Physical Computing and Desktop Fabrication - Digital Humanities ... [PDF]

Physical Computing and Desktop Fabrication Nina Belojevic Devon Elliott Shaun Macpherson Jentery Sayers

This package is intended for the personal, educational use of DHSI attendees. Portions appear here with consideration of fair use and fair dealing guidelines. © DHSI 2015

Welcome to DHSI 2015! Thanks for joining the DHSI community! In this booklet, you will find essential course materials prefaced by some useful information about getting settled initially at UVic, finding your way around, getting logged in to our network (after you’ve registered the day before our courses begin, and received your login information), and so on. Given our community’s focus on things computational, it will be a surprise to no one that we might expect additional information online for some of the classes – your instructors will let you know – or that the most current version of all DHSI-related information may be found on our website at dhsi.org. Do check in there first if you need anything that’s not in this coursepak. And please don’t hesitate to be in touch with us at [email protected] or via Twitter at @AlyssaA_DHSI or @DHInstitute if we can be of any help ….

5/8/2015

DHSI | Digital Humanities Summer Institute

Home

Courses

Scholarships

Schedule

DHSI@Congress, Events

Visitor Info

People

Archive

Sunday, 31 May - Friday, 5 June 2015 Your local hosts for the week are Alyssa Arbuckle, Dan Sondheim, and Ray Siemens

Sunday 31 May Arrival

After arriving, getting checked in at the Residence Services Office (Craigdarroch Building), and poking around the campus a bit (see the University of Victoria @ Google Maps), many will wander to the beach at Cadboro Bay and the pub at Smuggler's Cove OR the other direction to Shelbourne Plaza and Maude Hunter's Pub. 7:45-8:20: DHSI Registration (outside Hickman Building, Room 105) 8:30 to 9:20: Welcome, Orientation, and Instructor Overview (Hickman Building, Room 105) 9:30 to Noon: Classes in Session (click for locations)

Monday 1 June

1. Foundations: Digitisation Fundamentals and their Application (Clearihue A051, Lab) 2. Foundations: Scholarscapes, Augmented Dissemination via Digital Methods (MacLaurin D107, Classroom) 3. Foundations: Models for Digital Humanities at Liberal Arts Colleges (& 4yr Institutions) (David Strong C108, Classroom) 4. Out-of-the-Box Text Analysis for the Digital Humanities (Human and Social Development A160, Lab) 5. Conceptualising and Creating a Digital Documentary Edition (MacLaurin D010, Classroom) 6. Open Journal Systems for the Digital Humanities (Sunday in person only) (Elliott Building 162, Classroom) 7.1 Foundations: Text Encoding Fundamentals and their Application (MacLaurin D016, Lab) 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 3:45: Classes in Session (locations as above) 4:00 to 5:00: Reception (Graduate Student Centre, Pub)

Tuesday 2 June

9:00 to Noon: Classes in Session 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 4:30: Classes in Session

Wednesday 3 June

9:00 to Noon: Classes in Session 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 4:30: Classes in Session 6:30 -: Informal drop-in, for those who wish, downtown at the Garrick's Head! 9:00 to Noon: Classes in Session 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 4:00: Classes in Session 4.15 to 5.15: DHSI Colloquium Session 1 (MacLaurin A144)

Thursday 4 June

Chair: Alyssa Arbuckle (U Victoria) "User-Driven Digital Editions: Positing a New Tool for Teaching Middle English Texts in Survey Courses", Krista Murchison (U Ottawa) "The Undergraduate Scholar-Citizen: A Case Study for the Development of an Undergraduate Critical DH Pedagogy", Emily Murphy and Shannon Smith (Queen's U) "Sharing the Digital Imaginary: Dissertation Blogging and the Companion Website", Steve Anderson (U California, Riverside) "Multicultural, Bilingual, and Interactive Arabic and Hebrew Digital Edutainment", Abeer Aloush (U Pennsylvania) "Bringing DH into the library: pedagogy, games and online ed", Juliette Levy & Steve Anderson (U California, Riverside) 9:00 to Noon: Classes in Session 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 2:30: Classes in Session 2:45 to 3:30: A Week in Review / Show and Tell (Hickman Building, Room 105) 3:30 to 4:30: Institute Lecture, Malte Rehbein (U Passau): "Ethical Aspects of Digital Humanities" (Hickman Building, Room 105)

Friday 5 June

http://www.dhsi.org/schedule.php

Abstract: While obvious legal issues connected to Digital Humanities research such as copyright are widely discussed, though probably not yet satisfactory clarified, ethical issues in Digital Humanities have so far not been addressed let alone systematically studied. Recent publications on Big Data Computing which plays a more and more important role for the Humanities show a certain slowly growing awareness for questions concerning privacy, identity, or reputation, on a general level, but one only timidly begins to investigate them thoroughly. For instance, in June 2014 the University of Oxford announces a postdoctoral position in "ethics of big data" aiming at formulating "a blueprint of the ethical aspects, requirements and desiderata underpinning a European framework for the ethical use of Big Data" in the context of biomedical research. For the Digital Humanities, however, no such effort has yet been undertaken. Along several case-studies of recent research mainly in quantitative analysis, such as authorship attribution or psychological profiling, this talk categorizes and

1/7

5/8/2015

DHSI | Digital Humanities Summer Institute discusses some immanent ethical aspects of DH. 4:45 to 6:00: Reception (Student Union Building, Felicitas)

Saturday, 6 June 2015 [Suggested Outings!] Some ideas, for those who'd like to explore the area! Suggested Outing 1, Botanical Beach (self-organised;; car needed) A self-guided visit to the wet, wild west coast tidal shelf (and historically-significant former research site) at Botanical Beach;; we recommend departing early (around 8.00 am) to catch low tide for a better view of the wonderful undersea life! Consider bringing a packed lunch to nibble-on while looking at the crashing waves when there, and then have an afternoon drink enjoying the view from the deck of the Port Renfrew Hotel. Suggested Outing 2, Butchart Gardens (self-organised) A shorter journey to the resplendently beautiful Butchart Gardens and, if you like, followed by (ahem) a few minutes at the nearby Church and State Winery, in the Saanich Penninsula. About an hour there by public bus from UVic, or 30 minutes by car. And more! Self-organised whale watching, kayaking, brew pub sampling (at Spinnaker's, Swans, Moon Under Water, and beyond!), paddle-boarding, a tour of used bookstores, and more have also been suggested!

Sunday, 7 June 2015 [DHSI Registration, Meetings, Workshops] DHSI Registration: At UVic Housing / Residence Services Office (Craigdarroch Building) See the University of Victoria @ Google Maps 8:30 to 4:30 After registration, many will wander to Cadboro Bay and the pub at Smuggler's Cove OR the other direction to Shelbourne Plaza and Maude Hunter's Pub. DHSI Select Course Meetings (as per course descriptions) Meeting (2 hrs): #6 Open Journal Systems for the Digital Humanities (Elliott Building 162, Classroom) For those new to journal publishing, this online course provides the knowledge and skills required to get a new publishing project up and running quickly and efficiently. Students will work through a series of modules with the support of an online instructor and be able to develop and practice their skills on their own, dedicated OJS test journal installation. Topics will include standard journal configuration requirements, production workflow overview, web site customizations, publication statistics, and more. The only technical requirement for this course is the ability to use a web browser and fill in online forms. Following on-line engagement during the week of 1-5 June, there will be an optional in-person, two-hour meeting for those enrolled in this course on Sunday 7 June, further details TBA. The instructor will be available for discussion and consultation in the week prior to 7 June. 9:00 to 4:00 Meeting: #11 [Foundations] DH For Department Chairs and Deans (Cadboro Commons, McKenzie/Sinclair Room;; adjacent to registration) Intended for university administrators who seek an understanding of the Digital Humanities that is both broad and deep, this offering establishes a cohort that [1] meets as a group for two dedicated sessions before the first day of DHSI (Sunday 7 June) and one dedicated session midweek (Wednesday 10 June) to survey and discuss pragmatic DH basics and chief administrative issues related to supporting DH and those who practice it at their institution, [2] allows those enrolled to audit (as a non-participatory observer, able to go from class to class) any and all of the DHSI courses, and [3] individually engages in consultation and targeted discussion with the instructors and others in the group outside of course time over during the institute. Please note that this course begins with a meeting on Sunday 7 June, further details TBA. Workshops and Mini-Conference Workshop: Accessibility & Digital Environments (Cadboro Commons, Haro Room;; adjacent to registration) A hands-on workshop introducing participants to accessibility features in WordPress and Omeka to make digital resources more easily available for users with disabilities. This workshop is kindly led by Erin E. Templeton [Converse C] and George H. Williams [U South Carolina Upstate]! Click here for more information and for registration.) Workshop: Up and Running with Compute Canada (Clearihue A015, Lab)

1:00 to 4:00


Targeting both digital humanities researchers who are new to Compute Canada and the services that it offers this tutorial/workshop will share a range of use cases and methods from the spectrum of disciplines that make up the digital humanities. Opportunities will exist for hands-on work and sandboxing and attendees can expect to walk away with access to--and introductory training in--Compute Canada installations of OwnCloud, Globus, Vidyo, and a virtual machine cloud environment. Click here for more information and for registration.

2/7

5/8/2015

DHSI | Digital Humanities Summer Institute Mini-Conference: Social Knowledge Creation in the Humanities (Hickman Building, Room 105) This event is intended to provoke conversation and stimulate activity around issues of social knowledge creation. We welcome researchers, students, and practitioners who wish to engage intellectually with this topic, as well as to do some hands-on experimentation with related practices and initiatives. Featured activities include: Opening presentations by leading figures in this area;; Lightning talks, where authors present 4 minute versions of longer papers that have been circulated prior to the gathering, followed by a brief discussion (papers may be conceptual, theoretical, application-oriented, and more);; and Aligned workshops, where session leaders present tools and platforms for social knowledge creation and attendees have the opportunity to play and experiment in this environment. Details at http://dhsi.org/events.php#skc. Workshop: Twitter Basics (Cadboro Commons, Campus View Room;; adjacent to registration)

4:00 to 5:00

An informal introduction to community building and engagement with Twitter, for those new to social media. Bring your smartphone/tablet/laptop/etc and pop on by! (This is kindly led by Angela Courtney [Indiana U], Jenny Korn [U Illinois Chicago] and DHSI volunteers! While RSVPs are not required, we would love to hear from you if you plan to stop by via email at [email protected] and [email protected] or Twitter, @JennyKorn and @englishlitlib.)

Monday, 8 June 2015 7:45 to 8:15

Last-minute Registration (MacLaurin Building, Room A100)

8:30 to 10:00

Welcome, Orientation, and Instructor Overview MacLaurin A144 Classes in Session (click for details)

10:15 to Noon

7.2 Foundations: Text Encoding Fundamentals and their Application (Clearihue A102, Lab) 8. Foundations: Fundamentals of Programming/Coding for Human(s|ists) (Clearihue A015, Lab) 9. Foundations: Foundations: Web Development for Beginners, with Ruby on Rails (Clearihue D131, Classroom) 10. Foundations: Understanding the Pre-Digital Book (McPherson Library A003, Classroom) 11. DH For Department Chairs and Deans (Hickman 120, Classroom) 12. Advanced TEI Concepts / TEI Customisation [Moved to 15-19 June] 13. Online Collaborative Scholarship: Principles and Practices (A CWRCShop) (Cornett Building A229, Classroom) 14. Sound of :: in Digital Humanities (David Strong C108, Classroom) 15. Digital Pedagogy Integration in the Curriculum (Clearihue D130, Classroom) 16. Introduction to Electronic Literature in DH: Research and Practice (Cornett Building A121, Classroom) 17. Digital Humanities with a Global Outlook (Elliott Building 162, Classroom) 18. Games for Digital Humanists (Clearihue D132, Classroom;; M PM and Tu PM in Clearihue A103, Lab) 19. Feminist Digital Humanities: Theoretical, Social, and Material Engagements (Elliott Building 061, Classroom) 20. Digital Indigeneity (Cornett Building A120, Classroom) 21. Digital Documentation and Imaging for Humanists [look for this next year!] 22. Physical Computing and Desktop Fabrication for Humanists (MacLaurin D016, Classroom) 23. Pragmatic Publishing Workflows (MacLaurin D103, Classroom) 24. Crowdsourcing as a Tool for Research and Public Engagement (MacLaurin D101, Classroom) 25. Creating LAMP Infrastructure for Digital Humanities Projects (Elliott Building 161, Classroom) 26. Digital Humanities Databases (MacLaurin D010, Classroom) 27. Text Mapping as Modelling (Clearihue A314, Classroom) 28. 3-D Modeling (MacLaurin D105, Classroom) 29. RDF and Linked Open Data (Cornett Building A128, Classroom) 30. Visualising Information: Where Data Meets Design (MacLaurin D109, Classroom) 31. Stylometry with R (Human and Social Development A160, Lab)

12:15 to 1:15

Lunch break / Unconference Coordination Session (MacLaurin A144)

1:30 to 4:00

Classes in Session (locations as above) Institute Lecture: David Hoover (New York U): “Computers and Literary Studies: Doing DH in One Corner of the Big Tent” (MacLaurin A144)

4:10 to 5:00


Abstract: In this talk I want to take up three related issues in the recent history of the Digital Humanities. The first is the often-repeated lament that DH has had little influence on traditional humanities disciplines. The second is the project of Jerome McGann’s Radiant Textuality, and more recently, Stephen Ramsay’s Reading Machines, to transform DH into a tool to help literary critics do what they already like to do. The third is Stanley Fish’s recent attack on DH, which argues that DH (and more specifically, distant reading) is a whimsical and insufficiently serious method that is “dictated by the capacity of the tool.” I will argue that the recent avalanche of interest in DH in literary studies and elsewhere is making the lament less valid. I will also argue, by doing some

3/7

5/8/2015

DHSI | Digital Humanities Summer Institute new analysis of my own, that Ramsay’s provocative intervention into Woolf’s /The Waves/ is deeply flawed (partly because it mistakes computationally tractable problems for intractable ones), and that Fish’s criticism badly misses the point by failing to see that the kind of criticism he wants to do is not only compatible with DH but more easily and more effectively done using DH methods. Reception / DHSI Colloquium Poster Session (University Club)

~5:00 to ~6:30

Poster Session Presenters: "Spar: Public and Digital Humanities in Southwest Washington State", Rachel Arteaga (U Washington) "Local Knowledge: small boat losses on La PÈrouse's 1786 expedition in Lituya Bay, re-interpreted with moon and tidal data", Paula Johanson (U Victoria) "Where Heidegger and Doctorow Intersect in the Creative Commons Licensing of Pirate Cinema", Paula Johanson (U Victoria) "Hispanic Muralism Digital Photographic Archive", Rubria Rocha de Luna (Texas A&M U) "Myths on Maps", Lauren Mayes & Laurel Bowman (U Victoria) "Enabling narratives with Digital Story Cubes", Mary Galvin (University College Cork) & James O'Sullivan (Pennsylvania State U) "The History of the Han (Han shu): An Experiment in Close and Distant Reading", Scott McGinnis "Embedding the teaching of digital humanities at the University of Warwick", David Beck (U Warwick) "Searching for the Past: Borrowed Methods for Uncovering Historical Consciousness, as Expressed Online", Shawn Anctil (Carleton U) "From Chronology to Network: Representing Gay Liberation", Jessica Bonney, Sarah Lane, Raymon Sandhu, & Travis White (U British Columbia, Okanagan) "TEI Encoding: Not-so Micro Problems with Macro Solutions", Travis White (U British Columbia, Okanagan) "Collaborative, Speculative, Possible Technologically-Enhanced Mobile Libraries, Or How Davidson College Students Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Library", Caitlin Christian-Lamb (Davidson C) "'Digital Immateriality:' Locating Surrounding Myths in Pedagogical Settings", Farrah Abdel-Latif & Abigel Lemak (U Toronto) "Ikenga Shrines and Iron Horses: A Reader's Guide to Achebe's Things Fall Apart Using Scalar", Cathy Kroll (Sonoma State U) "Novel Analysis Program (NAP)", Tracey Elhajj (U Victoria) "Using authorship attribution analysis to investigate the collaboration of Robert Louis Stevenson and Fanny van der Grift Stevenson on The Dynamiter", Anouk Lang, Mingyuan Chen, Carlos Fonseca Grigsby, Laura Mcaleese, Alba MorollÛn DÌaz-Faes, Elizabeth Nicholas, & Robyn Pritzker (U Edinburgh) "Northeastern Universityís Digital Scholarship Group: An Introduction", Jim McGrath (Northeastern U) "The MayaArch3D Project: A 3D WebGIS for the Documentation and Analysis of Archaeological Sites", Heather Richards-Rissetto (U Nebraska-Lincoln), Jennifer von Schwerin, Markus Reindel (German Archaeological Institute), Alexander Zipf (U Heidelberg), Fabio Remondino (Bruno Kessler Foundation), Michael Auer, Nicolas Billen, Lukas Loo (U Heidelberg), & Belen Jimenez Fernandez Palacios (Bruno Kessler Foundation) "Capital Talks", Stephanie Gamble (U Kansas) "March of the Penguins: Leveraging Linux for DH Projects", Jonathan Martin (U Massachusetts, Lowell) "Schooling Donald Allen: Re-Locating Mid-Century American Poetry Networks", Lisa Chinn, Brian Croxall, & Rebecca Koeser (Emory U) "The Curiosity of Crowds", Edith Law (U Waterloo)

Tuesday, 9 June 2015 9:00 to Noon

Classes in Session Lunch break / Unconference (various locations)

12:15 to 1:15 Special Session: DH + CC = !!! : Powering up DH research with Compute Canada (Clearihue A015, Lab) 1:30 to 4:00

Classes in Session DHSI Colloquium Session 2 (MacLaurin A144)

4:15 to 5:30

Chair: John Barber (Washington State U, Vancouver) "Analyzing E-Lit", Dene Grigar (Washington State U, Vancouver) "Speaking in code-mixing: the language of bilinguals", Jose Manuel Medrano (U California, Riverside) "Water through a net: long-term preservation of the digital humanities on the web", Corey Davis (U Victoria) "Expertise and Imposter Syndrome: The Reluctant Digital Humanist", Julia Panko (Weber State U) "Panopticon or Panacea? Googledocs, word processing, and Collaborative Real-time Editing", Mark Perry & Taylor Morphett (Simon Fraser U)

Wednesday, 10 June 2015


9:00 to Noon

Classes in Session

12:15 to 1:15

Lunch break / Unconference (various locations)

1:30 to 4:00

Classes in Session

4/7

5/8/2015

DHSI | Digital Humanities Summer Institute DHSI Colloquium Session 3 (MacLaurin A144)

4:15 to 5:30

7:30 to 8:30

Chair: Diane Jakacki (Bucknell U) "Social Knowledge Creation and Big Data", Matthew Hiebert (U Victoria) & William Bowen (U Toronto, Scarborough) "Digital Ironies: Using DH Tools to Examine the Surveillance Society", Josefa Lago-Grana & Renee Houston (U Puget Sound) "Recovering the First World War Illustrated Gift-Book in a Digital Environment", Nick Milne-Walasek (U Ottawa) "Linking the Middle Ages: Applying Linked Open Data to the Field of Medieval Studies", Ece Turnator (U Texas, Austin) "The Autobiographical Writing of Infinite Jest Reading Group Blogs", Philip Miletic (U Waterloo) Multimedia Performance, Meridian (Student Union Building, Cinecenta) Kevin Mazutinec, Robin Davies, Marian van der Zon, and Justin McGrail

Thursday, 11 June 2015 9:00 to Noon

Classes in Session

12:15 to 1:15

Lunch break / Unconference (various locations) [Instructor lunch meeting]

1:30 to 4:00

Classes in Session DHSI Colloquium Session 4 (MacLaurin A144)

4:15 to 5:30

7:30 to 9:00

Chair: Mary Galvin (University College Cork) "First Year English as a DH Course", Nicholas van Orden (U Alberta) "Collaborative Reading in The Readers' Thoreau", Paul Schacht (SUNY Geneseo) "Radio Nouspace", John Barber (Washington State U, Vancouver) "The 19 Voyages of Henry James", Shawna Ross (Arizona State U) "Archive as Network: a project conducted in the John Ringling Library Special Collections", Margaret Konkol (New C of Florida) Electronic Literature Reading / Exposition (Student Union Building, Felicitas) James O'Sullivan (Penn State) and Dene Grigar (Washington State, Vancouver;; Electronic Literature Organisation), Organisers

Friday, 12 June 2015 DHSI Colloquium Session 5 (MacLaurin A144)

8:00 to 9:20

Chair: Shawna Ross (Arizona State U) "A Project Based Pedagogy Developing the EULA Tool", Aaron Mauro (Penn State Erie, The Behrend C) "Founders Online 'Early Access': Best Practices and Lessons Learned about Working on Large Scale Digital Editions", William Kurtz (Virginia Foundation for the Humanities) "Fanny Kemble's Shakespeare", Maria Chappell (U Georgia) "Teaching with TEI: The Victorian Women Writers Project and Virtual Learning Environments", Mary Borgo (Indiana U) "Finding Your Family Tree in The Joseph Smith Papers: An Example of DH Engaging the General Public", Nathan Waite (The Joseph Smith Papers)

9:30 to Noon

Classes in Session

12:15 to 1:15

Lunch reception / DHSI Course E-Exhibits / E-poster Session (MacLaurin A100) Presentation of Bursaries and Awards Institute Lecture: Claire Warwick (U Durham): "The End of the Beginning: Building, Supporting and Sustaining Digital Humanities Institutions" (MacLaurin A144)

1:30 to 2:30

Abstract: In his welcome to the DH2009 conference at University of Maryland, Neil Fraistat memorably declared ‘This is our time’. His prediction has proved to be correct. The Centernet map now shows 196 DH centres across the world, and the foundation of a new centre is not not seen as particularly innovative or noteworthy. How have we moved from niche discipline to international ubiquity in such a short time? Is DH simply this decade’s big thing, or are we here to stay? What are the reasons for success, and what can we learn in terms of continuing our endeavours and making them sustainable? This talk will address these questions by considering institutional models of DH activity, and examining the challenges we face now we have reached the end of the beginning. Remarks, A Week in Review (MacLaurin A144)

2:30 to 3:00


A preview of DHSI 2016 (including Dene Grigar speaking about the integrated conference of the Electronic Literature Organization!)

5/7

5/8/2015

DHSI | Digital Humanities Summer Institute

Saturday, 13 June 2015 [Suggested Outings!] Some ideas, for those who'd like to explore the area! Suggested Outing 3, Saltspring Island (self-organised;; a full day, car/bus + ferry combo) Why not take a day to explore and celebrate the funky, laid back, Canadian gulf island lifestyle on Saltspring Island. Ferry departs regularly from the Schwartz Bay ferry terminal, which is about one hour by bus / 30 minutes by car from UVic. You may decide to stay on forever .... Suggested Outing 4, Canadian Pacific Lawn Bowling Club (organized event;; departing 9.00 am) A shorter time, learning the finer and more refined points of lawn bowling at the historic Canadian Pacific Lawn Bowling Club. Cucumber sandwiches and tea might be served afterwards, if you're nice, before returning you to wilds of downtown Victoria at about 12.30 pm. And more! Self-organised High Tea at the Empress Hotel, scooter rentals, visit to the Royal BC Museum, darts at Christies Carriage House, a hangry breakfast at a local diner, and more have also been suggested!

Sunday, 14 June - Friday, 19 June 2015 Your local hosts for the week are Daniel Powell, Dan Sondheim, and Ray Siemens Sunday 14 June Arrival (unless you're staying on from the previous week!)

After arriving, getting checked in at the Residence Services Office (Craigdarroch Building), and poking around the campus a bit (see the University of Victoria @ Google Maps), many will wander to the beach at Cadboro Bay and the pub at Smuggler's Cove OR the other direction to Shelbourne Plaza and Maude Hunter's Pub. 7:45-8:20: DHSI Registration (outside Hickman Building, Room 105) 8:30 to 9:20: Welcome, Orientation, and Instructor Overview (Hickman Building, Room 105) 9:30 to Noon: Classes in Session (click for locations) 12. Advanced TEI Concepts / TEI Customisation (Clearihue A105, Lab) 32. Professionalizing the Early Career Digital Humanist: Strategies and Skills (MacLaurin D107, Classroom) 33. Drupal for Digital Humanities Projects (Human and Social Development A270, Classroom) 34. Geographical Information Systems in the Digital Humanities (Human and Social Development A170, Lab) 35. Understanding Topic Modeling (MacLaurin D105, Classroom) 36. Open Source OCR Tools for Early Modern Printed Documents (Clearihue C110, Classroom) 37. Data Mining For Digital Humanists (Elliott Building 162, Classroom) 38. Advanced Criticism and Authoring of Electronic Literature (MacLaurin D010, Classroom) 39. A Collaborative Course to XSLT [look for this next year!] 40. Data, Math, Visualization, and Interpretation of Networks: An Introduction (Clearihue A012, Lab)

Monday 15 June

12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 3:45: Classes in Session (locations as above) 4:00 to 5:00: Institute Lecture, Constance Crompton (U British Columbia, Okanagan): "Courses, Communities, and Collaboration: Learning in The Digital Humanities" (Hickman Building, Room 105) Abstract: As humanists we have the methodological training to read past the “Great Man” theory of history (which is as endemic in popular accounts of Thomas Watson, Steve Jobs, and Sergei Brin’s triumphs as it once was in chronicles of Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and Edmund Hillary’s successes). The humanities’ engagement with the past shows us that collaboration and community made fulfillment of the good ideas at the heart of each man’s accomplishment possible. Drawing on the developments in the codex form following the Gutenberg printing press, the development of personal computing after the microprocessor, and the relationship between documents following the introduction of hypertext to the internet, all the products of communities of practice, this keynote address proposes a new opportunity for humanists to collaborate across disciplines to build a better Web for both human and machine readers. Considering the changes in information and knowledge exchange in the context of collaboration is key to the Digital Humanities as it draws us in as a community, the sort of community that brings us to the DHSI to learn from and share with one another. 5:15 to 6:30: Reception (Graduate Student Centre, Pub) 9:00 to Noon: Classes in Session 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 4:00: Classes in Session 4.15 to 5.15: DHSI Colloquium Session 6 (Hickman 105)

Tuesday 16 June


Chair: Jonathan Martin (U Massachusetts, Lowell) "Whatís Under the Big Tent? A Study of ADHO Conference Abstracts, 2004-2014", Nickoal Eichmann (Mississippi State U) & Scott Weingart (Indiana U) "Forging New Learning Pathways: Reflections on 'Connected Courses' & 'Writing Electronic Literature'", Mia Zamora (Kean U) "Who Is In the Space, and Why?: Building a Digital Scholars Lab at UC Riverside", Steve Anderson (U California, Riverside)

6/7

5/8/2015

DHSI | Digital Humanities Summer Institute "The Psychology of Violence, Pardons, and Forgiveness-related Motives: The Post-Arab Spring Egyptian Army and Paradoxes of Democracy", Abeer Aloush (U Pennsylvania) 9:00 to Noon: Classes in Session 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 4:00: Classes in Session 4.15 to 5.15: DHSI Colloquium Session 7 (Hickman 105)

Wednesday 17 June

Chair: Élika Ortega (U Kansas) "#nohomo: Mapping the Social Functions of Homophobic Twitter Hashtags", Bonnie Ruberg (U California, Berkeley) "British History Online: a case study of long-term digital projects", Sarah Milligan (Institute of Historical Research) "Graduate Training in the 21st Century: Progress and Development", Daniel Powell (U Victoria) & Melissa Dalgleish (York U) "Cultural Taste-making: Mining the Vogue Archive for Art History", Lindsay King (Yale U Library) "A Data Dictionary for TEI Projects", Joe Easterly (U of Rochester) 6:30 -: Informal drop-in, for those who wish, downtown at the Garrick's Head!

Thursday 18 June

9:00 to Noon: Classes in Session 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 4:30: Classes in Session

Friday 19 June

9:00 to Noon: Classes in Session 12:15 to 1:15: Lunch break 1:30 to 2:30: Classes in Session 2:45 to 3:45: A Week in Review / Show and Tell (Hickman Building, Room 105) 4:00 to 5:00: Reception (Student Union Building, Felicitas)

Contact info: [email protected] P: 250-472-5401 F: 250-472-5681


7/7

3/30/15

Connect to UVic: Windows XP - University of Victoria

University Systems home » help centre » internet & telephone » wireless internet

University Systems help centre Internet and telephone ! Notices & bulletins

Wireless Internet

Connect to UVic: Windows XP NEW UVic wireless configuration utility The UVic wireless configuration utility will automatically configure the "UVic" wireless network on your Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista, or Windows 7 computer.

Download now Note: The UVic wireless configuration utility is still experimental; use this application at your own risk. UVic is not responsible for any damage caused by the use of the wireless configuration utility. Please report any problems to the Computer Help Desk. If the above doesn't work, please follow the manual instructions listed below. After the initial configuration, you should automatically connect to UVic (the secure wireless network) when you are using UVic's wireless network. 1. Before you start this procedure, ensure the following: Your wireless card and its drivers have been installed and you have rebooted your laptop since the installation. Your laptop is powered on and booted up. You are in an area with wireless coverage. You have a NetLink ID and password. You are using Windows to manage your wireless connections. If you are using a third-party application (sometimes network adaptors come with their own applications), you may experience problems during the configuration process. 2. Temporarily connect to the Internet using UVic Open, an Ethernet port, or your home network. Download the security certificate by right clicking thawte Primary Root CA and saving the thawte.cer file to your computer. Once the file is saved to your computer, locate the file and double click on it to install the certificate.

Exam and Survey Scanning Posted March 18, 2015 VHS Technology Phase-Out Posted February 25, 2015 Critical security vulnerability in Bash Posted September 25, 2014 Windows 8.1 classroom training and drop-in sessions Posted September 18, 2014 Exchange email and calendaring system upgrade Posted July 14, 2014 " Links of interest " Subscribe to RSS " Twitter

Status of our services Service E-mail Connectivity WebApps Storage Telephone

www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/defaultxp.php

1/6

3/30/15


3. Open your Start menu and drag your cursor over Connect To. Right click Wireless Network Connection and choose Properties.

4. Click on the Wireless Networks tab, located at the top of the window. Ensure that the Use Windows to configure my wireless network settings checkbox is selected. Then click the Add... button. www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/defaultxp.php

2/6

3/30/15


5. In the Network name (SSID) field, enter UVic (case sensitive).

6. Click on the Authentication tab, located at the top of the window. Change the EAP Type to Protected EAP (PEAP). Then click Properties.


3/6

3/30/15


7. Check the box beside thawte Primary Root CA in the list of Trusted Root Certification Authorities. Ensure that the Authentication Method is Secure password (EAP-MSCHAP v2). Click Configure.

Note: If you cannot find the correct certificate listed, please return to step 2 to download the certificate. 8. Deselect the checkbox for Automatically use my Windows logon name.... and click OK. www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/defaultxp.php

4/6

3/30/15


9. Click OK on the remaining windows. In the bottom-right corner of your screen, you should see a small window pop up informing you that a certificate or other credentials are required to connect. Click on it to provide additional information.

10. Enter your personal NetLink ID in the User name field, and your NetLink ID password in the Password field. Enter UVIC (case sensitive) in the Logon domain field. Click OK.

11. Click on the Wireless Network Connection window when it pops up again. 12. Click OK when prompted to Validate Server Certificate. The certificate should appear as the thawte Primary Root CA. You should now be connected to the UVic secure wireless network. Related support

Related services

How-tos AirNet wireless coverage

Setups Connect Connect Connect Connect Connect Connect

to to to to to to

eduroam: HTC mobile device eduroam: Mac OS X 10.5 or newer eduroam: Windows 7 eduroam: Windows Vista eduroam: Windows XP UVic: Android version 4 and newer


5/6

3/30/15


Connect to UVic: iPhone or iPod Touch Connect to UVic: OS 10.5 and newer Connect to UVic: Windows 7 and Vista Connect to UVic: Windows XP Connect to UVic wireless Connect to UVic Wireless: eduroam Wireless Internet University of Victoria - 3800 Finnerty Road - Victoria BC V8P 5C2 - Canada - Phone: 1-250-721-7211 - Fax: 1-250-721-7212


6/6

3/30/15

Connect to UVic: Windows 7 and Vista - University of Victoria


University Systems help centre Internet and telephone ! Notices & bulletins

Wireless Internet

Connect to UVic: Windows 7 and Vista NEW UVic wireless configuration utility The UVic wireless configuration utility will automatically configure the "UVic" wireless network on your Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista, or Windows 7 computer.

Download now Note: The UVic wireless configuration utility is still experimental; use this application at your own risk. UVic is not responsible for any damage caused by the use of the wireless configuration utility. Please report any problems to the Computer Help Desk. If the above doesn't work, please follow the manual instructions listed below. After the initial configuration, you should automatically connect to UVic (the secure wireless network) when you are on campus. 1. Before you start this procedure, ensure the following: Your wireless card and its drivers have been installed and you have rebooted your laptop since the installation. Your laptop is powered on and booted up. You are in an area with wireless coverage. You have a NetLink ID and password. You are using Windows to manage your wireless connections. If you are using a third-party application (sometimes network adaptors come with their own applications), you may experience problems during the configuration process. 2. Temporarily connect to the Internet using UVicStart, an Ethernet port, or your home network. Download the security certificate by right clicking thawte Primary Root CA and saving the thawte.cer file to your computer. Once the file is saved to your computer, locate the file, double click on it, select Install Certificate..., and follow the Certificate Import Wizard instructions.



www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/default7.php

1/8

3/30/15


3. Once you have successfully installed the certificate, open your Start menu and click on Control Panel.

4. Click on Network and Internet or Network and Sharing Center.


2/8

3/30/15


5. Click on Network and Sharing Center.

6. Click on Manage wireless networks, located on the left menu.


3/8

3/30/15


7. Click Add.

8. Click Manually create a network profile.


4/8

3/30/15


9. Enter the following information: Network name: UVic (case sensitive). Security type: select WPA2-Enterprise. Encryption type: automatically sets to AES. Security Key/Passphrase: (leave blank).

Ensure both checkboxes are selected (by default, the second box is not). Click Next. 10. Click Change connection settings. For now, ignore the pop-up window in the bottom-right corner.


5/8

3/30/15


On the Connection tab, ensure the Connect to a more preferred network if available checkbox is not checked. 11. Click the Security tab. Ensure the authentication method is PEAP. Then click Settings.

12. Check the box beside thawte Primary Root CA in the list of Trusted Root Certification Authorities.


6/8

3/30/15


If you cannot find the correct certificate listed, please return to step 2 to download the certificate. At the bottom of the dialogue, ensure that the Authentication Method is Secured password (EAP-MSCHAP v2). Click Configure. 13. Deselect the checkbox for Automatically use my Windows logon... and click OK.

14. Close the remaining windows. In the bottom-right corner of your screen, you should see a small window pop-up informing you that Additional information is required to connect to UVic. Click on it to provide additional information.

15. Enter your personal NetLink ID followed by @uvic.ca in the User name field, and your NetLink ID password in the Password field. Click OK.


7/8

3/30/15


You should now be connected to the UVic secure wireless network. Related support

Related services


Setups Connect to eduroam: HTC mobile device Connect to eduroam: Mac OS X 10.5 or newer Connect to eduroam: Windows 7 Connect to eduroam: Windows Vista Connect to eduroam: Windows XP Connect to UVic: Android version 4 and newer Connect to UVic: iPhone or iPod Touch Connect to UVic: OS 10.5 and newer Connect to UVic: Windows 7 and Vista Connect to UVic: Windows XP Connect to UVic wireless Connect to UVic Wireless: eduroam Wireless Internet University of Victoria - 3800 Finnerty Road - Victoria BC V8P 5C2 - Canada - Phone: 1-250-721-7211 - Fax: 1-250-721-7212


8/8

3/30/15

Connect to UVic: OS 10.5 and newer - University of Victoria


University Systems help centre ! Notices & bulletins

Internet and telephone Wireless Internet

Connect to UVic: Mac OS X 10.5 and newer After the initial configuration, you should automatically connect to UVic (the secure wireless network) when you are using UVic's wireless network. 1. Before you start this procedure, ensure the following: Your wireless card and its drivers have been installed and you have rebooted your laptop since the installation. Your laptop is powered on and booted up. You are in an area with wireless coverage. You have a NetLink ID and password. 2. At the top-right corner of your screen there should be the AirPort icon (a semi-circle). If you do not see this icon, your AirPort card or AirPort software may not have been installed properly. 3. Click on the AirPort icon (it may be partially darkened) to reveal a menu. Ensure your AirPort is On.


4. Scroll down the AirPort menu and select Join Other Network ....


5. In the window that opens, enter the following information: Network Name: UVic (case sensitive) Security: WPA2-Enterprise User Name: your NetLink ID Password: your NetLink ID password 802.1X: Automatic Click Join.

www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/defaultosx.php

1/3

3/30/15


6. If you see a message about Mac OS X wanting to access your Keychain, click Always Allow. 7. A Verify Certificate window will open saying that the certificate is not trusted. Click Show Certificate. Check the box that says Always trust "sac1cled050..." (the exact name may vary) and click Continue. If you are prompted for your computer password, enter it and click OK.


2/3

3/30/15


You should now be connected to the UVic secure wireless network. To disconnect from the wireless network, click on the AirPort icon and click Turn Airport Off. Next time you connect to UVic, you should not need to enter any additional credentials. Related support

Related services


Setups Connect to eduroam: HTC mobile device Connect to eduroam: Mac OS X 10.5 or newer Connect to eduroam: Windows 7 Connect to eduroam: Windows Vista Connect to eduroam: Windows XP Connect to UVic: Android version 4 and newer Connect to UVic: iPhone or iPod Touch Connect to UVic: OS 10.5 and newer Connect to UVic: Windows 7 and Vista Connect to UVic: Windows XP Connect to UVic wireless Connect to UVic Wireless: eduroam Wireless Internet University of Victoria - 3800 Finnerty Road - Victoria BC V8P 5C2 - Canada - Phone: 1-250-721-7211 - Fax: 1-250-721-7212


3/3

3/30/15

Connect to UVic: iPhone or iPod Touch - University of Victoria


University Systems help centre Internet and telephone Wireless Internet

Connect to UVic: iPhone or iPod Touch After the initial configuration, you should automatically connect to UVic (the secure wireless network) when you are using UVic's wireless network. 1. Before you start this procedure, ensure the following: Your device is using firmware version 4.0 or higher. Your device is powered on and booted up. You are in an area with wireless coverage. You have a NetLink ID and password. 2. From the Home screen, press the Settings button. 3. Press the Wi-Fi option.

! Notices & bulletins Exam and Survey Scanning Posted March 18, 2015 VHS Technology Phase-Out Posted February 25, 2015 Critical security vulnerability in Bash Posted September 25, 2014 Windows 8.1 classroom training and drop-in sessions Posted September 18, 2014 Exchange email and calendaring system upgrade Posted July 14, 2014 " Links of interest " Subscribe to RSS " Twitter

Status of our services Service E-mail Connectivity

4. Under the Choose a Network... heading, select UVic.

WebApps Storage Telephone

www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/defaultiphone.php

1/4

3/30/15


5. Enter your personal NetLink ID followed by @uvic.ca in the Username field. Enter your NetLink ID password in the Password field. Press Join.

6. If prompted, press Accept to verify the thawte Primary Root CA certificate.

www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/defaultiphone.php

2/4

3/30/15


Your device should now be connected to the UVic secure wireless network.

