proposal defense

Tangible Input Devices for Digital Fabrication

Benjamin A. Leduc-Mills

Proposal Defense

October 3, 2013

Roadmap

Background & Motivation

Related Work

Current State of Affairs

Proposed Work

Risks, Limitations, and Outcomes

The Era of Personal Fabrication

Gershenfeld and Anderson

Unprecedented ability for individuals to manufacture on a small scale

3D printing a major focus

3D Printing and Children

3D printing is permeating educational spaces and can be a tool for learning

Support for novice designers can be better – download & print is not meaningful

Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) informed by embodied cognition and constructionist traditions is a promising avenue for research

Goals

Design a class of TUIs that facilitate exploration, play, and design for 3D printers.

Draw on the history of tangible learning tools and embodied cognition to situate and inform the TUI designs

Evaluate the TUIs to gauge usability and learning potential among tweens and young teens (11-14)

Related Work: Major Themes

“Things to Learn With” – educational objects

Embodied Cognition – a body-centric view of cognitive development

Embodied Interfaces – ‘smart’ tangible devices, that combine ideas from both

Related Work: Educational Objects

Froebel’s Gifts

Montessori Manipulatives

Piaget’s Genetic Epistemology

Papert & Computational Constructionism

Related Work: Embodied Cognition

Cognitive processes are ‘deeply rooted’ in physical interactions (e.g. learning readiness by hand gesture)

Embodied Mathematics – collection, construction, stick manipulations, walking along a path

Embodied Design – encouraging thinking through doing

Related Work: Embodied Interfaces

Tangibles + Embodied Cognition = Embodied Interfaces

Digital Manipulatives (Resnick)

Tangible Bits (Ishii)

Embodied Design (Klemmer et al., Antle)

Related Work: Approaches

Modeling Tools

‘Smart’ Blocks

Interactive Fabrication Tools

3D Printing

Modeling Tools

HyperGami & Topobo

‘Smart’ Blocks

RoBlocks & Activecube

Interactive Fabrication

Shaper & Constructable

3D Printing

KidCAD & Easigami

Current Status(AKA the work I’ve already done)

UCube (v1): Hardware

Grid, Tower, and Switch paradigm

4x4x4 Input Space (64 possible points)

System state sent to a software program

UCube: Software

Real-time representation

Interpretation of input: convex hull, knot/path

‘Edit’ mode for convex hull

Export to .STL

Save, Load, Spline, Wireframe

UCube: Study 1

14 Participants – 5 girls, 9 boys

5 groups of 2, 1 group of 4

Screen-based modeling tasks – side by side screens, one live, one target shape

5 target shapes: straight vertical line, diagonal line, a cube, a triangular prism, and an irregular polyhedron

UCube: Study 1 Results

4 groups (including the group of four) completed all the shapes

1 group ran out of time after 3 shapes

1 group modeled 1 shape

Sessions lasted 17-30 minutes

24/30 tasks successful – 80%

UCube: Study 2

10 participants: 8 boys, 2 girls

2 exercises: modeling & matching

9 shapes, cube in each (10 tasks)

Modeling: model on UCube from 3D-printed models

Progression from memory, holding shape, using software

Matching: given a set of lights on the UCube, choose the correct 3D-printed model out of a set

Study 2 Results: Modeling

Five shapes: cube, a tetrahedron, a diamond, a house (a cube with a pyramid on top), and an irregular polyhedron

• 21 of 50 from memory

• 12 of 50 holding model

• 8 of 50 with software

Total = 41/50 or 82%

Of 9 misses, 7 were irregular polygon

Remaining misses both from same participant (the youngest)

Study 2 Results: Matching

Of 50 matching tasks, 0 objects were chosen incorrectly

Most matches were completed in 20 seconds or less

SnapCAD: Hardware

Formerly UCube v2

7x7x7 input space (343 points)

Removable magnetic LED boards – multiple colors, multiple shapes, multi-player games

More robust, studier design

Bigger, more immersive, more embodied?

SnapCAD: Software

Multiple colors of convex hull

3D Tic-Tac-Toe implementation

Minimal Spanning Tree (MST) mode

Edit mode for path & MST

Width slider for path & MST

All exportable to .STL

PopCAD

Pop-Up Book, paper-friendly electronics

Lighter, Cheaper, Portable

3x3x3 input space – 27 input points

Capacitive switches toggle LEDs on and off

Software has been adapted for PopCAD

Proposed WorkTechnical Additions

SnapCAD

Focus on multi-shape and mutli-player capabilities

Colors++, Avoid Red+Green

Explore 2-shape modeling operations – union, difference, intersection

Two shapes occupying the same point

Other modeling modes - Curves? Voronoi mesh? Recursion?

2 paths, 2 minimal spanning trees

PopCAD

Exploration of paper as material – can paper mechanisms give rise to new modeling operations?

