=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2801/workshop4
|storemode=property
|title=Crafting Tangible Interactions. Can thinking through craftsmanship values enrich the design process of TI?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2801/panel4.pdf
|volume=Vol-2801
|authors=Erica Vannucci
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/etis/Vannucci20
}}
==Crafting Tangible Interactions. Can thinking through craftsmanship values enrich the design process of TI?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2801/panel4.pdf
Crafting Tangible Interactions
Can thinking through craftsmanship values enrich the design process of TI?
Erica Vannuccia
a
Northumbria University, Sandyford Rd., Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8QH, United Kingdom
Abstract
While today the digital is ubiquitous and many interaction designers focus on designing
manual or digital processes faster, more precise, ascribed, repeatable and replicable, there is a
robust counterposing standpoint looking for site-specific, volatile and unique interactions.
Craftsmanship is a practice that today is still trying to negotiate its role between technology,
the digital, and handmaking values within the Design realm. This workshop suggests that
looking closely at craftsmanship practices and unpacking the values craft practitioners hold
over materiality, techniques, and processes could enrich our knowledge on human-values.
The nuances these values hold provide useful insights that could be used when designing
future tangible interactions.
Keywords
Tangible Interaction, Craftsmanship, Human Values
1. Introduction
The Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) field has always been interested in how technologies could be
best designed to interact with humans. Thus, as technologies become more complex, the community is
trying to change its research agenda, giving a higher and more conscious focus on the importance of
the human counter-part of technology when designing systems and devices. To do so, the community
is reaching out to new forms of partnerships with other disciplines to "re-examine and reflect on its
basic terms and concepts" [6, p.1230].
As Tangible Interaction (TI) is a research field working at the intersection of the physical and the
digital, it seems valuable to have a close look at domains trying to negotiate their place between these
two fields such as, for example, the one of craftsmanship. In the last two decades, sociologists, craft
theorists, archaeologists, and economists have been engaging with the topic of digital craftsmanship,
contrasting handmaking with digital making and comparing digital craftsmanship to
industrial/automatised processes that work with almost no human involvement in the making,
stressing how the shifting role of hands and technologies in the active engagement with materials are
devaluing the latter, engendering a sense of loss in our heritage [2; 3; 5; 4; etc..].
Valuing handmaking characteristics in the Digital Era seems a crucial notion not to lose sight of,
especially in communities that are designing innovative technologies, researching how these
technologies could interact at their best with humans.
In a time where HCI communities are taking into deeper account human values, and the boundaries
between the physical world and the computer are reconsidered [1], seems appropriate to try to
investigate if craftsmanship values could provide useful insights to designers in the TI community.
2. Objectives
In this workshop, the participants were asked to collectively reflect and discuss on how craftsmanship
characteristics and sensitivities could be valued and included more in the design of future tangible
interactions. This workshop was designed to open debates rather than solving or tackling specific
issues. In the workshop, the participants had the chance to discuss how craftsmanship values could
open up new discussions within their community.
3. Schedule
To frame the workshop, the author provided a brief presentation on the relationship of craftsmanship to
digital fabrication technologies and the relevant tension points and dichotomies between those crafting
processes that allow a close embodied encounter with the material, the physical, the tangible world, and
those making processes that rely on the abstracted mediation of the material (10 minutes).
The participants were divided into three main groups. They were assigned three different sets of
themes related to values in craftsmanship: errors, uniqueness and replicability were assigned to the
first group, serendipity and control to the second group, and time and materials to the third group.
Each group was asked to spend some time browsing through a series of sources that had been
previously collected by the author. The sources selected had been specifically chosen considering
each assigned theme and included a diverse set of videos, narratives, pictures and interviews related to
artefacts and craft practitioners working in the intersection of fabrication technologies and more
hands-on, analogue making processes (15 minutes).
At this point, the participants were asked to discuss and reflect all together upon the sources and the
themes explored. To guide them through the reflective exercise, the author provided three different
tasks:
- In the first task the groups were asked to reflect upon the sources provided in relation to craftsmanship
(5 minutes); this exercise aimed to open up the reflective space and encouraged the participants to share
with one another the observations done individually over the given sources.
-In the second task, the groups were asked to reflect upon the sources provided in relation to TI (5
minutes); here, the participants were invited to choose examples of TI projects that could relate to the
themes explored and share personal experiences in relation to their practices as designers.
-In the third task, the groups were asked to imagine a TI including or expressing more the assigned
themes or even giving up, specific values –e.g. giving up control (5 minutes).
While commenting, the participants were asked to track down in a creative space (an online shared
presentation) the main bullet points discussed and any pictures, videos and content that was of relevance
to their debates. These spaces were collected at the end of the day, to provide a tangible overview of
the reflections and the relevant discussions addressed.