Related support

Related services


Setups Connect to eduroam: HTC mobile device Connect to eduroam: Mac OS X 10.5 or newer Connect to eduroam: Windows 7 Connect to eduroam: Windows Vista Connect to eduroam: Windows XP Connect to UVic: Android version 4 and newer Connect to UVic: iPhone or iPod Touch Connect to UVic: OS 10.5 and newer Connect to UVic: Windows 7 and Vista Connect to UVic: Windows XP Connect to UVic wireless Connect to UVic Wireless: eduroam Wireless Internet www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/defaultiphone.php

3/4

3/30/15

Connect to UVic: Android version 4 and newer - University of Victoria


University Systems help centre ! Notices & bulletins

Internet and telephone Wireless Internet

Connect to UVic: Android version 4 and newer Please note: Android devices do not fully support Exchange ActiveSync encryption so they are not recommended standards. After the initial configuration, you should automatically connect to UVic (the secure wireless network) when you are using UVic's wireless network. Please note that University Systems only supports devices running Android version 4 or newer; all other devices are best-effort support only. 1. Before you start this procedure, ensure the following: Your device is running version 4.0 or higher Your device is powered on and booted up. You are in an area with wireless coverage. You have a NetLink ID and password. 2. Go into Settings. 3. Press Wi-Fi.



www.uvic.ca/systems/support/internettelephone/wireless/uvicandroid.php

1/4

3/30/15


4. Select UVic

5. In the window that opens, enter your UVic NetLink ID followed by @uvic.ca (e.g. [email protected]) in the Identity field. Enter the corresponding NetLink ID password and press Connect.


2/4

3/30/15


6. Your device should now be connected to the UVic wireless network.

Related support

Related services


3/4

!

Digital Humanities Summer Institute 8-12 June 2015, Victoria BC

Physical Computing and Desktop Fabrication Nina Belojevic, Shaun Macpherson, Jentery Sayers Department of English, University of Victoria Devon Elliott Department of History, Western University

Table of Contents Outline …………………………………………… 1 Before the Course Begins ……………………. 3 Hands On! ……………………………………….. 4 3D Printing ………………………………………. 12 Physical Computing …………………………… 13 Microcontrollers and Sensors ……………….. 14 Background Readings ………………………… 16

DHSI 2015: Physical Computing and Desktop Fabrication THEME: "The Box: Material and Metaphor" OUTLINE Monday AM (10:15-12:00) •

10:15-10:30: Intros (everyone)

•

10:30-10:45: The Box & Methodology (Jentery) 10:45-12:00: Introduction to Arduino (Nina and Shaun)

Monday PM (1:30-4:00) •

Nina's Ten Favorite Pet Projects

•

Circuit Design and Arduino Programming (Nina and Shaun)

GOAL by Monday's End •

Know how to use sensors + actuators to make a light blink

Tuesday AM (9:30-12:00) •

Shaun's Ten Favorite Pet Projects

•

Photogrammetry (Jentery)

Tuesday PM (1:30-4:00) •

Devon's Ten Favorite Pet Projects

•

3D Modelling with SketchUp (Devon)

•

2D+ Modelling with Corel Draw (Nina and Shaun)

GOAL by Tuesday's End •

Know how to model a simple box

1

•

Know how to gather 3D data using 2D images (for box surface/contents)

Wednesday AM (9:30-12:00) •

Jentery's Ten Favorite Pet Projects

•

CNC Manufacturing and Assembly (Jentery)

Wednesday PM (1:30-4:00) •

Project Development

•

Sketching a Project (Nina, Shaun, and Devon)

GOAL by Wednesday's End •

Know to make a box that responds to an event/trigger Sketch a new project for a box (small groups)

Thursday AM (9:30-12:00) •

Project Development

Thursday PM (1:30-4:00) •

Project Development

GOAL by Thursday's End •

Prototype a new box project

Friday AM (9:30-12:00) •

Finalize prototypes

Friday PM (12:15-1:15) •

Exhibit/Presentations at Lunch Reception

2

Before the Course Begins Please install the following software on your laptop before you arrive: SketchUp Make http://www.sketchup.com/products/sketchup-make Arduino http://arduino.cc/en/Main/Software Corel Draw Free Trial available at: http://www.corel.com/en-ca/free-trials/ Processing http://processing.org/download/ Photoscan Free Trial available at: http://www.agisoft.com/downloads/request-trial/

3

Hands On! This DHSI course began as a one-week, intensive version of a graduate public history studio class taught by William J. Turkel at Western University, called “Interactive Exhibit Design.” In that class, students learn how to make models, gizmos, exhibits and installations that respond to and interact with people. Many of them intend to pursue a career in museums, but the skills that they learn are applicable in a wide variety of settings in the humanities. You can learn more about that course in a post from Turkel’s blog (see Turkel 2011, “Designing Interactive Exhibits” in the Background Reading section below). The websites for the last few years are http://williamjturkel.net/teaching/history-9832b-interactive-exhibitdesign-winter-2014/ http://williamjturkel.net/teaching/history-9832b-interactive-exhibitdesign-winter-2013/ http://williamjturkel.net/teaching/history-9832b-interactive-exhibitdesign-winter-2012/ Most of our time is going to be spent making stuff together, rather than reading or talking about reading. This means two things: first, that you shouldn’t wear your best clothes to class. Our hands are going to get a bit dirty. Second, the readings provided in this coursepak are intended to give you some background, but they really can’t substitute for hands-on experience. The best way to learn most of the techniques that we are going to be exploring is to actually try them. N.B. no prior experience is necessary! Our students routinely make really cool things throughout the term, and most of them come into the course with no technical background whatsoever.

4

Here are just a few examples of neat projects that students have made in the interactive exhibit design studio at Western in the past1:

The Immigrant’s Suitcase (Adriana and Lindsay): when the museumgoer swipes a passport over the suitcase, an RFID reader detects a hidden tag and plays a video about the immigrant experience on a screen embedded in the suitcase. Different videos are played when different passports are swiped. The Wonderboy (Heather): this is a baseball batting helmet that the user puts on. When he or she swings a bat, a distance sensor on the brim of the helmet detects the swing and plays an audio recording of an announcer calling out a historic homerun. Different kinds of swings elicit different recordings. The helmet has a microcontroller, audio interface card, speakers and infrared sensor built in, and is designed to be battery powered.

Former student Matt Ogglesby has a nice writeup of many of these projects on his blog at http://mogglesby.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/interactive-exhibit-design- reflections-and-round-up/ 1

5

Homeward Bound Penguin (Sarah): this cuddly, stuffed penguin toy vibrates with excitement when you point him at the South Pole. It has a microcontroller, digital compass and vibrating motors built in. Sarah also created a wearable garment that uses GPS, microcontroller and vibrating motors to direct geocachers surreptitiously toward their targets. Hockey Game-Playing Robot (Jordan): servomechanisms are used to re-enact a historic goal on a tabletop hockey game, coordinated with an audio recording of the event.

6

7

Gestural Timeline (Matt and Dave): the user sweeps his or her hands in the air to control the display of a map and timeline exhibit of a ship’s log. The interface uses an LCD projector, Microsoft Kinect sensor, and the SIMILE Timeline API.

8

Tweeting Duck (Antonio and Mohammed): a robotic (and somewhat sinister) duck responds to commands sent via Twitter, flapping its wings, opening its beak, and flashing red eyes. Talking Currency (Adrian): the user slides a bill into a device which detects the color of the money and tells the story of the Prime Minister depicted. While they are making physical things, students learn a number of important lessons. Matt Ogglesby, a student in the 2012 studio, summarized them as follows: • Making mistakes, taking risks: This was perhaps one of the most important things we learned. Even if you’re final project isn’t a complete success or you bit off more than you could chew, at least you tried. It’s not very often in history that you would be able to receive grades for partial work for “just” putting in a lot of effort. This method allows the students to take big risks and think outside

9

the box. ... Most importantly, I learned to say “Oh well, no big deal. It’s back to the drawing board for us. We’ll figure out how to do this.” •

Playing together: Remember what our parents taught us as kids? Sharing and playing together is good. This is another thing historians don’t seem to do too well. Academia in general is competitive, and sometimes it seems to be more about doing better than your colleague instead of helping your colleague do better.

•

What? How? These are two of the most important questions we asked ourselves when thinking about our project. First, what did we want to show and teach? ... Second, how did we want to present the information?

•

The small things bring it together: Ultimately, what this project really amounted to was a lot of small things being put together. While it’s the type of project that can and should be planned in advance to a certain degree, it’s also allows for revisions, tweaks, and re-imaginations. It’s a puzzle that’s 10

created as you go, but likely never be perfect nor finished. Adrian Petry, another student in the 2012 class, wrote “Learning is a process, even though I want it to be about product.”2 We have written a number of other pieces about the potential for hands-on learning in the humanities. Two of these (Elliott, MacDougall & Turkel 2012 and Sayers et al 2014) are included in the Background Readings.

2

From http://adrianpjames.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/the-arduino-diaries- smoothing-expectations/

11

3D Printing Here are some things we are planning to explore. The details will no doubt change once we start making stuff. It always goes that way.

We will be doing some 3D printing with a Makerbot Replicator. http://www.makerbot.com And Thingiverse, a site which contains open source plans for physical objects http://www.thingiverse.com/ Many desktop 3D printers are derivative of the RepRap, an open source 3D printer. The main RepRap website is http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page One of the things we want to do is get up to speed with SketchUp Make, an easy-to-use and free (but not open source) 3D design 12

program. We will be using SketchUp to create computer models of objects which we can then print.

Physical Computing Physical computing is a subset of interaction design. In the words of Tom Igoe, a pioneer in the field, it is “an approach to learning how humans communicate through computers that starts by considering how humans express themselves physically.” Rather than assume that the keyboard, mouse and screen will define how people interact with our exhibits “In physical computing, we take the human body as a given, and attempt to design within the limits of its expression. This means that we have to learn how a computer converts the changes in energy given off by our bodies, in the form of heat, light, sound, and so forth, into changing electronic signals that it can read and interpret. We learn about the sensors that do this, and about very simple computers, called microcontrollers, that read sensors and convert their output into data. Finally, we learn how microcontrollers communicate with other computers.”3 You can learn more about physical computing by reading the introductory chapter by Igoe and O’Sullivan in the Background Reading section below. Physical computing draws on both earlier work in ‘ubiquitous computing’ (see Weiser & Brown 1996) and on the open source hardware movement (see Torrone 2007).

3

From http://www.tigoe.net/pcomp/blog/archives/notes/000169.shtml

13

Microcontrollers and Sensors We will be using a wide variety of microcontrollers and sensors. These include Arduino http://www.arduino.cc/ Arduino is “an open-source electronics prototyping platform based on flexible, easy- to-use hardware and software. It’s intended for artists, designers, hobbyists, and anyone interested in creating interactive objects or environments. Arduino can sense the environment by receiving input from a variety of sensors and can affect its surroundings by controlling lights, motors, and other actuators.” In the Background Readings, you will also find an Arduino tutorial in comic form (Culkin 2011) and the Getting Started chapter of a new book (Margolis 2011). Phidgets http://phidgets.com/ Phidgets are “a set of user friendly building blocks for low cost USB sensing and control from your PC.” They are very robust and easy to use with Max. MaKey MaKey http://www.makeymakey.com/ MaKey is “an invention kit for everyone.” It allows you to use unconventional objects in place of the arrow keys and space bar of a traditional keyboard. Raspberry Pi

14

http://www.raspberrypi.org/ This is a tiny, $25 Linux computer. Sensors We will also bring a wide variety of sensors for you to experiment with, ranging from humble knobs and switches, to the Microsoft Kinect. There is a sensor wiki at New York University’s ITP which can be quite useful http://itp.nyu.edu/physcomp/sensors/ Another good source is Sparkfun, a manufacturer of open source hardware: http://www.sparkfun.com/

15

Background Readings Balsam, Anne. Taking Culture Seriously: Educating and Inspiring the Technological Imagination. December 2005. Banzi, Massimo. “Appendix C / Arduino Quick Reference,” Getting Started with Arduino, O’Reilly Media, 2009. Belojevic, Nina. “Circuit Bending Videogame Consoles as a Form of Applied Media Studies,” NANO, Issue 5 (July 2014). Buechley, Leah and Michael Eisenberg. “The LilyPad Arduino: Toward Wearable Engineering for Everyone,” Pervasive Computing, April-June 2008: 12-15. Culkin, Jody. “Arduino!” (Sep 2011). Elliott, Devon, Robert MacDougall and William J. Turkel. “New Old Things: Fabrication, Physical Computing, and Experiment in Historical Practice,” Canadian Journal of Communication 37, no. 1 (2012): 121-128. Hancock, Charity, Clifford Hichar, Carlea Holl-Jensen, Kari Kraus, Cameron Mozafari, and Kathryn Skutlin. “Bibliocircuitry and the Design of the Alien Everyday,” Textual Cultures 8.1 (2013): 72100. Igoe, Tom and Dan O’Sullivan. “Introduction” from Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. Thomson Course Technology, 2004. Jones, Rhys et al. “RepRap--the Replicating Rapid Prototyper,” Robotica 29 (2011): 177-191. MacDougall, Rob. “Convention of cranks,” Scope magazine. Spring 2011.

16

Margolis, Michael. “Getting Started” from Arduino Cookbook. O’Reilly, 2011. Perner-Wilson, Hannah. A Kit-of-No-Parts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2011). Ratto, Matt and Robert Ree. “Materializing Information: 3D printing and social change.” First Monday, Volume 17, Number 7 (2 July 2012). Rosner, Daniela K. And Morgan G. Ames. “Designing for Repair? Infrastructures and Materialities of Breakdown,” CSCW’14, February 15-19, 2014. Sayers, Jentery, Devon Elliott, Kari Kraus, Bethany Nowviskie and William J. Turkel. “Between Bits and Atoms: Physical Computing and Desktop Fabrication in the Humanities,” forthcoming in The New Blackwell Companion to the Digital Humanities (2014). Sayers, Jentery. “Bringing Trouvé to Light: Speculative Computer Vision and Victorian Media History,” forthcoming in Seeing the Past (2014). Torrone, Phillip. “Open Source Hardware, What Is It? Here’s a Start...” MAKE: Blog (23 Apr 2007). Turkel, William J. “Designing Interactive Exhibits,” williamjturkel.net (17 Dec 2011). Weinberg, Michael. What’s the Deal with Copyright and 3D Printing? (January 2013). Weiser, Mark and John Seely Brown. “The Coming Age of Calm Technology,” Xerox PARC (5 Oct 1996).

17

Between Bits and Atoms: Physical Computing and Desktop Fabrication in the Humanities Jentery Sayers, Devon Elliott, Kari Kraus, Bethany Nowviskie, and William J. Turkel for The New Blackwell Companion to Digital Humanities Abstract This chapter argues that, in the humanities, making things with physical computing and desktop fabrication techniques encourages hands-on, conjectural approaches to material culture, history, and preservation. Aside from detailing the technical particulars of physical computing and desktop fabrication, it explains their relevance to design, administrative, and communicative agendas in post-secondary education. It also refers readers to several persuasive projects that blend humanities research methods with physical computing and fabrication. Keywords physical computing, desktop fabrication, speculation, conjecture, design, makerspaces Authors Jentery Sayers is Assistant Professor of English and Director of the Maker Lab in the Humanities at the University of Victoria. His research interests include comparative media studies and critical theories of technology. His first book project, a cultural history of magnetic recording, is under contract with University of Michigan Press. Devon Elliott is a Ph.D. candidate in history at Western University. His dissertation examines the technological and cultural history of stage magic. Kari Kraus is an Associate Professor in the iSchool and the Department of English at the University of Maryland. Her research focuses on digital preservation, game design, and longterm thinking. Her book project—Hopeful Monsters: Computing, Counterfactuals, and the Long Now of Things—is under contract to the MIT Press. Bethany Nowviskie directs the library-based Scholars' Lab at the University of Virginia, where she also serves as special advisor to the Provost. She is a Distinguished Presidential Fellow at CLIR and immediate Past President of the ACH. Her current projects include Neatline and the UVa Praxis Program. William J. Turkel is an Associate Professor of History at Western University in Canada. He works in computational history, big history, the history of science and technology, STS, physical computing, desktop fabrication and electronics. He is the author of The Archive of Place (UBC 2007) and Spark from the Deep (Johns Hopkins 2013).

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel

2!

Humanities scholars now live in a moment where it is rapidly becoming possible—as Hod Lipson and Melba Kurman suggest—for “regular people [to] rip, mix, and burn physical objects as effortlessly as they edit a digital photograph” (Lipson and Kurman 2013, 10). Lipson and Kurman describe this phenomenon in Fabricated, explaining how archaeologists are able to CT scan1 cuneiforms in the field, create 3D models of them, and then send the data to a 3D printer back home, where replicas are made. [I]n the process [they] discovered an unexpected bonus in this cuneiform fax experiment: the CT scan captured written characters on both the insides and outside of the cuneiform. Researchers have known for centuries that many cuneiform bear written messages in their hollow insides. However until now, the only way to see the inner message has been to shatter (hence destroy) the cuneiform. One of the benefits of CT scanning and 3D printing a replica of a cuneiform is that you can cheerfully smash the printed replica to pieces to read what’s written on the inside. (Lipson and Kurman 2013, 19-20) Manifesting what Neil Gershenfeld calls “the programmability of the digital worlds we’ve invented” applied “to the physical world we inhabit” (Gershenfeld 2005, 17), these new kinds of objects move easily, back and forth, in the space between bits and atoms. But this full circuit through analog and digital processes is not all. Thanks to the development of embedded electronics, artifacts that are fabricated using desktop machines can also sense and respond to their environments, go online, communicate with other objects, log data, and interact with people (O’Sullivan and Igoe 2004; Sterling 2005; Igoe 2011). Following Richard Sennett’s dictum that “making is thinking” (Sennett 2008, ix), we note that these “thinking,” “sensing,” and “talking”

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1

“CT scan” is short for an x-ray computed tomography scan, which produces topographic images using computerprocessed x-rays.


3!

things offer us new ways to understand ourselves and our assumptions, as do the processes through which we make them. The practice of making things think, sense, and talk articulates in interesting yet murky ways with our various disciplinary pasts. For example, historians have written about the classical split between people who work with their minds and people who work with their hands, including the longstanding denigration of the latter (Long 2004).2 In the humanities, we have inherited the value-laden dichotomy of mind and hand, along with subsequent distinctions between hand-made and machine-made objects; between custom, craft, or bespoke production and mass production; between people who make things and people who operate the machines that make things. As we navigate our current situation, we find that a lot of these categories and values need to be significantly rethought, especially if, following Donna Haraway (1991), Sandy Stone (1996), and Katherine Hayles (1999), we resist the notion that cultural and technological processes, or human and machine thinking, can be neatly parsed. We also find that the very acts of making need to be reconfigured in light of new media, the programmability, modularity, variability, and automation of which have at once expanded production and framed it largely through computer screens and WYSIWYG interfaces (Manovich 2001; Montfort 2004; Kirschenbaum 2008).3 With this context in mind, physical computing and desktop fabrication techniques underscore not only the convergence of analog and digital processes but also the importance of transduction, haptics, prototyping, and surprise when conducting research with new media. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2

For a brief history of this split, see Sayers, “Technology,” in the second edition of Keywords for American Cultural Studies (forthcoming), edited by Bruce Burgett and Glenn Hendler. There, he notes that, during the culture wars of the late nineteenth century, arguments for the primacy of both science and the arts in education rendered technical work peripheral to the ideal university. Technology was either for Philistines (the populace without culture) or mechanics (the working class industrialists who systematically applied science). 3!WYSIWYG stands for “What You See Is What You Get.”


4!

Rather than acting as some nostalgic yearning for an authentic, purely analog life prior to personal computing, cyberspace, social networking, or the cloud, making things between bits and atoms thus becomes a practice deeply enmeshed in emerging technologies that intricately blend human- and machine-based manufacturing.4 For the humanities, such making is important precisely because it encourages creative speculation and critical conjecture, which—instead of attempting to perfectly preserve or re-present culture in digital form—entail the production of fuzzy scenarios, counterfactual histories, possible worlds, and other such fabrications. Indeed, the space between bits and atoms is very much the space of “what if . . .” Learning from LEGO One popular approach to introducing hands-on making in the humanities is to start with construction toys like LEGO. Their suitability for learning is emphasized by Sherry Turkle, who made a study of the childhood objects that inspired people to become scientists, engineers, or designers: “Over the years, so many students have chosen [LEGO bricks] as the key object on their path to science that I am able to take them as a constant to demonstrate the wide range of thinking and learning styles that constitute a scientific mindset” (Turkle 2008, 7-8). Besides !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4

On the notion of maker cultures as nostalgia for analog life before cyberspace, Evgeny Morozov (2014) examines making through “[t]he lure of the technological sublime” and technophilia, accusing maker cultures since the Arts and Crafts movement as being more or less blind to institutional, political, and structural change. While many of his critiques of maker cultures (both historical and contemporary) are accurate and compelling, his argument is subtended by the logic that making romantically longs for the immediate. It also assumes that all maker cultures think technologies single-handedly determine social change. Put differently, Morozov first establishes a neat-yetfalse distinction between technology and culture and then proceeds to build a self-fulfilling argument based on that distinction. Meanwhile, the actual, historical practice of maker cultures (as well as hacker cultures) is quite messy, often exhibiting recursive relationships between technology and culture, politics and media, and society and manufacturing. For some among many examples of such hacking and making, see Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style (1979); Nick Dyer-Witheford, Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High-Technology Capitalism (1999); Andrew Ross, “Hacking Away at the Counterculture” (1990); Elizabeth Losh, “Hacktivism and the Humanities: Programming Protest in the Era of the Digital University” (2012); and Cynthia Selfe and Gail E. Hawisher, Literate Lives in the Information Age: Narratives of Literacy from the United States (2004). In short, Morozov’s argument substitutes what he identifies as a technological sublime (in maker cultures) with a sublime life of the mind (in intellectual cultures), without accounting for how the particulars of the former intersect with the practice of the latter. In this essay, we avoid such a split between intellectual agendas and technologies, without assuming that all maker cultures necessarily do the same.


5!

being an easy and clean way to do small-scale, mechanical prototyping, LEGO teaches people many useful lessons. One is what Stuart Kauffman calls the “adjacent possible,” an idea recently popularized by Steven Johnson in Where Good Ideas Come From: “The adjacent possible is a kind of shadow future,” Johnson writes, “hovering on the edges of the present state of things, a map of all the ways in which the present can reinvent itself” (Johnson 2010, 26). As new things are created, new processes are developed, existing things are recombined into new forms, and still further changes—lurking like specters alongside the present—become possible. Johnson uses the metaphor of a house where rooms are magically created as you open doors (Johnson 2010, 26). Central to this metaphor is the argument that chance, not individual genius or intent, is a primary component of making and assembly. When things as well as people are physically proximate, the odds of surprise and creativity should increase. Put this way, the adjacent possible corresponds (at least in part) with a long legacy of experimental arts and humanities practices, including Stéphane Mallarmé’s concrete poetry, the Surrealists’ exquisite corpse, Brion Gysin’s cut-ups, OuLiPo’s story-making machines, Kool Herc’s merry-go-round, Nicolas Bourriaud’s relational aesthetics, and Critical Art Ensemble’s tactical media and situational performances. Across this admittedly eclectic array of examples, the possibilities emerging from procedure, juxtaposition, conjecture, or encounter are privileged over the anticipation of continuity, certainty, concrete outcomes, or specific effects. In the case of LEGO, the original bricks had studs on the top and holes on the bottom. They stacked to form straight walls, but it was difficult to make things that were not blocky. When LEGO introduced the Technic line for building more complicated mechanisms, they created a new brick that had horizontal holes in it. The Technic brick still had studs on top and holes on the bottom, so it could be stacked with regular LEGO bricks as well as Technic bricks.


6!

But the horizontal holes created new possibilities: axles holding wheels or gears could be passed through them, and bricks could now be joined horizontally with pegs. In newer Technic sets, the Technic brick has been more or less abandoned in favor of the Technic beam. This piece still has the horizontal holes, but is smooth on top and bottom, and thus cannot be easily stacked with traditional LEGO bricks. With each move into the adjacent possible, whole new styles of LEGO construction have flourished while older styles have withered, even if the history of the Technic beam cannot be unhinged from LEGO’s original bricks. Consequently, attending to LEGOs as processes—rather than as objects conveniently frozen in time and space—affords a material understanding of how this becomes that across settings and iterations. It also implies that a given object could have always been (or could always become) something else, depending on the context, conditions, and participants involved. It is easy to study how people make things with LEGO—both fans of the toy and the company’s designers—because many of them do what Chris Anderson calls “making in public” (Anderson 2012, 13). Plans for every kit that LEGO ever released are online, along with inventories of every part in those kits. You can start with a particular widget and see every assembly in which it was used. People share plans for their own projects. Want a robotic spider? A Turing machine? A computer-controlled plotter? A replica of an ancient Greek analog computer? They are all there waiting to be assembled. A number of free, computer-aided design (CAD) packages make it easy for children and adults to draft plans that they can share with one another. There is a marketplace for new and used LEGO bricks. For example, the BrickLink site lists 180 million pieces for sale around the world. If you need a particular part (or a thousand of them in a particular color), then you can find the closest or cheapest ones. Of course, what is true for construction toys like LEGO is also true for the modular systems that make up most of the


7!

built world, especially when—returning to Gershenfeld (2005) for a moment—digital programmability is applied to analog artifacts. People who start designing with LEGO can then apply the knowledge they gain to electronic components, mechanical parts, computer software, and other technical systems.5 Each of these domains is based on interoperable and interchangeable parts with well-specified interfaces and has associated CAD or development software, open source proponents, and online repositories of past designs. At the edges of LEGO design, people can experiment with the “small batch production” afforded by 3D printing (Anderson 2012, 78). For example, when working with standard LEGO bricks, it is difficult to make an object with three-fold symmetry. But on Thingiverse (a website for sharing plans for desktop fabricated objects), it is possible to find triangular and three-sided bricks and plates (e.g., at http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:38207 or http://www.thingiverse. com/thing:13531). As Anderson notes, with desktop fabrication: [T]he things that are expensive in traditional manufacturing become free: 1. Variety is free: It costs no more to make every product different than to make them all the same. 2. Complexity is free: A minutely detailed product, with many fiddly little components, can be 3-D printed as cheaply as a plain block of plastic. The computer doesn’t care how many calculations it has to do. 3. Flexibility is free: Changing a product after production has started just means changing the instruction code. The machines stay the same. (Anderson 2012, 86) Of course, as we argue later in this essay, practitioners must also consider how physical computing and desktop fabrication technologies intersect with administrative and communicative agendas, including labor issues. After all, Anderson ignores how “free” variety, complexity, and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5!For instance, see littleBits Electronics, which allow beginners to prototype with electronics in a fashion quite similar to LEGOs.


8!

flexibility are culturally embedded and historically affiliated with planned obsolescence: the obsolescence of certain occupations and technologies in manufacturing, for instance.6 His interpretations of physical computing and fabrication technologies are also quite determinist (i.e., technology changes society), not to mention instrumentalist (i.e., technology is a value-neutral mechanism for turning input into output), without much attention to the recursive relationships between cultural practices and modular manufacturing.7 That said, Anderson’s point about rendering traditional manufacturing accessible (at least in terms of materials and expertise) should still be taken seriously. For example, in the case of physical computing, LEGO objects can be augmented with electronic sensors, microcontrollers, and actuators, allowing people with little to no knowledge of electronics to build circuits and program objects. Comparable to the do-it-yourself Heathkits of yore (Haring 2007), the company’s Mindstorms kits offer an official (and easy-to-use) path for these kinds of activities, providing an embedded computer, servo motors, and sensors for color, touch, and infrared. Kits like these also spark opportunities for humanities practitioners to think through the very media they study, rather than approaching them solely as either concepts or discursive constructs.8 By extension, this ease of construction is quite conducive to speculative thought, to quickly building prototypes that foster discussion, experimentation, and use around a particular topic or problem. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6

For more on the emergence of planned obsolescence, see Giles Slade, Made to Break (2006). For a more historical take on modularity, see Tara McPherson, who writes: “We must historicize and politicize code studies. And, because digital media were born as much of the civil rights era as of the cold war era (and of course these eras are one and the same), our investigations must incorporate race from the outset, understanding and theorizing its function as a ghost in the digital machine. This does not mean that we should simply add race to our analysis in a modular way, neatly tacking it on or building digital archives of racial material, but that we must understand and theorize the deep imbrications of race and digital technology even when our objects of analysis (say UNIX or search engines) seem not to be about race at all. This will not be easy. In the writing of this essay, the logic of modularity continually threatened to take hold, leading me into detailed explorations of pipe structures in UNIX or departmental structures in the university, taking me far from the contours of race at midcentury. It is hard work to hold race and computation together in a systemic manner, but it is work that we must continue to undertake” (McPherson 2012, 153). 8!For an example application of DIY kits in a humanities context, see the Kits for Cultural History project at the Maker Lab in the Humanities at the University of Victoria. 7


9!

Such thinking through building, or conjecturing through prototyping, is fundamental to making things in the humanities. Borrowing for a moment from Tara McPherson in Debates in the Digital Humanities: “scholars must engage the vernacular digital forms that make us nervous, authoring in them in order to better understand them and to recreate in technological spaces the possibility of doing the work that moves us” (McPherson 2012, 154). Similarly, through small batch experimentation, we should engage physical computing and fabrication technologies precisely when they make us nervous—because we want to examine their particulars and, where necessary, change them, the practices they enable, and the cultures congealing around them. An important question, then, is what exactly is the stuff of physical computing and desktop fabrication. What Is Physical Computing? According to Dan O’Sullivan and Tom Igoe, “[p]hysical computing is about creating a conversation between the physical world and the virtual world of the computer. The process of transduction, or the conversion of one form of energy into another, is what enables this flow” (O’Sullivan and Igoe 2004, xix). Advances in the variety of computing technologies over the past ten years have created opportunities for people to incorporate different types of computing into their work. While personal computers are the most common computational devices used by humanities scholars for research, the proliferation of mobile computers has introduced some variability of available consumer computing platforms. That significant decrease in the physical size of computing devices is indicative of a more general shift toward smaller and distributed forms of computer design. In addition to the proliferation of mobile computers such as smartphones and tablets, there are various microcontrollers that can be embedded in artifacts. Microcontrollers are versatile computers that let signals enter a device (input), allow signals to

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 10! be sent from a device (output), and have memory on which to store programming instructions for what to do with that input and output (processing) (O’Sullivan and Igoe 2004, xx). Although microcontroller chips have been commercially available and relatively inexpensive since the 1970s, they have remained cumbersome to program. However, integrated boards that contain chips, as well as circuitry to control and regulate power, have been recently developed. Most of these boards have an integrated development environment (IDE)—software through which you write, compile, and transfer programming to the microcontroller chip—that is free to use and makes the processes of programming (in particular) and physical computing (in general) easier to accomplish. The simplest microcontroller inputs are components such as push-button switches, but many more complex components can be used: dials or knobs, temperature or humidity sensors, proximity detectors, photocells, magnetic or capacitive sensors, and global positioning system (GPS) modules. Simple outputs include light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that indicate activity or system behaviors, and more complex outputs include speakers, motors, and liquid crystal displays. The inputs and outputs are chosen based on the desired interaction for a given physical computing project, underscoring the fact that—when designing interactions between analog and digital environments, in the space between bits and atoms—the appeal of microcontrollers is that they are small, versatile, and capable of performing dedicated tasks sensitive to the particulars of time and space. For most practitioners, they are also low cost, and physical computing parts (including microcontrollers, sensors, and actuators) are highly conducive to reuse. Put this way, they encourage people to think critically about access, waste, obsolescence, repair, and repurposing—about what Jonathan Sterne (2007) calls “convivial computing.”

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 11! Arduino has arguably become the most popular microcontroller-based platform. It began as an open-source project for artists, who wanted to lower the barrier to programming interactive artifacts and installations. Introduced in 2005, it has since gone through a number of iterations in both design and function, and various builds—all of which work with a common IDE—are available. Typically, an Arduino board is about the size of a deck of playing cards, and it has onboard memory comparable to a 1980s-era computer (meaning its overall computational processing power and memory are limited). There are easily accessible ports on the device that one can define, through software, as either inputs or outputs. There are digital and analog ports on the device, so it can negotiate both types of signals. There are also ports necessary for powering other components, as well as ports that can be used to send serial communications back and forth between devices. Arduino can be powered by batteries or plugged into an electrical outlet via common AC-DC transformers. Couple this independent power source with the onboard memory, and Arduino-driven builds can stand alone, untethered from a personal computer and integrated into infrastructure, clothing, or a specific object. Additionally, the opensource nature of Arduino has sparked the development of custom peripherals, known as shields. These modules are designed to plug, LEGO-like, directly into the ports of an Arduino. They are compact and often designed for a specific function: to play audio, control motors, communicate with the Internet, recognize faces, or display information via a screen. Resonating with the original purpose of Arduino, shields lower the barrier to making interactive artifacts, letting practitioners focus on ideas and experimentation while prototyping. To be sure, the introduction of Arduino has lowered the costs of creating custom devices that think, sense, or talk, but such reductions have extended across computing more generally. Microprocessors capable of much more computational speed and memory are available at prices

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 12! comparable to Arduino and can be set up with free, Linux-based operating systems for more computationally intensive projects. The Raspberry Pi and Beagle Bone are two such computer boards that occupy the space between an Arduino-level microcontroller and a personal computer. They work as small, standalone computers, but have accessible input/output ports for custom devices and interaction. As small computers, they can also connect to the Internet, and—like Arduino—they can be used to build interactive exhibits (Turkel 2011a), facilitate hands-on approaches to media history (Sayers, Boggs, and Elliott 2013), construct electronic textiles (Buechley and Eisenberg 2008), control autonomous vehicles, and support introductory programming courses (Ohya 2013). What Is Desktop Fabrication? In the spirit of speculation and conjecture, humanities practitioners can also prototype designs and fabricate objects using machine tools controlled by personal computers. These tools further blur distinctions between analog and digital materials, as physical forms are developed and edited in virtual environments expressed on computer screens. Such design and fabrication processes are accomplished largely because hardware and software advances have lowered manufacturing costs, including costs associated with time, expertise, infrastructure, and supplies. In order to produce an object via desktop fabrication, several digital and analog components are required: a digital model (in, say, STL or OBJ format), the machine (e.g., a 3D printer or laser cutter) to manufacture it, the material (e.g., wood, plastic, or metal) in which to fabricate it, and the software (e.g., Blender, MeshLab, and ReplicatorG) to translate between analog and digital. Given the translations across these components, advancements in desktop fabrication have unsurprisingly accompanied the development and proliferation of low-cost, microcontroller-

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 13! based hardware (including Arduino) that transduces analog into digital and vice versa. These microcontrollers tighten the circuit of manufacturing and digital/analog convergence. At the heart of desktop fabrication are precise, computer-controlled devices. Generally referred to as CNC (computer numeric control), these machines bridge the gap between CAD (computer-aided design) and CAM (computer-aided manufacture). They allow a digital design to be fabricated rapidly. Such a digital approach is scalable. It works on massive, industrial scales; but as smaller fabrication tools become available, it can be used on smaller scales, too. Tabletop CNC milling machines and lathes are also available for small-scale production; however, the rise of accessible 3D printing is currently driving desktop fabrication practices, hobbyist markets, and interest from non-profit and university sectors (especially libraries). 3D printing is an additive manufacturing process whereby a digital model is realized in physical form (usually PLA or ABS thermoplastic). Most consumer-level 3D printers are CNC devices with extruders, which draw plastic filament, heat it to its melting point, and output it in precisely positioned, thin beads onto a print bed. Software slices an object model into layers of thickness and then generates machine-readable code (usually in the G-code programming language) that directs the motors in the printer, the temperature of the extruder, and the feed rate of the plastic. Gradually, the digital model on the screen becomes an analog object that can be held in hand. A variety of 3D printer models are currently available, and the technology continues to be developed. Initiated by the RepRap project and popularized by MakerBot Industries (a commercial innovator), early desktop 3D printers incorporated microcontroller boards into their systems. Makerbot started by offering kits to assemble 3D printers, but also created Thingiverse, a site where people either upload their 3D models or download models created by others. Thingiverse is one of the few places online to acquire and openly share 3D models, and making

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 14! digital 3D models has also become easier with software aimed at consumers and hobbyists. For instance, Autodesk has partnered with Makerbot and now offers a suite of tools for 3D development. Free software, such as Blender and OpenSCAD, provide other options for creating models, and Trimble’s SketchUp is an accessible software package popular with designers, architects, artists, and historians. That said, not all models are born digital. 3D scanners, depth cameras, and photogrammetry can be used to quickly create models of physical objects. One of Autodesk’s applications, 123D Catch, works well as an introduction to photogrammetry, and other open-source—but more complex—options exist (e.g., the Python Photogrammetry Toolbox and VisualSFM). Depth cameras, such as Microsoft’s Kinect, can also be used to create 3D models, and tool chains for transducing analog objects into digital formats continue to be developed and refined. Across the humanities, these fabrication techniques are supporting research in museum studies (Waibel 2013), design fiction (Sterling 2009), science and technology studies (Lipson et al. 2004), geospatial expression (Tanigawa 2013), and data visualization (Staley 2013). Their appeal cannot be attributed solely to the physical objects they output; they also afford the preservation, discovery, and circulation of replicated historical artifacts; the communication of data beyond the X and Y axes; the rapid prototyping of ideas and designs; and precision modeling that cannot be achieved by hand. For instance, consider Cornell University’s Kinematic Models for Design Digital Library (KMODDL), which is a persuasive example of how 3D modeling and desktop fabrication can be used for teaching, learning, and preserving history. KMODDL is a web-based collection of mechanical models of machine elements from the nineteenth century. Among other things, it gives people a tangible sense of how popular industry initiatives such as Thingiverse can be translated into scholarly projects. Each model is augmented by rich metadata and can be

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 15! downloaded, edited (where necessary), and manufactured in situ. The models can be used in the classroom to facilitate experiential learning about the histories of technology and media. They can prompt students, instructors, and researchers to reconstruct the stuff of those histories, with an emphasis on what haptics, assembly, and speculation can teach us about the role old media and mechanisms play in the production of material culture (Elliott, MacDougall, and Turkel 2012). Pushing humanities research beyond only reading and writing about technologies, this hands-on approach to historical materials not only creates spaces for science and technology studies in digital humanities research; it also broadens our understanding of what can and should be digitized, to include “obsolete” or antique machines—such as those housed by our museums of science and technology—alongside literature, art, maps, film, audio, and the like. Returning for a moment to this essay’s introduction, Lipson and Kurman (2013) show how this digitization results in more than facsimiles. It intervenes in the epistemological and phenomenological dimensions of research, affording practitioners new perspectives on history and even yielding a few surprises, such as learning what is written inside cuneiform. These perspectives and surprises are anchored in a resistance to treating media as distant and contained objects of scholarly inquiry (McPherson 2009). And they are useful to researchers because they foster a material awareness of the mechanical processes often invisibly at work in culture.

With these particulars of physical computing and desktop fabrication in mind, we want to elaborate on their relevance and application in the humanities. Here, key questions include: how do we integrate physical computing and desktop fabrication into a longer history of criticism? How do we understand hands-on experimentation and its impulses in the humanities? What are some models that emerged prior to our current moment? Additionally, how do we communicate the function of making—of working with artifacts in the space between atoms and bits—in

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 16! academic contexts? Where does it happen? How (if at all) does it enable institutional change, and in what relation to established frameworks? We answer these questions by unpacking three overlapping lines of inquiry: the design, administrative, and communicative agendas of physical computing and desktop fabrication. Design Agenda: Design-in-Use One particularly rich source of physical experiments in the humanities has traditionally been analytical bibliography, the study of books as material artifacts. For instance, Joseph Viscomi’s Blake and the Idea of the Book (1993) brilliantly reverse-engineers the nineteenthcentury British artist’s illuminated books through hands-on experimentation involving the tools, materials, and chemicals Blake routinely used in his printmaking shop. Similarly, Peter Stallybrass and collaborators explored Renaissance writing technologies by recreating the specially treated, erasable paper bound into so-called “tables” or “table-books,” which figure prominently as a metaphor for memory in Shakespeare’s Hamlet (2004). Perhaps more than any other literary subdomain, physical bibliography is a hands-on discipline involving specialized instruments (collators, magnifying glasses, and raking lights); instructional materials (facsimile chain line paper and format sheets); and analytic techniques (examination and description of format, collation, typography, paper, binding, and illustrations). Book history courses frequently include not only lab exercises, but also studio exposure to bookbinding, printing, and papermaking. To study the book as a material object, then, is to make extensive use of the hands. Closely associated with physical bibliography is the art of literary forgery. Derived from Latin fabricari (“to frame, construct, build”) and fabrica (“workshop”), “forge” is etymologically related to “fabricate.” While both terms denote making, constructing, and manufacturing, “forge” carries the additional meaning of duplication with the intent to deceive.