Embedding new sensors

Multiple, networked, pop-up books? Gives rise to other kinds of cooperative/competitive operations

Redesign – switch placement, tower spacing, paper choice, origin marker

Proposed WorkUser Studies

User Study 1: SnapCAD

12-30 Participants, 11-14 years old

6 exercises: hull modeling, path modeling, mst modeling, 2 hull modeling, 3D tic-tic-toe, ‘freehand’ activity

Hull, path, mst – brief demo, then 3 modeling tasks from 3D-printed models

2 hull – model from side-by-side screen comparison (x3)

Tic-Tac-Toe – 3 games

Freehand exercise to gauge expressiveness, desired capabilities

Measure successful completion (or lack thereof), time to completion, and observational notes

User instructed to think aloud

Audio, Video, and screen capture for additional analysis

User Study 2: PopCAD

10-15 Participants, 11-14 years old

3 modeling exercises plus freehand activity

Convex hull, path, minimal spanning tree

5 3D-printed shapes for each mode

Measure successful completion (or lack thereof), time to completion, and observational notes

Track new vs. overlapping participants

User to think aloud

Photography and Screen Capture for further analysis

Timeline

Task Timeline Notes

User Study Logistics Sept-Oct IRB & Site Approval

Technical Additions Sept-Oct As Outlined in Proposed Work

Conduct User Studies

Nov-Jan SnapCAD & PopCAD Studies

Write Up Results Feb-March Analyze & Write Up Data

Write Dissertation April-June Put it all together

Defend Dissertation June Defend

Risks

These are unproven interfaces – may be completely unsuitable

May be useable, but viscerally unappealing to target group

Practical roadblocks: device malfunction, loss of study data, lack of sufficient participants

Limitations

Many modeling operations are impossible (curves, scaling, extrusion, etc.)

Not a catch-all or professional solution, but a part of an ‘ecosystem’ of next generation fabrication tools

Learning outcomes are not truly being measured, merely hinted at through the related literature and the user studies

Outcomes

Argue convincingly that embodied + tangible devices can aid in modeling for 3D printing

Suggest scaffolding of mathematical and spatial reasoning skills

Make comparisons between devices, modeling modes, tasks

Conclusions

A novel body of work: 3 devices, 4 user studies

Significant contribution that is timely and important

A path for future research on embodied devices for digital fabrication

Thank YouQuestions?

PopCAD Video

References [1] The printed world, http://www.economist.com/node/18114221, (2011).

[2] D. ABRAHAMSON AND D. TRNINIC, Toward an embodied-interaction design framework for mathematical concepts, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, IDC ’11, New York, NY, USA, 2011, ACM, pp. 1–10.

[3] C. ANDERSON, Makers: The New Industrial Revolution, Random House, 2012.

[4] A. N. ANTLE, M. DROUMEVA, AND D. HA, Thinking with hands: an embodied approach to the analysis of children’s interaction with computational objects, in CHI ’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’09, New York, NY, USA, 2009, ACM, pp. 4027–4032.

[5] A. BEVANS, Y.-T. HSIAO, AND A. ANTLE, Supporting children’s creativity through tangible user interfaces, in CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’11, New York, NY, USA, 2011, ACM, pp. 1741–1746.

[6] A. CLARK, Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again, A Bradford book, MIT Press, 1998.

[7] M. EISENBERG, W. MACKAY, A. DRUIN, S. LEHMAN, AND M. RESNICK, Real meets virtual: blending real-world artifacts with computational media, in Conference Com- panion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’96, New York, NY, USA, 1996, ACM, pp. 159–160.

[8] M. EISENBERG, A. NISHIOKA, AND M. E. SCHREINER, Helping users think in three dimensions: steps toward incorporating spatial cognition in user modelling, in Proceed- ings of the 2nd international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, IUI ’97, New York, NY, USA, 1997, ACM, pp. 113–120.

[9] S. FOLLMER AND H. ISHII, Kidcad: digitally remixing toys through tangible tools, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’12, New York, NY, USA, 2012, ACM, pp. 2401–2410.

[10] F. FROEBEL AND J. JARVIS, The Education of Man, A. Lovell Company, New York, 1886.

[11] N. GERSHENFELD, Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop–from Personal Com-puters to Personal Fabrication, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2007.

[12] S. GOLDIN-MEADOW, Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think, Harvard Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003.

References (con’t.) 13] B. HART, Will 3d printing change the world?, http://www.forbes.com/sites/gcaptain/2012/03/06/will-3d-printing-

change- the-world/, (2012).

[14] Y. HUANG AND M. EISENBERG, Easigami: virtual creation by physical folding, in Pro- ceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embod- ied Interaction, TEI ’12, New York, NY, USA, 2012, ACM, pp. 41–48.

[15] B. INHELDER AND J. PIAGET, The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Ado- lescence : An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures., Basic, 1958.

