Deconstructivist Interaction Design: Interrogating Expression and Form

In this paper, we propose deconstructivist interaction design in order to facilitate the differentiation of an expressional vo- cabulary in interaction design. Based on examples that illus- trate how interaction design critically explores (i.e., decon- structs) its own expressional repertoire, we argue that there are commonalities with deconstructivist phases in related de- sign disciplines to learn from. Therefore, we draw on the role and characteristics of deconstructivism in the history of archi- tecture, graphic design, and fashion. Afterwards, we reflect on how interaction design is already a means of deconstruc- tion (e.g., in critical design). Finally, we discuss the potential of deconstructivism for form-giving practices, resulting in a proposal to extend interaction design’s expressional vocabu- lary of giving form to computational material by substantiat- ing a deconstructivist perspective.

Critical Ways of Making: Design Artefacts, De-Computation and Un-Crafting

This workshop intends to elaborate on new and emerging crit- ical approaches that aim to question the nature of contempo- rary computational artefacts. By interrogating interactive sys- tems from a perspective that is focussed on the arrangement of their constituent parts and the relations between them, we seek to challenge the constructive paradigms that might have led to those configurations. In particular, with this workshop we will introduce and further explore De-Computation as a methodology, and Un-Crafting as a method, both targeting a critical examination of contemporary computational arte- facts and the interaction paradigms they follow. Both De- Computation and Un-Crafting approach and explore possi- ble computational futures by critically examining the present. The workshop will include collaborative hands-on activities with reflection in practice and discussions around the topic. We are inviting interdisciplinary viewpoints that will enable us to further ground De-Computation and Un-Crafting in a diverse set of contexts

The Future of Making: Where Industrial and Personal Fabrication Meet

This one-day workshop seeks to reflect on the notion of fab- rication in both personal and industrial contexts. Although these contexts are very distinct in their economical and polit- ical vision, they share important characteristics (e.g., users interacting with specific fabrication equipment and tools). The workshop topic spans from personal fabrication to (au- tomated) production, from applied to theoretical considera- tions, from user requirements to design as a crafting practice. We will address changes in production that affect humans, e.g., from mass production to Do-It-Yourself (DIY) produc- tion, in order to discuss findings and lessons learned for in- dividual and collective production workplaces of the future. We aim to explore the intersections between different dimen- sions and processes of production ranging all the way from hobbyist to professional making. Furthermore, the workshop will critically reflect on current developments and their conse- quences on personal, societal, and economical levels includ- ing questions of the reorganization of work and labor, inno- vation cultures, and politics of participation.

Open design at the intersection of making and manufacturing

This one-day workshop aims to consider the opportunities for HCI at the intersection of maker culture and professional, industrial manufacturing. In particular, we are interested in exploring how the concept of “open design” could help support productive interactions between professional manufacturers and non-professional makers. Our proposal builds on momentum established by previous related workshops (including one at CHI2016) and aims to respond critically to several key industry and government reports published in 2015-2016 on the ‘maker movement’

Heterogeneity in making: Findings, approaches, and reflections on inclusivity in making and makerspaces

Making, that is, the hobbyist and technologically based creation of things, has been associated with many benefits. It is considered to contribute to the development of skills and to enable participation in innovation, and even democracy. At the same time, institutionalized making (in makerspaces, FabLabs) is known to be exclusive as members of such spaces are very often young well-educated white men. This is in contradiction to the promise and self-understanding of the maker culture, which aims to be open and inclusive. In the past 3 years, we, a group of researchers, makers, fablab employees, hackerspace operators, and artists, have engaged with such disparities in a collaborative research project. We inquired into barriers that women* and other underrepresented groups experience, created visions to change the status quo, and implemented smaller and bigger interventions in different spaces (fablab, hackerspace, and makers' homes) to explore their impacts. This article discusses findings, approaches, and foremost, reflections and experiences. In addition to presenting selected insights from our explorations, we pay particular attention to the tensions and challenges that we encountered during our research endeavors. Many of those are rooted in our own roles, perspectives, and backgrounds, which are multiple, sometimes conflicting, troubling, frustrating, yet enriching, and rewarding. In the form of a written conversation among project members, we present those different viewpoints, connect them where possible, and oppose them where needed. We conclude by articulating tensions that we see as characteristic regarding making and the research around it

Open Design, Inclusivity and the Intersections of Making

This paper presents insights from an ethnographic study with a diverse population of makers in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. By engaging individuals, groups and communities who 'make' in different contexts, we reveal under-explored perspectives on 'making' and highlight points of intersection between different kinds of making across the city. We reflect on the dynamics of these intersections and connect our observations to emerging discourses around 'open design'. In doing so, we argue for a renewed focus on 'inclusivity' and highlight a need for new infrastructure to support iterative, collaborative making within -- and across -- interconnected networks of makers

Introduction to This Special Issue on Open Design at the Intersection of Making and Manufacturing

What is ‘open design’ and who gets to say what it is? In the emerging body of literature on open design, there is a clear alignment to the values and practices of free culture and open source software and hardware. Yet this same literature includes multiple, sometimes even contradictory strands of technology practice and research. These different perspectives can be traced back to free culture advocates from the 1970s to the 1990s who formulated the ideal of the internet as inherently empowering, democratizing, and countercultural. However, more recent approaches include feminist and critical interventions into hacking and making as well as corporate strategies of “open innovation” that bring end-users and consumers into the design process. What remains today seems to fall into two schools of thought. On one hand, we have the celebratory endorsements of ‘openness’ as applied to technology and design. On the other hand, we have a continuous and expanding critique of these very ideals and questions, where that critique identifies persisting forms of racial, gender, age, and class-based exclusions, and questions about the relationship between open design, labor and power remain largely unanswered

Dislocated boardgames: design potentials for remote tangible play

Conventional digital and remote forms of play lack the physicality associated with analog play. Research on the materiality of boardgames has highlighted the inherent material aspects to this analog form of play and how these are relevant for the design of digital play. In this work, we analyze the inherent material qualities and related experiences of boardgames, and speculate how these might shift in remote manifestations. Based on that, we depict three lenses of designing for remote tangible play: physicality, agency, and time. These lenses present leverage points for future designs and illustrate how the digital and the physical can complement each other following alternative notions of hybrid digitalphysical play. Based on that, we illustrate the related design space and discuss how boardgame qualities can be translated to the remote space, as well as how their characteristics might change. Thereby, we shed light on related design challenges and reflect on how designing for shared physicality can enrich dislocated play by applying these lenses.(VLID)480300

Discerning Designers’ Intentions

PanelDesign is often done by teams of designers and other stakeholders. Design also creates a time-lapsed collaborative relationship between designer(s) and user(s), who “complete the design through use”. The intentions of designers in designing and crafting computational artifacts are therefore important for multiple HCI and CSCW related research and design traditions, including (a) appropriation studies, (b) participatory design, (c) design criticism, and (d) design collaborations in organizational contexts. All of these design philosophies handle intentions differently, including normative, organizational, and ethical aspects of what designers and designs ‘should’ intend. Some people consider intentions to be highly important, and demand explicit articulations of intentions; some people question whether we give the wrong kind of weight to designers’ intentions. With this panel, we will bring these notions to the discussion table to allow a deeper understanding of the diverse theoretical perspectives and research methods available to account for designers’ intentions. This will help to theorize design as a social activity, and to understand how people negotiate, evolve, and change designs over the lifecycle of a product or a system. This panel opens a conversation, comprising multiple perspectives, to help HCI and CSCW develop new ways to consider designers’ intentions from an empirical and theoretical perspective.Peer reviewe