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 17! In Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship, Anthony Grafton argues that the humanities have been “deeply indebted to forgery for its methods” (Grafton 1990, 126). These methods are forensic: they include the chemical and microscopic analysis of paper, ink, and typefaces. But they are also embodied: they are dependent on the tacit and performed knowledge of experts. For example, Viscomi’s extensive training in material culture eventually led to his identification of two Blake forgeries. The plates in question were lithographs with fake embossments: “the images easily fooled the eye,” he has remarked, “but not the hand” (Viscomi in Kraus 2003, 2). Historically, the figure of the bibliographer has often been implicated in forgery, either as a perpetrator or unmasker, and sometimes both. Thomas J. Wise, the most notorious literary forger of the past two centuries, is a case in point. An avid book collector and bibliographer, Wise discovered and documented many previously undetected fakes and was himself ultimately exposed as an inveterate producer of them. He specialized in what Graham Pollard and John Carter have called “creative” forgeries: pamphlet printings by renowned nineteenth-century poets that allegedly pre-date the earliest known imprints of the works (1934). These printings are not facsimiles of extant copies; they are invented first editions made up entirely out of whole cloth. In Alan Thomas’s words, they are “books which ought to have existed, but didn’t” (Thomas qtd. in Drew, 2011). Part fabulist, part fabricator, part scholar, Wise left behind a legacy of over one hundred bogus literary documents that exemplify the strange blend of fact and fiction at the heart of forgery. As varied as they are, many of the undertakings described here share the common goal of using historically accurate tools, models, and materials to reconstruct history, while acknowledging what Jonathan Sterne claims in The Audible Past: “History is nothing but

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 18! exteriorities. We make our past out of the artifacts, documents, memories, and other traces left behind” (Sterne 2003, 19). Indeed, we cannot live, see, hear, or experience the world like they did back then; we only have the physical stuff of history at our disposal (Turkel 2011b). Nevertheless, the significance of these undertakings has less to do with their evidentiary value than with the exploratory mindset they promote—a mindset that is alive to meanings emanating (directly or not) from the materials themselves. The haptic experience of following a nineteenthcentury recipe for acid-resistant ink can cognitively function as a kind of solvent that breaks up preconceptions and dissolves entrenched perspectives and ideas, without assuming that hands-on experiences are somehow immediate, romantic, or any more authentic than other modes of analysis. Nearly every discipline has developed one or more methodologies designed to help us do this work: to unlearn what we think we know, to denaturalize perception and epistemology, to yield genuine surprise in our research. In sociology, the method is known as infrastructural inversion; in literary studies, ostranenie or defamiliarization; in critical theory, symptomatics or deconstruction; in human-computer interaction, reflective design. By drawing on elements of these techniques, making in the humanities is able to fulfill its promise as a tool for not only prototyping the past, but also envisioning a future. As the Provost of the Rhode Island School of Design, Roseanne Somerson, puts it, making can “manifest what has not existed previously—in many cases what has never even been imagined” (Somerson 2013, 28). In many ways, Somerson’s remark resonates with Johnson’s take on the adjacent possible. Unlearning does not end with identifying gaps or problematizing working assumptions; it responds affirmatively, with an alternative model or practice that can be enacted, tested, and examined by others.

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 19! Often the products of haptic inquiry are overlooked in the humanities because they fall below the waterline of published scholarship. Part of what Dan Cohen calls “the hidden archive” (Cohen 2008), they assume tangible yet ephemeral, undocumented, and seemingly unremarkable forms that co-mingle with the notes, sketches, fragments, low-fidelity prototypes, and drafts from which a “final” scholarly work emerges. This type of making is pervasive; however, it requires a categorical shift in thinking. A good historical example is the compilation of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in the nineteenth century. Seventy years in the making, the dictionary eventually ran to twelve volumes when it was finally published in 1928. The lifeblood of the dictionary—the thing that set it apart from its predecessors—was the tissue of quotations, nearly two million in number, used to illustrate the history of every word (Brewer 2008). The dictionary’s indefatigable editor, the Scottish philologist James Murray, crowdsourced the massive project of collecting these quotations by calling on the public to supply examples they encountered in books and newspapers. The process of classifying, arranging, and making sense of the thousands of slips of paper on which the quotations were recorded is memorably described by Murray in his 1884 presidential address to the Philological Society: Only those who have made the experiment, know the bewilderment with which editor or sub-editor, after he has apportioned the quotations . . . and furnished them with a provisional definition, spreads them out on a table or on the floor where he can obtain a general survey of the whole . . . shifting them about like pieces on a chess-board, striving to find in the fragmentary evidence of an incomplete historical record, such a sequence of meanings as may form a logical chain of development (510-11).

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 20! Color-coded, stored in sacks and boxes, parceled out to cubby holes, and sometimes pasted into volumes (Brewer 2008), the scraps of paper were like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle or the raw elements of a collage that are physically assembled into a larger artistic whole. As an extended case study, the making of the OED illustrates what Ron Wakkary and Leah Maestri call design-in-use, a type of everyday design in which artifacts are seen as “resources for further [creative] action” (Wakkary and Maestri 2007, 163). Quotidian examples include using the back of a chair as a coat rack or temporarily repurposing the cushion of a sofa as a table for a coffee cup. Design-in-use is characterized by use patterns that stress the affordances of objects, thus allowing them to be modified to perform new, different, or unintended functions. Although Murray eventually imposed order on the OED quotation slips by filing them into pigeonholes, they were originally stored in a variety of makeshift containers, including hampers and baby bassinets, and inscribed on a range of surfaces, such as the backs of envelopes (Murray 2001, 174). Design and use thus thoroughly converged on one another in Murray’s nineteenth-century scriptorium, making them virtually indistinguishable. The porous boundary between them is a ubiquitous feature of humanities scholarship, as well as emblematic of design-in-use more generally. For instance, when we copiously annotate the margins of our novels and anthologies, we are taking advantage of the fact that—as Matthew Kirschenbaum suggests in “Bookscapes”—the pages of books are writeable as well as readable surfaces, a key affordance of the contemporary codex (Kirschenbaum 2008). In short, we are redesigning our books in the process of using them. Wakkary and Maestri point out that design-in-use has important implications for technology and interaction designers. They recommend designing tools, technologies, services, and artifacts that materially and structurally invite re-engineering and appropriation. One lesson for the humanities, then, might be to approach speculative prototyping,

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 21! physical computing, and desktop fabrication with design-in-use in mind, creating objects, resources, and projects that beckon people to creatively refashion them. Design-in-use has also flourished in what are often collectively called the GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) professions. At first blush such an assertion might appear counterintuitive, notwithstanding the ready example of interactive museum exhibits. After all, the purpose of archives and museums is to preserve and sustain our cultural heritage, not make or design it. Moreover, GLAMs are also industries in which the hand has historically been viewed with suspicion: it is understood as an instrument that breaks things as well as repairs them; deposits dirt and grime as well as removes it; accelerates an object’s physical degradation as well as reverses it. At its most destructive, it loots and plunders culture rather than restoring and repatriating it. Indeed, it is precisely to protect them from the hands and other environmental stresses that museums enshrine artifacts in glass cases. By the same token, nearly every successful preservation strategy, with the exception of basic environmental controls, involves some form of active intervention. In the conservation world, for example, collections care can run the gamut, from cleaning a corroded metal artifact or wiping the fingerprints from a statue to boldly reconstructing the missing parts of a painting or adding new architectural elements to a building. Consequently, the tolerance for change in historical antiquities will vary according to time and place. At one end of the spectrum is the view that restoration is the wrecking ball of history, resulting in—to quote William Morris— “feeble and lifeless forgeri[es]” (Morris [1877] 2003, 13). At the other end is a celebration of restoration as a “means to reestablish [an object] to a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time” (Viollet-le-Duc 1854; Qtd. in Viñas 2004, 4). Untethered from any obligation to historical fact, the latter view gives license to what has been called

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 22! “radical subjectivism,” a form of creative restoration that sanctions any alteration whatsoever, no matter how seemingly arbitrary or capricious (Viñas 2004, 147-150). The conservator, then, with her paints, varnishes, stabilizers, and glues, is making history, attempting to mediate between the two extreme poles of the restoration continuum. The established principle of discernibility can help: it dictates that any intervention must be visually distinct from the original and yet, paradoxically, harmoniously integrated with it. In practice this may be accomplished through a variety of means, including the application of thin, striated brush strokes known as tratteggio, or even by creating a recessed zone on the canvas that can function as a safe harbor for experimenting with more audacious conjectures (Grenda 2010). Recently, Amit Zoran and Leah Buechley (2013) have explored restoration practices within the context of desktop fabrication, using the traversal of content from the offline world to the online and back again as a framework for thinking through the principle of discernibility. Beginning with a broken ceramic vase, they glued several fragments back together, scanned the resulting incomplete reconstruction, virtually restored the remaining parts, and finally 3D-printed a new lattice-like structure designed to hold some of the physical pieces together, while leaving gaps elsewhere that acknowledge the history of breakage and repair. The project is of interest not only for its hybridity (in which digital and analog components engender each other in a causal loop), but also for the way it offloads some (but not all) of the conjectural work of restoration onto CAD software algorithms. They write: In the restored bowl, the contrasts between new parts and old are emphasized by different surfaces, forms, textures and colors. The 3D-printed surface is smooth and white, while

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 23! the original bowl’s surface is rough and earthy in color. The new bowl respects both the qualities of the handcrafted object and those of the digitally fabricated restoration. (Zoran and Buechley 2013, 8) In this instance, as with others involving the principle of discernibility, the different stages in the lifecycle of an object are kept purposefully discrete. Each temporal plane is perceptually cordoned off from the others to prevent confusion, even as the digital and analog converge. More importantly, the original vase becomes an artifact prompting further action, and—as one example among many—it enacts one of the more persuasive functions of physical computing and desktop fabrication in the humanities: to unlearn working assumptions about material culture and perception by speculating about what else a given object (as a process frozen in time) could be or might have been. Administrative and Communicative Agendas: Makerspaces Physical computing and desktop fabrication often flourish in a shared, collaborative space anchored in the use and reuse of shared materials. Typically referred to as makerspaces (as well as hackerspaces, maker labs, and fab labs), such spaces take design principles for collaboration seriously, not only because the frameworks for in-situ collaboration matter, but also because—as Anne Balsamo argues—the critical and creative practices at work in maker cultures are intricately tied to “the production of physical objects (i.e., through the acts of tinkering with various materials)” (Balsamo 2009, n. pag.). Due to this emphasis on material production, the collaborative research conducted in makerspaces is deeply aware of the infrastructure, resources, and social conditions conducive to making. One of the key premises of makerspaces is that their infrastructure should be flexible, modular, and economical. When compared with research laboratories across many science and engineering disciplines, it should also be low cost (e.g.,

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 24! between $10,000 and $100,000) and facilitate the repurposing of “obsolete” technologies, the demanufacturing of “dead” media, and the reuse of materials at hand. In fact, many makerspaces and allied organizations (e.g., Free Geek) have areas dedicated to reusable parts, supplies, and electronic waste. This messiness actually says a tremendous amount about a space’s culture and research. Echoing John Law, “[i]t looks behind the official accounts of method (which are often clean and reassuring) to try to understand the often ragged ways in which knowledge is produced in research” (Law 2004, 18-19). In makerspaces, messiness also corresponds with a cultural investment in process and transduction, or the idea that how this becomes that is (even if untidy and complicated) fundamental to knowledge production. Thus, wherever possible, messiness, process, and transduction should not be masked, rendered opaque, or excised from the output of collaborative initiatives. As types of mediation, they are—to echo the recent work of Alexander Galloway, Eugene Thacker, and McKenzie Wark (2013)—basic conditions of mediation that we should take seriously in our research.9 By extension, the ethos and everyday of makerspaces are imbricated with questions of labor, including the labor of an increasingly casualized academic workforce. Bethany Nowviskie suggests a connection between stable employment and both the time and level of institutional connection required to engage intellectually as well as practically with the messiness of knowledge production: If the vast majority of our teaching faculty become contingent, what vanishing minority of those will ever transition from being passive digital tool-users to active humanities !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9

In Excommunication, Galloway, Thacker, and Wark write: “Have we not forgotten the most basic questions? Distracted by the tumult of concern around what media do or how media are built, have we not lost the central question: what is mediation? In other words, has the question of ‘what’ been displaced by a concern with ‘how’? Have the theoretical inquiries been eclipsed by the practical ones? Is it sufficient that media be understood as simply bi-directional relationships between determining apparatuses? Is it sufficient to say that a medium is always a tool for influence at a distance?” (Galloway, Thacker, and Wark 2013, 9).

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 25! makers? Who among them will find time to feel a productive resistance in her materials? Casualized labor begets commodity toolsets, frictionless and uncritical engagement with [pre-packaged] content, and shallow practices of use” (Nowviskie 2013, n. pag.). Nowviskie’s investment in active making here intersects with the argument that, through makerspaces, people can access, use, construct, and experiment with the “middle states”10 of technological development instead of becoming recipients (or consumers) of neatly bundled, auto-magical gadgets. Through attention to this middle state—to the gradual transduction of one material into another—physical computing and fabrication in makerspaces also afford opportunities to ask who is building technologies, for whom, under what conditions and assumptions, and to what effects on social relations. In fact, many groups, including Double Union in San Francisco, Liberating Ourselves Locally in Oakland, and Dames Who Game in Toronto, are articulating social justice issues (including the representation of women and people of color in technical communities typically built on white male privilege) with making and makerspaces.11 Similarly, Nina Belojevic (2014) argues that—as an applied approach to media studies—circuit bending technologies is a compelling way to better understand the exploitation and spectral labor of videogame industries. Importantly, her work, and other work like it (Hertz 2009), is conducted in a makerspace. While online modes of social organization no doubt lend themselves to social justice research, the cultural climates of makerspaces and their dedication to place-based organizing, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10

For more on the notion of “middle-state,” see Mattern and Mirzoeff on “middle-state publishing” in The New Everyday [TNE], where “[c]ontributions are longer than a blog post, but shorter than a journal article; they’re typically between 900 and 1500 words. Contributions represent ideas that are in-formulation, taking shape but not yet fully formed; TNE offers an opportunity for you to think through a project in public, and to solicit feedback from the . . . community as part of the process of developing your ideas” (Mattern and Mirzoeff n. pag.). 11 For instance, on intersecting social justice with the production of games, merritt kopas writes: “One of my longterm goals is to establish a workshop space to work with youth in which we’d read written work on social systems and try to make games with the goal of telling stories about living with structural violences. I especially like the idea of working with youth for this, and trying to show that games can be used for a wide variety of purposes beyond ‘fun,’ and that the tools do exist to make them” (kopas 2013, n. pag.).

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 26! trial-and-error investigation, haptic engagement, and learning alongside others foster an inimitable kind of embodied community building, which does not always manifest through the avatar or the social network. However, in the context of the academy, a pressing challenge is feeding the work of makerspaces back into existing infrastructures and policies in order to prompt institutional change. Otherwise, makerspaces risk being perceived as “experimental” domains peripheral to “serious” research. Worse, if care is not taken to apply lessons learned in makerspaces to the remaking of their surrounding institutions, they will not realize their full administrative and communicative potential. They will fail to contribute positively to advanced thinking and policy-development around critical issues like privacy, surveillance, intellectual property, consumerism in education, data exploitation, and sustainability and the environment. As sites where humanities practitioners can engage thoughtfully with embodiment in all of its forms, makerspaces may also foster productive thinking on issues of representation, contingency, privilege, and other structural problems in academic labor. Finally, spaces for fabrication and physical computing can foreground the role of technology and design in fashioning new audiences for academic research. As digital humanities performance moves off the screen and into mobile computing, wearable technology, and augmented reality, the value of the humanities (and therefore of the institutions that host and foster humanities research) may be articulated to new publics in new ways. In this area, Fashioning Circuits—directed by Kimberly Knight at the University of Texas, Dallas—is an inspiring example project. It expands digital humanities, with an emphasis on fashion, performance, and the manufacture of wearable technologies. Instead of digitizing historical artifacts, it prompts people, including beginners, to make their own. For Knight and her team, physical computing renders programming and electronics approachable to non-experts.

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 27! When making things, participants can conjecture about alternate histories and possible futures (e.g., how political organizing could change alongside networked wearables). In this sense, Fashioning Circuits encourages scholars to prototype new technologies and designs, through which problems—not just content or processes—are modeled (Siemens and Sayers, forthcoming). Crucially, it also stresses the ways in which physical computing and fabrication emerged in part from a complex intersection of textiles, handicraft, class, and gendered labor that is frequently overlooked by popular histories of science and engineering (Plant 1997). Its blend of historical and futurist frameworks draws attention to the cultural embeddedness of computing while inviting active participation in the nervousness of it all (McPherson 2012). Given that the social, cultural, political, and ethical implications of wearables are starting to unfold, Fashioning Circuits thus becomes a kind of public humanities project, too. Similar to initiatives such as High-Low Tech, Local Autonomy Networks (Autonets), Machine Project, and the GO::DH Minimal Computing Working Group, it engages pressing political issues relevant to an array of audiences in and beyond the academy, inviting contributions across disciplines, interest areas, and degrees of expertise. In so doing, it resists the perception that maker cultures are not particularly ideological or invested in social justice (Sadowski and Manson 2014). As Fashioning Circuits suggests, one way to achieve a recursive relationship between makerspaces and academic institutions is to underscore why making things in the space between bits and atoms matters right now. As we have argued throughout this essay, the ability to navigate the full circuit of manufacturing—from analog to digital and back again—fosters something historically unique: an engagement with the cultural implications and creative possibilities of making things think, sense, and talk. As William Gibson (2007), Bruce Sterling (2005), and Steven E. Jones (2013) observe, cyberspace has turned itself inside out, through what

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 28! Gibson calls the “eversion” and what Sterling renders an Internet of Things. Whatever the preferred nomenclature, a full circuit of manufacturing implies that sculpture, architecture, historical artifacts, and other cultural objects can be digitized, modeled, rematerialized, and programmed with a granularity and elasticity difficult, if not impossible, to achieve prior to the emergence of physical computing and desktop fabrication. More importantly, we are only beginning to comprehend the assumptions, effects, and trajectories of these technologies. A majority of them have yet to congeal around particular standards or normalizing workflows; they have not gained popular traction or been naturalized across demographics and settings; they are only now being tested by GLAM practitioners, historians, and theorists of material culture; and (like makerspaces) they are still rare in humanities research. That said, working in the space between atoms and bits routinely reminds researchers that things could have happened differently—that history, politics, aesthetics, and culture always have adjacent possibilities. In makerspaces, such possibilities are not simply imagined; they are repeatedly prototyped and tested. While, as with any technology, physical computing and desktop fabrication can be exploited and deployed for oppressive purposes (e.g., surveillance, warfare, privilege, or monopolization), they also allow scholars to build alternatives, construct what-if scenarios, and create what, until recently, they may have only conjectured.

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 29! References Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. New York: Signal. Balsamo, A. (2009). Videos and frameworks for ‘tinkering’ in a digital age. Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning. http://spotlight.macfound.org/blog/entry/anne-balsamotinkeringvideos. Belojevic, N. (2014). Circuit bending videogame consoles as a form of applied media studies. New American Notes Online, 5. http://www.nanocrit.com/issues/5/circuit-bendingvideogame-consoles-form-applied-media-studies. Borenstein, G. (2012). Making Things See. Sebastopol: O’Reilly. Brewer, C. (2008). Only words. Wilson Quarterly. http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/ only-words. Buechley, L., and Eisenberg, M. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Toward wearable engineering for everyone. IEEE Pervasive Computing 7(2), pp. 12-15. Carter, J. and Pollard, G. (1934). An Enquiry Into the Nature of Certain Nineteenth Century Pamphlets. London: Constable & Co. Cohen, D. (2008). Interchange: the promise of digital history. Journal of American History 95 (2). http://www.journalofamericanhistory.org/issues/952/interchange/index.htm. Drew, M. (2011). The rise and fall of a book collector: part 1. Pelgrane Press, February 8. http://pelgranepress.com/site/?p=3834. Dyer-Witheford, N. (1999). Cyber-Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Capitalism. Urbana-Champaign: U. of Illinois P. Elliott, D., MacDougall, R., and Turkel W. J. (2012). New old things: Fabrication, physical

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 30! computing, and experiment in historical practice. Canadian Journal of Communication 37(1), pp. 121-128. Galloway, A. R., Thacker, E. and Wark, M. (2013). Excommunication: Three Inquiries in Media and Mediation. Chicago: U. of Chicago P. Gershenfeld, N. (2005). Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop—From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication. New York: Basic Books. Gibson, W. (2007). Spook Country. New York: Penguin. Grafton, A. (1990). Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship. Princeton: Princeton U P. Grenda, M. (2010). Tratteggio retouch and its derivatives as an image reintegration solution in the process of restoration. CeROArt. http://ceroart.revues.org/1700. Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, pp. 149-181. Haring, K. (2007). Ham Radio’s Technical Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: U. of Chicago P. Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: Routledge. Hertz, G. (2009). Methodologies of Reuse in the Media Arts: Exploring Black Boxes, Tactics and Archaeologies. University of California Irvine. Igoe, T. (2007). Making Things Talk: Practical Methods for Connecting Physical Objects. Sebastopol: O’Reilly. ---. (2011). Making Things Talk: Using Sensors, Networks, and the Arduino to See, Hear,

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 31! and Feel Your World, 2nd ed. Sebastopol: O’Reilly. Johnson, S. (2010). Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. Penguin. Jones, S. E. (2014). The Emergence of the Digital Humanities. New York: Routledge. Kirschenbaum, M. K. (2008). Bookscapes: modeling books in electronic space. HumanComputer Interaction Lab 25th Annual Symposium, May 29, pp. 1–2. ---. (2008). Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. Cambridge: MIT P. Kraus, K. ed. (2002-2003). “Once only imagined”: The past, present, and future of Blake studies. An interview with Morris Eaves, Robert N. Essick, and Joseph Viscomi. Dual publication in Romantic Circles (2003) and Studies in Romanticism 41(2), pp.143-199. Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge. Lipson, H. and Kurman, M. (2013). Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lipson, H., Moon, F. C., Hai, J., and Paventi, C. (2004). 3-D printing the history of mechanisms. Journal of Mechanical Design 127(5), pp. 1029-1033. Long, P. O. (2004). Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Baltimore: JHU Press. Losh, E. (2012). Hacktivism and the humanities: Programming protest in the era of the digital university. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Ed. M. K. Gold. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota P. pp. 161-186. Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT P. McPherson, T. (2009). Media studies and the digital humanities. Cinema Journal 48(2), pp. 119123. ---. (2012). Why are the digital humanities so white? Or thinking the histories of race and

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 32! computation. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Ed. M. K. Gold. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota P. pp. 139-160. Montfort, N. (2004). Continuous paper: The early materiality and workings of electronic literature. http://nickm.com/writing/essays/continuous_paper_mla.html. Morozov, E. (2014). Making it: Pick up a spot welder and join the revolution. The New Yorker, January 13. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/01/13/making-it2?currentPage=all. Morris, W. (1877). Manifesto. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. http://www.spab.org.uk/what-is-spab-/the-manifesto/. Murray, K. M. E. (2001). Caught in a Web of Words. New Haven: Yale U P. Murray, J. (1884). The president's address for 1884. Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 510-511. Nowviskie, B. (2013). Resistance in the materials. http: //nowviskie.org/2013/ resistancein-the-materials. Ohya, K. (2013). Programming with Arduino for digital humanities. Journal of Digital Humanities 2(3). http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/2-3/programming-with-arduinofor-digital-humanities/. O’Sullivan, D. and Igoe, T. (2004). Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. New York: Thomson. Plant, S. (1997). Zeroes and Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture. New York: Doubleday. Ross, A. (1990). Hacking away at the counterculture. Postmodern Culture 1(1). Sayers, J. (forthcoming). “Technology.” Keywords for American Cultural Studies, 2nd Edition.

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 33! Eds. B. Burgett and G. Hendler. New York: New York U. P. Sayers, J., Boggs, J. and Elliott, D. (2013). “Made to Make: Expanding Digital Humanities through Desktop Fabrication.” Digital Humanities 2013, July 18. http://dh2013.unl.edu/ abstracts/ab-441.html. Selfe, C., and Hawisher, G. (2004). Literate Lives in the Information Age: Narratives of Literacy from the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale U. P. Siemens, R. G., and Sayers, J. (forthcoming). Toward problem-based modelling in the digital humanities. Humanities and the Digital. Eds. D. T. Goldberg and P. Svensson. Cambridge: MIT P. Slade, G. (2006). Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. Cambridge: Harvard U. P. Somerson, R. and Hermano, M. (2013). The Art of Critical Making. Hoboken: Wiley. Staley, D. (2013). 3-D printing: data visualization. HASTAC. http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ dstaley/2013/12/11/3-d-printing-data-visualization Stallybrass, P., Chartier, R., Mowery J. F., Wolfe, H. (2004). Hamlet’s tables and the technologies of writing in renaissance England. Shakespeare Quarterly 55, pp. 379-419. Sterling, B. (2005). Shaping Things. Cambridge: MIT P. ---. (2009). Design fiction. Interactions 16(3) pp. 20-24. Sterne, J. (2003). The Audible Past. Durham: Duke U. P. ---. (2007). Out with the trash. Residual Media. Ed. C. R. Acland. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota P. pp. 16-31. Stone, A. R. (1996). The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age.

Sayers, Elliott, Kraus, Nowviskie, and Turkel 34! Cambridge: MIT P. Tanigawa, K. (2013). Warping the city: Joyce in a mudbox. Maker Lab in the Humanities. http://maker.uvic.ca/mudbox/. Turkel, W. J. (2011). Designing interactive exhibits. http://williamjturkel.net/2011/12/17/ designing-interactive-exhibits/. ---. (2011). Hacking history, from analog to digital and back again. Rethinking History 15(2), pp. 287-296. Turkle, S. (2008). Falling for Science: Objects in Mind. Cambridge: MIT P. Viñas, S. (2004). Contemporary Theory of Conservation. New York: Routledge. Viollet-le-Duc, E. (1854). The Foundations of Architecture. Qtd. in Viñas, S. (2004). Contemporary Theory of Conservation. London and New York: Routledge. Viscomi, J. (1993). Blake and the Idea of the Book. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993. Waibel, G. (2013). About Smithsonian X 3D. Smithsonian X 3D. http://3d.si.edu/about. Wakkary, R. and Maestri, L. (2007). The resourcefulness of everyday design. Proceedings of ACM Creativity and Cognition 2007, pp. 163-172. New York: ACM Press. Zoran, A. and Buechley, L. (2013). Hybrid reassemblage: an exploration of craft, digital fabrication and artifact uniqueness. Leonardo 46, pp. 4-10.

!

what is an

arduino?

it’s an open‐source electronics prototyping platform. what does that mean?

open source‐

“resources that can be used, redistributed or rewritten free of charge. often software or hardware.”

electronics‐

“technology which makes use of the controlled motion of electrons through different media.”

Prototype‐ Platform‐

“an original Form that can serve as a basis or standard for other things.”

“hardware architecture with software framework on which other software Can run.”

photocell

microchip

led

breadboard An Arduino is a microchip, which is a very small computer that you can program to respond to things. It can measure conditions (like how much light there is in the room). It can control how other objects react to those conditions (room gets dark and an led turns on).

ON

OFF

Or it can respond to something as simple as the press of a switch.

a mouse is a common input device for a desktop computer, a monitor is a common output device.

Microcontrollers use inputs and outputs Like any computer. Inputs capture information From the user or the environment while Outputs do something with the information that has been captured.

momentary switch

force sensitive resisitor

A switch or A sensor could be An input into the Arduino. whats the difference between digital and analog inputs and outputs?

inputs and outputs can be digital or analog. i ital information is inary‐ it is eit er true or false. Analog information is continuous, it can hold a range of values.

DC Motor any object we want to turn on and off and control could be An output. It could be a motor or even a computer. Digital information is discrete and finite. all information is described in two states, 1 or 0, on or off.

Analog information is characterized by its continuous nature. it can have an infinite number of possible values.

a switch is a digital input, a sensor is an analog input. the range of an analog sensor is limited by its conversion to digital data.

voltage? current? resistance? Ohm’s law?

Current (I)

Voltage (V)

is the amount

is a measure

of flow

of electrical

through a

potential.

conductive

It is measured

material.

in volts.

It is measured in amperes

Before we plug in the Arduino, we will review a few terms and principles that have to do with how electricity (and therefore electronics) works.

or Amps.

Resistance (R) is a material's opposition to the flow of electric current. It is measured in ohms.

Electricity is the flow of energy through a conductive material.

the speed of flow is determined by voltage

resistance increases or decreases flow

amount of flow moving through pipes is current the water analogy is commonly used to explain these terms. Here’s one model.

OHM’s law current = voltage/resistance (i = v/r) or

Resistance = voltage/current (r = v/i) or

Voltage = Resistance * current (v = r*i)

There is a relationship between voltage, current and resistance, discovered by Georg Ohm, a German physicist.

for example, Increase the resistance, less flow.

or increase the potential, more flow.

Lamp

Switch

DC power source

+

now let’s look at a simple circuit. every circuit is a closed loop that has an energy source (battery) and a load (lamp). The load converts the elecrical energy of the battery and uses it up. this one has a switch too.

This is a schematic of the same circuit (it represents the circuit using symbols for the electronic components). When the switch is closed, current flows from the power source and lights the lamp.

I

I

Direct Current (DC)

Alternating Current (AC)

I

I

There are two Common types of circuits, Direct Current and Alternating Current. In a Dc circuit, the current always flows in one direction. In AC, the current flows in opposite directions in regular cycles. We will only talk about Dc circuits here.

Now that we’ve reviewed some basics of how electricity works, Let’s get back t0 the arduino.

The arduino will need power to run. we will need to attach it to a computer to program it.

download here: http://arduino.cc/en/Main/Software

Attaching the arduino to a computer with a usb cable will supply The 5 volts of power we need and allow us to start programming.

you’ll have to download and install software to program the arduino. it is available from the URL above Free of charge. the ARduino software runs on the Mac os X, Windows and linux Platforms.

for instructions on how to install arduino software on a mac:

http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/MacOSX For Instructions on how to install on Windows:

http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/Windows For Instructions on how to install on Linux:

http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Learning/Linux go to the URLS above for detailed instructions on installing the software on these platforms.

Launch the arduino software. in the tools menu, select the board you are using (tools > board). for example, Arduino Uno.

When you have installed the software, Connect the arduino. An led marked ON should light up on the board.

Next select the serial port. (Tools > serial port) On a mac it will be something like /dev/tty.usbmodem. On a windows machine, it will be com3 or something like that.

what’s an

Integrated Development environment?

When you downloaded the Arduino software, you downloaded an IDE. it combines a text editor with a compiler and other features to help programmers develop software.

The Arduino IDE allows you to write Sketches, or programs and upload them to the Arduino board. open the blink example in the file menu. File > Examples > 1.Basics > Blink.

int ledPin = 13; void setup() { pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT); }

Upload button

void loop() {

ToSerial.println(analogRead(A0); upload the sketch to the arduino board, click the upload button on the strip of } buttons at the top of the window. some messages will appear in the bottom of the window, finally Done Uploading.

the led at pin 13 on the arduino starts blinking.

void setup() { // initialize the digital pin as an output. // Pin 13 has LED connected on most Arduino boards: pinMode(13, OUTPUT); } void loop() { digitalWrite(13, HIGH); delay(1000); digitalWrite(13, LOW); delay(1000); }

// // // //

set the LED on wait for a second set the LED off wait for a second

a sketch, like a program writen in any language, is a Set of instructions for the computer. If we look closely at the Blink sketch, we see there are 2 major parts, setup and loop.

http://arduino.cc/en/Reference/HomePage

setup: happens one time when program starts to run

Loop: repeats over and over again

These Are both blocks of code called functions that every sketch will have. They are blocked out by curly Braces { }.

//DeClares block of code void setup() { pinMode(13, OUTPUT); //sets pin 13 to output } //End block of code

//declares block of code void loop() { digitalWrite(13, HIGH); //sets pin 13 high delay(1000); //pause 1 second digitalWrite(13, LOW); //sets pin 13 low delay(1000); //pause 1 second } //End block of code

check out the arduino website for the arduino reference guide and many other resources to learn the language.

For now, let’s look at this simple script line by line & see what each line does.

holes connected horizontally holes connected vertically

How do we control objects that are not on the arduino board? we will connect the arduino to a solderless breadboard. This will allow us to quickly set up and test circuits.

This breadboard has 2 rows of holes running down the left and right side, and 5 rows of holes on either side of a middle indentation. the side rows are connected vertically, each Row of 5 holes in the middle are connected horizontally.

anode (connects to power)

cathode (connects to ground) we will connect power and ground from the arduino board to the vertically connected strips on the left and right with 22 gauge wire. other components can be attached to the holes in the middle and to power and ground as needed.

When current flows through a led (Light emitting Diode) in the right direction, it lights up. we’ll attach an LEd to the breadboard, then to the arduino so we can control it with code.

void setup() { pinMode(2, OUTPUT); } void loop() { digitalWrite(2, HIGH); delay(500); digitalWrite(2, LOW); delay(500); }

the anode is connected to pin 2 on the arduino through a 220 ohm resistor. The cathode is connected to ground. pins 2 through 13 can be configured as digital inputs or outputs. click New button to start a sketch.

in setup, we set pin 2 to be an output. in loop, first we set pin 2 high which lights the led. Delay pauses 500 milliseconds, or half a second. when pin 2 is set low, the led goes off, we pause another half second.

verify button

upload button

click verify on the menu to check your code. if there aren’t any errors, click upload to put your program on the arduino.

the led blinks on for half a second, then blinks off for half a second, over and over again.

Next we will add a switch, a digital input, so we can turn the LED off and on.

Connect one end of a momentary switch to pin 4 on the Arduino, with a 10k resistor connected to ground attached to the same end. Attach the other end to power. We will leave the LED attached to the same pin.

void setup() { pinMode(2, OUTPUT); pinMode(4, INPUT); } void loop() { if(digitalRead(4)){ digitalWrite(2, HIGH); }else{ digitalWrite(2, LOW); } } Next we’ll write the code. In setup, we declare pin 2 an output and pin 4 an input. in loop, we use an if statement, if we read pin 4 as high, we set the led pin to high, otherwise we set the led pin to low, turning it off.

The LED lights when the switch is held down.

a potentiometer, or pot, is a variable resistor. the amount of resistance changes as it is turned, increasing or decreasing depending on which direction it is turned.

Now we will set up an analog input. We’ll use a potentiometer.

Attach the middle pin on the potentiometer to Analog pin A0. attach one end of the pot to power, the other to ground.

Serial Monitor

void setup() { Serial.begin(9600); } void loop() { Serial.println(analogRead(A0)); }

click to open serial window

First we will look at the range of values we get by turning the pot using the Serial monitor. in our code, we initialize the serial object in setup, setting a baud rate of 9600. In loop, We read the value from analog pin a0 and print it to the serial object using the printLn function,

after you have uploaded the script to the arduino, click the Serial Monitor button in order to see the values as you turn the pot. A window will open, and you will see values ranging from 0 to 1024 as the pot is turned.

5V

0% Duty Cycle - analogWrite(0)

0V 50% Duty Cycle - analogWrite(127) 5V 0V 100% Duty Cycle - analogWrite(255) 5V 0V

Let’s use the changing values we receive from the pot as a dimmer to light an LED. put the led back into the board, attached to the Arduino at pin 3.

We’ll use pulse width modulation (PWM). This is a method of simulating an analog value by manipulating the voltage, turning it on and off at different rates, or duty cycles. you can use pwm with pins 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11.

int sensorValue = 0; void setup() { pinMode(3,OUTPUT); } void loop() { sensorValue = analogRead(A0); analogWrite(3, sensorValue/4); } First we create a variable to store the value of the pot. In setup we make pin 3 an output. In loop, we store the value we have read from pin a0 in our variable. Then we write the value to pin 3, our led pin. we have to divide the variable by 4, so we will have a range of values from 0 to 255, or a byte.

The brightness of the LED changes, ranging from completely off to very bright as you turn the pot.

That’s it! This is a very brief intro. in the next Panels, there are links and other resources. check them all out, you’ll find more!

Links Software Software Download http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/Software Language Reference http://arduino.cc/en/Reference/HomePage

Supplies Sparkfun Electronics http://www.sparkfun.com/ Adafruit Industries http://adafruit.com/ Maker Shed http://www.makershed.com/ Jameco Electronics http://www.jameco.com/

Tutorials Arduino site Tutorials http://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/HomePage Lady Ada http://www.ladyada.net/learn/arduino/ Instructables ttp instructa les com ta type‐i cate ory‐tec nolo y c annel‐ar uino

books Getting Started with Arduino by Massimo Banzi a in in s al sin ensors et or s an Arduino to see, hear, and feel your world by Tom Igoe Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers by Dan O'Sullivan & Tom Igoe Arduino Cookbook by Michael Margolis

all text and drawings by Jody Culkin for more, check out jodyculkin.com Special Thanks to Tom Igoe, Marianne petit, Calvin Reid, The faculty and staff of the interactive telecommunications program at nyu, particularly Dan o’sullivan, Danny rozin and Red burns. thanks to Cindy karasek, chris Stein, sarah teitler, kathy goncharov & zannah marsh. many, many thanks to the Arduino team for bringing us this robust and flexible open source platform. and thanks to the lively, active and ever growing arduino community. Introduction to Arduino by Jody Culkin is licensed under a Creative Commons ttri ution‐ on ommercial‐ are li e Unported License.

