Making From Home: Reflections on Crafting Tangible Interfaces for Stay-at-home Living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pandemic lockdowns created new barriers for HCI researchers, but also provided new opportunities for deeper engagement and reflection in our home environments. Five participants were introduced with a design brief on self-isolation and engaged 12 of their friends and family in the design process of in-the-isolated-wild deployments. By analysing the design process, we found that –while ‘making from home’– our participants noticed the subtlety of the interactions and materials, the processes of remembrance embedded in craft, the use of imperfection and metaphor in homeware, and how ambient presence can provide emotional support. We then conducted a follow-up study on the benefits and limitations of using a crafting approach while ‘making from home’ and discuss the tensions that novices experience while designing TUIs in such an environment. Our results expand the literature by highlighting the benefits, limitations, and trade-offs of user-led design, DIY user empowerment, and harnessing the power of craft.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".