The last 10 minutes of the workshop were assigned to the wrapping up phase. The three groups came
together, and each group had 3 minutes to share roughly the outcomes of the reflections carried out in
their groups, with the other participants (9 minutes).
To wrap up, the researcher left the participants with the following open question: Did thinking
through a craftsperson's eyes bring any added value to how we can think of tangible interactions and
the importance of human values, in our practice as designers?
4. Results
The workshop opened up dynamic discussions over the selected themes. In the following, the author
will try to give a brief overview of the debates that the chosen themes were able to entice within the
different groups.
Group 1- Serendipity and Control
The group discussed how tools radically change the way we think (and craft). They were impressed to
see how artists exploit the potential of 3D printers to make glitches an integral component of their
creation.
The group reflected on Serendipity and Control in relation to how a designer facilitates co-design
workshops; the facilitator needs to continuously balance between the two over the participatory
process and the outcomes. The group discussed how serendipity is a state of mind, not only a feature
of the craftsmen/women or the designer, and pointed out how involving people from different
backgrounds in a design process radically enhances serendipity as diverse and creative ideas occur
more frequently with a diversified team. The group discussion shed light on the necessity to increase
the serendipity value within creative processes. The group articulated a possible research inquiry to
pursue further: how can we stimulate serendipity in design processes?
Moreover, the group shared a diverse set of design examples representing an interface that is not
immediately intuitive and pointed out how users do find their way to interact with the latter anyways,
appropriating it. This reflection stressed that more open- ambiguous designs, with no predefined use,
are sometimes perceived as more engaging. The group, by the end of the reflective exercise, started
imagining autonomous behaviours in everyday objects (e.g. a sofa that moves to prevent you from
sitting on it etc.).
Group 2- Error, Uniqueness and Replicability
The group reflected on how each object a craftsmen/women produces is unique, as it is being shaped
by the "perfect imperfection" of expert hands.
The group focused on the theme of uniqueness, discussing how a TI and its user, are co-dependent;
the user, by choosing to engage a specific tangible, is actively transforming it into something unique
to them. The group reflected on how uniqueness is not inherent in the tangible itself. Thus, it is a
quality of the designed interaction which is volatile; the TI is not solely unique, but it co-creates its
uniqueness with the user.
Moreover, the group questioned whether imperfections in a TI could be positively valued and
considered unique, as it happens with the imperfections in handmade tangible artefacts which,
sometimes, even become luxury goods for it.
The group started imagining how rephrasing the term "use" –highly used in TI– and transforming it
into "unintended use" could be an exciting provocation to explore further in the community.
Group 3- Time and Materials
The group reflected at length on how time and materials are used in craftsmanship processes and the
design community. They commented on how material choices are under looked in design
communities.
The group reflected on how time is an element that is always in control, both while using hands or
technologies in the making processes. The group differentiated time into two different ways of
perceiving it. Having dealt with a digital file, once the file is ready to be printed out with a 3D printer,
the craft practitioner has a precise time frame to expect the machine to be done, if everything within
the process goes smoothly. Instead, while crafting by hand, the practitioner is actively engaging with
materials in the making process, and it is not waiting. The group reflected on how time here, acquires
a different value; is it more valuable to be able to lose the sense of time passing or to have a
controlled perspective on time passing?
Moreover, the group discussed how hand-making something, enhances the attachment to the crafted
artefact. Even if the outcome is not precise, we generally care more about the things that we
make. The group discussed how the attribution of the value of "precision" to technology might be
limiting, at present, the potential user engagement with it. The group ended the session suggesting that
reflections on how technology could be tweaked in its precision, to enhance engagement, could be
beneficial to the community.
5. Reflections
In a very brief window of time (approx. 45 minutes), the workshop initiated interesting reflections
successfully, showing how the intent of posing some questions through craft values –rather than
answering or solving some issues– can be a valuable asset to the community.
Some of the topics that came up within the discussions were not explored further due to time
limitations but could be further explored in a future workshop. However, this reflective exercise's
outcomes highlight the possibilities that thinking through craftsmanship values could bring to the TI
community and to the design community.
References
[1] Harper, R., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., & Sellen, A. (2008). Being Human: HCI in 2020. Cambridge,
UK: Microsoft.
[2] McCullough, M. (1998). Abstracting craft: The practiced digital hand. MIT press.
[3] Latour, B. (2008). A cautious Prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with
special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of
the design history society (pp. 2-10).
[4] Pallasmaa, J. (2009). The thinking hand: Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture.
Chichester: Wiley.
[5] Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.
[6] Stephanidis, C., Salvendy, G., Antona, M., Chen, J. Y., Dong, J., Duffy, V. G., ... & Guo, Y.
(2019). Seven HCI grand challenges. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(14),
1229- 1269.