CJC-37-1_Elliott 12-03-15 11:27 PM Page 121

Research in Brief New Old Things: Fabrication, Physical Computing, and Experiment in Historical Practice Devon Elliott, Robert MacDougall, & William J. Turkel University of Western Ontario ABSTRACT Matter is a new medium for historical research, providing the opportunity to explore physical and experiential questions while working with digitized and materialized forms. KEYWORDS Fabrication; Physical computing; Experimental method RÉSUMÉ La matière est un nouveau sujet pour la recherche historique, donnant l’occasion aux chercheurs d’explorer des questions physiques et expérientielles tout en leur permettant de travailler avec des formes numérisées et matérialisées. MOTS CLÉS Fabrication; Informatique physique; Méthode expérimentale

We young ones have a perfect right to take toys and make them into philosophy, in as much as nowadays we are turning philosophy into toys. —Michael Faraday (1861, p. 136)

T

he discipline of history is as old as the academy, and it sometimes looks it. The academic study of communication is much younger, and it exhibits at times both the strengths and weaknesses of its youth. Yet there are deep parallels between the two fields that the tweedy fustiness of one and the trendy flash of the other belie. John Durham Peters, at once an eminent historian and a communication scholar, has pointed out the striking resemblances between historical inquiry and the study of communication. History, Peters argues, is a communication problem. “Both fields,” he writes, “face the methodological problem of how to interpret under conditions of remoteness and estrangement. They share a strikingly common vocabulary of sources, Devon Elliott is a PhD student in the Department of History, University of Western Ontario, Room 2201, Lawson Hall, London, Ontario, N6A 5B8. Email: [email protected] . Robert MacDougall is Assistant Professor in the Department of History, University of Western Ontario, Room 2201, Lawson Hall, London, Ontario N6A 5B8. Email: [email protected] . Website: http://robmacdougall.org . William J. Turkel is Professor in the Department of History, University of Western Ontario, Room 2201, Lawson Hall, London, Ontario N6A 5B8. Email: [email protected] . Website: http://williamjturkel.net . Canadian Journal of Communication Vol 37 (2012) 121-128 ©2012 Canadian Journal of Communication Corporation


122

Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 37 (1)

records, meanings, and transmissions” (2008, p. 20). Historical inquiry is always a matter of intercepting and decoding transmissions from some remote place and time. If, in history as in communication, the medium is the message, what is the historian’s medium? For almost all historians, the answer is the documentary record of the past. Historians work with primary sources: texts and representations created by historical actors that contain clues as to what their worlds were like. Of course, these sources were rarely created for our benefit. We are detectives, piecing together forensic evidence; we are eavesdroppers, listening in on messages that were never intended for our ears. We try to read our sources against the grain, looking for things our subjects took for granted or left unspoken, rather than what they wished to record for posterity. Historical writing is thus an imaginative recreation of the past. Every medium has its biases. Perhaps the most basic bias shaping historians’ engagement with the past is the primacy of text. Historians seek out written documents in the archives and write papers and monographs interpreting the words they have found. The privileging of written evidence above all other kinds was part of the professionalization of history, demarking the discipline from the realms of anthropology and archaeology. A few decades ago, people and places without writing were deemed to be part of “prehistory,” having no history at all (Smail, 2008). A subsequent generation of work using oral histories, visual sources, and material objects as evidence has complicated this picture and immeasurably enriched the historical field, but it can hardly be said to have dislodged the dominance of written texts. Almost 10 years ago, the late Roy Rosenzweig (2003) foresaw a paradigm shift in historical research, from a culture of scarcity to a culture of abundance. Past historical projects were often defined by the scarcity of sources, by gaps in the historical record, or by information costs. Today, the proliferation of digital sources—both the born-digital and the digitized—has created an economy of abundance for historians. The challenges and opportunities of abundance have fuelled the emergence of a group of “digital historians” and “digital humanists” who take advantage of the computational properties of their sources to ask and answer new kinds of questions. Much of this work remains rooted in textual practices of various sorts. Computeraided text mining and data analysis make it increasingly possible to read and interrogate vast corpuses—millions of books or documents at a time—in sophisticated ways. The popularity of the international Digging into Data Challenge (co-sponsored by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Joint Information Systems Committee, and now other funding agencies) has resulted in new interpretations of historical evidence and the creation of new tools for such research. It would be ironic indeed if the rise of digital history only reinforced the historical profession’s bias toward written texts. As one digital historian has written, “using computers strictly to store, transmit, and retrieve words is akin to using an automobile only to park” (Staley, 2003, p. 4). But the power and potential of computational text analysis threatens to do just that. Here we highlight a different potential: matter as a new medium for historical research. Working with actual, physical stuff offers the historian new opportunities to explore the interactions of people and things. We fabricate objects related to our own


Elliott, MacDougall, & Turkel New Old Things: Historical Practice

123

historical interests, and then we play with them, modify them, share them with other people, and use them to ground conversations about the past and our relationship to it. What has been digitized can be re-materialized, and digitized again, and so on, in a tight loop that allows us to take best advantage of the different affordances of bits and atoms. Emerging technologies, many of them created by open source hacker, maker, or do-it-yourself groups, provide historians with the opportunity to explore physical and experiential questions while working with digitized and materialized forms. Historians are not accustomed to conducting experiments. “For us,” writes William Cronon, “the past is a single vast experiment that can never be run a second time” (2006, p. 330). But in other disciplines that excavate the past, especially archaeology, there is already a long-standing tradition of experimentation. We believe that the present moment offers unprecedented opportunities for experimentally minded humanists, artists, and social scientists of every variety. The three of us are collaborating on a series of projects that allow us to imaginatively remake past technological artifacts and to experiment with past technological worlds. The example we sketch here is based on Elliott’s research on the history, culture, and technology of stage magic (Turkel & Elliott, in press), but the experimental method applies equally to questions raised by MacDougall’s (2011) work on nineteenthcentury “crank” inventors and self-taught scientists, and to those from Turkel’s (2011) study of the history of analogue computers and numerically controlled machines. The decades around the turn of the twentieth century, from the 1880s to the 1930s, were a golden age of stage magic. Magic acts were a staple of the vaudeville circuit, and celebrity magicians such as Alexander Herrmann, Harry Kellar, and Howard Thurston reached huge audiences with performances of illusion and legerdemain, while Harry Houdini achieved superstar status. Levitating, sawing people in half, vanishing objects, and so on, the stage magicians of this era were masters at confounding the senses. The history of magic is interesting for many reasons, but not least among them is the spotlight it shines on the senses and sense-making in the past. New work in “sensory history” tries to historicize the faculties through which we apprehend the world (Jay, 2011). Have all human cultures seen—literally seen—the world as we do? Are the regimes by which we interpret aural, visual, tactile, gustatory, or olfactory stimuli historically constant, or have they changed over time? Magical effects and illusions offer an ideal site for exploring these questions, both because they highlight the limits of perception and because they often provoked historical actors to reflect on their own senses and sense-making. But magical effects are slippery, ephemeral, and subjective, produced as much by the imagination of the viewer as by the magician’s craft. Historical scholarship on magic and similar phenomena, such as mesmerism or the spiritualist séances that many stage magicians worked to debunk, is often obliged to bracket as unanswerable the question of “what was really happening” and retreat to analysis of the written texts surrounding such performances. Fabrication and physical experimentation will not transcend the impossibility of directly accessing the past, but they do offer another route toward apprehending what was happening and how events such as magical performances were constructed and experienced.


124


We have detailed descriptions of how magical effects appeared to both participants and observers. Often we have photographs, models, or blueprints that provide information about how a particular effect might be achieved. We start our experiments, then, by creating digital representations of this material culture. From photographs and blueprints, we can construct 3-D models with varying levels of detail. In cases where we have access to physical artifacts, we can scan them with a laser scanner. We then fabricate small-scale physical versions of these 3-D models: rather than working on a stage, we work in a dollhouse. Some components from our 3-D models are scaled and printed directly in plastic, using RepRap (www.reprap.org) and MakerBot (www.makerbot.com) 3-D printers that we built in our lab. Other components are machined from wood, metal, or plastic with table-top CNC mills and lathes. Some we make by hand, using the same kinds of tools, materials, and techniques that our original effect-builders did. Figure 1: Model of levitation effect.

Photo by William J. Turkel.

Creating a dollhouse version of, say, a magician levitating his or her assistant allows us to explore a range of questions (see Figure 1). Many of these have to do with human perceptual characteristics; others involve the role of explicit and tacit knowledge in the construction of apparatus; yet others engage the interaction of a magician’s performance with various factors—the venue, the expectations of the audience, the publicity preceding and surrounding a performance—in shaping the experience of an effect. Working with actual physical recreations, we can experiment with viewpoint, lighting, colours, patterns, posture, misdirection, sightlines, material properties, and so on, discovering which set of factors makes an effect seem more or less convincing to our senses and comparing our own subjective experiences with those recorded a



125

century ago. Since a single effect could often be achieved in many different ways, recreating effects also allows us to study processes of technological innovation and reuse. Work with photographs and images can take place at this stage, too. Digital photographs or video are useful for capturing points of view. We might not know why a recreated effect fails to convince when we experience it in person, but telltale shadows in a high-contrast digital photo draw attention to something that was subliminal before. These experiments can help us to understand why particular choices were probably made. Historical photographs were framed in carefully thought-out ways. They are evidence of how an effect was presented and of how attention was manipulated. As we present and photograph our own models, we become more aware of factors that may have played a role in the framing of historical photographs or in decisions made in order to stage performances. Figure 2: Shadows in this photograph indicate the method used to perform a model levitation.

Photo by Devon Elliott.

In staging a model illusion (see Figure 2), we cycle back and forth between working with the digital (programming, signal detection and manipulation, communication) and the material (hardware, electronics, and electromechanical stuff). Dollhouse “performances” can be digitally recorded in obvious ways—with photos, audio, and video—and in non-obvious ways, too. We might use our laser scanner to make a 3-D model of the whole stage at a particular moment, for example, or we might want to record the output of a vibration sensor mounted on the underside of the stage during a performance. Magicians’ blueprints often contain hidden “gotchas,” crucial details that are left unspecified or are simply incorrect as shown. Without rebuilding the apparatus, we would never know about these problems. By studying what was manifest and what


126


was latent, we can also find valuable clues about the ways in which magicians kept methods secret from audiences and lesser performers, while establishing credit and authority among their own peers. Here we draw on research in the history of science that involves re-enacting or recreating historical experiments. Such studies have yielded insight into the performance of experimental events, the role of embodiment, forms of gestural and tacit knowledge, the importance of artisans and witnesses, and cultures of secrecy (e.g., Sibum, 1995). Figure 3: “An Improved Psycho” depicts a potential method for replicating the effect of a popular nineteenth-century automaton (Hopkins, 1897)

On a live stage, magicians employed stagehands to trigger or operate machinery (see Figure 3). In our dollhouse models, we use something closer to robotics, drawing on work in physical computing. The “brains” of a particular effect are usually provided by an open source Arduino (www.arduino.cc) microcontroller. (Imagine a 1980s-era personal computer that is the size of a deck of cards, battery-powered, and only costs $40.) Sensors hooked up to the Arduino provide information about physical states: for example, a beam of light has been broken, a hidden switch triggered, or a magnetic field detected. Actuators such as servos, stepper motors, and solenoids, and even fancier components such as shape-memory alloys (“muscle wire”) and invisible thread, allow the Arduino to execute physical actions. It can be programmed to draw curtains, turn LED lights on or off, spring open a hidden hatch door, or route compressed air through a pneumatic mechanism. For more elaborate builds, we also incorporate parts from off-the-shelf robotics kits. For example, we are currently working



127

on a model re-creation of a nineteenth-century pneumatic card-playing automaton named “Psycho” (see Figure 4). Automata were, Simon Schaffer (1999) has written, “both arguments and entertainments” in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries— and so they are for us. Figure 4: Draft pneumatic model of “Psycho” automaton made with VEX robotics components and Arduino microcontroller.

Photo by Devon Elliott.

Obviously, there is an element of play to this kind of research. In fact, one of the main reasons that we do it is because it is fun. The students in our graduate publichistory program find it fun to do this kind of work, and members of the public with whom they share their work seem to enjoy themselves, too. Working with toy-like objects at model scale puts us in touch with children; with hobbyists, male and female; with people who like the microcosms of puppet theatres, dollhouses, dioramas, aquariums and terrariums, bonsai gardens, play sets, simulation games, model railroads, and construction toys. There is also an element of performance in this work, something we share with the historical actors we are studying. Stage magicians, attic inventors, and crusading machinists all depended on public engagement to make sense of their activities, and we do too. Exact reproduction of the past is not our goal. Instead, we want to create situations in which aspects of the past can be revisited, explored, interrogated, and remixed. The performers and audiences of the golden age of stage magic were steeped in assumptions and prejudices we now find deeply problematic. Rather than faithfully re-enacting sexist or Orientalist practices for the sake of historical accuracy, we can play with them for the sake of experiment. Let Barbie be the magician and Ken her lovely assis-


128


tant, or let a giant snake charm the magician. By eliciting and engaging with affects and effects, we do our best to construct a dialogue with the past. We know that the real past is inaccessible, and all that remains is evidence and inference. This realization creates no licence for interpretive abandon, but rather the opposite. It is our deep obligation ever to seek out new ways of learning from and listening to the past. “The historical record does not only degrade over time; it can also become more articulate,” Peters writes in his exploration of history as communication (2008, 24). New questions and techniques reveal new historical sources that were there all along. The “lack of evidence” that once was held to prohibit a history of the senses— or of sexuality, the environment, disease, childhood, peasants, or women—gives way to a voluble historical record. “That old things can be new is the secret to the dynamic historical record” (p. 24), Peters concludes. “The historian’s job is … to see that the world is ever replenished with new old things” (p. 32). In fabrication and physical experiment, we are discovering a new old way to do just that.

References Cronon, William. (2006). Getting ready to do history. In C. M. Golde & George E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline (pp. 327-349). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Faraday, Michael. (1861). A course of six lectures on the chemical history of a candle. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. Hopkins, Albert A. (Ed.). (1897). Magic: Stage illusions and scientific diversions, including trick photography. New York, NY: Munn & Co. Jay, Martin. (2011). In the realm of the senses: An introduction. The American Historical Review, 116(2), 307-315. MacDougall, Robert. (2011, Spring). Convention of cranks: Why the nineteenth century’s golden age of pseudoscience may be a precursor of our own. SCOPE, 1(2), 12-23. Peters, John Durham. (2008). History as a communication problem. In B. Zelizer (Ed.), Explorations in communication and history (pp. 19-34). London, UK: Routledge. Rosenzweig, Roy. (2003). Scarcity or abundance? Preserving the past in a digital era. The American Historical Review, 108(3), 735-762. Schaffer, Simon. (1999). Enlightened automata. In W. Clark, J. Golinski, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The sciences in enlightened Europe (pp. 126-166). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sibum, Heinz Otto. (1995). Reworking the mechanical value of heat: Instruments of precision and gestures of accuracy in early Victorian England. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 26(1), 73-106. Smail, Daniel Lord. (2008). On deep history and the brain. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Staley, David J. (2003). Computers, visualization, and history: How new technology will transform our understanding of the past. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. Turkel, William J. (2011). Intervention: Hacking history, from analogue to digital and back again. Rethinking History, 15(2), 287-296. Turkel, William J., & Elliott, Devon. (In press). Making and playing with models: Using rapid prototyping to explore the history and technology of stage magic. In Kevin Kee (Ed.), Pastplay: History, Technology and the Return to Playfulness. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Robotica (2011) volume 29, pp. 177–191. © Cambridge University Press 2011 doi:10.1017/S026357471000069X

RepRap – the replicating rapid prototyper Rhys Jones†, Patrick Haufe‡, Edward Sells§, Pejman Iravani†, Vik Olliver¶, Chris Palmer∥ and Adrian Bowyer†,∗ †Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bath University, Bath BA2 7AY, UK ‡Faculty 5, Department of Biomimetics/Biological Materials, Hochschule Bremen, University of Applied Sciences, Neustadtswall 30, D-28199 Bremen, Germany §Bits From Bytes Ltd., Unit 17 Hither Green Industrial Estate, Clevedon, North Somerset BS21 6XU, UK ¶Diamond Age Solutions Ltd., 72 Warner Park Avenue, Laingholm, Waitakere, New Zealand ∥Boatmans Row, Astley Green, Tyldesley, Manchester M29 7JQ, UK (Received in Final Form: October 27, 2010)

SUMMARY This paper presents the results to date of the RepRap project – an ongoing project that has made and distributed freely a replicating rapid prototyper. We give the background reasoning that led to the invention of the machine, the selection of the processes that we and others have used to implement it, the designs of key parts of the machine and how these have evolved from their initial concepts and experiments, and estimates of the machine’s reproductive success out in the world up to the time of writing (about 4500 machines in two and a half years). KEYWORDS: Self-replicating machine; Rapid prototyping; Additive fabrication; Biomimetics; Mutualism; Opensource; Free software; Fused-filament fabrication. 1. Introduction RepRap is an open-source self-replicating rapid prototyping machine. It is a robot that uses the fused-filament fabrication∗∗ to make engineering components and other products from a variety of thermoplastic polymers. RepRap has been designed to be able to print out a significant fraction of its own parts automatically. All its remaining parts have been selected to be standard engineering materials and components available cheaply worldwide. As the machine is free†† and open-source, anyone may – without royalty payments – make any number of copies of it ether for themselves or for others, using the RepRap machines themselves to reproduce those copies. In this paper, we briefly examine the terminology and history of artificial reproduction, and then describe the biomimetic genesis of the RepRap machine, its original * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Fused-filament Fabrication (FFF) is sometimes called Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM). But this latter phrase is trademarked by Stratasys Inc., and so is not in unconstrained use. FFF was coined by the members of the RepRap project to give a synonymous term that could be used by all unrestrictedly. †† In this paper, we always use the word “free” to convey both the meanings that it has in the free software discourse: “Free as in freedom”, and “Free as in beer”. ∗∗

design, how and why that design has changed into its current form, RepRap’s global adoption and use, and the commercial offshoots and spinouts from it. 1.1. Terminology Historically, the terminology used in the field of selfreproducing machines has sometimes been unclear, with different meanings being ascribed to the same terms. In an attempt to bring some systematisation to this, we will define key terms for use in this paper at least. Kinematic machine: A physical machine that is composed of fixed and moveable parts. This term makes a distinction between real machines and software models (which are frequently used for simulation). In what follows, we take the words “kinematic machine” to include living organisms. Self-replication: We start with the idea that self-replication could mean an imaginary Platonic process by which a kinematic machine was able to create an exact copy of itself. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Shannon’s theorem1 show that information cannot be copied without loss or error indefinitely, implying that the idea of an exact replicator is impossibile. (Of course, it is the errors that drive Darwinian evolution.) Whilst it is philosophically and poetically useful to have words for impossible ideas, here we reduce the strength of the word “replication” to give it an engineering meaning: a copy within specified tolerances that will work as well as the original. Self-reproduction: A process by which a kinematic machine is able to create an approximate copy of itself, perhaps with either insignificant or significant errors. All living organisms are self-reproducers. The specified-tolerances and works-as-well distinctions between replication and reproduction follows through the definitions below, and the rest of this paper. Replicators are a subset of reproducers. Self-manufacturing: The ability of a kinematic machine to make some or all of its own parts from raw materials. This clearly prompts a requirement for a definition of “raw”: Is an etched printed circuit board a raw material? Or a uniform copper-clad board? Or some copper, some glass, and some epoxy resin? Forensically, many Gordian knots of this sort

178

RepRap – The replicating rapid prototyper

Fig. 1. Schematic of von Neumann’s kinematic reproducer from ref. [4].

are cut by asking, “Would a reasonable person say it is so?” and leaving it at that. We adopt the same approach as the law. Self-assembly: This refers to the ability of a kinematic machine to manipulate a series of parts into an assembled copy of itself. Autotrophic self-reproduction or self-replication: The ability of a system to make a direct copy of itself from raw materials without assistance. As yet, no artificial autotrophic self-reproducing kinematic machine has been made. However, examples exist in biology (see Section 2). For a kinematic machine to achieve autotrophic selfreproduction, it must contain a number of critical subsystems. One attempt to identify these subsystems was undertaken in Freitas and Merkle’s “Map of the Kinematic Replicator Design Space” in their comprehensive book,2 which identified 137 design properties in order for autotrophic selfreproduction to be possible. Assisted self-reproduction or self-replication: A kinematic machine that includes at least one but not all of the critical subsystems required for autotrophic self-reproduction or replication and so needs human (or other) intervention to reproduce. By these definitions, RepRap is a kinematic assisted selfreplicating and self-manufacturing machine, as we shall show below. 1.2. Artificial reproduction The concept of self-reproducing kinematic machines has intrigued some of the world’s greatest minds for generations. However, the first person to formalise thoughts on the subject was von Neumann in the middle of the last century.3 Much of von Neumann’s work concentrated on his cellular machine, a theoretical and mathematical model, and records of his research into a kinematic (physical) self-reproducing machine are scarce and often informal. Much of the outline presented here is based on the summary in the review by Freitas and Merkle.2 Von Neumann’s kinematic reproducer, as illustrated by Cairns-Smith4 in Fig. 1, consists of five distinct components, namely a chassis (c), a set of instructions (I), some form of machinery (m), a controller (r) and, finally, a sequencer (s). In order for the kinematic reproducer to function properly, it is required that it resides in a stockroom containing an

unlimited quantity of spare parts. The kinematic machine features a mechanical appendage that is able to gather parts at random from this stockroom; the randomly selected part is inspected and compared with the kinematic machine’s instructions. In the event that the part is not required, it is replaced in the stock room and the process is repeated until a required part is found. This process is then repeated to find the next required part, and the two parts are connected together using the mechanical appendage. This cycle continues until a physical copy of the kinematic machine is produced; at which point, the instructions are copied in to the memory in the child kinematic machine before it is finally activated. In devising his kinematic reproducer, von Neumann ignored any fuel and energy requirements. Even so, with a part-count of the chassis estimated at 32,000, the feasibility of the device was poor. Nevertheless, the concept did at least demonstrate the principle of a self-reproducer, and has inspired many people to do further research. Most of this work may be broken down into three distinct subsets. Using the above-given definitions, these subsets are as follows: 1.2.1. Autotrophic self-reproducers. With limited success so far in the areas of self-assembly and self-manufacturing, an artificial autotrophic self-reproducer remains an unachieved utopia for the subject. Whilst theoretical work has been undertaken in the area, all the concepts presented so far are extremely vague on the engineering involved in artificial reproduction, being described by Dyson thus: “We don’t have the science yet; we don’t have the technology”.5 1.2.2. Self-assembling kinematic machines. Some of the most elegant work into self-assembling kinematic machines using special pre-made parts was conducted by Roger and Lionel Penrose in designing their so-called block reproducers.6 Perhaps the biggest achievements of their design are its neatness and simplicity. The block reproducer (Fig. 2) consists of a series of wooden blocks that are placed on an agitating surface. The design of the blocks is such that an interlocking profile exists on each block. “Brownian-motion” is induced into the parts by agitating the surface, enabling the locking profile to be utilised for completing the assembly process. The

179


Fig. 2. A 1-D self-reproducing kinematic machine made from parts of two kinds from ref. [6].

Penroses also designed a more complicated two-dimensional reproducing kinematic machine along similar lines. Further work into self-assembling processes was conducted by Moses,7 who developed a self-assembling kinematic machine in the form of a Cartesian manipulator based on 16 types of snap-fit parts. Similarly to von Neumann’s kinematic reproducer, it was able to build a copy of itself if supplied with sufficient parts. However, whilst the concept proved promising, the structure of the design lacked stiffness, leading the machine to need external assistance to complete its reproduction cycle. But, inspired by this success, the world’s first semi-autonomous, limitedpart, self-assembling kinematic machine was created in 2003 by Suthakorn et al.,8 with an assembly time of just 135 s. It consisted of an original robot, subsystems of three assembly stations and a set of subsystems from which replicas of the original robot were assembled. In 2005, Zykov et al.9 made a system consisting of cubes split along a diagonal where each half-cube could rotate relative to the other in that split plane. The cube’s faces were fitted with electromagnets. Stacks and other arrangements of these could be made to reproduce themselves if fed with a supply of similar active cubes, with the stack acting as a robot arm when the split faces were rotated. 1.2.3. Self-manufacturing kinematic machines. To date, the amount of work on self-manufacturing process has been limited. The main research in this area was conducted in 1980–1982 by the Replicating Systems Concepts Team at NASA.10 They discussed the following two fundamental models for a self-manufacturing process: 1. The unit growth or factory model consists of a series of sub-assemblies, which collectively are able to manufacture and tassemble all sub-assemblies within the model until the surrounding resources are exhausted. As the name suggests, and as observed by von Neumann, any machine shop with sufficient equipment may be considered a self-manufacturing unit growth system. 2. Unlike the unit growth model, the unit replication∗ model specifies that one device must be able to manufacture all of its own parts. Perhaps the most interesting facet of this model is that it potentially has the ability to be substantially more compact than the unit growth model, to the degree that such a kinematic machine could exist ∗

We shall call this the unit reproduction model from here on, in accordance with our defined terminology.

in every home. As yet, the autotrophic unit reproduction model has not been realised. One possible reason for this is that traditional manufacturing methods require tools to have one specific function (such as a lathe for cutting about an axis) severely limiting the potential designs that can be manufactured with a single kinematic machine. Therefore, the goal of achieving a self-manufacturing process based on the unit reproduction model cannot be realised until an extremely versatile manufacturing technology is realised. 2. The Genesis of RepRap Sometimes the progress and the reporting of a project can obscure the train of thought that instigated the project. Typically, that train of thought was incomplete, or sometimes downright wrong. In this section, we attempt to set down as a matter of record the ideas that led one of us (Bowyer) to invent RepRap. Understandably, the design of most practical artificial reproducers starts with proposed solutions to many technical problems of getting a kinematic machine copy itself. However, RepRap was not instigated in that way at all. RepRap was instigated by biomimetically considering extant naturally evolved strategies for reproduction. Biologists categorise most bacteria, archaea, protists and plants as autotrophic because they are capable of selfnourishment using inorganic materials as a source of nutrients and using photosynthesis or chemosynthesis as a source of energy. However, almost without exception, all the natural species of reproducers in the world (including those in the previous sentence) depend upon other species in some way for their survival and successful breeding – by this light they are all assisted self-reproducers. A few lithophile micro-organisms can survive alone in what are essentially mineral environments, but their numbers are vanishingly insignificant compared with those of the interdependent species. Clearly, primordial organisms must have been completely autotrophic, but now that way of life has all but disappeared because the environment in which modern organisms have evolved consists, to a first approximation, entirely of other reproducers. Yet research into artificial reproduction often concentrates upon making the reproducer as autotrophic as possible (like the lithophiles), and researchers regard this as an important aim. Clearly this aim is important for an extraterrestrial reproducer, but why so for a terrestrial one? Why try to follow a strategy that biology has all but abandoned? An

180 artificial reproducer designed to be interdependent with the natural reproducers that will make up its environment would be more likely to be successful. Dependencies between species take one of the following three forms: predation, commensalism, or mutualism. Predation is well understood: lions eat antelope; antelope eat grass. Commensalism usually implies some sort of scavenging – lions and antelope are uninterested (though not ultimately disinterested) in what the grass does with their dung, their urine and their exhaled CO2 . Mutualism∗ implies a symmetry of dependencies giving benefit to both partners: the pistol shrimp digs a burrow in which it then lives with a goby fish; the shrimp is nearly blind and the fish warns it of danger. This variety of dependencies prompts a choice in the design of an artificial reproducer: Which type of dependencies should our artificial reproducer exploit, and with which natural species? Beneficial options to people might include predation upon pests, commensal gathering of waste, or mutualism with a species whose welfare we wished to promote (such as an endangered or an agricultural one). However, clearly the most interesting natural species with which our proposed artificial reproducer might exhibit a dependency is ourselves. This makes the choice more sharply cut: it would be foolhardy to make ourselves the prey for our artificial reproducer; having it collect our waste commensally might be useful, but the option most pleasing to our evolved senses of morality and symmetry would be to make ourselves a reproducing mutualist. In other words, we should make an artificial reproducer that would benefit from us, and we from it. The most famous mutualism in nature, and the one that we all learn about first at school, is a reward for a service. Butler11 said of this in Erewhon∗∗ : Does any one say that the red clover has no reproductive system because the humble bee (and the humble bee only) must aid and abet it before it can reproduce? No one. The humble bee is a part of the reproductive system of the clover.

Moreover, he might have added, the bee is rewarded with nectar. Mutualism between the flowers and the insects evolved about 140 mya in the late Jurassic period and is one of the most enduring phenomena in biology. For both sets of species it is an evolutionarily stable strategy corresponding to a particularly unshakable Nash equilibrium. What service could our mutualist reproducer ask from us? Moreover, with what could it reward us? It would seem sensible to play to the differing strengths of artificial kinematic machines and people. Artificial kinematic machines can make objects accurately, repeatably and tirelessly. In contrast, they fumble at manipulative tasks that would not tax a small child. People are exquisitely dexterous. (Aristotle called the human hand, the instrument of instruments.) But – though with practice people may ∗

Sometimes called symbiosis, but this term (which can mean any species–pair relationship, including that between predator and prey) is being replaced by the more precise mutualism for mutually beneficial relationships. ∗∗ Famously, this novel is also one of the first places in history wherein appears the idea of an artificial reproducing machine.

RepRap – The replicating rapid prototyper carve and mould beautifully – they cannot do so accurately, repeatably and tirelessly. So our self-reproducing kinematic machine could be designed to manufacture a kit of parts for a copy of itself, and to need the assistance of people to assemble that copy (that is, it would be an assisted reproducer along the lines of NASA’s unit-reproducer10 ). The people would be the humble bee, and the kinematic machine the clover. And what about the nectar? If the kinematic machine were sufficiently versatile to make its own parts, then chances are that it would also be able to make many other items useful to people. When it was not reproducing itself, it would be rewarding its assistants with a supply of consumer goods. This idea of a self-reproducing machine also making useful things for people is not new. It goes back through von Neumann to Butler. But we contend that regarding this as a form of biological mutualism and deliberately seeking to achieve that in order to position both reproducers at an evolutionary Nash equilibrium for each is a novel idea. This was the genesis of the RepRap machine. It was designed to make its own parts to be assembled by people into another RepRap. The people would be driven to do this by the fact that the machine, when not reproducing, could make them all manner of useful products. It seemed (and still seems) likely that this would lead to a mutualist relationship between people and the machine that would inherit some of the longevity and the robustness of the evolutionarily stable strategies of the insects and the flowering plants. Finally in this section, we note that flowers do not attempt some biological equivalent of copyrighting or patenting the “intellectual property” of their genomes. Such a genome builds the flower with the sole intent† of spreading itself with the most promiscuous fecundity possible. Any genome mutation that arose that – for example – attempted to extract some payment (like the nectar) in return for a copy of itself would clearly have a lower reproductive fitness. The nectar and the information are not in any way equivalent. The nectar is a real material resource. In contrast, the immaterial genome information has been arranged purely because of its success in copying itself as freely as it can, and any impediment placed in the way of that would be to its detriment. For this reason, it was decided to follow the principles of the free software movement and to distribute every piece of information required to build RepRap under a software libre licence that requires no royalty payments whatsoever. This would allow private individuals to own the machine, and to use it freely to make copies for their friends. The RepRap machine is intended to evolve by artificial rather than natural selection; that is, to evolve as the Labrador has evolved from the wolf, rather than as the wolf has evolved from its ancestors. It is hoped that this evolution will come about by RepRap users posting design improvements on-line that may be adopted in future designs of the machine and then in turn downloaded by old and new users. That is why the General Public Licence was chosen as the RepRap licence, as that obliges people who improve the machine to make public their improvements under a similar free licence.12

†

Of course, no genome has intent. But they all behave as if they do.

181

RepRap – The replicating rapid prototyper 3. The First RepRap Machine In order for the RepRap project to progress, the rather abstract reasoning laid out in the sections above had to give way to some down-to-earth engineering. This occupies the rest of this paper. The first engineering decision was to use rapid prototyping∗ as the manufacturing technology for RepRap as opposed to – say – the CNC milling. The reasons for this were threefold: • Rapid prototyping requires very low forces to create solids, unlike machining. • Of all the manufacturing technologies, rapid prototyping is the easiest to control automatically by computer. • It is the closest current technology to the “maximum versatility” specified by the 1980s’ NASA report.10 The massive cast bases required by machining centres to overcome cutting forces and vibration would be a significant impediment to self-reproduction; this was the basis of the first reason. It is true that cold-casting of – for example – concrete might have reduced this impediment to a certain extent, but that would still leave the fact that cutting (especially of complicated re-entrant shapes) requires very sophisticated toolpath-planning algorithms. In contrast, all rapid prototyping requires algorithmically is the ability to compute a sequence of planar slices through a geometric model of the part to be manufactured and to fill each with a hatch or similar pattern (see the second reason above). These are straightforward. At around this stage it was decided (as mentioned in the Introduction) that any parts that the RepRap machine could not make for itself had to be cheaply and widely available to maximise the ease – and hence probability – of reproduction. Having chosen rapid prototyping, the next decision that needed to be taken was which of the extant processes to use, or whether it would be necessary to invent a new one. This decision was made by elimination: any process needing a laser was rejected owing to the unlikeliness of being able to use rapid prototyping to make a laser, and the fact that they are expensive items. This removed selective laser sintering and stereolithography from consideration (and also electron beam melting for very similar reasons, though that does not actually need a laser). Similarly, any process needing inkjet print heads was rejected. Again, it was thought unlikely that the machine would be able to make these for itself, at least initially. Though ink-jet heads are relatively cheap, they are constrained by the fact that their manufacturers have a business model of discounting the printers that use the heads and then putting a big mark-up on the heads themselves. Also, they sometimes put chips in the heads to prevent their being re-filled, and adopt other restrictive strategies that make inkjet an unattractive technology for a machine intended to ∗

The term “additive fabrication”, which is now becoming a carryall for the totality of rapid prototyping and 3D printing technologies, was less current at the start of the RepRap project (2004). Then “rapid prototyping” was by far the more popular term. Its subsequent decline has tracked the change in use of these technologies from prototyping towards production.

reproduce as freely as possible. These facts removed ink-jet printing from consideration. The project was then left with laminated object manufacturing and fused-filament fabrication from the extant technologies. Laminated object manufacturing was attractive owing to its simplicity and the ubiquity of its working material: paper. But fused-filament fabrication13 offered the possibility of being able to build with multiple different materials. This in turn offered the significant potential advantage of being able to have the machine make a larger proportion of its own components than could be created out of just one material. This, combined with the fact that it was conjectured that fused-filament fabrication could be implemented using low-cost garden-shed methods,∗∗ led that to be chosen for RepRap. Thus, it was not necessary to devise a new rapid prototyping technology. Figure 3 shows the first production the RepRap machine. There were experimental machines made before this to try out various ideas, but this is the first model used to make copies of its own rapid prototyped parts. It is a steppingmotor-driven Cartesian robot consisting of an open frame made from M8 threaded steel rods held together by rapid prototyped parts and M5 screws. The build base upon which parts are made is cut from 12-mm medium-density fibreboard (MDF). Virtually all the parts that the machine cannot make for itself other than the electronics and the motors can be obtained from an ordinary high-street hardware shop. The horizontal x- and y-axes (which need to move comparatively fast – typically with a feed rate of 3000 mm/min) are driven directly by toothed timing belts. The z-axis only moves by a small distance when one layer of production is finished and the next is about to start; aside from this and the need to return to its home position at the start of a new build, the z-axis is quiescent. It was thus decided to use a screw-drive for that. The MDF build plate has eight M8 nuts attached at its corners that are driven up and down by four M8 threaded bars synchronised by another timing belt. The nuts are in pairs held apart by springs to eliminate backlash. The entire machine is designed to work from a single 12volt power supply as this can be cheaply obtained by using the power supply from an old PC. It also means that the machine would work off a car battery, where no main electricity was available. The running machine consumes about 60 W of power. Given the choice of the fused-filament fabrication, a key – indeed the key – part of the machine is its polymer-extruder head. This is described in the next section. 3.1. Extruder design Before a fused-filament fabrication extruder was designed, a polymer had to be chosen for it to extrude. It was decided to use polycaprolactone (PCL) initially because: • It has a very low melting point (about 60 ◦ C). • It is strong (comparable to nylon). As will be seen below, this polymer was subsequently abandoned for several reasons. But at the start, the low melting point (implying ease of heating) was thought to be a critical factor. ∗∗

A conjecture that the project has subsequently proved correct.

182


Fig. 3. RepRap version I “Darwin”. This is the first production RepRap machine. Its rapid prototyped parts (white, blue and green) were made in a Stratasys Dimension commercial RP machine. The cube of the machine has side lengths of about 500 mm. This machine was built in May 2007.

A fused-filament fabrication extruder has the following two main sub-assemblies: 1. The transport; this forces a filament of the polymer into. . . 2. . . .the melt chamber and nozzle. It was decided to standardise on a 3-mm diameter∗ filament as a feedstock because this dimension is commonly chosen for plastic welding rod, which is very widely available. 3.1.1. Polymer transport. Figure 4 shows the first polymer transport mechanism designed for RepRap. A 12-volt DC geared electric motor (A) drives a stack of pinch wheels (C) through gears (behind the device). The pinch wheels are actually the heads of M4 cap screws; the outside knurling on these gave grip. The threaded rods at the front allow the pinch-wheels to move together, thereby increasing the pinch force. The number of pinch wheels in the stack could be varied. The 3-mm polymer filament (B) was driven down into a melt chamber and nozzle at D (see figure). The control electronics are at E. All the white parts in the photograph except D were rapid-prototyped. This device worked, but it was heavy and complicated. The large number of pinch wheels in the stack (4) was needed because of the very low friction coefficient between the pinch wheels and the PCL (despite the knurling). Shortly after this device was made, one of us (Olliver) came up with a much simpler design. In it, a threaded rod is forced against the 3-mm polymer filament, which runs in a channel. As the thread turns, it forces the polymer downwards. This design, which has only one moving part, gives exceptional ∗

1/8′′ diameter in the United States. 1/8′′ − 3 mm = 0.175 mm, a difference easily accommodated by all the extruder designs that RepRap has used.

Fig. 4. The first RepRap polymer transport mechanism. It is shown diagrammatically on the right: four pairs of pinch wheels are geardriven by a motor and force a 3-mm polymer filament (blue, then orange, then red to indicate the rising temperature) down through a PTFE insulator then through a heated brass barrel with a nozzle. The molten polymer emerges at the nozzle’s tip.

grip even against the slipperiest polymers, and has a very high mechanical advantage, giving a large potential extruding force.


Fig. 5. The last screw-driven RepRap polymer transport. All green parts are rapid-prototyped.

The design of the screw-driven extruder went through several iterations, finally ending up as shown in Fig. 5. The geared drive (at the top) is offset, with its torque being transmitted by a flexible coupling (a short length of steel hawser) – the grey curve just to the right of the white polymer filament. This arrangement allows a straight run of filament down the device, which it was thought might be useful for brittle or stiff materials. However, this straight run was never, in fact, used (the polymer was always flexible enough to feed in at an angle). Further, the flexible drive was a weak point in the design, as it tended to fatigue after being used for about 50 h. The springs at the back of the device set the force between the screw thread and the polymer, and allowed some compliance as slight changes in polymer diameter moved through the device. As these developments were taking place, the temperatures that could be easily achieved in the melt chamber (see below)

183 were rising because of design improvements. This meant that it was possible to abandon PCL, which didn’t just give problems because of its low friction, but was also very sticky and stringy as it was being extruded. These shortcomings led to low-quality built parts. Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) was adopted instead. This gave much better build quality (as it was more paste-like upon extrusion and less viscous). ABS also allowed a return to a much simpler pinchwheel transport mechanism, as, being harder and exhibiting higher friction, it was easier to have a firm grip. Figure 6 shows the extruder design used in RepRap Version II “Mendel”. A NEMA 17 stepping motor with a knurled shaft pinches the filament against a ball-race. The motor has a 5-mm diameter shaft. With this, a motor torque rating of 0.13 Nm is quite adequate to drive the filament with enough force for reliable extrusion. The device has a single rapidprototyped part (silvery white). The stepping motor allows exquisitely precise metering and control of the extruder flow. The four screws holding the motor are in slots. This allows the gap between the motor’s shaft and the ball-race to be adjusted easily. For 3-mm hard-polymer filaments, a 2.5-mm gap works well. This is easily set by putting the shank of a 2.5-mm drill-bit in the device, sliding the motor so that the bit is just trapped between the motor’s shaft and the ball-race, tightening the four screws, then withdrawing the drill-bit. 3.1.2. Melt chamber and extrusion nozzle. The requirements for the melt chamber and nozzle were that it should: 1. Be cheap and easy to make; 2. Be compact; 3. Work reliably after repeated heat-up and cool-down cycles; and 4. Not conduct excessive heat to the rest of the machine. Point 4. was particularly important, as the rest of the machine would be made from the polymer that the melt chamber would be melting. Figure 7 shows the first design of melt chamber and nozzle. The 3-mm filament enters on the left, and is extruded from a 0.5-mm diameter nozzle on the right.

Fig. 6. Left: The newer pinch-wheel extruder transport mechanism (with melt chamber and nozzle pointing to the right). Right: The motor’s shaft (which is knurled-the small circle) pinches the filament against a ball-race (large circle) and drives it down through a PTFE insulator into a heated chamber and out through a nozzle.

184


Fig. 7. The first melt-chamber and nozzle design. The small squares have 1 mm sides.