[16] H. ISHII, Tangible bits: beyond pixels, in Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, TEI ’08, New York, NY, USA, 2008, ACM, pp. xv–xxv.

[17] H. ISHII AND B. ULLMER, Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ’97, New York, NY, USA, 1997, ACM, pp. 234–241.

[18] G. JOHNSON, M. GROSS, E. Y.-L. DO, AND J. HONG, Sketch it, make it: sketching precise drawings for laser cutting, in CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’12, New York, NY, USA, 2012, ACM, pp. 1079–1082.

[19] S. R. KLEMMER, B. HARTMANN, AND L. TAKAYAMA, How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design, in Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, DIS ’06, New York, NY, USA, 2006, ACM, pp. 140–149.

[20] G. LAKOFF AND R. NUN TEZ, Where Mathematics Come From: How The Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being, Basic Books, Inc., 2001.

[21] B. LEDUC-MILLS AND M. EISENBERG, The ucube: a child-friendly device for introduc- tory three-dimensional design, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, IDC ’11, New York, NY, USA, 2011, ACM, pp. 72–80.

[22] B. LEDUC-MILLS, H. PROFITA, AND M. EISENBERG, “seeing solids” via patterns of light: evaluating a tangible 3d-input device, in Proceedings of the 11th International Confer- ence on Interaction Design and Children, IDC ’12, New York, NY, USA, 2012, ACM, pp. 377–380.

[23] D. A. MELLIS, S. JACOBY, L. BUECHLEY, H. PERNER-WILSON, AND J. QI, Microcon- trollers as material: crafting circuits with paper, conductive ink, electronic components, and an ”untoolkit”, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangi- ble, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, TEI ’13, New York, NY, USA, 2013, ACM, pp. 83–90.

[24] M. MONTESSORI, The Montessori Method, Frederick Stokes Co., New York, NY, 1912.

More References! [25] S. MUELLER, P. LOPES, AND P. BAUDISCH, Interactive construction: interactive fabrication of functional mechanical

devices, in Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM sympo- sium on User interface software and technology, UIST ’12, New York, NY, USA, 2012, ACM, pp. 599–606.

[26] S. PAPERT, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books, Inc., 1908.

[27] J. QI AND L. BUECHLEY, Electronic popables: exploring paper-based computing through an interactive pop-up book, in Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, TEI ’10, New York, NY, USA, 2010, ACM, pp. 121–128.

[28] H. S. RAFFLE, A. J. PARKES, AND H. ISHII, Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’04, New York, NY, USA, 2004, ACM, pp. 647–654.

[29] B. REPACHOLI AND A. GOPNIK, Early reasoning about desires: Evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds., in Developmental Psychology, 1997, pp. 12–21.

[30] M. RESNICK, All i really need to know (about creative thinking) i learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten , in Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition, C&C ’07, New York, NY, USA, 2007, ACM, pp. 1–6.

[31] M. RESNICK, F. MARTIN, R. BERG, R. BOROVOY, V. COLELLA, K. KRAMER, AND B. SIL- VERMAN, Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’98, New York, NY, USA, 1998, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., pp. 281–287.

[32] E. SCHWEIKARDT AND M. D. GROSS, roblocks: a robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education, in Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, ICMI ’06, New York, NY, USA, 2006, ACM, pp. 72–75.

[33] J. P. SPENCER, M. CLEARFIELD, D. CORBETTA, B. ULRICH, P. BUCHANAN, AND G. SCHONER, Moving toward a grand theory of development: In memory of esther thelen., in Child Development, 2006, pp. 1521–1538.

[34] R. WATANABE, Y. ITOH, M. ASAI, Y. KITAMURA, F. KISHINO, AND H. KIKUCHI, The soul of activecube: implementing a flexible, multimodal, three-dimensional spatial tangible interface, Comput. Entertain., 2 (2004), pp. 15–15.

[35] K. D. WILLIS, J. LIN, J. MITANI, AND T. IGARASHI, Spatial sketch: bridging between movement & fabrication, in Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, TEI ’10, New York, NY, USA, 2010, ACM, pp. 5–12.

Last of the references.

[36] K. D. WILLIS, C. XU, K.-J. WU, G. LEVIN, AND M. D. GROSS, Interactive fabrication: new interfaces for digital fabrication, in Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, TEI ’11, New York, NY, USA, 2011, ACM, pp. 69–72.

[37] M. WILSON, Six views of embodied cognition, Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 9 (2002), pp. 625–636.

[38] A. ZORAN AND J. A. PARADISO, Freed: a freehand digital sculpting tool, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’13, New York, NY, USA, 2013, ACM, pp. 2613–2616.

[39] O. ZUCKERMAN, S. ARIDA, AND M. RESNICK, Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’05, New York, NY, USA, 2005, ACM, pp. 859–868.

proposal defense

Technology