., and Rosner, D. From garments to gardens: negotiating material relationships online and ’by hand’. In CHI ’11, ACM (2011), 2257–2266.

Greenberg, S., and Fitchett, C. Phidgets: easy development of physical interfaces through physical widgets. In UIST ’01, ACM (2001), 209–218.

Hartmann, B., Klemmer, S. R., Bernstein, M., Abdulla, L., Burr, B., Robinson-Mosher, A., and Gee, J. Reflective physical prototyping through integrated design, test, and analysis. In UIST ’06, ACM (2006), 299–308.

�22

Jacobs, J., and Buechley, L. Codeable objects: computational design and digital fabrication for novice programmers. In CHI ’13, ACM (2013), 1589–1598.

Knörig, A., Wettach, R., and Cohen, J. Fritzing: a tool for advancing electronic prototyping for designers. In TEI ’09, ACM (2009), 351–358.

Kuznetsov, S., and Paulos, E. Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In NordiCHI ’10, ACM (2010), 295–304.

Kuznetsov, S., Davis, G. N., Paulos, E., Gross, M. D., and Cheung, J. C. Red balloon, green balloon, sensors in the sky. In UbiComp ’11, ACM (2011), 237–246.

Levy, S. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Doubleday (1984).

Maestri, L., and Wakkary, R. Understanding repair as a creative process of everyday design. In C&C ’11, ACM (2011), 81–90.

Mellis, D.A., Gordon, D., and Buechley, L. 2010. Fab FM: the design, making, and modification of an open-source electronic product. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (TEI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81-84.

Mellis, D.A. and Buechley, L. 2012. Case studies in the personal fabrication of electronic products. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 268-277.

Mellis, D., Follmer, S., Hartmann, B., Buechley, L., and Gross, M.D. 2013. FAB at CHI: digital fabrication tools, design, and community. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3307-3310.

Mellis, D.A. and Buechley, L. 2014. Do-it-yourself cellphones: an investigation into the possibilities and limits of high-tech diy. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1723-1732.

Moriwaki, K., and Brucker-Cohen, J. "Lessons from the scrapyard: creative uses of found materials within a workshop setting." AI & SOCIETY 20.4 (2006): 506-525.

Mueller, S., Lopes, P., and Baudisch, P. Interactive construction: interactive fabrication of functional mechanical devices. In UIST ’12, ACM (2012), 599–606.

�23

Hannah Perner-Wilson, Leah Buechley, and Mika Satomi. 2010. Handcrafting textile interfaces from a kit-of-no-parts. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (TEI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61-68.

Jie Qi and Leah Buechley. 2014. Sketching in circuits: designing and building electronics on paper. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1713-1722.

Christina Raasch, Cornelius Herstatt and Kerstin Balka. On the open design of tangible goods. R&D Management 39, 4 (2009), 382–393.

Matt Ratto (2011) Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life, The Information Society: An International Journal, 27:4, 252-260.

Resnick, M. Behavior construction kits. Commun. ACM 36, 7 (July 1993), 64–71.

Resnick, M., Bruckman, A., and Martin, F. Pianos not stereos: creating computational construction kits. interactions 3, 5 (September 1996), 40-50.

Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., and Silverman, B. Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with. In CHI ’98, ACM (1998), 281–287.

Resnick, M. and Silverman, B. Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In IDC '05. ACM (2005), New York, NY, USA, 117-122.

Rosner, D., and Bean, J. Learning from Ikea hacking: i’m not one to decoupage a tabletop and call it a day. In CHI ’09, ACM (2009), 419–422.

Saul, G., Lau, M., Mitani, J., and Igarashi, T. Sketchchair: an all-in-one chair design system for end users. In TEI ’11, ACM (2011), 73–80.

Savage, V., Zhang, X., and Hartmann, B. Midas: fabricating custom capacitive touch sensors to prototype interactive objects. In UIST ’12, ACM (2012), 579–588.

Tanenbaum, J. G., Williams, A. M., Desjardins, A., and Tanenbaum, K. Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in diy and maker practice. In CHI ’13, ACM (2013), 2603–2612.

Cristen Torrey, Elizabeth F. Churchill, and David W. McDonald. 2009. Learning how: the search for craft knowledge on the internet.

�24

In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1371-1380.

Villar, N., Scott, J., Hodges, S., Hammil, K., and Miller, C. .net gadgeteer: a platform for custom devices. In Pervasive ’12, Springer-Verlag (2012), 216–233.

von Hippel, Eric, and Ralph Katz. “Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits.” Management Science 48, no. 7 (July 2002): 821–833.

Willis, K., Brockmeyer, E., Hudson, S., and Poupyrev, I. Printed optics: 3d printing of embedded optical elements for interactive devices. In UIST ’12, ACM (2012), 589–598.

Zoran, A., and Paradiso, J. A. Freed: a freehand digital sculpting tool. In CHI ’13, ACM (2013), 2613–2616.

!

�25

Committee Biographies Mitchel Resnick, LEGO Papert Professor of Learning Research and head of the Lifelong Kindergarten group at the MIT Media Lab, explores how new technologies can engage people in creative learning experiences. Resnick's research group developed the "programmable brick" technology that inspired the LEGO Mindstorms robotics kit. He co-founded the Computer Clubhouse project, a worldwide network of after-school centers where youth from low-income communities learn to express themselves creatively with new technologies. Resnick's group also developed Scratch, an online community where children program and share interactive stories, games, and animations. He earned a BA in physics at Princeton University (1978), and MS and PhD degrees in computer science at MIT (1988, 1992). He worked as a science-technology journalist from 1978 to 1983, and he has consulted throughout the world on creative uses of computers in education. He is author of Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams (1994), co-editor of Constructionism in Practice (1996), and co-author of Adventures in Modeling (2001). In 2011, Resnick was awarded the McGraw Prize in Education.

Leah Buechley is a designer, engineer, artist, and educator whose work explores intersections and juxtapositions – of "high" and "low" technologies, new and ancient materials, and masculine and feminine making traditions. She also develops tools that help people build their own technologies, among them the LilyPad Arduino kit. She recently left her position as an Associate Professor at the MIT Media Lab to focus on an independent design practice. While at MIT she founded and directed the High-Low Tech research group. Her work has been exhibited internationally in venues including the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Ars Electronica Festival, and the Exploratorium, and has been featured in publications including The New York Times, Boston Globe, Popular Science, and Wired. Leah received a PhD in computer science from the University of Colorado at Boulder and a BA in physics from Skidmore College. At both institutions she also studied dance, theater, fine art, and design.

Björn Hartmann is an Assistant Professor in EECS. He received a BA in Communication, a BSE in Digital Media Design, and an MSE in Computer and Information Science from the University of Pennsylvania in 2002. He received his PhD degree in Computer Science from Stanford University in 2009. His research in Human-Computer Interaction focuses on the creation and evaluation of user interface design tools, end-user programming environments, and crowdsourcing systems. Björn received an Okawa Research Grant and an NSF CAREER Award in 2012, and a Sloan Research Fellowship in 2013.

�26

do-it-yourself devices personal fabrication of ‘consumer

Documents