The white cylinder on the left is a 16-mm diameter polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tube. The internal diameter of the hole running down it is 3.5 mm, which was found to work well with the 3-mm filament (more on this below). The right-hand end of the PTFE has an M6-threaded hole extending to a depth of 15 mm, into which a length of drilled brass M6 studding has been screwed tightly. Again, the drilled hole in the studding is 3.5 mm in diameter. The nozzle at the right end is turned brass. A nozzle of 0.5-mm diameter was chosen, as that is the smallest hole that can be drilled easily and is also a good compromise between the machine’s being able to make fine details (see below) and its not taking too long to fill a large volume. The heating element (the left-hand pair of wires) was a length of fibreglass-insulated nichrome wire with a resistance of around 10 !. This was wound in the grooves of the M6 thread, giving good thermal contact. Temperature sensing was done with a 10-K! glass-bead thermistor (right-hand wires). Both these were held on using JB Weld commercial high-temperature epoxy, which is rated up to 315 ◦ C. This design worked well, particularly because PTFE has a very low thermal conductivity, which kept the rest of the machine cool. But it suffered several shortcomings: 1. The PTFE was held in the polymer transport mechanism by a screw clamp. It tended to slip free of this because PTFE has a low friction coefficient (in contrast, a good thing from the perspective of the polymer filament being forced down the middle of it). 2. A resistance of 10 ! was too high, giving too low a heating power at 12 volts. 3. The JB Weld tended to become friable and was easily damaged after being subjected to a large number of heating and cooling cycles. 4. The 10-K! thermistor was not very accurate above about 200 ◦ C. 5. PTFE is a rather soft plastic. This meant that sometimes the inner tube swelled under the pressure of the filament being forced into the heated brass tube, leading to an aneurysm of extrudate. The device continued to work while heat was applied, but the swelling could cause blockage when the device had cooled and was restarted.

The problem of the PTFE slipping in its clamp was solved by turning a series of grooves on the left-hand end of it. It was then epoxied into the transport mechanism with the epoxy keying into the grooves. This held completely firm. The heater resistance was reduced to 6 ! in subsequent versions. This gave an ample heating power of 24 W. The JB Weld problem was solved by replacing it with fire cement (which is used to seal the flues of central-heating boilers). This is rated up to 1250 ◦ C. This fire cement was subsequently replaced with Kapton-brand high-temperature sticky tape; this made extruder assembly simple, clean and neat. The thermistor was replaced by a 100-K! one. This corrected the loss of accuracy at high temperatures. A number of changes were tried to reduce the problem of PTFE swelling, and this has now been completely eliminated (see below). Improvements tried included using polyaryletheretherketone (PEEK) instead of PTFE. This is mechanically much stronger, but the internal friction is higher, and so jams can occur. It is also not a good thermal insulator, and so it has to be made longer to achieve the same cooling effect. We also tried using a PTFE sleeve inside a PEEK outer jacket. One of us (Palmer) has had considerable success by abandoning high-temperature polymers as thermal barriers altogether and instead using stainless steel plus a heat-sink (Fig. 8). Here, the heating is provided by a 6.8 ! resistor embedded in an aluminium block heating a copper nozzle. This is connected to the polymer filament transport by a stainless steel tube cooled by a heat-sink and small fan. As stainless steel has a low conductivity (for a metal), it is possible to maintain a high-temperature differential between the two ends. But the device can still jam. This problem can be solved by adding a very slight taper into the hole down the centre of the device from narrow at the top to broader at the bottom. This means that as soon as the cold polymer begins to move when the device is started, it detaches from the walls and is subjected to almost no friction. This is a very reliable design. The current standard RepRap extrude nozzle is also very reliable. In it, the brass nozzle is made larger in diameter than before, and encases the end of the PTFE. When pressure

185


Fig. 8. The stainless steel heat-sink melt-chamber and nozzle.

Fig. 9. The latest standard RepRap nozzle design partly disassembled. The PTFE ends in a narrow section that screws inside the brass. The PEEK bracket is the part with three holes. The brown material at the top of the PTFE is Kapton tape to ensure a snug fit in the extruder transport mechanism.

causes the PTFE to swell, this forces it against the brass, constraining it and creating a better seal. A small PEEK bracket attaches the brass nozzle to the rest of the extruder mechanism so that none of the extrude force is born by the PTFE (see Fig. 9). 4. The RepRap Build Materials Polycaprolactone was quickly abandoned as a building material after initial experiments for the reasons outlined

above. Though it is extremely tough, it is also quite flexible. For building the RepRap machine, something more rigid – that is with a higher Young’s modulus – was desirable. The Young’s modulus for PCL is about 1 Gpa, and that for ABS is about 3 Gpa.∗ ABS was chosen next, as it is inexpensive and very widely available. Figure 10 shows a typical RepRap build of a reasonably large (80 mm × 60 mm × 30 mm) component using ABS extruded at 240 ◦ C. As can be seen, the contraction of the ABS on solidification has caused the bottom of the part to curl away from the base upon which it was built. For smaller parts, this is much less of a problem, but here it is significant. Commercial fused-filament fabrication machines solve this problem by running the entire process in an oven at a temperature of about 70 ◦ C. This eliminates curl-up with ABS completely. However, since the point of RepRap is that it should be easy for any technically competent person to construct and to run the machine at home in order that its dissemination should be as wide as possible, running in an oven was not really an option. We did experiment with enclosing the build in a roasting bag (intended for joints of meat) and filling it with hot air from a hair dryer. This worked very well and completely eliminated the problem. But the bag was tricky to set up, it tended to get tangled in the moving mechanism and a lot of work was required to unload the built parts from within it. Parallel to the emergence of this curling-up problem, one of us (Olliver) was experimenting with the use of polylactic acid (PLA) as a RepRap building material. PLA is slightly harder and more brittle than ABS. These experiments were not prompted by a need to solve distortion in builds, but by ecological and socio-political considerations. PLA is made from plants and is biodegradable. Its use in RepRap would thus be more environmentally benign than the use of an oil-based polymer, such as ABS. Indeed, as PLA is made from plant matter, building durable objects from it that are kept and not bio-degraded would lock up atmospheric CO2 ; this would be environmentally positive as opposed to merely neutral. In addition, it is not too hard for people having access to a small starch crop to make their own PLA.∗∗ This means that such a person with a RepRap machine would not only be able to make the rapid-prototyped parts to reproduce more RepRaps and to make other goods, but would also be able to do so with a home-grown polymer supply that was also self-reproducing. And they would be reducing greenhouse gas as they worked. Serendipitously, it transpires that PLA suffers minimally from contraction problems on cooling, even when builds are conducted in a room-temperature environment.

∗

Of course, these values are very dependent on the degree of polymerisation. ∗∗ There is one step in the synthesis that is not straightforward: the lactic acid that results from the fermentation of starch has to be dried to better than one-part in 10 million by weight of water. We have succeeded in doing this by simply passing dry nitrogen over it for half an hour with heating. We conjecture that it would also be possible to do it with air that had been dried by passing it through calcium chloride and then heated. The calcium chloride could in turn be reused after drying by heating.

186


Fig. 10. A RepRap extruder component made in a RepRap machine from ABS. Note the curling at the base.

available from a small number of companies) is that it tends to “string” slightly, leaving filaments sticking out from builds where the extrude head has left the build for an in-air movement. This problem can be eliminated by reversing the extruder by a short distance at the end of each completed deposition before an in-air movement. Any remaining stringing can be removed manually with a blade in a few seconds after the build is completed.

Fig. 11. A clock made by a RepRap machine from PLA. The face was made from 12 separate segments, each a longest dimension of 140 mm. (The rather scruffy octagonal backplate is the MDF-built platform from an old experimental prototype made to try out ideas for the machine in Fig. 3.)

Figure 11 shows a clock made on a RepRap machine from PLA extruded at 190 ◦ C. The twelve hour-segments were made separately. Each is 140-mm long in its radial direction. With other polymers significant curling would be expected when building such an object, but PLA gives almost completly flat parts. In addition to its positive environmental characteristics and its lack of distortion on building, PLA welds to itself very strongly when one fused-filament fabrication layer is being deposited on top of another. Parts made from it are less susceptible to delamination under stress in the verticalbuild direction than those made from ABS. It is an almost perfect material for the fused-filament fabrication process. Its disadvantage (aside from the fact that it is only commercially

5. RepRap Software A number of people have created software to drive RepRap machines. Here we describe our program written in Java to take STL files of the objects that RepRap is to make, to slice those, to compute infill patterns and to save the results as G-Code NC control files (the format that RepRap expects). For convenience, the same program can also take such precomputed G-Code files (from any source) and queue them to a RepRap machine. Figure 12 shows this software being run. On the left is a window that allows the user to control the attached RepRap machine interactively for setting up, testing and experimentation. On the right is a view of the machine’s build base with a set of components (in fact, parts of the RepRap machine itself) loaded for manufacture. The user can interactively view these components from any point, move around parts with a mouse, insert new parts and delete unwanted ones. The whole collection can be saved in a single file for future use, if required. In order to generate the control codes for the RepRap machine, the software takes a series of horizontal slices through the STL files making up the parts to be built. As STL files consist entirely of triangles, this is simply a question of working out the line segments that result from the intersection of those triangles with the slicing plane. These are then joined into polygons by finding nearest end-points of lines. The software then uses Tang and Woo’s Algorithm16 to convert those polygons into an interim CSG representation as intersections and unions of linear half-planes of the form


187

Fig. 12. The user’s view of the Java RepRap software.

Ax + By + C < = 0. This is done because a CSG representation is much more robust than a boundary representation. If the STL input is wrong, the shapes will be wrong (that is unavoidable). But with CSG they are always topologically consistent. The CSG polygons are then converted to bitmaps at the finest resolution of the RepRap machine. This is done because Boolean operations will have to be done on the slices represented, and this is simplest if they are in bitmap form. It might be thought that the CSG representation would be ideally suited to Boolean manipulation, and indeed our software worked that way initially. But problems arose with repeated Boolean operations on patterns that were very similar but (because of rounding and other factors) not identical. Bitmaps completely eliminate these problems, and – an added advantage – can be processed very fast. The slices are computed from the top to the bottom of the parts to be built. This allows the easy calculation of support material: layer Ln+1 needs the following support, Sn , from layer Ln : Sn = Ln+1 − Ln .

Moreover, the layer pattern at n potentially requiring support at layer n − 1 would be Ln ← Ln U Ln+1 . As can be seen, this calculation is most easily facilitated from top downwards. In fact, the software maintains a cache of layer patterns in a ring buffer because it is useful to know the patterns a few above and a few below the current slices for the purpose of computing fine infill at the surface when coarse infill is being used for interiors: a horizontally exposed surface facing either up or down has to be fine-filled to get a well-finished part. The cache ensures that slices are computed only once, while not making the excessive memory demands that keeping a complete slice record would entail.

Once a slice has been computed, the outline polygons are found using a pixel edge-finder plus a filter to collapse straight sections of many pixels back to a single line segment (the filter picks out runs of pixels that would be generated by a Bressenham DDA between their endpoints, and replaces them with those endpoints). The infill hatch is again generated using a Bressenham DDA. When the DDA goes from an empty pixel to a filled one that is the start of a hatch segment; the reverse is its end. The resulting hatch lines are joined by traversing sections of polygon boundary between their ends to produce a set of zig-zag lines filling the polygon. The Java RepRap software can deal with multiple objects, each made from multiple materials. It contains all the internal controls to allow these to be outlined, filled and supported in a completely general way. Thus, an object made from material A can be outlined for one or more times going inwards (to make a thin or thick boundary); it can then be filled with material A with any hatching width, with the hatch angles changing between layers; it can be supported by material A laid down thinly to make it easy to break off after completion. Alternatively, the above can be done with differing materials A, B and C. Finally, multi-material objects can be specified, and their peripheries and interiors can be made in the same completely controlled way. 6. Reproduction of RepRap Machines The first reproduced RepRap machine was made in 2008. The parent machine is the one shown in Fig. 3. All the rapid prototyped parts of the child machine were made in PLA by the parent machine, except for one grandchild part (a timingbelt tensioner) that the child machine made for itself. That grandchild part was the first part made by the child. It took about 20 minutes to make, and was finished at 1400 h UTC on 29 May 2008 at Bath University in the United Kingdom. The child machine was within tolerance of the parent, and worked just as well. RepRap is thus a kinematic-assisted selfreplicating, self-manufacturing machine. The design of the machine includes screw and other adjusters to allow a child

188 machine to be set up to produce parts as accurately as its parent (in just the same way as conventional machine tools are adjusted). RepRap assisted replication is thus not subject to degeneracy. However, its accuracy does, of course, depend upon the measurements made to achieve the adjustments just mentioned, and the measuring instruments (typically digital callipers) are – like the motors and so on – external to the machine. It would doubtless be possible to set up a calibration scheme depending on light interference or similar that could be a part of RepRap itself. But this would be a heroic effort to overcome a simple externality and, as we shall show in the next paragraph, RepRap has many of those. The fraction of the parts by count of the RepRap machine that it makes for itself is 48% ignoring fasteners (that is, nuts, bolts and washers – if these are included, then they are 73% by count of the machine and the RP parts drop to 13%).14 It would be straightforward to make a much simpler and rather cheaper machine of an almost identical design by gluing the parts together rather than using nuts and bolts. The machine could easily make small cylindrical locating lugs to fit in the bolt holes and to hold the gluing parts in the correct relative positions while the glue set, but that would make it harder to replace parts in the machine and to service it. Many people have downloaded the RepRap designs from the project website and used them to make RepRaps in commercial rapid prototyping machines. In one case (father and son constructors Bruce and Nick Wattendorf) the design was cut from wood, assembled and made to work successfully. The RepRap community calls free open-source rapid prototyping machines that cannot make a significant fraction of their own parts, but can make parts for RepRap machines, RepStraps (from bootstrap). Many private individuals (including one of us – Palmer) have made RepStraps in order to make RepRaps subsequently. Several companies have been formed to make and sell RepStraps (for example, Bits From Bytes in the United Kingdom, and MakerBot Industries LLC in the United States). As required by the GPL, these companies’ RepRap-derived designs are being distributed free and open-source. Developed independently of RepRap, though inspired by it, the Fab@Home fused-filament fabrication machine from Cornell15 is laser-cut, as are the Bits From Bytes and MakerBot machines. Fab@Home works primarily with a variety of pastes (including UV-setting resin), though a thermoplastic extrusion head has also been attached to it. The Bits From Bytes machine is almost identical in size and capability to RepRap I “Darwin”. The MakerBot machine is smaller than “Darwin”, but is about the same size as RepRap II “Mendel” (see below), though with a smaller build area. Both these commercial machines tend to be used with ABS, though some of their users have also built with PLA. Both Bits From Bytes and MakerBot can make all the parts for RepRap. We have heard no reports of this having been done with a Fab@Home, though there seems to be no technical impediment to its happening. Increasingly, people are using their RepRap machines to make sets of RepRap parts for others, as the project plan intended. The first complete set of rapid prototyped parts made in one RepRap machine that were sold to other would-

RepRap – The replicating rapid prototyper be RepRap constructors were made by Wade Bortz from Canada. The child machine’s parts were bought by Liav Koren and Michael Bartosik of Toronto, who paid one case of Upper Canada Dark Ale for them∗ . Given the analogy with the payment of nectar for flower reproduction discussed in Section 2, the case of beer is particularly appropriate. Owing to the free distribution of the machine it is difficult to make a worldwide estimate of the number of RepRaps and RepStraps there are, but the sale of electronic kits for the machine (which are also produced commercially) sets a lower limit of 3000 machines. However, some people construct their own electronic kits rather than buying from market. About 4500 machines would seem to be a conservative estimate of the total population at the time of writing this paper (i.e., in 2010). The RepRap website invites builders of the machine to mark their location on a map. Figure 13 shows this map as in 2010. Only a small fraction of builders have placed themselves on it, but it gives an interesting (if self-selected) sample of the distribution of the machines. 7. Changes Made to Produce RepRap Version II The authors and their many RepRap colleagues around the world have now finished the design and commissioning of the latest RepRap machine: RepRap Version II “Mendel”∗∗ (Fig. 14). This incorporates many lessons that were learnt from Version I; in particular, lots of improvements and suggestions from the worldwide RepRap community that were posted on-line in the project’s forums have been included in the design. Table I gives a comparison between RepRap Version I “Darwin” and RepRap Version II “Mendel”. The cost-ofmaterials-to-build figures are for a single purchase of all that is required to build one machine from end retailers – it takes no account of bulk discounts and wholesale transactions. The designs of both machines allow their sizes and working volumes to be changed simply by cutting longer or shorter rods to make up the framework, so the values for both of these are nominal. Darwin may be carried a short distance by one person with some difficulty. “Mendel”, in contrast, can be swung in one hand like a bulky briefcase, and is easy to carry anywhere. This has turned out to be a surprisingly important improvement – portability makes it more convenient to work with the machine in many contexts. The percentage of the machine that “Mendel” makes for itself has remained constant in comparison to “Darwin”, despite a significant number of rolling element bearings being incorporated into the design to give robustness. Furthermore, some users in the community have replaced these bearings with plain bearings. In this case, the self-manufactured percentage rises to 57%. It is anticipated that the number of self-manufactured parts will rise further once the multiple write-heads are finished (see below). ∗

At the time of writing, the lowest cost of non-open source rapid prototyping machine (the V-Flash made by 3D Systems) was about $ 9900. ∗∗ It has been decided to name RepRap versions after distinguished biologists.

189


Fig. 13. Some of the world’s RepRap users in 2010 (courtesy: Google Maps). (A few users who do not wish to reveal their location have put themselves in the ocean.)

The deposition rate of 15 mL/h is the volume extruded by the extruder. In common with poprietary fused-filament fabrication machines, RepRap does not usually build parts completely solid – there are some air inclusions. With RepRap the degree to which this happens is completely under the control of the user. It is possible to build parts very fast with a sparse honeycomb interior, or more slowly with a dense interior. Unlike the commercial fused-filament fabrication machines (which leave micro-voids on their densest settings), RepRap also allows interiors to be built fully dense. This slightly reduces the build quality, but allows the making of gas- and water-tight parts. With the nominal settings of the machine, the 15 mL/h deposition rate becomes 19 mL/h of built object. We have not gathered reliability statistics on the machine as yet (it is very easy to make spare parts, so repair is not a problem), but a “Mendel” machine will typically run for

several hundred hours without going wrong, though it might need occasional fine adjustments in that time (for example to the bed-height zero-position, or the filament pinch drive mechanism). As has been mentioned above, an 0.5-mm nozzle diameter was chosen as a compromise between ease of manufacture, speed of deposition and fineness of feature resolution. However, it is perfectly possible to make nozzles of different diameters without changing any other aspect of the RepRap machine’s design. Drilling very small holes is difficult, of course. But as Jens Kaufmann of Heriot Watt University has suggested that it might be possible to make fine nozzles by running copper sulphate solution through an 0.5-mm brass nozzle and electroplating copper onto its inner surface – an experiment that we have yet to try. With the 0.5-mm nozzle, the smallest features that we have produced (gear teeth for the machine itself) are of about 1.5-mm in size.

Fig. 14. RepRap Version II “Mendel”. This version is smaller, lighter and simpler than Version I, but it has a larger build volume.

190

RepRap – The replicating rapid prototyper Table I. Comparison of “Darwin” and “Mendel”.

Cost of materials to build (€) Percentage self-manufactured∗ Size (mm3 ) Weight (kg) Build envelope (mm3 ) Deposition rate (mL/h) Positioning accuracy (mm) Nozzle diameter (mm) Volume of RP parts to build (mL) Power supply (W) Interface Host computer

RepRap version I “Darwin”

RepRap version II “Mendel”

500 48 600 (W) × 520 (D) × 650 (H) 14 200 (W) × 150 (D) × 100 (H) 15 0.1 0.5 1200 12 V × 8 A USB/G-Codes Linux, Windows or Mac

350 48 500 (W) × 400 (D) × 360 (H) 7 200 (W) × 200 (D) × 140 (H) 15 0.1 0.5 1110 12 V × 5 A USB/G-Codes Linux, Windows or Mac

We are currently working to add the final part of the “Mendel” design: a multi-extruder head that would allow the machine to print with multiple materials. The reader will recall that this potential was one of the initial reasons for choosing fused-filament fabrication for RepRap. We also have a paste extruder in the later stages of development (driven by compressed air from a fizzy-drink bottle acting as a reservoir and charged using a car tyre pump). This should allow RepRap access to a wide range of materials already proved in fused-filament fabrication by the opensource Fab@Home project mentioned above. 8. Conclusions There is no space here to go into every last reason for adopting certain designs for parts of RepRap and rejecting others, nor to describe all the many alternatives that were experimented upon and not adopted because of the results of those experiments. All this information is, however, available in copious detail on the RepRap blogs, forums and wiki (http://reprap.org). At the start of 2008 four RepRap machines existed, all made on commercial rapid prototyping machines. Two and a half years later we conservatively estimate that there are about 4500 derived machines all over the world. We have no way of telling how many of those are replicated RepRap machines, and how many are non-replicating RepStraps for making further RepRaps. However, judging by the large number of requests for the fused-filament fabricated parts for the “Mendel” design when it was released, lots of people want to make, to use and to distribute their own assisted replicator. One of the members of the RepRap project (Zach Smith) has set up a website where anyone can upload and download free designs for consumer goods to be printed by RepRap and other rapid prototyping machines (http://thingiverse.com). This is a considerable success, with many new designs being added daily. RepRap works well. Nevertheless, even a poor reproducer that is out in the world freely parenting children must improve by Darwinian selection, and so should eventually overtake even the most exquisitely designed reproducer that stays in the laboratory. ∗

Ignoring nuts, bolts and washers.

The reader will note that this paper contains no details of the future direction of the RepRap project. The reason for this is that the authors are no longer in control of it. They will contribute to future developments, but increasingly those developments come from people in the RepRap community, and what they will do is well nigh impossible to predict. All human engineering can be considered to be a vast unitgrowth reproducer that copies itself with the assistance of – and with benefit to – humanity; a grand version of von Neumann’s well-equipped machine shop. RepRap is moving towards compressing as much of that idea as possible into a unit-reproducer that one human may carry in one hand, and may freely copy for their friends. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the United Kingdom’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and Bath University’s Innovative Design and Manufacturing Research Centre for the provision of research grants that funded significant parts of this work. We acknowledge with gratitude the suggestions made by the reviewers for improvements in this paper. Finally, we would also like to thank the worldwide RepRap community for their continuous volunteering of ideas, designs, physical prototypes, software, corrections and suggestions. Without them the project would be but a shadow of what it has become through their unflagging input and support. References

1. C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical Theory of Communication,” The Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423, 623–656 (Jul.–Oct. 1948). (http://tinyurl.com/f4two) 2. R. A. Freitas and R. C. Merkle, Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines (Landes Bioscience, Georgetown, Texas, 2004). (http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm) 3. J. Von Neumann, Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata (University of Illinois Press, Illinois, 1996). 4. A. G. Cairns-Smith, The Life Puzzle (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, 1971). 5. F. J. Dyson, “The world, the flesh, and the devil. Selfreproducing machinery,” In: The Third J. D. Bernal Lecture, Birkbeck College, London (May 16, 1972). 6. L. S. Penrose, “Mechanics of self-reproduction,” Ann. Hum. Genetics 23, 59–72 (1958). (http://vx.netlux.org/lib/ mlp01.html) 7. M. Moses, A Physical Prototype of a Self-Replicating Universal Constructor Masters Thesis (Mechanical


8.

9. 10.

11.

Engineering, New Mexico: University of New Mexico, 2002). (http://home.earthlink.net/ mmoses152/SelfRep. doc) J. Suthakorn, A. B. Cushing and G. S. Chirikjian, “An Autonomous Self-Replicating Robotic System,” Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM 2003), Kobe, Japan (December 2003). (http://tinyurl.com/ylfgr9b) V. Zykov E. Mytilinaios, B. Adams and H. Lipson, “Self-reproducing machines,” Nature, 435, 163 (2005). (http://tinyurl.com/ygozg37) R. A. Freitas and W. P. Gilbreath, “Advanced Automation for Space Missions,” Proceedings of the NASA Conference Publication CP-2255 (N83-15348), Summer 1980 (1982). (http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ accessed 22 November 2010) S. Butler, Erewhon, (1872). (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/ 1906)

191 12. R. Stallman et al. The GNU General Public License (Free Software Foundation, Inc., Boston, MA, 1991). (http://www.gnu. org/licenses/gpl.html) 13. S. S. Crump, 1989. US Patent 5121329: Apparatus and Method for Creating Three-Dimensional Objects (Stratasys Inc., Eden Prairie, MN, 1989) (http://tinyurl.com/ybtrkft) 14. E. A. Sells, Towards a Self-Manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Machine Ph.D. thesis (Bath, UK: University of Bath, 2009). (http://tinyurl.com/ygjgva7) 15. E. Malone and H. Lipson, “The Factory in your Kitchen,” Proceedings of the MCPC 2007 World Conference on Mass Customization & Personalization, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA (October 7–10, 2007). 16. K. Tang and T. C. Woo, “Algorithmic aspects of alternating sum of volumes. Part 1: Data structure and difference operation,” Comp. Aided Des. 23 (5): 357–366 (1991). (http://tinyurl.com/yg4wucm)

CHAPTER 1

Getting Started

1.0 Introduction The Arduino environment has been designed to be easy to use for beginners who have no software or electronics experience. With Arduino, you can build objects that can respond to and/or control light, sound, touch, and movement. Arduino has been used to create an amazing variety of things, including musical instruments, robots, light sculptures, games, interactive furniture, and even interactive clothing. If you’re not a beginner, please feel free to skip ahead to recipes that interest you.

Arduino is used in many educational programs around the world, particularly by designers and artists who want to easily create prototypes but do not need a deep understanding of the technical details behind their creations. Because it is designed to be used by nontechnical people, the software includes plenty of example code to demonstrate how to use the Arduino board’s various facilities. Though it is easy to use, Arduino’s underlying hardware works at the same level of sophistication that engineers employ to build embedded devices. People already working with microcontrollers are also attracted to Arduino because of its agile development capabilities and its facility for quick implementation of ideas. Arduino is best known for its hardware, but you also need software to program that hardware. Both the hardware and the software are called “Arduino.” The combination enables you to create projects that sense and control the physical world. The software is free, open source, and cross-platform. The boards are inexpensive to buy, or you can build your own (the hardware designs are also open source). In addition, there is an active and supportive Arduino community that is accessible worldwide through the Arduino forums and the wiki (known as the Arduino Playground). The forums and the

1

wiki offer project development examples and solutions to problems that can provide inspiration and assistance as you pursue your own projects. The recipes in this chapter will get you started by explaining how to set up the development environment and how to compile and run an example sketch. Source code containing computer instructions for controlling Arduino functionality is usually referred to as a sketch in the Arduino community. The word sketch will be used throughout this book to refer to Arduino program code.

The Blink sketch, which comes with Arduino, is used as an example for recipes in this chapter, though the last recipe in the chapter goes further by adding sound and collecting input through some additional hardware, not just blinking the light built into the board. Chapter 2 covers how to structure a sketch for Arduino and provides an introduction to programming. If you already know your way around Arduino basics, feel free to jump forward to later chapters. If you’re a first-time Arduino user, patience in these early recipes will pay off with smoother results later.

Arduino Software Software programs, called sketches, are created on a computer using the Arduino integrated development environment (IDE). The IDE enables you to write and edit code and convert this code into instructions that Arduino hardware understands. The IDE also transfers those instructions to the Arduino board (a process called uploading).

Arduino Hardware The Arduino board is where the code you write is executed. The board can only control and respond to electricity, so specific components are attached to it to enable it to interact with the real world. These components can be sensors, which convert some aspect of the physical world to electricity so that the board can sense it, or actuators, which get electricity from the board and convert it into something that changes the world. Examples of sensors include switches, accelerometers, and ultrasound distance sensors. Actuators are things like lights and LEDs, speakers, motors, and displays. There are a variety of official boards that you can use with Arduino software and a wide range of Arduino-compatible boards produced by members of the community. The most popular boards contain a USB connector that is used to provide power and connectivity for uploading your software onto the board. Figure 1-1 shows a basic board, the Arduino Uno.

2 | Chapter 1: Getting Started

Figure 1-1. Basic board: the Arduino Uno

You can get boards as small as a postage stamp, such as the Arduino Mini and Pro Mini; larger boards that have more connection options and more powerful processors, such as the Arduino Mega; and boards tailored for specific applications, such as the LilyPad for wearable applications, the Fio for wireless projects, and the Arduino Pro for embedded applications (standalone projects that are often battery-operated). Many other Arduino-compatible boards are also available, including the following: • Arduino Nano, a tiny board with USB capability, from Gravitech (http://store.grav itech.us/arna30wiatn.html) • Bare Bones Board, a low-cost board available with or without USB capability, from Modern Device (http://www.moderndevice.com/products/bbb-kit) • Boarduino, a low-cost breadboard-compatible board, from Adafruit Industries (http://www.adafruit.com/) • Seeeduino, a flexible variation of the standard USB board, from Seeed Studio Bazaar (http://www.seeedstudio.com/) • Teensy and Teensy++, tiny but extremely versatile boards, from PJRC (http://www .pjrc.com/teensy/) A comprehensive list of Arduino-compatible boards is available at http://www.freeduino .org/.

See Also An overview of Arduino boards: http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/Hardware. Online guides for getting started with Arduino are available at http://arduino.cc/en/ Guide/Windows for Windows, http://arduino.cc/en/Guide/MacOSX for Mac OS X, and http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Learning/Linux for Linux.

1.0 Introduction | 3

Download from Wow! eBook

1.1 Installing the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) Problem You want to install the Arduino development environment on your computer.

Solution The Arduino software for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be downloaded from http:// arduino.cc/en/Main/Software. The Windows download is a ZIP file. Unzip the file to any convenient directory— Program Files/Arduino is a sensible place. A free utility for unzipping files, called 7-Zip, can be downloaded from http://www.7-zip.org/.

Unzipping the file will create a folder named Arduino-00 (where is the version number of the Arduino release you downloaded). The directory contains the executable file (named Arduino.exe), along with various other files and folders. Doubleclick the Arduino.exe file and the splash screen should appear (see Figure 1-2), followed by the main program window (see Figure 1-3). Be patient, as it can take some time for the software to load.

Figure 1-2. Arduino splash screen (version 0019 in Windows 7)


Figure 1-3. Arduino IDE main window (version 0019 in Windows 7)

The Arduino download for the Mac is a disk image (.dmg); double-click the file when the download is complete. The image will mount (it will appear like a memory stick on the desktop). Inside the disk image is the Arduino application. Copy this to somewhere convenient—the Applications folder is a sensible place. Double-click the application once you have copied it over (it is not a good idea to run it from the disk image). The splash screen will appear, followed by the main program window. Linux installation varies depending on the Linux distribution you are using. See the Arduino wiki for information (http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Learning/Linux). To enable the Arduino development environment to communicate with the board, you need to install drivers.

1.1 Installing the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) | 5

On Windows, use the USB cable to connect your PC and the Arduino board and wait for the Found New Hardware Wizard to appear. If you are using Windows Vista or Windows 7 and are online, you can let the wizard search for drivers and they will install automatically. On Windows XP, you should specify the location of the drivers. Use the file selector to navigate to the drivers directory, located in the directory where you unzipped the Arduino files. When the driver has installed, the Found New Hardware Wizard will appear again, saying a new serial port has been found. Follow the same process as before. It is important that you go through the sequence of steps to install the drivers two times, or the software will not be able to communicate with the board.

On the Mac, the latest Arduino boards, such as the Uno, can be used without additional drivers, but if you are using earlier boards, you will need to install driver software. There is a package named FTDIUSBSerialDriver, with a range of numbers after it, inside the disk image. Double-click this and the installer will take you through the process. You will need to know an administrator password to complete the process. On Linux, most distributions have the driver already installed, but follow the Linux link given in this chapter’s introduction for specific information for your distribution.

Discussion If the software fails to start, check the troubleshooting section of the Arduino website, http://arduino.cc/en/Guide/Troubleshooting, for help solving installation problems.

See Also Online guides for getting started with Arduino are available at http://arduino.cc/en/ Guide/Windows for Windows, http://arduino.cc/en/Guide/MacOSX for Mac OS X, and http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Learning/Linux for Linux.

1.2 Setting Up the Arduino Board Problem You want to power up a new board and verify that it is working.

Solution Plug the board into a USB port on your computer and check that the green LED power indicator on the board illuminates. Standard Arduino boards (Uno, Duemilanove, and Mega) have a green LED power indicator located near the reset switch.


An orange LED near the center of the board (labeled “Pin 13 LED” in Figure 1-4) should flash on and off when the board is powered up (boards come from the factory preloaded with software to flash the LED as a simple check that the board is working).

Figure 1-4. Basic Arduino board (Uno and Duemilanove)

Discussion If the power LED does not illuminate when the board is connected to your computer, the board is probably not receiving power. The flashing LED (connected to digital output pin 13) is being controlled by code running on the board (new boards are preloaded with the Blink example sketch). If the pin 13 LED is flashing, the sketch is running correctly, which means the chip on the board is working. If the green power LED is on but the pin 13 LED is not flashing, it could be that the factory code is not on the chip; follow the instructions in Recipe 1.3 to load the Blink sketch onto the board to verify that the board is working. If you are not using a standard board, it may not have a built-in LED on pin 13, so check the documentation for details of your board.

See Also Online guides for getting started with Arduino are available at http://arduino.cc/en/ Guide/Windows for Windows, http://arduino.cc/en/Guide/MacOSX for Mac OS X, and http://www.arduino.cc/playground/Learning/Linux for Linux. A troubleshooting guide can be found at http://arduino.cc/en/Guide/Troubleshooting. 1.2 Setting Up the Arduino Board | 7

1.3 Using the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) to Prepare an Arduino Sketch Problem You want to get a sketch and prepare it for uploading to the board.

Solution Use the Arduino IDE to create, open, and modify sketches that define what the board will do. You can use buttons along the top of the IDE to perform these actions (shown in Figure 1-5), or you can use the menus or keyboard shortcuts (shown in Figure 1-6). The Sketch Editor area is where you view and edit code for a sketch. It supports common text editing keys such as Ctrl-F (⌘+F on a Mac) for find, Ctrl-Z (⌘+Z on a Mac) for undo, Ctrl-C (⌘+C on a Mac) to copy highlighted text, and Ctrl-V (⌘+V on a Mac) to paste highlighted text. Figure 1-6 shows how to load the Blink sketch (the sketch that comes preloaded on a new Arduino board). After you’ve started the IDE, go to the File→Examples menu and select 1.Basics→Blink, as shown in Figure 1-6. The code for blinking the built-in LED will be displayed in the Sketch Editor window (refer to Figure 1-5). Before the code can be sent to the board, it needs to be converted into instructions that can be read and executed by the Arduino controller chip; this is called compiling. To do this, click the compile button (the top-left button with a triangle inside), or select Sketch→Verify/Compile. You should see a message that reads “Compiling...” in the message area below the text editing window. After a second or two, a message that reads “Done Compiling” will appear. The black console area will contain the following additional message: Binary sketch size: 1008 bytes (of a 32256 byte maximum)

The exact message may differ depending on the Arduino version; it is telling you the size of the sketch and the maximum size that your board can accept.


Figure 1-5. Arduino IDE

Discussion Source code for Arduino is called a sketch. The process that takes a sketch and converts it into a form that will work on the board is called compilation. The IDE uses a number of command-line tools behind the scenes to compile a sketch. For more information on this, see Recipe 17.1.

1.3 Using the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) to Prepare an Arduino Sketch | 9

Figure 1-6. IDE menu (selecting the Blink example sketch)

The final message telling you the size of the sketch indicates how much program space is needed to store the controller instructions on the board. If the size of the compiled sketch is greater than the available memory on the board, the following error message is displayed: Sketch too big; see http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/Troubleshooting#size for tips on reducing it.

If this happens, you need to make your sketch smaller to be able to put it on the board, or get a board with higher capacity.


If there are errors in the code, the compiler will print one or more error messages in the console window. These messages can help identify the error—see Appendix D on software errors for troubleshooting tips. To prevent accidental overwriting of the examples, the Arduino IDE does not allow you to save changes to the provided example sketches. You must rename them using the Save As menu option. You can save sketches you write yourself with the Save button (see Recipe 1.5).

As you develop and modify a sketch, you should also consider using the File→Save As menu option and using a different name or version number regularly so that as you implement each bit, you can go back to an older version if you need to. Code uploaded onto the board cannot be downloaded back onto your computer. Make sure you save your sketch code on your computer. You cannot save changes back to the example files; you need to use Save As and give the changed file another name.

See Also Recipe 1.5 shows an example sketch. Appendix D has tips on troubleshooting software problems.

1.4 Uploading and Running the Blink Sketch Problem You want to transfer your compiled sketch to the Arduino board and see it working.

Solution Connect your Arduino board to your computer using the USB cable. Load the Blink sketch into the IDE as described in Recipe 1.3. Next, select Tools→Board from the drop-down menu and select the name of the board you have connected (if it is the standard Uno board, it is probably the first entry in the board list). Now select Tools→Serial Port. You will get a drop-down list of available serial ports on your computer. Each machine will have a different combination of serial ports, depending on what other devices you have used with your computer. On Windows, they will be listed as numbered COM entries. If there is only one entry, select it. If there are multiple entries, your board will probably be the last entry.

1.4 Uploading and Running the Blink Sketch | 11

On the Mac, your board will be listed twice if it is an Uno board: /dev/tty.usbmodem-XXXXXXX /dev/cu.usbmodem-XXXXXXX

If you have an older board, it will be listed as follows: /dev/tty.usbserial-XXXXXXX /dev/cu.usbserial-XXXXXXX

Each board will have different values for XXXXXXX. Select either entry. Click on the upload button (in Figure 1-5, it’s the fifth button from the left), or choose File→Upload to I/O board. The software will compile the code, as in Recipe 1.3. After the software is compiled, it is uploaded to the board. If you look at your board, you will see the LED stop flashing, and two lights (labeled as Serial LEDs in Figure 1-4) just below the previously flashing LED should flicker for a couple of seconds as the code uploads. The original light should then start flashing again as the code runs.

Discussion For the IDE to send the compiled code to the board, the board needs to be plugged into the computer, and you need to tell the IDE which board and serial port you are using. When an upload starts, whatever sketch is running on the board is stopped (if you were running the Blink sketch, the LED will stop flashing). The new sketch is uploaded to the board, replacing the previous sketch. The new sketch will start running when the upload has successfully completed. Older Arduino boards and some compatibles do not automatically interrupt the running sketch to initiate upload. In this case, you need to press the Reset button on the board just after the software reports that it is done compiling (when you see the message about the size of the sketch). It may take a few attempts to get the timing right between the end of the compilation and pressing the Reset button.

The IDE will display an error message if the upload is not successful. Problems are usually due to the wrong board or serial port being selected or the board not being plugged in. If you have trouble identifying the correct port on Windows, try unplugging the board and then selecting Tools→Serial Port to see which COM port is no longer on the display list. Another approach is to select the ports, one by one, until you see the lights on the board flicker to indicate that the code is uploading.


See Also The Arduino troubleshooting page: http://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/Troubleshooting

1.5 Creating and Saving a Sketch Problem You want to create a sketch and save it to your computer.

Solution To open an editor window ready for a new sketch, launch the IDE (see Recipe 1.3), go to the File menu, and select New. Paste the following code into the Sketch Editor window (it’s similar to the Blink sketch, but the blinks last twice as long): const int ledPin =

13;

// LED connected to digital pin 13

void setup() { pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT); } void loop() { digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH); delay(2000); digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW); delay(2000); }

// // // //

set the LED on wait for two seconds set the LED off wait for two seconds

Compile the code by clicking the compile button (the top-left button with a triangle inside), or select Sketch→Verify/Compile (see Recipe 1.3). Upload the code by clicking on the upload button, or choose File→Upload to I/O board (see Recipe 1.4). After uploading, the LED should blink, with each flash lasting two seconds. You can save this sketch to your computer by clicking the Save button, or select File→Save. You can save the sketch using a new name by selecting the Save As menu option. A dialog box will open where you can enter the filename.

Discussion When you save a file in the IDE, a standard dialog box for the operating system will open. It suggests that you save the sketch to a folder called Arduino in your My Documents folder (or your Documents folder on a Mac). You can replace the default sketch

1.5 Creating and Saving a Sketch | 13

name with a meaningful name that reflects the purpose of your sketch. Click Save to save the file. The default name is the word sketch followed by the current date. Sequential letters starting from a are used to distinguish sketches created on the same day. Replacing the default name with something meaningful helps you to identify the purpose of a sketch when you come back to it later.

If you use characters that the IDE does not allow (e.g., the space character), the IDE will automatically replace these with valid characters. Arduino sketches are saved as plain text files with the extension .pde. They are automatically saved in a folder with the same name as the sketch. You can save your sketches to any folder on your computer, but if you use the default folder (the Arduino folder in your Documents folder) your sketches will automatically appear in the Sketchbook menu of the Arduino software and be easier to locate. If you have edited one of the examples from the Arduino download, you will not be able to save the changed file using the same filename. This preserves the standard examples intact. If you want to save a modified example, you will need to select another location for the sketch.

After you have made changes, you will see a dialog box asking if you want to save the sketch when a sketch is closed. The § symbol following the name of the sketch in the top bar of the IDE window indicates that the sketch code has changes that have not yet been saved on the computer. This symbol is removed when you save the sketch.

The Arduino software does not provide any kind of version control, so if you want to be able to revert to older versions of a sketch, you can use Save As regularly and give each revision of the sketch a slightly different name. Frequent compiling as you modify or add code is a good way to check for errors as you write your code. It will be easier to find and fix any errors because they will usually be associated with what you have just written. Once a sketch has been uploaded onto the board there is no way to download it back to your computer. Make sure you save any changes to your sketches that you want to keep.


If you open sketches you get from other people that are not in a folder with the same name as the sketch, the IDE will tell you and you can click OK to put them in a folder with the same name. Sketches must be located in a folder with the same name as the sketch. The IDE will create the folder automatically when you save a new sketch.

1.6 Using Arduino Problem You want to get started with a project that is easy to build and fun to use.

Solution This recipe provides a taste of some of the techniques that are covered in detail in later chapters. The sketch is based on the LED blinking code from the previous recipe, but instead of using a fixed delay, the rate is determined by a light-sensitive sensor called a light dependent resistor or LDR (see Recipe 6.2). Wire the LDR as shown in Figure 1-7.

Figure 1-7. Arduino with light dependent resistor

The following sketch reads the light level of an LDR connected to analog pin 0. The light level striking the LDR will change the blink rate of the internal LED connected to pin 13: 1.6 Using Arduino | 15

const int ledPin = 13; const int sensorPin = 0;

// LED connected to digital pin 13 // connect sensor to analog input 0

void setup() { pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT); // enable output on the led pin } void loop() { int rate = analogRead(sensorPin); // read the analog input Serial.println(rate); rate = map(rate, 200,800,minDuration, maxDuration); // convert to blink rate digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH); // set the LED on delay(rate); // wait duration dependent on light level digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW); // set the LED off delay(rate); }

Discussion The value of the 4.7K resistor is not critical. Anything from 1K to 10K can be used. The light level on the LDR will change the voltage level on analog pin 0. The analogRead command (see Chapter 6) provides a value that ranges from around 200 when the LDR is dark to 800 or so when it is very bright. This value determines the duration of the LED on and off times, so the blink rate increases with light intensity. You can scale the blink rate by using the Arduino map function as follows: const int ledPin = 13; const int sensorPin = 0;


// the next two lines set the min and max delay between blinks const int minDuration = 100; // minimum wait between blinks const int maxDuration = 1000; // maximum wait between blinks void setup() { pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT); // enable output on the led pin } void loop() { int rate = analogRead(sensorPin); // read the analog input // the next line scales the blink rate between the min and max values rate = map(rate, 200,800,minDuration, maxDuration); // convert to blink rate digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH); // set the LED on delay(rate); // wait duration dependent on light level digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW); // set the LED off delay(rate); }

Recipe 5.7 provides more details on using the map function to scale values.


If you want to view the value of the rate variable on your computer, you can print this to the Arduino Serial Monitor as shown in the revised loop code that follows. The sketch will display the blink rate in the Serial Monitor. You open the Serial Monitor window in the Arduino IDE (see Chapter 4 for more on using the Serial Monitor): const int ledPin = 13; const int sensorPin = 0;


// the next two lines set the min and max delay between blinks const int minDuration = 100; // minimum wait between blinks const int maxDuration = 1000; // maximum wait between blinks void setup() { pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT); // enable output on the led pin Serial.begin(9600); // initialize Serial } void loop() { int rate = analogRead(sensorPin); // read the analog input // the next line scales the blink rate between the min and max values rate = map(rate, 200,800,minDuration, maxDuration); // convert to blink rate Serial.println(rate); // print rate to serial monitor digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH); // set the LED on delay(rate); // wait duration dependent on light level digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW); // set the LED off delay(rate); }

You can use the LDR to control the pitch of a sound by connecting a small speaker to the pin, as shown in Figure 1-8.

Figure 1-8. Connections for a speaker with the LDR circuit

1.6 Using Arduino | 17

You will need to increase the on/off rate on the pin to a frequency in the audio spectrum. This is achieved, as shown in the following code, by dividing the rate by 100 in the line after the map function: const int ledPin = 13; const int sensorPin = 0;


const int minDuration = 100; // minimum wait between blinks const int maxDuration = 1000; // maximum wait between blinks void setup() { pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT); // enable output on the led pin } void loop() { int sensorReading = analogRead(sensorPin); // read the analog input int rate = map(sensorReading, 200,800,minDuration, maxDuration); rate = rate / 100; // add this line for audio frequency digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH); // set the LED on delay(rate); // wait duration dependent on light level digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW); // set the LED off delay(rate); }

See Also See Chapter 9 for more on creating sound with Arduino.


Open%source%hardware,%what%is%it?%Here's% a%start… Open%source%hardware%is%a%term%we’ve%used%here%on%MAKE%&%CRAFT%for%describing%some%of% the%projects%featured%as%well%as%some%of%our%electronics%kits.%It%was%also%the%subject%of%a%talk% we%participated%in%at%the%SXSW%conference,%but%what%is%it?% % There%are%a%few%definitions,%some%of%which%come%from%“open%source%software,”%which% is%usually%considered%software’s%“source%code%under%a%license%(or%arrangement%such%as%the% public%domain)%that%permits%users%to%study,%change,%and%improve%the%software,%and%to% redistribute%it%in%modified%or%unmodified%form.”% % So%how%does%this%translate%to%hardware?% % Electronic%hardware%can%be%divided%up%into%layers,%each%of%which%has%different%document% types%and%licensing%concerns.% % Hardware%(Mechanical)%Diagrams% Dimensions%for%enclosures,%mechanical%subsystems,%etc.%For%2D%models,%preferred%document% type%is%vector%graphics%file,%with%dimension%prints,%DXF,%or%AI,%etc.% % Example:%MotorQdriven%screw%block%from%the%RepRap%‘s%thermoplast%extruder%head,%an% open%source%3D%printer.%

%

% % Schematics%&%Circuit%Diagrams% Symbolic%diagrams%of%electronic%circuitry,%includes%parts%list%(sometimes%inclusively).%Often% paired%with%matching%layout%diagram.%Preferred%document%type%is%any%sort%of%image%(PDF,% BMP,%GIF,%PNG,%etc).%

Example:%3.3V%and%5V%regulator%schematic%from%Chumby,%the%open%source%information% device.%

% Parts%List% What%parts%are%used,%where%to%get%them,%part%numbers,%etc.%

%

Example:%Parts%List%from%the%open%source%Roland%303%MIDI%synth%clone,%the%x0xb0x.%

% % % Layout%Diagrams% Diagrams%of%the%physical%layout%of%electronic%circuitry,%including%the%placement%of%parts,%the% PCB%copper%prints,%and%a%drill%file.%This%is%often%paired%with%a%schematic.%Preferred% distribution%is%GerberRS274x%and%Excellon%(for%drills).% % These%are%like%PostScript%for%printers%but%the%primitives%aren’t%text%and%arcs,%they’re%lines%of% solder%and%components.%

Example:%Board%(.brd)%files%for%the%MAKE:%Daisy%Open%Source%MP3%Player.%

%

% %

%

Core/Firmware% The%source%code%runs%on%a%microcontroller/microprocessor%chip.%In%some%cases,%the%code% may%be%the%design%of%the%chip%hardware%itself%(in%VHDL).%Preferred%distribution:%text%file% with%source%code%in%it,%as%well%as%compiled%‘binary’%for%the%chip.% % Example:%Open%core%8080%compatible%CPU%code%snippet%from%executing%the%8080% instruction%set.%

% Software/API% The%source%code%that%communicates%or%is%used%with%the%electronics%from%a%computer.%

%

Example:%A%screenshot%of%the%Arduino%IDE%showing%a%simple%example%program.%

% % Each%level%can%be%open%sourced,%but%the%exact%nature%of%what%it%means%to%open%it%varies.%In% practice,%not%every%layer%is%fully%open.%Often%only%a%subset%of%the%layers%are%released,% documented,%or%open%source.%

% % For%example,%the%WRT54GL%wireless%router%only%has%the%firmware%open%sourced%(GPL).% %

% % The%Roomba%robot%vacuum%has%an%“open”%API%(interface).%

% % The%Ambient%Orb%(information%device)%is%not%open%source,%but%the%schematics%and%parts% list%are%documented%and%available%for%people%to%tinker%with%and%possibly%build%their%own.% There%are%ongoing%efforts%from%a%variety%of%groups%and%people%who%are%trying%to%figure%out% how%an%open%licensing%of%hardware%might%work%too:% % • OpenQsource%Hardware%License%–%Creative%CommonsQlike%license%–%Link.% • Open%hardware%licenses%–%Link.% % Projects% Projects%are%the%the%fun%part:%what%are%people%actually%doing?%Here%are%a%few%examples% (some%previously%noted)%of%projects%that%are%close%to%“pure”%open%source%hardware%projects:% %

% % Arduino%physical%computing%platform%(just%shipped%10,000!)%–%Link.%

% Chumby%‘glancable’%information%device%–%Link.%

%

% % MAKE:%Daisy%MP3%Player%–%An%open%source%MP3%player%–%Link.%

% % RepRap%/%Fab@Home%–%Open%source%3D%printer%–%Link.%

% % Open%Cores%–%A%collection%of%VHDL%cores%for%FPGA%chips%(“often%cited%as%the%first%example%of% true%OS%hardware”)%–%Link.%

% % OpenEEG%–%An%EEG%design%that%is%OS%&%available%as%a%kit%–%Link.%

% % x0xb0x%Q%Roland%303%clone%MIDI%synth%–%Link.% % Some%of%these%projects%don’t%provide%everything%in%the%most%ideal%way,%or%might%use%a%nonQ openQsource%tool%to%modify,%but%it’s%a%start%—%this%is%all%pretty%new.% % At%MAKE%&%CRAFT,%we’re%trying%to%foster%this%nascent%hardware%movement%by%encouraging% our%kit%makers%to%consider%open%source%hardware%and%a%license%that%makes%sense%when% developing%kits%with%us.%So%far%it’s%worked%out,%and%we’re%looking%forward%to%providing%not% only%more%open%source%hardware%kits,%but%electronics%that%are%more%“open”%than%what’s%out% there%now.% % Why%is%this%a%good%thing?%The%most%obvious%one%for%MAKE%&%CRAFT%is%the%educational% benefits:%an%open%source%hardware%project%or%kit%allows%makers%to%build%something% completely%from%scratch%(etching%boards,%etc)%or%assembling%a%kit%almost%IKEAQstyle,%but% unlike%assembling%furniture,%new%skills%and%understanding%of%how%things%actually%work%can% be%learned.%One%could%say%the%building%of%the%electronics%is%the%“compiling”%portion%of%the% project,%similar%to%software.%Events%like%dorkbot%and%our%Maker%Faire%are%places%for% participation,%and%online,%Instructables.com%is%a%great%place%to%look.% What%else?%Fixes%—%new%features%and%the%“peer%production”%of%the%electronics%projects/kits% usually%lend%themselves%to%better%kits,%communities,%and%for%some%makers%making%real% businesses%selling%kits%–%Link.% % All%this%being%said,%the%pace%is%slow%and%steady;%hardware%moves%slower%than%software%now:% fabbing,%which%may%decrease%but%is%unlikely%to%fully%go%away.%And%hardware%seems%to%be%in% the%same%state%software%was%in%the%1980s;%lots%of%commercial%developers,%very%few%open% source%developers%(or%like%1970s%when%only%a%few%had%computers%at%all).%We’d%like%to%see%the% world%of%hardware%when%there%are%millions%of%developers.% % This%is%a%start.%We’re%interested%in%your%feedback%and%thoughts,%so%post%up%in%the%comments!%

% Special%thanks%to%Limor%Fried,%Nathan%Torkington%&%Eric%Wilhelm%for%their%help%on%this%Be the first to like this post.

Posted%by%Phillip%Torrone%|%Monday%April%23rd,%2007%7:00%AM% Categories:%DIY%Projects,%Electronics,%Gadgets,%Open%source%hardware%|%15%Comments%

%

William J Turkel !

Designing Interactive Exhibits 2011/12/17 // !

For a number of years I’ve taught a studio course in our public history graduate program on designing interactive exhibits. Most academic historians present their work in monographs and journal articles unless they are way out there on the fringe, in which case they may be experimenting with trade publications, documentary film, graphic novels, photography, websites, blogs, games or even more outré genres. Typically the emphasis remains on creating representations that are intended to be read in some sense, ideally very carefully. Public historians, however, need to be able to communicate to larger and more disparate audiences, in a wider variety of venues, and in settings where they may not have all, or even much, of the attention of their publics. Exhibits that are designed merely to be read closely are liable to be mostly ignored. When that happens, of course, it doesn’t matter how interesting your interpretation is.

Students in the course learn how to embed their interpretations in interactive, ambient and tangible forms that can be recreated in many different settings. To give some idea of the potential, consider the difference between writing with a word processor and stepping on the brake of a moving car. While using a word processor you are focused on the task and aware that you are interacting with a computer. The interface is intricate, sensorimotor involvement is mostly limited to looking and typing, and your surrounding environment recedes into the background of awareness. On the other hand, when braking you are focused on your involvement with the environment. Sensorimotor experiences are immersive, the interface to the car is as simple as possible, and you are not aware that you are interacting with computers (although recent-model cars in fact have dozens of continuously operating and networked microcontrollers). Academic historians have tended to emphasize opportunities for knowledge dissemination that require our audience to be passive, focused and isolated from one another and from their surroundings. When we engage with a broader public, we need to supplement that model by building some of our research findings into communicative devices that are transparently easy to use, provide ambient feedback, and are closely coupled with the surrounding environment. The skills required to do this come from a number of research fields that ultimately depend on electronics and computers. Thanks to the efforts of community-minded makers, hackers, and researchers, these techniques are relatively easy to learn and apply. Physical computing. In order to make objects or environments aware of people, to make them responsive and interactive, we need to give them a better sense of what human beings are like and what they’re capable of (Igoe & O’Sullivan 2004; Igoe 2011). Suppose your desktop computer had to guess what you look like based on your use of a word processer. It could assume that you have an eye and an ear– because you respond to things presented on the screen and to beeps–and it could assume you have a finger–because you push keys on the keyboard. To dramatize this, I usually use the image above, which is based on a drawing in Igoe and O’Sullivan (2004). It looks horrible: people are nothing like that. By giving our devices a better sense of what we’re actually like, we make it possible for them to better fit into our ongoing lifeworlds. Pervasive computing. We are at the point where computational devices are becoming ubiquitous, invisible, part of the surroundings (McCullough 2004). The design theorist Adam Greenfield refers to this condition as “everyware” (2006). A

number of technologies work together to make this possible. Embedded microprocessors put the power of full computers into tiny packages. Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) include sensors and actuators to sense and control the environment. Radio transceivers allow these miniature devices to communicate with one another and get online. Passive radio frequency ID circuits (RFIDs) are powered by radio waves to transmit identifying information. All of these systems are mass-produced so that unit costs are very low, and it becomes possible to imagine practically everything being manufactured with its own unique identifier and web address. This scenario is sometimes called the “internet of things.” Someday instead of searching for your keys you may be able to Google for them instead. As Bruce Sterling notes, practically everything in the world could become the “protagonist of a documented process” (2005). Provenance has typically had to be reconstructed painstakingly for a tiny handful of objects. Most historians are not ready to conduct research in a world where every object can tell us about its own history of manufacture, ownership, use, repair, and so on. Dealing with pervasive computation will require the ability to quickly focus on essential information, to relegate non-essential information to peripheral awareness, and to access information in the places and settings where it can make a difference. Interaction Design. The insinuation of computation and interactivity into every conceivable setting has forced designers to abandon the traditional idea of “humancomputer interaction,” and to take a much more expansive perspective instead (Moggridge 2006; Saffer 2006). Not only is everything becoming a potential interface, but many smart devices are better conceptualized as mediating between people, rather than between person and machine. Services like ordering a cup of coffee at Starbucks are now designed using the same techniques as those used to create interactive software (e.g., Google calendar) and hardware (e.g., the iPod). In order to benefit from the lessons of interaction design, historians will have to take into account the wide range of new settings where we can design experiences and shape historical consciousness. The technology of tangible computing provides a link between pervasive devices, social interaction, and the material environment (Dourish 2004). Desktop Fabrication. Most radical of all, everything that is in digital form can be materialized, via machines that add or subtract matter. The former include a range of 3D printing technologies that deposit tiny amounts of glue, plastic or other materials, or that use lasers to selectively fuse small particles of metal, ceramic or

plastic. The latter include computer-controlled milling machines, lathes, drills, grinders, laser cutters and other tools. The cost of these devices has been dropping rapidly, while their ease-of-use increases. The physicist Neil Gershenfeld has assembled a number of “fab labs”—universal fabrication laboratories—from collections of these devices. At present, a complete fab lab costs around $30$40,000 and a few key machines are considerably cheaper (Gershenfeld 2000, 2007). Enthusiasts talk about the possibility of downloading open source plans and “printing out” a bicycle, an electric guitar, anything really. An open source hardware community is blossoming, aided in part by O’Reilly Media’s popular MAKE magazine and by websites like Instructables and Thingiverse. Desktop fabrication makes it possible to build and share custom interactive devices that communicate our knowledge in novel, material forms. References •

Dourish, Paul. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2004.

•

Gershenfeld, Neil. When Things Start to Think. New York: Holt, 2000.

•

Gershenfeld, Neil. Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop—From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication. New York: Basic, 2007.

•

Greenfield, Adam. Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Berkeley, CA: New Riders, 2006.

•

Igoe, Tom. Making Things Talk, 2nd ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2011.

•

Igoe, Tom and Dan O’Sullivan. Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. Thomson Course Technology, 2004.

•

McCullough, Malcolm. Digital Ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing and Environmental Knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2004.

•

Moggridge, Bill. Designing Interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2006.

•

Norretranders, Tor. The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. New York: Penguin, 1999.

•

Saffer, Dan. Designing for Interaction: Creating Smart Applications and Clever Devices. Berkeley, CA: New Riders, 2006.

•

Sterling, Bruce. Shaping Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2005.

•

Torrone, Phillip. “Open Source Hardware, What Is It? Here’s a Start…” MAKE: Blog (23 Apr 2007).

!

T H E C O M I N G AG E O F CALM TECHNOLOGY1 Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown Xerox PARC October 5, 1996

I N T RO D U C T I O N

The important waves of technological change are those that fundamentally alter the place of technology in our lives. What matters is not technology itself, but its relationship to us.

In the past fifty years of computation there have been two great trends in this relationship: the mainframe relationship, and the PC relationship. Today the Internet is carrying us through an era of widespread distributed computing towards the relationship of ubiquitous computing, characterized by deeply imbedding computation in the world. Ubiquitous computing will require a new approach to fitting technology to our lives, an approach we call “calm technology”.

This article briefly describes the relationship trends, and then expands on the challenges of designing for calm using both the center and the periphery of our perception and the world.

This paper is a revised version of: Weiser & Brown. “Designing Calm Technology”, PowerGrid Journal, v 1.01, http://powergrid.electriciti.com/1.01 (July 1996). 1

1

The Major Trends in Computing Mainframe

many people share a computer

Personal Computer

one computer, one person

Internet - Widespread Distributed Computing Ubiquitous Computing

. . . transition to . . . many computers share each of us

PHASE I - THE MAINFRAME ERA

The first era we call “mainframe”, to recall the relationship people had with computers that were mostly run by experts behind closed doors. Anytime a computer is a scarce resource, and must be negotiated and shared with others, our relationship is that of the mainframe era. There is mainframe computing today: a shared office PC, and the great physical simulations of everything from weather to virtual reality, have in common sharing a scarce resource. If lots of people share a computer, it is mainframe computing.

PHASE II - THE PC ERA

The second great trend is that of the personal computer. In 1984 the number of people using personal computers surpassed the number of people using shared computers.2 The

2

IDC. “Transition to the Information Highway Era” in 1995-96 Information Industry and Technology Update.p. 2.

2

personal computing relationship is personal, even intimate. You have your computer, it contains your stuff, and you interact directly and deeply with it. When doing personal computing you are occupied, you are not doing something else. Some people name their PC – many people curse or complain to their PC.

The personal computer is most analogous to the automobile – a special, relatively expensive item, that while it may “take you where you want to go”, requires considerable attention to operate. And just as one can own several cars, one can own several personal computers: for home, for work, and for the road. Any computer with which you have a special relationship, or that fully engages or occupies you when you use it, is a personal computer. Most handheld computers, such as the Zaurus, the Newton, or the Pilot, are today still used as personal computers. A $500 network computer is still a personal computer.

TRANSITION - THE INTERNET AND DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING

A lot has been written about the Internet and where it is leading. We will say only a little. The Internet is deeply influencing the business and practice of technology. Millions of new people and their information have become interconnected. Late at night, around 6am while falling asleep after twenty hours at the keyboard, the sensitive technologist can sometimes hear those 35 million web pages, 300 thousand hosts, and 90 million users shouting “pay attention to me!”

Interestingly, the Internet brings together elements of the mainframe era and the PC era. It is client-server computing on a massive scale, with web clients the PCs and web servers the

3

mainframes (without the MIS department in charge). Although transitional, the Internet is a massive phenomena that calls to our best inventors, our most innovative financiers, and our largest multinational corporations. Over the next decade the results of the massive interconnection of personal, business, and government information will create a new field, a new medium, against which the next great relationship will emerge.

PHASE III - THE UC ERA

The third wave of computing is that of ubiquitous computing, whose cross-over point with personal computing will be around 2005-20203. The “UC” era will have lots of computers sharing each of us. Some of these computers will be the hundreds we may access in the course of a few minutes of Internet browsing. Others will be imbedded in walls, chairs, clothing, light switches, cars – in everything. UC is fundamentally characterized by the connection of things in the world with computation. This will take place at a many scales, including the microscopic4.

There is much talk today about “thin clients,” meaning lightweight Internet access devices costing only a few hundred dollars. But UC will see the creation of thin servers, costing only tens of dollars or less, that put a full Internet server into every household appliance and

3 4

IDC. Ibid. Gabriel, K. “Engineering Microscopic Machines.” Scientific American, Sept. 1995, Vol. 273, No. 3, pp. 118-121.

4

piece of office equipment. The next generation Internet protocol, IPv65, can address more than a thousand devices for every atom on the earth’s surface6. We will need them all.

The social impact of imbedded computers may be analogous to two other technologies that have become ubiquitous. The first is writing, which is found everywhere from clothes labels to billboards. The second is electricity, which surges invisibly through the walls of every home, office, and car. Writing and electricity become so commonplace, so unremarkable, that we forget their huge impact on everyday life. So it will be with UC.

Two harbingers of the coming UC era are found in the imbedded microprocessor, and the Internet. It is easy to find 40 microprocessors in a middle class home in the U.S.A. today. They will be found in the alarm clocks, the microwave oven, the TV remote controls, the stereo and TV system, the kid’s toys, etc. These do not yet qualify as UC for two reasons: they are mostly used one at a time, and they are still masquerading as old-style devices like toasters and clocks. But network them together and they are an enabling technology for UC. Tie them to the Internet, and now you have connected together millions of information sources with hundreds of information delivery systems in your house. Clocks that find out the correct time after a power failure, microwave ovens that download new recipes, kids toys that are ever refreshed with new software and vocabularies, paint that cleans off dust and notifies you of intruders, walls that selectively dampen sounds, are just a few possibilities.

5 6

Deering, S. Hinden, R. “IPv6 Specification” http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1883.txt, December 1995 Bolt, S. http://www2.wvitcoe.wvnet.edu/~sbolt/ip-density.html

5

The UC will bring information technology beyond the big problems like corporate finance and school homework, to the little annoyances like Where are the car-keys, Can I get a parking place, and Is that shirt I saw last week at Macy’s still on the rack? Many researchers are working towards this new era – among them our work at Xerox PARC, MIT’s AIoriented “Things That Think” program7, the many mobile and wearable computing programs8 (many funded by ARPA), and the many companies integrating computation into everyday objects, including Mattel and Disney.

What qualifies these as fundamental trends? First, they are about basic human relationships, and so are trends about what matters to us, what we cannot avoid. Second, they have the property of building upon one another. It is apparent that the mainframe relationship will never die completely away, nor the personal computing relationship. Each is used as a ground for the next trend, confirming its importance in its own mode of decline. Third, they are each bountiful sources of innovation, and have required reopening old assumptions, and re-appropriating old technology into new contexts.

It has been said many times that PC operating systems are about twenty years behind mainframe operating systems – but this statement misunderstands what happens in technological revolutions. The radically new context of the PC – uncontrolled room, uncontrolled third party software, uncontrolled power, third party hardware components, retail sales, low-cost requirements, frequent upgrades – meant that mainframe technologies

7

MIT Media Lab. “Things That Think.” http://ttt.www.media.mit.edu/

6

required considerable adaptation. The era of ubiquitous computing is already starting to see old assumptions questioned top to bottom in computer systems design. For instance, our work on ubiquitous computers required us to introduce new progress metrics such as MIPS/Watt and Bits/Sec/M3. (After over a decade of stagnation, MIPS/Watt has improved over a hundred-fold in the past three years.) Research from radios to user interface, from hardware to theory, are impacted by the changed context of ubiquity.9

The most potentially interesting, challenging, and profound change implied by the ubiquitous computing era is a focus on calm. If computers are everywhere they better stay out of the way, and that means designing them so that the people being shared by the computers remain serene and in control. Calmness is a new challenge that UC brings to computing. When computers are used behind closed doors by experts, calmness is relevant to only a few. Computers for personal use have focused on the excitement of interaction. But when computers are all around, so that we want to compute while doing something else and have more time to be more fully human, we must radically rethink the goals, context and technology of the computer and all the other technology crowding into our lives. Calmness is a fundamental challenge for all technological design of the next fifty years. The rest of this paper opens a dialogue about the design of calm technology.

8 9

Watson, Terri. “Mobile and Wireless Computing.” http://snapple.cs.washington.edu:600/mobile/mobile_www.html Weiser, M. "Some Computer Science Problems in Ubiquitous Computing," Communications of the ACM, July 1993.

7

CALM TECHNOLOGY

Designs that encalm and inform meet two human needs not usually met together. Information technology is more often the enemy of calm. Pagers, cellphones, news-services, the World-Wide-Web, email, TV, and radio bombard us frenetically. Can we really look to technology itself for a solution?

But some technology does lead to true calm and comfort. There is no less technology involved in a comfortable pair of shoes, in a fine writing pen, or in delivering the New York Times on a Sunday morning, than in a home PC. Why is one often enraging, the others frequently encalming? We believe the difference is in how they engage our attention. Calm technology engages both the center and the periphery of our attention, and in fact moves back and forth between the two.

THE PERIPHERY

We use “periphery” to name what we are attuned to without attending to explicitly.10 Ordinarily when driving our attention is centered on the road, the radio, our passenger, but not the noise of the engine. But an unusual noise is noticed immediately, showing that we were attuned to the noise in the periphery, and could come quickly to attend to it.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. Keeping It Simple: Investigating Resources in the Periphery Solving the Software Puzzle. Ed. T. Winograd, Stanford University. 10

8

It should be clear that what we mean by the periphery is anything but on the fringe or unimportant. What is in the periphery at one moment may in the next moment come to be at the center of our attention and so be crucial. The same physical form may even have elements in both the center and periphery. The ink that communicates the central words of a text also peripherally clues us into the genre of the text though choice of font and layout.

A calm technology will move easily from the periphery of our attention, to the center, and back. This is fundamentally encalming, for two reasons.

First, by placing things in the periphery we are able to attune to many more things than we could if everything had to be at the center. Things in the periphery are attuned to by the large portion of our brains devoted to peripheral (sensory) processing. Thus the periphery is informing without overburdening.

Second, by recentering something formerly in the periphery we take control of it. Peripherally we may become aware that something is not quite right, as when awkward sentences leave a reader tired and discomforted without knowing why. By moving sentence construction from periphery to center we are empowered to act, either by finding better literature or accepting the source of the unease and continuing. Without centering the periphery might be a source of frantic following of fashion; with centering the periphery is a fundamental enabler of calm through increased awareness and power.

Not all technology need be calm. A calm videogame would get little use; the point is to be excited. But too much design focuses on the object itself and its surface features without

9

regard for context. We must learn to design for the periphery so that we can most fully command technology without being dominated by it.

Our notion of technology in the periphery is related to the notion of affordances, due to Gibson11 and applied to technology by Gaver12 and Norman13. An affordance is a relationship between an object in the world and the intentions, perceptions, and capabilities of a person. The side of a door that only pushes out affords this action by offering a flat pushplate. The idea of affordance, powerful as it is, tends to describe the surface of a design. For us the term “affordance” does not reach far enough into the periphery where a design must be attuned to but not attended to.

THREE SIGNS OF CALM TECHNOLOGY

Technologies encalm as they empower our periphery. This happens in two ways. First, as already mentioned, a calming technology may be one that easily moves from center to periphery and back. Second, a technology may enhance our peripheral reach by bringing more details into the periphery. An example is a video conference that, by comparison to a telephone conference, enables us to attune to nuances of body posture and facial expression that would otherwise be inaccessible. This is encalming when the enhanced

Gibson, J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. Gaver, W.W. “Auditory Icons: Using Sound in Computer Interfaces” J. Human-Computer Interaction. v2n2. 1986. pp. 167-177 13 Norman, D.A.. The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books, 1988. 11 12

10

peripheral reach increases our knowledge and so our ability to act without increasing information overload.

The result of calm technology is to put us at home, in a familiar place. When our periphery is functioning well we are tuned into what is happening around us, and so also to what is going to happen, and what has just happened. This is a key property of information visualization techniques like the cone tree,14 that are filled with detail yet engage our preattentive periphery so we are never surprised. The periphery connects us effortlessly to a myriad of familiar details. This connection to the world we called “locatedness”, and it is the fundamental gift that the periphery gives us.

EXAMPLES OF CALM TECHNOLOGY

We now consider a few designs in terms of their motion between center and periphery, peripheral reach, and locatedness. Below we consider inner office windows, Internet Multicast, and the Dangling String.

14

Robertson, G.G. MacKinlay, J.D. and Card, S.K. “Cone trees: Animated 3D visualizations of hierarchical information.” In HCI 91, pages 189-194, 1991.

11

INNER OFFICE WINDOWS

We do not know who invented the concept of glass windows from offices out to hallways. But these inner windows are a beautifully simple design that enhances peripheral reach and locatedness.

The hallway window extends our periphery by creating a two-way channel for clues about the environment. Whether it is motion of other people down the hall (its time for a lunch; the big meeting is starting), or noticing the same person peeking in for the third time while you are on the phone (they really want to see me; I forgot an appointment), the window connects the person inside to the nearby world.

Inner windows also connect with those who are outside the office. A light shining out into the hall means someone is working late; someone picking up their office means this might be a good time for a casual chat. These small clues become part of the periphery of a calm and comfortable workplace.

Office windows illustrate a fundamental property of motion between center and periphery. Contrast them with an open office plan in which desks are separated only by low or no partitions. Open offices force too much to the center. For example, a person hanging out near an open cubicle demands attention by social conventions of privacy and politeness.

12

There is less opportunity for the subtle clue of peeking through a window without eavesdropping on a conversation. The individual, not the environment, must be in charge of moving things from center to periphery and back.

The inner office window is a metaphor for what is most exciting about the Internet, namely the ability to locate and be located by people passing by on the information highway, while retaining partial control of the context, timing, and use of the information thereby obtained. INTERNET MULTICAST

A technology called Internet Multicast15 may become the next World Wide Web (WWW) phenomenon. Sometimes called the MBone (for Multicast backBONE), multicasting was invented by a then graduate student at Stanford University, Steve Deering.

Whereas the World Wide Web (WWW) connects only two computers at a time, and then only for the few moments that information is being downloaded, the MBone continuously connects many computers at the same time. To use the familiar highway metaphor, for any one person the WWW only lets one car on the road at a time, and it must travel straight to its destination with no stops or side trips. By contrast, the MBone opens up streams of traffic between multiple people and so enables the flow of activities that constitute a neighborhood. Where a WWW browser ventures timidly to one location at a time before

15

Kumar, Vinay, "MBone: Interactive Multimedia On The Internet", Macmillan Publishing, November 1995

13

scurrying back home again a few milliseconds later, the MBone sustains ongoing relationships between machines, places, and people.

Multicast is fundamentally about increasing peripheral reach, derived from its ability to cheaply support multiple multimedia (video, audio, etc.) connections all day long. Continuous video from another place is no longer television, and no longer videoconferencing, but more like a window of awareness. A continuous video stream brings new details into the periphery: the room is cleaned up, something important may be about to happen; everyone got in late today on the east coast, must be a big snowstorm or traffic tieup.

Multicast shares with videoconferencing and television an increased opportunity to attune to additional details. Compared to a telephone or fax, the broader channel of full multimedia better projects the person through the wire. The presence is enhanced by the responsiveness that full two-way (or multiway) interaction brings.

Like the inner windows, Multicast enables control of the periphery to remain with the individual, not the environment. A properly designed real-time Multicast tool will offer, but not demand. The MBone provides the necessary partial separation for moving between center and periphery that a high bandwidth world alone does not. Less is more, when less bandwidth provides more calmness.

Multicast at the moment is not an easy technology to use, and only a few applications have been developed by some very smart people. This could also be said of the digital computer

14

in 1945, and of the Internet in 1975. Multicast in our periphery will utterly change our world over the next fifty years. DANGLING STRING

Bits flowing through the wires of a computer network are ordinarily invisible. But a radically new tool shows those bits through motion, sound, and even touch. It communicates both light and heavy network traffic. Its output is so beautifully integrated with human information processing that one does not even need to be looking at it or be very near to it to take advantage of its peripheral clues. It takes no space on your existing computer screen, and in fact does not use or contain a computer at all. It uses no software, only a few dollars in hardware, and can be shared by many people at the same time. It is called the “Dangling String”.

Created by artist Natalie Jeremijenko, the “Dangling String” is an 8 foot piece of plastic spaghetti that hangs from a small electric motor mounted in the ceiling. The motor is electrically connected to a nearby Ethernet cable, so that each bit of information that goes past causes a tiny twitch of the motor. A very busy network causes a madly whirling string with a characteristic noise; a quiet network causes only a small twitch every few seconds.

15

Much computer use is dependent on computer networks, but while we can hear the disk whir and the screen flash, we cannot see or hear the bits on the network. Like a workers in windowless offices who wonder why the lights go out because they could not hear the thunderstorm, it is difficult for us to tune into network troubles. The dangling string is a window onto the network. It creates a context for those odd pauses, the slow internet browser, or the size of a network file transfer. The purpose of the string is not to provide any particular information, but to provide a background of data weather within which our computer use is better informed and less surprising.

Placed in an unused corner of a hallway, the long string is visible and audible from many offices without being obtrusive. It is fun and useful. At first it creates a new center of attention just by being unique. But this center soon becomes peripheral as the gentle waving of the string moves easily to the background. That the string can be both seen and heard helps by increasing the clues for peripheral attunement.

The dangling string increases our peripheral reach to the formerly inaccessible network traffic. While screen displays of traffic are common, their symbols require interpretation and attention, and do not peripheralize well. The string, in part because it is actually in the physical world, has a better impedance match with our brain’s peripheral nerve centers.

16

IN CONCLUSION

It seems contradictory to say, in the face of frequent complaints about information overload, that more information could be encalming. It seems almost nonsensical to say that the way to become attuned to more information is to attend to it less. It is these apparently bizarre features that may account for why so few designs properly take into account center and periphery to achieve an increased sense of locatedness. But such designs are crucial as we move into the era of ubiquitous computing. As we learn to design calm technology, we will enrich not only our space of artifacts, but also our opportunities for being with other people. When our world is filled with interconnected, imbedded computers, calm technology will play a central role in a more humanly empowered twenty-first century.

17

Bringing&Trouvé&to&Light:&Speculative&Computer&Vision&and&Victorian&Media&History& Jentery'Sayers,'Assistant'Professor,'English,'University'of'Victoria' For'Seeing&the&Past,'edited'by'Kevin'Kee&& Version'2'(REVISED'DRAFT;'not'for'circulation)'' Across&private&and&public§ors,&computer&vision&is&generally&associated&with&recognizing& visual&patterns&in&data,&such&as&patterns&in&image,&video,&and&text&repositories.&These& patterns&are&difficult&for&human&eyes&to&systematically&identify,&let&alone&isolate&and& examine&at&scale.&However,&they&are&quite&common:&the&recurrence&of&a&face&over&time,&the& repetition&of&an&object&in&an&archive,&the&persistence&of&a&style&across&a&corpus.&By&affording& practitioners&the&programmatic&description&and&reconstruction&of&the&physical&world&in& digital&form&(Szeliski&2010),&computer&vision&thus¬&only&automates&tedious&tasks&but&also& expands&the&role&of&algorithms&in&everyday&life.&Approaching&computing&through&economic& sociology,&A.&Aneesh&(2006)&links&this&popular&expansion&to&“a&new&kind&of&power”&and& governance,&which&he&refers&to&as&“algocracy—rule&of&the&algorithm,&or&rule&of&the&code”& (5).&Here,&programmatic&description&and&reconstruction,&such&as&the&image&processing&and& artificial&intelligence&performed&by&computer&vision&frameworks,&are&so&significantly& embedded&in&infrastructures&that&algorithms&tacitly&shape&behaviors&and&prosaically&assert& authority,&beyond&or&in&tandem&with&existing&bureaucracies&and&panoptic&mechanisms.& Routine&decisions&are&consequently&delegated&(knowingly&or¬)&to&computational& procedures&that—echoing&the&work&of&Bruno&Latour&(1987)&and&many&other&researchers&in& science&and&technology&studies—are&blackTboxed,&running&in&the&background&as&protocols,& default&settings,&or&userTfriendly&interfaces&(Galloway&2004;&Chun&2011).&&&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 2& As&one&among&many&examples&of&this&delegation,&consider&the&banal&and&now& ubiquitous&integration&of&CAPTCHAs&(Completely&Automated&Public&Turing&test&to&tell& Computers&and&Humans&Apart)&into&webTbased&submission&forms.&By&prompting&you&to& type&obscure&letters&into&a&box,&CAPTCHAs&ask,&“Are&you&human?”&In&so&doing,&they&control& information&flow,®ulate&input,&decrease&the&likelihood&of&hacks,&and&implicitly&assume& quite&a&bit&about&people&(e.g.,&that&internet&users&are&ableTbodied,&or&that&to&be&human&is&to& be&ableTbodied).&In&numerous&cases,&including&Google’s&reCAPTCHA&initiative,&CAPTCHAs& also&assist&computing&projects&in&their&digitization,&annotation,&and&machineTlearning& efforts.&Through&CAPTCHAs,&visual&patterns&that&resist&computer&vision&during&digitization& can&be&forwarded&to&people&for&manual&remediation&into&electronic&text.&From&the&vantages& of&business&and&economics,&this"idian&exchange&is&mutually&beneficial,&or&at&least& efficient:&while&CAPTCHA&algorithms&protect&webTbased&projects&from&malicious&bots&and& optical&character&recognition&(OCR)&attacks,&people&provide&desired&verification&or& information&without&consuming&much&of&their&own&time&and&effort.&Once&distributed&and& naturalized&online,&such&algocratic&tasks&are&inconsequential&in&the&instance&yet&extremely& meaningful—and&strikingly&productive&of&value—in&the&aggregate.& This&chapter&is¬&about&algocracy.&And&it&is¬&about&CAPTCHAs.&But&it&is&deeply& informed&by&both&of&them.&In&short,&it&encourages&humanities&scholars,&especially&scholars& of&material&culture&and&media&history,&to&consider&articulating&computer&vision&techniques& that&privilege&speculation&over&confirmation&by&way&of&automation,&if&only&to&enrich& research&on&the&latter.&That&is,&my&particular&take&on&the&relevance&of&computer&vision&to& humanities&research&is¬&especially&invested&in&delegating&authority&to&algorithms.&It&is& also¬&about&mobilizing&that&vision&toward&efficiency,&or&even&about&foregrounding&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 3& patterns&in&repositories—an&approach&that,&as&many&digital&humanities&projects& demonstrate,&can&dramatically&influence&the&very&epistemology&of&historical&research&(e.g.,& what&it&means&to&see&the&past&through&a&computer&or&with&an&algorithm).&Invested&instead&in& the&cultural,&aesthetic,&and&embodied&dimensions&of&science,&technology,&and&media&studies,& my&argument&is&that&speculative&computer&vision&resists&dichotomizing&media&and& mediation,&digital&and&analog&materials,&automated&and&manual&labor,&and&human&and& machine&phenomenologies.&Rather&than&capturing&or&reTpresenting&history,&it&helps& scholars&make&objects&that&do¬&exist&and&then&argue&with&or&through&them.&Put&this&way,& it&is&highly&influenced&by&the&recent&work&of&Bethany&Nowviskie,&Johanna&Drucker,&Kari& Kraus,&Mark&Sample,&Devon&Elliott,&Robert&MacDougall,&and&William&J.&Turkel,&building&on& their&research&to&expand&humanities&approaches&to&scanning,&modeling,&and&fabricating& historical&media&in&3D.&&&& I&admit&“speculative&computer&vision”&sounds&rather&theoretical.&In&this&chapter,&I&do& not&dig&into&the&technical&specificities&of&vision&science&or&artificial&intelligence,&and&I&lean& toward&the&artistic&edges&of&digital&humanities.&I&also&do¬&claim&that&computers&should& assist&scholars&in&resolving&the&longstanding&ambiguities&of&media&history.&In&fact,&much&is& left&muddy.&Still,&my&claims&for&speculation&are&grounded&in&an&example,&namely&Gustave& Trouvé’s&electric&jewelry&from&the&1860s.&Later,&I&elaborate&on&Trouvé’s&work.&For&now,&it&is& important&to¬e&that&Victorian&electric&jewelry&was&produced&in&small&batches,&was&never& manufactured,&rarely&functioned&as&designed,&or&is&now&very&difficult&to&study,&see,&or& handle.&These&obstacles&to&historical&research&are&in&part&what&render&the&jewelry&fitting&for& speculative&vision.&Despite&their&evasiveness,&there&is&a&good&chance&they&can&be&remade& with&a&pinch&or&two&of&conjecture&and&the&perspectives&of&a&computer&(Sayers&2014).&As&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 4& such,&when&including&“bringing&Trouvé&to&light”&in&the&title&of&this&chapter,&I&do¬&imply&an& Enlightenment¶digm&of&rationality.&I&also&do¬&encourage&the&algorithmic&discovery&of& historical&causes&that—until&now—have&rested&beyond&the&threshold&of&perception.& Instead,&I&encourage&a&reconsideration&of&Victorian&electric&jewelry&by&prototyping&it&with& extant&materials.&First,&I&survey¤t&computer&vision&research&across&the&disciplines,& including&some&of&its&ostensible&benefits&as&well&as&some&of&its&apparent&biases.&Then&I&offer& a&response&to&this&research&by&way&of&Trouvé,&some&prototypes,&and&speculative&vision.&& Computer&Vision&across&the&Disciplines& According&to&various&accounts&(Papert&1966;&Crevier&1993;&Boden&2006;&Szeliski&2010),& computer&vision&research&began&as&early&as&1966,&during&the&“Summer&Vision&Project,”& when&Marvin&Minsky,&Seymour&Papert,&Gerald&Jay&Sussman,&and&others&in&the&Artificial& Intelligence&Group&(AIG)&at&the&Massachusetts&Institute&of&Technology&(MIT)&investigated& how&to&use&figureTground&analysis&to&automatically÷&pictures&into®ions&based&on& surface&and&shape&properties.&This®ion&description&would&ultimately&act&as&the&basis&for& object&identification,&where&items&in&pictures&were&recognized&and&named&by&machines& with&controlled&vocabularies&of&known&objects&(Papert&1966).&Cameras&were&attached&to& computers&in&order&to&achieve&this&automated&description&and&identification&(Crevier&1993;& Boden&2006),&with&an&express&desire&to&eventually&construct&a&pattern&analysis&system&that& would&combine&“maximal&flexibility”&with&“‘heuristic&rules’”&(Papert&1966,&6).&& Although&computer&vision&has&developed&significantly&since&the&1960s&and&’70s,&the& AIG’s&Summer&Vision&Project&marks&a¬able&transition&in&media&history,&a&moment&when& image&processing&was&gradually&integrated&into&the&development&of&artificial&intelligence,& including&the&training&of&computers&to&read,&detect,&and&describe&aspects&of&pictures&and&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 5& visual&environments&(Szeliski&2010,&10T13).&During&the&project,&AIG&researchers&also& started&asking&computer&vision&questions&that&have&persisted—tacitly&or&explicitly—long& since&then:&How&does&computer&vision&differ&from&human&vision?&To&what°ree&should& computer&vision&be&modeled&on&human&phenomenology,&and&to&what&effects?&Can&computer& or&human&vision&even&be&modeled?&That&is,&can&either&even&be&generalized?&Where&and& when&do&issues&of&processing&and&memory&matter&most&for&object&recognition&and& description?&And&how&should&computer&vision&handle&conflict&and&ambiguity&(Minsky& 1974)?&As&readers&will&likely¬e,&these&questions&are&at&once&technical&and&philosophical,& as&are&many&responses&to&them.& Today,&computer&vision&has&moved,&at&least&in&part,&from&laboratories&into&consumer& technologies.&One&popular&application&is&answering&the&question,&“Is&this&you?”&or&“Is&this& them?”&iPhoto,&Facebook,&and&Kinect&users&will&be&all&too&familiar&with&this&application,& where&face&detection&algorithms&analyze&patterns&to&calculate&a&core&or&integral&image& within&an&image,&assess&differences&across&a&spectrum&of&light,&and&view&images&across& scales&(Szeliski&2010,&5T10).&In&the&open&source&community,&many&practitioners&are& combining&the&Open&Source&Computer&Vision&(OpenCV)&library&with&the&Python,&C++,&and& Java&programming&languages&to&perform&this&work.&They&write&scripts&relying&on& frameworks&that&train&classifiers&to&detect&objects&(including&faces,&bodies,&and&body&parts)& in&images&based&on&cascades&of&features.&To&see&faces&while&algorithmically&scanning& images,&OpenCV&uses&the&widely&popular&ViolaTJones&object&detection&framework&(Viola&and& Jones&2001),&which&relies&upon&“HaarTlike”&image&features&for&cascading.&Similar&to&iPhoto& and&other&image&management&applications,&OpenCV&can&be&used&to&identify—often&with&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 6& errors&and&omissions—the&same&face&across&a&distribution,&even&when&multiple&faces& appear&in&the&same&image.&& In&the&very&likely&event&that&programmers&are&unfamiliar&with&the&particulars&of& ViolaTJones,&Haar&cascades,&and&other&such&features&and&frameworks,&their&scripts&can& simply&call&trusted&cascades&(e.g.,&“Frontal&Face,”&“Human&Body,”&“Wall&Clock,”&and&“Mouth”)& stored&in&XML&files&readily&available&across&the&web&(e.g.,&at&alereimondo.noT ip.org/OpenCV/34).&The&objects&detected&by&OpenCV&may&then&be&extracted&from&their& source&files&and&archived.&(See&Figure&1&for&an&example.)&

Figure'1:'Faces'Extracted'from'the'Beinecke'Library’s'“Picturing'Literary'Modernism”' Collection'Using'Scripts'from'Terence'Eden’s'“Tate'Hack”'Project.'Image'Care'of'Jentery' Sayers.'Python'Scripts'Care'of'Terence'Eden'and'Modified'by'Jentery'Sayers.& ' Extracted&objects&may&also&be&merged&with&existing&repositories&or,&to&confirm&or& complicate&known&relationships,&compared&with&databases&of&similar&objects&(Resig&2013).& For&instance,&when&comparing&faces,&multiple&photos&of&the&same&person&can&train& algorithms&to&recognize&an&“eigenface”&(or&“unique&face”)&generated&from&the&principle& components&of&those&photos.&Although&eigenfaces&do¬&actually&exist&in&any&lived,&social&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 7& reality,&they&are&fundamental&to&the&processes&of&face&recognition,&and&datasets&with& “training&face”&images&for&100+&people&per&repository&are&now&common&online.&One&of&the& most&popular&sets&is&the&Public&Figures&Face&Database&(Pubfig):&“a&large,&realTworld&face& dataset&consisting&of&58,797&images&of&200&people&collected&from&the&internet.&Unlike&most& other&existing&face&datasets,&these&images&are&taken&in&completely&uncontrolled&situations& with&nonTcooperative&subjects”&(Columbia&University&2010).&This&example&database& suggests&that—like&electronic&texts&in&digital&humanities&research—training&faces&are& central&to&ongoing&big&data&initiatives&anchored&in&computer&vision.&However,&humanities& practitioners&have¬&thoroughly&considered&the&social&and&cultural&implications&of& treating&bodies&as&big&data&for&vision&science.&& For&now,&it&is&important&to¬e&that&computer&vision&responses&to&“Is&this&you?”&or& “Is&this&them?”&do¬&stop&at&recognition&or&pattern&analysis&after&the&fact.&They&also&enable& predictive&modeling&and&forecasting.&For&example,&in&surveillance&and&forensics&industries,& snapshots&are&extracted&from&video&in&order&to&articulate&“people&trajectories”&(Calderara&et' al.&2009),&which&both&archive&and&anticipate&people’s&movements&over&time.&Here,&the& image&processing&tradition&of&photogrammetry&is&clearly&linked&with&artificial&intelligence& research.&As&computer&vision&stitches&together&a&series&of&objects,&it&also&learns&from&them& and&makes&suggestions&based&on&them.&Put&this&way,&the&programmatic&description&and& reconstruction&of&the&physical&world&are&directed&at&the&past&as&well&as&the&future.&What’s& more,&in&the&case&of&unmanned&aerial&vehicles&(UAVs)&or&“drones,”&computer&vision&has& realTtime&intelligence&applications,&too.&(For&a&still&of&realTtime&computer&vision,&see&Figure& 2.)&&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 8&

Figure'2:'RealVTime'Detection'and'Tracking'Using'OpenCV,'Python,'iSight,'and'a'MacBook' Pro.'Image'Care'of'Jentery'Sayers.'Python'Script'Care'of'Shantnu'Tiwari'and'Modified'by' Jentery'Sayers.& Of&course,&many&people&are&familiar&with&government&and&private§or&investments&in& UAVs,&including&their&military,&surveillance,&and&profiling&applications,&even&if&they&are¬& familiar&with&how&UAVs&actually&work&or&how&computer&vision&is&actually&constructed.&But,& comparable&to&OpenCV&research,&many&extreme&hobbyists—through&open&source&projects& such&as&DIY&Drones&(diydrones.com)—are¤tly&building&their&own&UAVs&using&lowT costµprocessors,&sensors,&and&actuators.&Unlike&many&popular&remoteTcontrolled&toys,& these&UAVs&can&be&programmed&to&follow&scripted&trajectories&and&missions&along&a&series& of&waypoints,&in&a&fashion&quite&similar&to&following&directions&from&a&mobile&phone&when& driving&a&car.&While&in&motion,&the&UAV&can&then&detect,&track,&and&respond&to&objects&using& OpenCV&or&another&library,&meaning&recognition&is&directly&linked&to&reaction,&tightening& the&loop&between&pattern&analysis&and&responsive&machine&behaviors.&&& Echoing&a&remark&made&earlier,&the&emergence&of&these&techniques—when&bundled& together—raises¬&a&few&questions&about&normalizing&bodies,&environments,&and&objects&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 9& and&treating&them&as&data,&including&the&relevance&of&computer&vision&to&privacy&and&social& justice&issues.&At&the&same&time,&many&developers&are&researching&computer&vision& applications&in&a&liminal&space&between&standardized&and&experimental&practice,&where&the& consequences&remain&uncertain&or&undefined&by&policy.&&& To&better&understand&that&liminal&space,&consider&the&traction&computer&vision&is& gaining&in&the&arts,&particularly&around&the&question&of&how&machine&phenomenology& informs&network&aesthetics.&Matt&Jones&(2011)&suggests&that&computer&vision&corresponds& with&a&“sensorTvernacular&aesthetic,”&or&with&“optimised,&algorithmic&sensor&sweeps&and& compression&artefacts”&(Jones&2011).&Somewhere&between&bits&and&atoms,&it&is&“an& aesthetic&born&of&the&grain&of&seeing&and&computation”&(Jones&2011),&with&David&Berry& (2012)¬ing&a&renaissance&of&8Tbit&visuals,&the&emergence&of&pixel&fashion,&and—generally& speaking—a&widespread&obsession&with&seeing&like&a&machine.&Think&Minecraft'and& decimated&meshes&on&Thingiverse,&or&Timo&Arnal’s&robotTreadable&world&(2012),&Martin& Backes’s&pixelhead&(2010),&Adam&Harvey’s&stealth&wear&(2013),&and&the&machine& wanderings&of&James&Bridle’s&“New&Aesthetic”&(2011).&Whatever&the&label&or&example&here,& thus&far&such&aesthetics&have&largely&revised&the¬ion&of&technologies&as&“extensions&of& man”&(McLuhan&1964)&to&suggest&computer&vision&supplants&human&vision.&In&this&sense,& they&are&at&once&humanist,&nonThumanist,&and&objectToriented&aesthetics.&They&throw&the& very¬ion&of&human&perspective&into&relief,&understanding&computer&vision&as&withdrawn,& as&beyond&human&access,&as&some&sort&of&algorithmic&unconscious.&At&the&same&time,&they& demand&consensus&about&what&human&perception&entails&in&the&first&place.&They&need& “human”&to&operate&as&a&stable&(or&ahistorical,&or&normative,&or&universal)&category&in&order& to&supplant&it&with&a&computer’s&phenomenology.&&&&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 10& Additionally,&as&Bruce&Sterling&suggests,&sensor&vernacular&aesthetics&are&largely& reactive&or&tactical&in&character.&Their&machine&wanderings&and&robotTreadable&worlds&tend& to&wonder&at&machine&vision—to&suspend&“Is&this&you?”&from&its&social&dynamics—without& systematically&intervening&or&translating&it&into&a&meaningful&aesthetic&category.&For& instance,&in&response&to&the&New&Aesthetic&panel&at&South&by&Southwest&2012,&Sterling& wrote&the&following&in&Wired:&“The&New&Aesthetic&is&a&genuine&aesthetic&movement&with&a& weak&aesthetic&metaphysics.&It’s&sticky&with&bogus&lyricism”&(2012).&He&also&quite&harshly& implied&that&the&New&Aesthetic&is&a&“glitchThunt,”&adding&that&“[it]&is&trying&to&hack&a& modern&aesthetic,&instead&of&thinking&hard&enough&and&working&hard&enough&to&build&one”& (2012).&Although&Sterling&focuses&on&the&New&Aesthetic&here,&his&rather&frank&critiques& apply&widely&to&most¤t&obsessions&with&seeing&algorithmically,&like&a&machine,&in&new& media&arts.&And&his&work&on&design&fiction&(2009)&and&the&Internet&of&Things&(2005)&are&no& doubt&relevant&to&the&directions&of&artsTbased&computer&vision&practices.&&& Changing&Vision&Infrastructures&and&Multiplying&Vision&& Rather&than&merely&hacking&computer&vision,&repurposing&scripts,&or&fetishizing&machine& perspectives,&maybe&the&most&pressing&challenge&for&network&aesthetics&and&algorithmic& culture&is&shifting&from&a&tactical&reaction&to&a&substantive&change&in&vision&infrastructures.& To&be&sure,&this&is&no&small&task,&especially&for&humanities&practitioners.&It&might&involve& interrogating&cascading&classifiers&for&their&biases&and&revising&them&accordingly,&much&in& the&way&Simone&Browne&(2010)&has&approached&video&surveillance,&race,&and&biometrics.& Or&it&might&involve&reframing&computer&vision&research&to&such&a°ree&that&mediation&is& complicated&and&enriched&by¬&establishing&essential,&binary&ways&of&seeing&(Berger& 1972).&That&is,&amidst&the&possibilities&of&using&computer&vision&for&oppressive&purposes&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 11& (e.g.,&its&applications&for&war&and&racial&profiling),&maybe&we&need&vision&infrastructures& that&value&ironic&or&ambiguous&vision,&much&like&Donna&Haraway’s&early&work&(1985)&on& cyborgs,&feminism,&and&informatics&(including,&lest&that&often&overlooked§ion&of&“A& Cyborg&Manifesto”&be&forgotten,&her&concerns&about&an&informatics&of&domination).&& In&digital&humanities&research,&we&see&some&steps&toward&these&vision& infrastructures.&Although&the&field&has&privileged&the&practical&use&of&OCR&to&digitize,& encode,&search,&and&discover&texts,&it&has&also&pushed&machine&vision&toward&some&more& speculative&applications,&which&allow&scholars&to&interpret—or,&better&yet,&argue—with& computers.&Here,&examples&include&Real'Faces'of'White'Australia&(2011),&by&Kate&Bagnall& and&Tim&Sherratt,&and&the&cultural&analytics&of&Lev&Manovich’s&Software&Studies&initiative& (2009).&Real'Faces'uses&a&face&detection&script&to&foreground&the&indigenous&Australians& and&nonTEuropeans¬&only&ignored&by&the&whitewashing&of&Australia’s&recordkeeping&but& also&historically&subjected&to&discrimination&via&the&White&Australia&Policy&(Bagnall&and& Sherratt&2011).&In&so&doing,&the&project&blends&an&intervention&in&Australia’s&archives&with&a& redefinition&of&vision&science.&Scripts&typically&deployed&for&surveillance&and&military& purposes&are&instead&imagined&as&mechanisms&for&critical&race&studies.&At&the&same&time,& Bagnall&and&Sherratt’s&use&of&Python&and&OpenCV&(Sherratt&2011)&for&this&intervention& prompts&compelling&questions&about&how&race&is&interpreted&as&form&through&biometrics& and&eigenfaces.&For&instance,&whose&faces&are&idealized&or&overlooked&by&machine&vision?& When,&why,&and&to&what&effects?&How&exactly&is&race&a&principle&component&of&the&training& process?&When&applied&to&archives&as&well&as&everyday&spaces&(e.g.,&airports,&social& networks,&and&games),&what&racial&biases&and&assumptions&does&computer&vision&both& create&and&enable&(Browne&2010)?&By&stressing&the&socioTcultural&dimensions&of&face&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 12& description&and&reconstruction,&these&questions—which&are&still&being&unpacked&and& addressed&by&scholars—allow&us&to&avoid&neatly&parsing&human&and&computer&vision,&and& to&refrain&from&delegating&interpretative&authority&and&scholarly&responsibility&to& algorithms.&&&& Meanwhile,&in&both&theory&and&practice,&Manovich’s¬ion&of&cultural&analytics& (2009)&also&resituates&computer&vision,&applying&it&to&the&exploration&of&art&and&cultural& history&as&big&data.&Resonating&with&Franco&Moretti’s&“distant&reading”&(2005)&of&literary& history&as&well&as&Stephen&Best&and&Sharon&Marcus’s&“surface&reading”&(2009)&of&texts,& Manovich&and&his&team&use&OpenCV&and&other&tools&to&extract&features&from&and&visualize& patterns&in&large&collections&of&video,&images,&and&dynamic&media&(e.g.,&250+&paintings&by& Mondrian&and&Rothko).&Claiming&that&we&have&now&moved&from&“the&stage&of&‘New&Media’& to&the&stage&of&‘More&Media’”&(Manovich&2009),&Manovich&asserts&that&this&largeTscale& treatment&of&visual&culture&corresponds&with&the¤t&frequency&and&ubiquity&of&new& media&production.&But,&beyond&the&rhetoric&of&its&big&data&appeals,&cultural&analytics&may&be& understood&as&a&conjectural&or&whatTif&inquiry.&If&only&tacitly,&cultural&analytics&ask&an& important&question&of&computer&vision&practitioners:&What&if&we&read&history&against&the& humanist&grain,&through&a&combination&of&automated&and&manual&interpretations?&By& extension,&how&would&such&a&blended&approach&force&us&to&reconsider&the&assumptions&we& have&about&art,&cultural&history,&visual&media,&and&perception?&While&similar&questions&are& commonplace&across&text&mining&and&text&analysis&projects,&very&few&researchers&(aside& from&the&Software&Studies&research&team)&have&asked&them&of&image&and&video& repositories,&where&computer&vision&arguably&has&the&most&provocative&applications&for& speculative&humanities.&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 13& &

This&remark&is¬&to&suggest&that¶digms&for&speculative&humanities&do¬&

already&exist.&In&digital&humanities&research,&Bethany&Nowviskie&and&Johanna&Drucker’s& speculative&computing&(2004),&Kari&Kraus’s&conjectural&criticism&(2009),&and&Devon&Elliott,& Robert&MacDougall,&and&William&J.&Turkel’s&experimental&mashups&(2012)&highlight&how& arguments&that&“[h]istory&is¬hing&but&exteriorities”&(Sterne&2003,&19)&need¬&exclude& whatTif&reasoning.&By&positing&a&variety&of&ways&to&perceive,&engage,&and&question&the&stuff& of&history,&this&work&collectively&foregrounds&how&scholarship&is&deeply&embodied,&why& absences&or&redactions&in&the&record&matter&as&much&as&inscriptions&and&patterns,&and&how& computational&approaches&can&be&simultaneously&procedural&and&subjective.&Borrowing& significantly&from&this&work,&speculative&computer&vision&is¬&about&making&truth&claims,& per'se.&It&is&about&multiplying&how&scholars&see&the&past,&to&include&algorithmic&procedures& without&reducing&them&to&algocratic&measures,&rational&mechanisms&for&proof,&or&devices& for&confirmation.&In&this®ard,&Mark&Sample’s&poetics&of&nonTconsumptive&reading&(2013)& is&informative.&Sample&asserts&that&scholars&should,&even&if&counterfactually,&“[m]ake&the& computer&model&itself&an&expressive&object,”&to&“[t]urn&[their]&data&into&a&story,&into&a&game,& into&art”&(2013).&For&Sample,&the&computer&model&is&an&argument&about&how&to&interpret& fiction&differently&from,&say,&purely&close&or&purely&distant&reading.&Meanwhile,&for& Nowviskie&and&Drucker,&the&“goal&is&to&place&the&hermeneut&inside&a&visual&and&algorithmic& system”&(2004).&This&“subjective&positioning”&(2004)&resists&proclivities&toward&overly& abstract&forms&of&computation&that&do¬&account&for&embodied&knowledge.&Similarly,& Kraus&calls&for&“the&considered&manipulation&or&processing&of&digital&signs&with&the&goal&of& either&recovering&a&prior&configuration&or&predicting&a&future&or&potential&one”&(2009).& Understood&this&way,&a&computer&is¬&an&innocuous&calculator&or&invisible&verification&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 14& machine;&it&is&a&way&to&at&once&make,&shape,&and&see&the&past&(2009).&And&for&Elliott,& MacDougall,&and&Turkel,&technologies&are&also&creative&or&experimental&media,&where&the& research&aim&is¬&the&“[e]xact&reproduction”&(Elliott&et'al.'2012,&127)&or&capture&of& historical&artifacts&through,&say,&physical&computing&or&desktop&fabrication.&It&is&“to&create& situations&in&which&aspects&of&the&past&can&be&revisited,&explored,&interrogated,&and& remixed”&(127).&Likewise,&in&the&following&case&of&remaking&Trouvé’s&electric&jewelry,&the& goal&is&a&speculative&vision&of&how&something&might&have&worked,&especially&when&it&is& neither&at&hand&nor&immediately&discoverable&by&a&computer.&& Victorian&Jewelry&Meets&Computer&Vision& During&the&second&half&of&the&nineteenth¢ury,&Gustave&Trouvé&prototyped,&patented,& and&built&a&wide&variety&of&curiosities&in&France,&from&electric&outboard&motors&and&sewing& machines&to&battery&backpacks&and&telegraphic&watches,&seemingly&ahead&of&his&time.& Informed&by&a&kind&of&electromagnetic&worldview,&he&also&designed&a&number&of&eventT driven,&batteryTpowered&jewelry&pieces,&including&animated&hairpins,&blinking&stickpins,& and&other&such&pieces&meant&to&be&worn&on&the&person,&often&on&stage&for&performances& (e.g.,&of&Faust)&or&at&social&gatherings.&Since&he&produced&this&jewelry&in&small&batches,&very& few&pieces&remain&today.&What’s&more,&those&that&do&exist&are&difficult&to&access,&are&quite& small,&and&no&longer&function&properly&(if&they&ever&did).&Still,&some&of&his&sketches,&patents,& and¬es&have&been&digitized&and&are&available&online&(via&an&openTaccess&repository— github.com/uvicmakerlab/trouve—containing&more&than&two&hundred&images&cropped&by& Danielle&Morgan&from&George&Barral’s&1891&Trouvé&biography,&Histoire'd'un'inventeur).& Aside&from&a&brief&mention&in&Carolyn&Marvin’s&When'Old'Technologies'Were'New'(1988),& Trouvé&and&his&significant&contributions&to&electricity&and&magnetism&during&the&nineteenth&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 15& century&are&practically&never&mentioned&in&science,&technology,&and&media&studies.&The& exact&reason&for&this&omission&remains&unclear,&but&it&might&be&best&attributed&to&Edison’s& prominence&(as&an&American&capitalist)&at&the&time,&and&his&continued&prominence&in&the& historical&record.&Additional&possibilities&include&the&fact&that&most&of&Trouvé’s¬es&and& projects&were&lost&during&a&fire&near&the&turn&of&the¢ury&(though&such&fires&were& common)&and&the&few&publications&about&him,&including&Barral’s&biography,&were&written&in& French&and&have¬&been&translated.&& Still,&Trouvé&persists&in&part&through&the&work&of&Charlotte&Gere&and&Judy&Rudoe.&In& Jewellery'in'the'Age'of'Queen'Victoria&(2010),&they&dedicate&approximately&three&pages&of& their&book&to&his&collaborations&with&artist,&AugusteTGermain&CadetTPicard,&who& manufactured&some&of&the&electric&jewelry.&At&one&point,&they&also&mention&an&important& detail:&“We&have¬&come&across&any&surviving&examples&of&moving&jewels”&(2010,&213).& However,&immediately&after&this&remark,&they&issue&a&peculiar&call&of&sorts:&“the&following& contemporary&descriptions&are&given&in&the&hope&that&they&will&enable&such&jewels&to&be& brought&to&light”&(2010,&213).&Here,&“brought&to&light”&could&imply&a&gesture&to&today’s& collectors,&an&invitation&to&donate&electric&jewelry&to&their&local&memory&institutions.&But&it& more&likely&implies&remaking&that&jewelry&based&on&extant&materials,&a&procedure&that& poses¬&a&few&challenges:&filling&in&the&gaps&of&material&culture,&designing&today&through& often&undocumented&Victorian&techniques,&perceiving&the&particulars&of&miniatures,& reconstructing&small&objects&at&scale,&and&contextualizing&the&jewelry&with&attention&to&its& actual&use&(and¬&just&its&construction).&& With&these&challenges&in&mind,&Nina&Belojevic,&Nicole&Clouston,&Katherine&Goertz,& Shaun&Macpherson,&Danielle&Morgan,&and&I&have&been&applying&the&computer&vision&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 16& practices&of&photogrammetry&and&laser&scanning&to&prototype&Trouvé’s&electric&jewelry&and& other&Victorian&artifacts&like&it.&Our&hope&is&that,&by&remaking&some&of&Trouvé’s&curiosities,& we&will&better&understand&his&contributions&to&Victorian&media&history,&contributions&that& we&believe&may&be&quite&relevant&to&numerous&media&studies&projects.&Trouvé’s&skull& stickpin&(1867)—currently&housed&at&the&Victoria&and&Albert&Museum&in&London& (collections.vam.ac.uk/item/&O115814/stickTpinTcadetTpicardTauguste/)—is&one&of&the& first&items&we&prototyped.&Originally,&the&eyes&of&this&stickpin&were&said&to&roll,&and&the&jaw& was&said&to&snap,&both&when&charged&by&a&battery&inside&the&wearer’s&pocket.&(Trouvé&is& credited&with&inventing&the&sealed,&reversible&battery.)&In&this&sense,&the&stickpin&might&be& described&as&an&early&wearable,&or&part&of&what&Susan&Elizabeth&Ryan&calls&a&“dress&act”& (2014,&10)&that&connects&garments&and&meaning,&fashion&and&technology.&Yet&remediating& this&stickpin&in&today’s&computational&environments&has&its&own&share&of&problems.&First,& the&stickpin&is&quite&small&(height:&9.2&cm,&width:&1.5&cm,&depth:&1.6&cm),&meaning&it&would& likely&require&a&highTresolution&laser&scanner,&instead&of&photogrammetry,&to&become&a&3D& model&on&screen.&(Whereas&photogrammetry&algorithmically&stitches&a&series&of&2D&images& into&a&3D&model,&laser&scanning&rapidly&detects&the&surface&and&shape&properties&of&objects& and&converts&that&data&into&a&model.&Photogrammetry&also&tends&to&require&a&stable&object,& whereas&laser&scanning&allows&for&some&movement&or&repositioning&during&the&conversion& process.)&The&stickpin’s&small&size&also&means&it&is&difficult&to&study&without&aµscope&or& similar&vision&instrument.&Most&people’s&eyes&would&encounter&trouble&when,&say,&reverseT engineering&the&tiny&mechanisms&inside&the&skull.&Also,&given&the&lack&of&extant&electric& jewels&in&London,&Paris,&or&elsewhere,&the&stickpin&is&considered&somewhat&precious.&It& cannot&be&handled&by&most&people,&and&it&cannot&be&taken&apart&by&them,&either.&Finally,&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 17& even&if&the&pin&were&laserTscanned,&the&digital&model&would&likely¬&scale&well&for&editing& and&study&on&a&screen.&& That&said,&after&extensively&studying&the&pin&and&Trouvé’s&work&through&a&variety&of& publications&in&English&and&French,&including&U.S.&patents,&Barral’s&biography,&and&drawings& available&in&print,&we&decided&to&remake&the&skull&by&hand,&sketching&it&in&pencil&and&then& carving&it&into&basswood.&(See&Figures&3&and&4&for&process&photos.)&&


Figure'3:'Sketch'of'Trouvé’s'Skull'Stickpin,'in'Pencil,'by'Shaun'Macpherson.'&


Figure'4:'Form'of'Trouvé’s'Skull'Stickpin'Carved,'by'Nicole'Clouston,'into'Basswood.' As&these&images&demonstrate,&the&results&are&rife&with&speculation&from&start&to&finish.&They& are¬&exact&reproductions&of&Trouvé’s&stickpin,&and&they&do¬&rely&on&the&original& materials&(i.e.,&gold&with&enamel).&Nevertheless,&they&do&allow&us&to&better&grasp&the& stickpin’s&composition&as&well&as&the&challenges&Trouvé&and&CadetTPicard&likely&faced&when& making&such&a&small,&detailed&piece&of&electric&jewelry&during&the&1860s.&In&their&digital&and& analog&formats,&models&of&the&pin&also&prompt&us&to&think&through&component&parts,&which&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 20& are&conducive&to&assembly,&rapid&prototyping,&repair,&and&editing.&(See&the&digital&models&in& Figure&5.)&

Figure'5:'High'Resolution'Digital'Model'of'the'Woodcarved,'Skull'Stickpin'in'Figure'4,'Made' Using'FlexScan3D'and'an'LMI'HDI'120'Laser'Scanner.'& & Once&stitched&together&and&transduced&into&data&by&computer&vision&applications& (including&Agisoft&Photoscan&and&FlexScan3D),&these&models&allow&us&to&prototype&various& scenarios&for&how&parts&of&the&stickpin&became&whole.&Though&conjectural,&such&prototypes& are&fundamental&to&better&understanding&features&occluded&by&museum&displays&(where& the&object&cannot&be&handled),&2D&images&in&publications&and&archives&(where&visual& representations&are&framed&by&a&particular&person’s&ways&of&seeing),&and&the&artifacts& themselves&(the&insides&of&which&are&difficult&to&perceive&without&breakage&or&damage).&In& the&case&of&Trouvé’s&stickpin,&one&of&the&most&important&occlusions&is&the&electromagnetic& mechanism&inside&the&skull.&It&is&a&hidden&component&of&the&pin,&and&it&was&probably&“blackT boxed”&to&maintain&its&aesthetic&or&status&as&jewelry.&Also,&as&Gere&and&Rudoe&observe,&it&has& not&endured&in&working&condition&over&time.&In&fact,&after&significant&research,&we&wonder&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 21& whether&Trouvé’s&stickpin&ever&rolled&its&eyes&or&opened&its&jaws.&The&evidence&is&few&and& far&between,&and&Victorian&electricity&routinely&overlapped&with&Victorian&magic&(Marvin& 1988).&& But&instead&of&concluding&with&this&conjecture,&we&treat&it&as&motivation&for&a& functioning&stickpin.&Part&of&this&research&involves&prototyping&mechanisms&that&are&based,& with&some&obvious&anachronisms&(e.g.,&Energizer&batteries),&on¬able&electromagnetic& technologies&from&the&Victorian&period:&the&telegraph&and&the&solenoid.&(See&Figure&6&for& photographs.)&These&mechanisms&can&then&be&integrated&into&the&various&stickpins&we&are& building&with&computer&vision&and&tested.&Thus&far,&one&result&of&this&testing&is&some& speculation&that&Trouvé&and&his&team&may&have&been&the&first&to&remediate&a&telegraph& sounder&into&jewelry.&However,&more&research&is&required&to&render&this&speculation&more& compelling.&

Figure'6:'Telegraph'and'Solenoid'Prototypes,'by'Shaun'Macpherson,'Used'to'Conjecture'about' the'Stickpin’s'Electromagnetic'Mechanism.'& '

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 22& &

Once&the&skull’s&components&are&digitized&using&computer&vision&techniques,&we&edit&

them&in&a&“gravityTfree”&environment&such&as&Rhinoceros,&a&popular&computerTaided&design& (CAD)&application.&We&then&alter&the&scale&of&each&part,&zoom&for&a°ree&of&detail& impossible&without&a&vision&instrument,&return&(where&necessary)&to&the&handmade&for& more&carving,&determine&whether&the&digital&model&is&watertight&(i.e.,&conducive&to& manufacture&by&a&computer&numerical&control&machine),&and&repeatedly&examine&surface& particulars&both&onTscreen&and&off.&In&short,&we&constantly&oscillate&between&media,&shifting& from&that&format&to&this&one,&from&this&substance&to&another,&documenting&our&decisions& along&the&way.&& To&reiterate,&these&design&and&editorial&decisions&demand&tactile&media;&if&the& approach&were&strictly&digital,&it&would&lack&persuasion.&For&instance,&one¬able&challenge& when&doing&media&history&with&bornTdigital&models&is&that&such&models&almost&always& neglect&the&opaqueness&of&the&mechanical&or&the&grain&of&the&handmade&(e.g.,&search& Thingiverse&for&“skull”).&Yet&such&opaqueness&is&obvious&and&even&assertive&in&Victorian& electric&jewels.&That&is,&Trouvé’s&work&obviously&does¬&look&like&it&was&constructed&on&a& screen;&it&has&no&sensor&vernacular.&Our&aim,&then,&is&to&use&computer&vision&to&distinguish& the&skull&of&the&Victorian&stickpin&from&the&popular&or&abstract¬ion&of&a&skull,&employing& a&combination&of&digital&and&analog&techniques,&or&a&speculative&blend&of&Victorian&and& contemporary&making,&based&on&extant&materials.&& &

Once&all&parts&of&the&stickpin&are&digitized&through&computer&vision,&they&are&

annotated&for&3D&viewing,&allowing&us&to&precisely&describe&specific&aspects&of&the&stickpin& and&allowing&others&to&see&and&interact&with&all&annotations&in&a&single&space&(as&opposed& to,&say,&a&distribution&of&TIFFs&or&JPGs).&These&models&can&also&be&transduced&into&text&(as&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 23& GTcode),&or&they&can&be&exported&in&STL,&SBP,&or&a&similar&format&for&fabrication&in&plastic,& metal,&wax,&or&wood.&Fabrication&allows&us&to&manufacture&the&stickpin’s&parts&at&or&near& their&original&size,&even&if&we&handTcarve&and&prototype&them&at&roughly&ten×&that&size.& Another&appeal&of&fabrication&is&that&the&stickpin&can—during&rapid&prototyping—be&easily& assembled&and&disassembled&to&test&the&design&prior&to&batch&manufacturing&and& circulation&online&or&by&post.&And&yet&another&appeal&is&that&a&numerical&control&machine& can&typically&manufacture&small&objects,&such&as&jewelry&pieces,&with&more&precision&and& consistency&than&by&hand,&even&if&manual&labor&is&almost&always&involved&in&the& manufacturing&process,&too.&These&appeals&of&fabrication,&together&with&the&various&analogT digital&convergences&at&play&in&our&workflow&with&the&stickpin,&suggest&how&computer& vision&techniques&may&apply&to&media&history&(in&particular)&and&humanities&research&(in& general).&Furthermore,&they&highlight&how&the&entanglement&of&human&and&computer&vision& (Barad&2007),&as&opposed&to&an&instrumentalist&parsing&of&people&and&machines,&may&result& in&inquiries&that&are&speculative&in&character,&where&algorithms&do&more&than&confirm& history,&explain&away&its&causes,&or&automate&its&reconstruction.&They&can&help&scholars& transduce&history,&with&honesty&about&how&we&constantly&remake&the&past&in&the&present.&&& Next&Steps& Science,&technology,&and&media&studies&tell&us&how&histories&of&technologies&are&rife&with& contingencies&and&conjectures&that&are&erased,&ignored,&or&refreshed&after&the&fact.&At&a& minimum,&our&source&material&is&always&reTsourced&material&(Chun&2011).&Computer&vision& is&no&exception,&but&a&speculative&approach&to&it&can&prompt&scholars&to&foreground&their& decisions,&investments,&and&uncertainties.&This&way,&scholarly&biases&and&conclusions&are& not&too&easily&displaced&onto&technologies,&even&if&some&displacement&is&arguably&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 24& inevitable.&In&the&particular&case&of&Gustave&Trouvé’s&electric&jewelry,&a&speculative& approach&raises&numerous&epistemological&questions&about&doing&Victorian&media&history& today,&especially&through&emerging&vision&technologies.&While&unpacking&these&issues&is& beyond&the&scope&of&this&chapter,&I&will&conclude&by&briefly&mentioning&them&here.&First,& when&seeing&the&past&through&computer&vision,&how&should&scholars&conjecture&about& materials—such&as&inaccessible,&broken,&or&dead&media—not&at&hand?&In&other&words,& when&and&on&what&grounds&do&we&have&license&for&speculation?&Once&articulated,&such&a& license&could&spark&more&than&a&mere&repurposing&of&new&gadgets&for&historical&purposes.& It&could&support&a&legible&methodology&for&doing&science,&technology,&and&media&studies& computationally.&Second,&a&growing&concern&about&remaking&old&media&is&how&to&better& translate&speculative&computer&vision&into&cultural&criticism.&In&many&ways,&these&concerns& rehearse&longstanding&debates&about&“critical”&distance&and&“uncritical”&immersion&in& scholarly&research.&For&example,&where&Victorian&electric&jewelry&is&concerned,&we&must& ask&how&the&very&act&of&remaking&now&cannot&be&completely&detached&from&material& conditions&then,&including&how&jewelry&visibly&marked&class,&reified&gender,&and&sourced& both&its&materials&and&labor&from&Europe’s&colonies.&Although&Trouve’s&electric&jewelry&was& clearly&satirical&and&never&intended&as&fine&art,&it&was¬&somehow&divorced&from&the& patriarchy,&militarism,&racism,&and&income&inequality&of&its&time,&either.&But&does& immersion&in&Victorian&material&culture&and&technological&processes&help&scholars&better& understand&such&forces?&Or&does&it&further&our&complicity&with&them?&At&the&moment,&my& argument&for&speculative&computer&vision&involves&a&combination&of&immersion&and& distance,&without&the&assumption&that&we&can&ever&perceive&like&anyone&did&back&then& (Sterne&2003).&Still,&the&details&and&consequences&of&such&a&method&need&to&be&articulated&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 25& and&further&tested,&especially&as&they&relate&to&media&history&as&a&form&of&social&history.& Until&then,&remaking&old&media&may&fail&to&convince&historians&of&science&and&technology.& Finally,&as&computer&vision&becomes&ubiquitous&across&the&disciplines&and&popular&culture,& scholars&need&to&further&explore&the&effects&of&its&naturalization&through&digital&devices—to& tease&out&when&decisions&are&routinely&delegated&to&it,&how,&under&what&assumptions,&and& to&what&effects.&Without&such&attention,&we&risk&running&culture&in&the&background.&&& Acknowledgements&& The&Social&Sciences&and&Humanities&Research&Council&of&Canada&(SSHRC),&the&Canada& Foundation&for&Innovation,&and&the&British&Columbia&Knowledge&Development&Fund&have& supported&this&research.&I&would&like&to&thank&the&coTauthor&of&that&SSHRC&proposal,& William&J.&Turkel,&together&with&members&of&the&Maker&Lab&in&the&Humanities&at&the& University&of&Victoria&who&have&contributed&to&this&research:&Nina&Belojevic,&Nicole& Clouston,&Devon&Elliott&(at&Western),&Katherine&Goertz,&Shaun&Macpherson,&Kaitlynn& McQueston,&and&Danielle&Morgan.&I&would&also&like&to&thank&Arienne&Dwyer,&Brian& Rosenblum,&and&the&Institute&for&Digital&Research&in&the&Humanities&at&the&University&of& Kansas,&who&invited&me&to&keynote&their&2013&Digital&Humanities&Forum,&where&I&first& delivered&portions&of&this&chapter.&Finally,&thanks&to&Kevin&Kee,&Karen&Flindall,&and&the& Ontario&Augmented&Reality&Network&for&organizing&the&“Seeing&the&Past”&conference&in& November&2014,&when&I&first&circulated&a&draft&of&this&chapter&for&feedback&from& participants,&including&Edward&JonesTImhotep,&William&J.&Turkel,&and&Devon&Elliott,&whose& perspectives&deeply&informed&my&revisions.& & &

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 26& References&& Aneesh,&A.&2006.&Virtual'Migration:'The'Programming'of'Globalization.&Duke&University&& Press.& Arnall,&Timo.&2012.&Robot'Readable'World.&https://vimeo.com/36239715.& Backes,&Martin.&2010.&“New&Artwork:&Pixelhead.”&Martin'Backes'V'Official'Website.&& http://www.martinbackes.com/newTartworkTpixelhead/.& Bagnall,&Kate,&and&Tim&Sherratt.&2011.&“Invisible&Australians:&Living&under&the&White&& Australia&Policy.”&http://invisibleaustralians.org/.& Barad,&Karen.&2007.&Meeting'the'Universe'Halfway:'Quantum'Physics'and'the'Entanglement'' of'Matter'and'Meaning.&Duke&University&Press.& Barral,&George.&1891.&Histoire'd’un'inventeur:'G.'Trouvé.& Berger,&John.&1972.&Ways'of'Seeing.&Penguin&Books&Limited.& Berry,&David.&2012.&“What&Is&the&‘New&Aesthetic’?”&Stunlaw.&& http://stunlaw.blogspot.ca/2012/04/whatTisTnewTaesthetic.html.& Boden,&Margaret.&2006.&Mind'As'Machine:'A'History'of'Cognitive'Science.&Oxford&University&& Press.& Bridle,&James.&2011.&“The&New&Aesthetic:&Waving&at&the&Machines.”&Booktwo.&& http://booktwo.org/notebook/wavingTatTmachines/.& Browne,&Simone.&2010.&“Digital&Epidermalization:&Race,&Identity&and&Biometrics.”&Critical'' Sociology&36&(1):&131–50.&doi:10.1177/0896920509347144.& Calderara,&Simone,&Andrea&Prati,&and&Rita&Cucchiara.&2009.&“Video&Surveillance&and&& Multimedia&Forensics:&An&Application&to&Trajectory&Analysis.”&In&Proceedings'of'the'' First'ACM'Workshop'on'Multimedia'in'Forensics,&13–18.&MiFor&’09.&New&York,&NY,&&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 27& USA:&ACM.&doi:10.1145/1631081.1631085.& Chun,&Wendy&Hui&Kyong.&2011.&Programmed'Visions:'Software'and'Memory.&MIT&Press.& Columbia&University.&2010.&“Pubfig:&Public&Figures&Face&Database.”&& http://www.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/databases/pubfig/.& Crevier,&Daniel.&1993.&AI:'The'Tumultuous'History'of'the'Search'for'Artificial'Intelligence.&& Basic&Books.& Drucker,&Johanna,&and&Bethany&Nowviskie.&2004.&“Speculative&Computing.”&In&Companion'to'' Digital'Humanities'(Blackwell'Companions'to'Literature'and'Culture),&edited&by&& Susan&Schreibman,&Ray&Siemens,&and&John&Unsworth,&Hardcover.&Blackwell&& Companions&to&Literature&and&Culture.&Oxford:&Blackwell&Publishing&Professional.& http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/.& Eden,&Terence.&2014.&“Tate&Hack.”&GitHub.&https://github.com/edent/TateTHack.& Elliott,&Devon,&Robert&MacDougall,&and&William&J.&Turkel.&2012.&“New&Old&Things:&& Fabrication,&Physical&Computing,&and&Experiment&in&Historical&Practice.”&Canadian' Journal'of'Communication&37&(1).&http://www.cjcT online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2506.& Galloway,&Alexander&R.&2004.&Protocol:'How'Control'Exists'After'Decentralization.&MIT&Press.& Gere,&Charlotte,&and&Judy&Rudoe.&2010.&Jewellery'in'the'Age'of'Queen'Victoria:'A'Mirror'to'the'' World.&British&Museum&Press.& Haraway,&Donna.&2003.&The'Haraway'Reader.&1st&ed.&Routledge.& Harvey,&Adam.&2013.&“Stealth&Wear.”&AH'Projects.&http://ahprojects.com/projects/stealthT& wear/.& Jones,&Matt.&2011.&“SensorTVernacular.”&BERG.&&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 28& http://berglondon.com/blog/2011/05/13/sensorTvernacular/.& Kraus,&Kari.&2009.&“Conjectural&Criticism:&Computing&Past&and&Future&Texts”&3&(4).&& http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/4/000069/000069.html.& Latour,&Bruno.&1987.&Science'in'Action:'How'to'Follow'Scientists'and'Engineers'Through'' Society.&Harvard&University&Press.& Manovich,&Lev.&2009.&“Cultural&Analytics.”&Software'Studies.&& http://lab.softwarestudies.com/p/culturalTanalytics.html.& Marvin,&Carolyn.&1988.&When'Old'Technologies'Were'New :'Thinking'About'Electric'' Communication'in'the'Late'Nineteenth'Century:'Thinking'About'Electric' Communication'in'the'Late'Nineteenth'Century.&Oxford&University&Press.& McLuhan,&Marshall.&1964.&Understanding'Media:'The'Extensions'of'Man.&Routledge.& Minsky,&Marvin.&1974.&“A&Framework&for&Representing&Knowledge.”&& https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html.& Moretti,&Franco.&2005.&Graphs,'Maps,'Trees:'Abstract'Models'for'a'Literary'History.&Verso.& Papert,&Seymour.&1966.&“The&Summer&Vision&Project,”&July.&& http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6125.& Resig,&John.&2015.&“Using&Computer&Vision&to&Increase&the&Research&Potential&of&Photo&& Archives.”&John'Resig.&Accessed&January&20.&http://ejohn.org/research/computerT& visionTphotoTarchives/.& Ryan,&Susan&Elizabeth.&2014.&Garments'of'Paradise:'Wearable'Discourse'in'the'Digital'Age.&& MIT&Press.& Sample,&Mark.&2013.&“The&Poetics&of&NonTConsumptive&Reading.”&SAMPLE'REALITY.&May&22.&&

Sayers&(Version&2,&Draft)& 29& http://www.samplereality.com/2013/05/22/theTpoeticsTofTnonTconsumptiveT reading/.& Sayers,&Jentery.&2014.&“The&Relevance&of&Remaking.”&The'Maker'Lab'in'the'Humanities.&& &

http://maker.uvic.ca/remaking/.&

Sherratt,&Tim.&2011.&“The&Real&Face&of&White&Australia.”&Discontents.&& http://discontents.com.au/theTrealTfaceTofTwhiteTaustralia/.& Sterling,&Bruce.&2005.&Shaping'Things.&MIT&Press.& ———.&2009.&“Design&Fiction.”&Interactions&16&(3):&20–24.&doi:10.1145/1516016.1516021.& ———.&2012.&“An&Essay&on&the&New&Aesthetic.”&Wired.&April&2.&& http://www.wired.com/2012/04/anTessayTonTtheTnewTaesthetic/.& Sterne,&Jonathan.&2003.&The'Audible'Past:'Cultural'Origins'of'Sound'Reproduction.&Duke&& University&Press.& Szeliski,&Richard.&2010.&Computer'Vision:'Algorithms'and'Applications.&Springer&Science&&&& Business&Media.& Viola,&Paul,&and&Michael&Jones.&2001.&“Robust&RealTTime&Object&Detection.”&In&International'' Journal'of'Computer'Vision.& &&

3/29/2015

Materializing information: 3D printing and social change


Digital desktop fabrication technologies such as 3D printing are currently being lauded in the popular press as a potentially socially transformative technology. We somewhat agree, arguing that 3D printing holds great socioeconomic implications, but also that more sustained attention should be paid to the ways in which 3D printing is entering into our creative environments. Our focus in this article is on the use of rapid prototyping by creatives such as architects, designers, and DIY advocates, since it is within these contexts where the popular themes of 3D printing are currently most concrete. To this end, in section one we provide some background for desktop digital fabrication, contextualizing 3D printing within industrial processes and Maker subcultures. In section two, we summarize our environmental scan of relevant popular and academic literature, using this to identify key trends in this area. We supplement this discussion in section three using our analysis of a ‘critical making’ session that took participants through a process of designing and printing simple objects as well as follow–up interviews with these participants. In the concluding section, we target four areas in need of future research.

chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

1/42

3/29/2015


ontents Introduction ection ackground Digital material convergence ection esults from environmental scan ection 3 ritical making session and interviews with stakeholders onclusion Introduction The front cover of a recent issue of the conomist heralds 3D printing as ‘the manufacturing technology that will change the world.’ It displays a violin made using a 3D fabrication technology called laser sintering, and adds ‘and it plays beautifully.’ While the hype associated with novel technologies is nothing new, 3D printing is a particularly interesting case. ike previous and related technological developments computer–numerical–control of machinery, the digital computer, the Internet the claims made about 3D printing are both too large and not large enough. Too large in that the advocates and supporters of 3D printing those who stand to gain by its development and dissemination, tell stories of its mythic importance it will revolutionize work, change structural relationships between labour and capital, and return manufacturing capabilities to developed national contexts . ., anada, northern urope. These claims are not large enough in that the mythic stories now being told dramatically under report the complexities of the social, organizational, and economic shifts that adoption of 3D printing may both herald and help create. ike the Internet or manufacturing, 3D printing is a socio–technical invention, one that involves not just technological interventions but also re uire and is manifested by organizational and business innovations. The stories now circulating tell a tale with broad strokes. While these stories may sell magazines and drive some investors, they both over and under value the ongoing detail work that 3D printing as an activity and as an innovation re uires. In this paper, based on a report resulting from the

–funded Materializing Information project

atto and ee,

, we focus attention on the processes and practices of 3D printing. In doing so, we criti ue some of the more mythic claims associated with 3D printing, reveal important details about how 3D printing is done, and address how it chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

2/42

3/29/2015


is potentially changing work within the creative industries. While by no means a comprehensive study, our expectation is that the themes and issues we discuss will help guide other scholars interested in labour, manufacturing, communications, and information technology, cast some more nuanced light for those who interests may be effected by this new way of making, and provide some guidance as to how the innovations promised by 3D printing might be sensitively addressed as policy–makers and other social actors begin to engage. The paper is organized into three sections. In section one, we provide some background into desktop digital fabrication and its relations to the increasingly blurring line between digitality and materiality more generally. We also detail some relevant academic work that specifically targets 3D printing. In section two, we provide an overview of some of the trends we see as most important to address in regards to 3D printing, using our analysis of an environmental scan carried out from – . These trends are supplemented in section three by our initial analysis of a critical making session and interviews of individuals from a variety of creative economy sectors who work we feel will be impacted by 3D printing. inally, in our conclusion with target four areas in need of future research.

ection

ackground

Digital material convergence

We are witness to a burgeoning movement towards the materialization of digital information that encompasses and crosses multiple areas, including recent innovations in ubi uitous and physical computing, open source hardware, and digital manufacturing, in concert with ongoing advances in social networking and online communities. In the spirit of other forms of media convergence enkins , previously unseen combinations between digital and physical production are emerging that encourage unprecedented control over material and symbolic landscapes. Increasingly, groups possessing various levels of technical expertise are able to simultaneously make and share both things material

and knowledge

immaterial

through newly conceived digitally mediated practices. uch developments

may prove profoundly transformative for traditional production–consumption relationships and current separations between experts and lay populations.


3/42

3/29/2015


ctivity of this kind is not entirely new people have been making things themselves and exchanging information about shared interests throughout history. urther empowered by the Internet, today’s so–called Maker communities are thriving and becoming increasingly visible. lso known for modes of engagement such as hacking, tinkering, and do– it–yourself DIY , this group has turned its attention to the physical aspects of digital culture

appropriating

hardware and experimenting with self–made devices as an alternative to purchasing commercial versions of those products. Moreover, the combination of online tutorials, access to electronic components and new fabrication technologies make it possible to design, develop and manufacture a variety of physical artifacts such as functional and or decorative objects, interactive devices and customized computers that previously re uired large scale manufacturing e uipment and investment. Our work focuses on the socioeconomic implications of the new fabrication technologies that are becoming increasingly integrated into the process of DIY making, particularly at the level of the individual and micro organization. s forecasted by ershenfeld , technologies such as computer numerically controlled mills, laser cutters and engravers, as well as ‘3D printers’ that were once the exclusive domain of large industry are now migrating from the factory to the desktop. While it has largely been tech–savvy design, art and Maker communities that have embraced such resources, the recent conomist issue noted at the beginning of this paper demonstrates a broader societal interest. If we look at how readily other forms of digital development such as document publishing, digital photo manipulation and Web site creation moved from expert to lay populations, it can be expected that a similar move will occur with digitally designed and physically manufactured media as well. Indicative of the increasing porosity between the digital and the material, a revolution in desktop digital fabrication is at least partially underway. ackground

3D printing

or this study, we chose one particular form of digital desktop fabrication technology, 3D printing, to gain more focused views into the wider phenomenon of the materialization of digital information. This choice was made in part because of the very noticeable groundswell of developments and discussion surrounding this technology in recent years. dditionally, as will be discussed in coming sections, our ongoing research work in ritical Making employs 3D printing technology for both hands on experimentation and ethnographic research. Moreover, the very concept of ‘3D chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

4/42

3/29/2015


printing’ seems to capture the popular imagination and speak optimistically of the future ‘ D’ paper printers have occupied such a common space in our technocultural landscape throughout the past few decades that the prospect of similar machines entering daily life and producing functional objects on demand is particularly poignant. To place 3D printing technology in context, it must be acknowledged that computers have been used in manufacturing since the s in the form of ‘rapid prototyping’ tools for large industry. riced in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars D , such industrial machines have been used to fabricate prototypes of products and parts to test their feasibility prior to mass production, utilizing processes that include stereo lithography, selective laser sintering, and fused layer modeling. In general, industrial rapid prototyping processes are characterized as either ‘additive’ building up material to make an object or ‘subtractive’ removing or cutting away material to make an object . The principle behind the majority of the additive processes, including 3D printing, involves layerization ‘slicing’ digital models into horizontal layers and building the object up one layer at a time, much like contours of a terrain model or making a clay coil pot see igure

. In recent years, industrial rapid prototyping machines such as those by tratasys

stratasys.com have become more compact and available at lower price points within the tens of thousands of dollars D , making in–house fabrication accessible to enterprises such as major industrial designers, small–run manufacturers, research labs and architectural firms.


5/42

3/29/2015


igure

rinciple of layerization in additive rapid prototyping

ebhardt,

3.

iven the roots of digital fabrication in industrial manufacturing, one might assume that the gradual migration of these technologies from the factory to the desktop is the result of product development and marketing driven by the corporate interests in capturing broader market share. While this effort is certainly underway, progress has been slow major electronics retailers like est uy still do not include 3D printers alongside other consumer technologies such as gaming consoles, digital cameras and mobile phones. The more notable push towards widespread adoption of 3D printing is, in fact, occurring at the much more grassroots level of Maker subculture, which as mentioned previously has turned its attention to appropriating technological hardware and experimenting with self–made devices. The technologies of industrial rapid prototyping and in particular, the relatively simple principle of layerization has been and remains a natural target for Makers, in part because people who enjoy making their own technological things would, somewhat understandably, be enamoured with the idea of making devices that would, themselves, make things. ersonal explorations in building DIY chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

machines have proliferated, proportionate to advancements in personal /42

3/29/2015


computers and programmable microprocessors, as well as the increasing availability of mechanical components such as stepper motors often recovered from discarded consumer electronics such as inkjet printers and scanners . xemplifying the spirit of such DIY

experimentation, ep ap http

reprap.org

is a seminal . .–based

project that is committed to the ongoing development of an extremely affordable less than five hundred dollars D

,

open source 3D printer designed to be self–replicating, or at least capable of printing all of its own key structural components. ike open source software, ep aps are freely available to ‘anyone’

anyone, that is, with enough

know–how and drive to put one together. uccessful assembly of a ep ap has been characterized as nontrivial re uiring local sourcing of often elusive hardware, extensive wiring and soldering of electronic components, as well as employing a decent working knowledge of software code. While enough ep aps have been made worldwide to earn the project a measured degree of success, it remains the domain of a niche community of Makers who possess considerable technical expertise. Yet the real value of the ep ap, as seen with other open source initiatives, lies in the manner in which the developments become appropriated and modified to suit alternative needs and visions. Many hackers have appropriated ep ap electronics to make customized artesian fabrication robots, and perhaps the most well known of these is the Maker ot makerbot.com 3 . apitalizing upon the intellectual and physical resources borne of the ep ap project, Maker ot Industries is a small company started by a team of self–described hackers in rooklyn, ew York that manufactures and markets affordable around , D , open source 3D printer kits see igure . In keeping with their affiliations to Maker sensibilities, these 3D printers are sold as prefabricated kits that re uire final assembly by the user a form of DIY–lite . While a certain comfort level with manipulating both electronic and mechanical parts is re uired to assemble one, the Makerbot has nevertheless made 3D printing far more accessible than the ep ap. kin to Ikea furniture, customers order a flat–packed Maker ot kit shipped to their door then put it together themselves as an enjoyable activity that one or two people can accomplish over a weekend. Though still far from mainstream, the increasing attention Maker ot is garnering in the popular press http blog.makerbot.com category in the news general public is on the rise. chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

indicates that awareness of and interest in 3D printing by the

/42

3/29/2015



/42

3/29/2015


igure

Maker ot 3D printer www.makerbot.com

.

While it is posited here that the current interest and activity surrounding 3D printing is largely driven by and attributable to the grassroots open source efforts of Maker subculture, corporations are also actively seeking market share. ewlett– ackard recently joined with tratasys to put the brand name behind a line of 3D printers priced at around , D , still just above the reach of the home market. urrently, it appears that the most ‘consumer– ready’ commercial 3D printer on offer is the pp3dp.com , a machine that also uses ep ap electronics but is mass–produced in hina and sold online as a proprietary, closed source, plug–and–play device. riced at about ,

D and dropping, the

represents the closest competitor to the Maker ot in terms of widespread adoption.

egardless, it seems inevitable that a proprietary mass–produced 3D printer whether the or an will, in the foreseeable future, eventually undercut, outperform and outsell the Maker ot and other similar open source projects. The effects that this milestone will bring to the currently vigorous culture of tinkering, hacking and DIY in this area remains to be seen. xisting scholarship The majority of current scholarship on 3D printing and related technologies relates to engineering or scientific aspects of these developments. xamples include alc and ampbell, urton, ells and owyer, opkinson, et al., ague, et al., . There is still little social science and humanities scholarship that specifically refers to 3D printing. What does exist tends to be cross–disciplinary works that blend industry interest, computing and engineering knowledge, as well as social themes here, issues of intellectual property, uestions of design methods and processes, and possible business possibilities and outcomes are blended. prototypical work in this regard is eil ershenfeld’s monograph ab The oming evolution on Your Desktop – rom personal computers to personal fabrication

. ershenfeld’s text contextualizes desktop digital fabrication within a longer history of


9/42

3/29/2015


computing, provides details as to various current and upcoming technologies, and predicts future socio–technical developments. More recent works have somewhat narrower scope, but are e ually cross–disciplinary. xamples that address I include radshaw, et al. as well as Weinberg . Others focus on implications for design and designers Duffy and een, impson, et al., , ampbell, et al., unar Design, address possible ramifications for the manufacturing industry, mass cutomization in particular

. nd many aumberger,

hin, oren and arhak, . Our research extends from this work by providing a more detailed and nuanced examination of desktop digital fabrication and 3D printing through interviews and observations.

ection

esults from environmental scan

In this section we identify key trends seen as important for participants involved in 3D printing as well as commentators on this emerging phenomenon. Our results are based on an analysis of materials gathered from journalism, technical documents, online fora, blogs, and Web sites related to desktop digital fabrication. While not exhaustive, the following five trends provide necessary detail for better understanding the roles of 3D printing in society more generally. . ovel spaces for fabrication The current developments in 3D printing and digital desktop fabrication technologies are opening novel ‘spaces’ for fabrication to occur. or example, as 3D printers drop in both size and price, they are becoming more common in homes, schools, and small businesses, potentially transforming those spaces into micro ‘factories’. The spaces are also virtual. ew online virtual communities heingold, 3 and network forums Turner, being established that make the outsourcing of 3D printing more accessible, streamlined, entrepreneurial and interactive. The two most prominent examples are hapeways shapeways.com and onoko ponoko.com

are

, which is focused on 3D printing,

that began as a laser cutting hub, but has recently expanded to include 3D printing as


10/42

3/29/2015


well as open source electronic hardware. esembling hybrids of online machine shop and social network, sites such as these bring together thousands of Makers worldwide to share a virtual version of the collective studio or workshop space, a typology held dear within the social histories of craft, art and design. In these collaborative spaces, users make, showcase, share and sell their creations while interacting with and learning from others. If recent major expansions by both companies are any indication, this model of the ‘virtual collective studio’ will continue to grow. Web–based networks and digital fabrication technologies are also enabling studios to be more inclusive and participatory. While there are countless choices available in 3D modeling software several of them free , the steep learning curve presents a formidable barrier to entry for the general population. To enable a greater number of users to interactively customize digital objects without the use of complex 3D modeling software, hapeways, onoko, tudio udens studioludens.com and others have developed simple 3D design ‘co–creation’ interfaces through which objects can be produced. Typically these software programs, often running as Web applications, provide a basic 3D shape that can be tailored by adjusting parameters or uploading simple two dimensional sketches. The use of digital fabrication distinguishes these emerging forms of co–creation from other forms of mass customization discussed later by treating the user less as a ‘customer’ and more as a member of the studio, encouraging creative input beyond merely selecting from preset features in a drop–down menu. ather, users interactively define attributes such as shape, proportion, eccentricity and porosity that are not only aesthetic, but may also imbue the object with personal meaning see igure 3 .


11/42

3/29/2015


igure 3

o–creation, personalizational option offered by hapeways http

www.shapeways.com creator

.

With more citizens accessing 3D printing, there exists a corresponding need for printable digital content, and this has given rise to online resources supporting the availability of 3D models. or example, Thingiverse thingiverse.com created by the team at Makerbot, is a user–generated online database of free, ready–to–print models that has

,

established itself as a ‘go–to’ place to both search for and share digital objects. oogle has also established a user– generated 3D Warehouse of models as a complement to oogle’s family of products that includes ketch p, a free modelling program heralded for its ease of use. Developments such as these raise both possibilities and uestions. While the concept of wiki thanks largely to Wikipedia is now a cultural norm, the term remains strongly associated with the sharing of digital information and knowledge. Yet because of the ease of movement between digital and physical representations enabled by digital fabrication, repositories such as Thingiverse and oogle 3D Warehouse chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

12/42

3/29/2015


have the potential to become effectively, ‘wikis’ of physical things

a concept certainly not yet within the sphere of

widespread cultural acceptance. lso, the linking of the oogle 3D Warehouse to the location–based capabilities of oogle arth and oogle Maps has already resulted in ‘geographically correct’ virtual representations of many buildings and structures. Yet with the increasing interest in smaller object representations encouraged by desktop 3D fabrication, extending the geo–capabilities of 3D Warehouse to its hypothetical limits opens the remarkable possibility of collaborative construction and maintenance of a more complete virtual world, not just at the level of cities, streets and buildings, but also inclusive of the everyday things contained within. . itizen empowerment The novel spaces for fabrication described above are opening new opportunities for citizen empowerment. Individuals are afforded digital tools, either through affordable 3D printing hardware or streamlined outsourcing, to engage with the act of making directly. urthermore, this engagement does not typically occur in isolation rather, digital media also provides the means for sharing the experience of making with others, through both receipt and dissemination of resources. In our environmental scan, we found that current uses of 3D printing seem to empower people in several distinct ways, including fashioning custom tools to accomplish specific tasks see igure extending or connecting disparate forms, systems or structures see igure visualizing problems that are difficult to picture virtually see igure expressing their aesthetic taste, individualism, community affiliation or ‘brand’ see igure and, of course, having fun by making their own toys see igure


.

13/42

3/29/2015


igure

sing 3D printing to fashion custom tools to accomplish a specific task. Image courtesy of Mark ngrin,

niversity of Toronto.


14/42

3/29/2015


igure http

sing 3D printing to extend or connect disparate forms, systems or structures blog.makerbot.com

3 duplo brick train track adapter by zydac


.

15/42

3/29/2015


igure http

sing 3D printing to visualize problems that are difficult to picture virtually. evitation illusion www.thingiverse.com thing


3 .

1 /42

3/29/2015


igure http

sing 3D printing to express aesthetic taste, individualism, community affiliation or ‘brand’ www.shapeways.com gallery

.


1 /42

3/29/2015


igure http

sing 3D printing to make ones own toys www.shapeways.com model

fat frankie

cm .html gid mg

.

We posit that such activities can constitute alternative forms of civic engagement, akin to explicit political forms such as protest or voting. hysical space and objects are expressions of their making and are ultimately manifestations of ideologies, so the act of creating alternative or personalized physical instantiations of those things is to engage with those ideologies, whether consciously or not. While this level of exchange is well established within the doctrines of the fields of art, architecture and design, and also within self–aware Maker communities, the novel spaces for expression and exchange afforded by digital desktop fabrication are helping to expand opportunities for material forms of civic engagement to the general population. There are, of course, limits to the extent of these forms of citizen empowerment. urrently, the maximum size of objects chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

1 /42

3/29/2015


that may be 3D printed by popular means is currently at the scale of the handheld as

x3 x

cm the Maker ot at

x

x

hapeways specifies its build limit

mm , and though larger sizes are available through industrial

shops, the cost becomes prohibitively high. This means that someone interested in making their own car bumper, for example, would need to seek out more traditional methods of production such as hand–laid fiberglass. This is not to say that her DIY process would not be digitally mediated she would likely turn to a site like Instructables.com

or

the myriad of auto forums for resources however, she is excluded from the spaces of citizen empowerment that digital desktop fabrication currently affords. 3. The evolving consumer The new forms of citizen empowerment enabled by 3D printing described above are occurring alongside notable shifts in consumer behavior. In the contemporary digital economy, consumers increasingly seek out individualized experiences and expect that products be tailored to their specific needs, wants, contexts and tastes. One illustration of this is what essig terms ittle rother , the practice of major online businesses such as mazon, iTunes and oogle to surreptitiously collect data on the buying behavior of their customers and then suggest products and display advertising targeted to that profile. onsumers are now accustomed to individual attention, and the challenge for producers is ade uately satisfying that demand. In terms of manufacturing, von ippel

analyzes the shift toward individualized consumerism in terms of the

gaps that occur when users’ needs for a technology or product are far more heterogeneous than can be ade uately satisfied through mass production. There are multiple ways in which producers can fill this gap. One is, of course, the ‘bespoke’ mode of customization, now reserved for highly specialized and often elitist items. lternatively, the manufacturer may allow consumers to select from various options late in the production phase, which is common for such features as car color or a condominium’s interior finishes. While the above forms of customization are consumer–oriented but producer–driven, emerging modes of customization are decidedly consumer–driven Mowatt,

. The prosumer

itzer and urgenson,

Tapscott,

is a model that puts the consumer at the centre of product innovation and has been exerted most visibly on chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

19/42

3/29/2015


digital products such as software and gaming. ow, aided by digital desktop fabrication, prosumer modes of production are traversing from the digital to the material. Mass customization describes the approach of employing industrial rapid prototyping technologies, not just for test pieces, but to manufacture end products with customer– specified features.

current example is I

iD nikeid.nike.com

, ike’s Web site that allows users to ‘build’

custom shoes with individualized color combinations and personal text insignia ‘iD’ . This form of manufacturing is thus able to introduce elements of bespoke tailoring to products normally associated with mass production, but at mitigated price points due to economies of scale. o–creation platforms, discussed earlier, are also variants of mass customization that afford prosumers the opportunity to interactively personalize products in such a way that encourages users to feel more like ‘designers’ of objects rather than passive recipients. nother prosumer model is that of lead user innovation

von ippel,

, whereby consumers modify mass

produced products after purchase to suit their own preferences through hacking and tinkering. lthough initially resistant, manufacturers are increasingly willing to release their products with this end in mind, reaping the benefits of increased appeal among DIY consumers as well as gathering ‘free’ ideas generated in the resulting modifications. s discussed earlier, 3D printing is empowering people to fabricate things that serve as viable alternatives to purchasing mass produced consumer goods. Therefore, as personal rapid prototyping technologies such as 3D printing, scanning and modelling become more accessible, lead user innovators will be even more empowered to alter, reverse engineer, and design their own products. This will continue to challenge the viability of traditional modes of production and commercialization to fully satisfy an increasingly atomized consumer base. inally, one way that this evolving notion of the ‘consumer as product innovator’ will trouble manufacturers is that the motivation behind many lead user innovators is not necessarily financial. or many, the choice to either innovate or buy is not simply a matter of cost–effectiveness von ippel,

. ather, there are alternative rewards that people

derive from taking on challenges such as reverse engineering an appliance or developing their own carrying case for their smart phone. Many DIYers report that they are driven less by financial interests than more by intangible benefits such as opportunities to learn, apply creativity, and share knowledge

uznetsov and aulos,

. While the

implications of non–monetary gain on the digital economy will be discussed in coming sections, what is notable here is that these developments reflect a shift in consumer attitude away from the notion of material production as an chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

20/42

3/29/2015


experts–only profit–making enterprise, to a view of making and modifying as experiential learning a notion that runs parallel to our research work in ritical Making . Through making, consumerism may gain greater awareness of the ideas and issues surrounding production processes knowledge that is not only intrinsically beneficial, but may also encourage more Made in anada products in the marketplace. . ew conceptions of labour s the lines between digital and physical production become increasingly blurred, so too do conceptions of labour surrounding them. uestions arise as to what different forms of ‘work’ re uired to make physical things through digital means, whether that work is skilled or unskilled, and what forms of value are created and exchanged. s digital information becomes increasingly materialized, established modes of digital production are migrating to the physical realm as well. ommons–based peer production enkler, , enabled by digital networks, has proven transformative in the digital realm by introducing modes of production of large projects inux, Wikipedia, etc. based on collaboration and the widely distributed contributions by many, as opposed to mass production from a centralized source. In a previous section we described novel spaces for fabrication, all of which are built on the peer production model and rely on user–generated content. s more Makers turn to Web–based networks in their making process, they must increasingly rely on faculties more closely associated with the so–called ‘knowledge worker’ to deftly navigate and reap full benefit from those spaces. This may include effective information seeking, documenting and presenting projects through digital photographs or D renderings, describing work in writing that strikes the correct ‘tone’ , and being wary of the authenticity of digital representation by others. uch skills have not necessarily been a substantial part of Making cultures in the past, which may have been more reliant upon face–to–face interactions ennett,

.

Many people laud the precision, intricacy and fineness of detail exhibited by a 3D printed object and often express delight that such a thing could be produced automatically , without having to do any work . This, we believe, is a misconception of digitally mediated practices such as 3D printing. When comparing the labour and expertise involved in making an object by 3D printing versus making the same object by hand, it is incomplete to account only for effort chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

21/42

3/29/2015


exerted by the maker exclusively at that particular place and time. The process of creating the digital 3D model of that object whether done visually, haptically or parametrically re uires skilled work, particularly to achieve the standards of printability

http

www.shapeways.com tutorials things to keep in mind

demanded of current file formats

T and ollada . econd, while it is true that actually executing a 3D print turns much of the in situ effort of materialization over to a machine, the machine itself is the manifestation of knowledge, skills and labour involved in its design, manufacture and maintenance. The 3D printer as a ‘tool’ tends to dissolve and replace certain forms of effort, so long as it operates smoothly, as intended. owever, as any Maker ot owner will tell you, when the tool breaks down or behaves in unexpected ways, specialized work is re uired to return it to its unproblematic state norr etina, . In the most broad framework, to account for the labour involved in making a 3D printed object, one must consider the entire sphere of effort that was exerted by an object’s making, as distributed over space and time as that may be. The changing notions of labour around digital desktop fabrication have resulted in tensions between newer forms of digitally mediated craftsmanship and ‘traditional’ craft practices. These tensions became very visible recently in a forum debate on tsy etsy.com

, the online craft marketplace similar in concept to hapeways and onoko but

dedicated to handmade and vintage goods. s was reported by Turner

on onoko

I think it is time that laser cut products be taken out of the handmade category, declared a wood worker in the tsy forums last month. What followed were 3 pages worth of debate on what ualifies as ‘handmade’. ... The handmade movement was never about the rejection of machines. It was about the rejection of mass– production. nfortunately, the term mass–production became synonymous with ‘machine–made’. ... If people on tsy have conflicting views about handmade vs digitally fabricated, imagine the confusion of the general public. s the public’s concern about the origin, manufacturing process, and materials of products continues to rise, so will the popularity of handmade goods. It is crucial that digitally fabricated designs be understood with the same positive and respected reputation as the handmade.


22/42

3/29/2015


... We need a term that focuses not on technology or human touch, but on the individual attention an object receives during its construction. ecause it’s with individual attention that today’s maker movement is replacing mass– production. http

blog.ponoko.com

missing the point handmade vs digitally fabricated

onflict such as this reveals an increasing ambiguity of the meaning of craft caused by increased digital mediation in creating physical things, similar to the contention faced historically by other machine tools that were seen as threats in replacing the ‘authenticity’ of skilled hand work

ughes and inclair,

ennett,

. s digital customization

technologies such as 3D printing provide crafts people more opportunities to serve consumer tastes for goods bearing a uni ue personal signature, new instantiations and configurations of skill and labour forming around these processes are proving to be disruptive of existing cultural understandings of boundaries, not only between digital material, but also between sectors of work in the contemporary digital economy. . nlocking latent entrepreneurship There exist many ‘amateur inventors’ who harbour innovative ideas for products but find themselves unable to move those designs from conception to market reality. chieving viable consumer price points for such inventions is typically cost–prohibitive for the individual or micro organization, re uiring substantial capital investment to cover steps such as specialized D services, industrial rapid prototyping, mass production in large uantities, and corporate distribution. owever, new opportunities are emerging for ambitious small–scale inventors to bypass these barriers. With the co evolution of novel spaces for fabrication, citizen empowerment, the evolving consumer, and new conceptions of labour, there now exists notably greater potential to unlock entrepreneurial ventures that would otherwise lay latent and untapped.

ection 3

ritical making session and interviews with stakeholders

To help us gain additional insight in to the perceptions, attitudes and connections surrounding a technology such as chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

23/42

3/29/2015


3D printing, we employed a method termed ritical Making, developed and practiced by .I. Matt atto in his lab at the niversity of Toronto atto and oekema, atto, atto, . The primary aim of ritical Making like other forms of T and I research is to connect technological systems and practices to critical scholarship and ideas. owever, where our method finds distinction is that we also engage collective hands–on experimentation making , the results of which serve as cultural probes aver, et al., that help open conceptual channels of discourse to augment traditional ethnographic practices. ey to ritical Making are therefore collaborative meetings, sessions or workshops, where participants are encouraged to physically engage, experiment with and discuss pertinent aspects of technologies in uestion. or this study, an evening workshop addressing the possibilities of 3D printing and desktop digital fabrication was held at the niversity of Toronto’s aculty of Information. Of the

participants, most were professionals who work

with digital media in their daily practices and were drawn from a group known as DDiMIT Designing Digital Media for the Internet of Things consortium. This collective was formed by Matt atto in conjunction with the niversity of Toronto’s nowledge Media Design Institute to connect university researchers, non–profit associations, digital media content creators and related businesses to collaborate on projects concerning Internet of Things , a burgeoning area that intersects with the materialization of information framed in this paper. Throughout the session see igure

, participants explored online crowdsourced repositories of 3D models described

later in more detail , designed their own 3D objects using free software, and printed these objects on a professional– uality 3D printer located in the ritical Making ab. The functional or aesthetic merit of the actual objects made by participants, in this case custom pendants see igure

, were not the end goal or even the focus of the workshop.

ather, as stated earlier, the artifacts and moreover, the process of learning how to make them using 3D printing and related systems were used to open channels for conceptual exploration, reflection and criticism.


24/42

3/29/2015


igure

ritical Making tutorial guide exploring 3D printing processes.


25/42

3/29/2015


igure

amples of pendants 3D printed by rticial Making workshop participants.

These ritical Making processes both physical and intellectual were captured in two ways. irst, the workshop itself, including discussions both informal solving problems, clarifying unclear points as well as formal opening presentation and wrap–up discussion , was captured in audiovisual recordings as well as field notes. econd, follow– up interviews were conducted with willing participants in the weeks following, to dive deeper in to their personal thoughts and response to their experience of 3D printing that the workshop may have stimulated. This material was analysed using a grounded theory coding approach the results of which are summarized below. The workshop session provided a shared experience that provided context for scheduled interviews. These unstructured interviews took place within one month of the workshop, lasted for approximately one hour each, and were transcribed chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

2 /42

3/29/2015


and anonymized. Three themes have emerged from our initial coding process. espondents emphasized the materiality of 3D printing, finding it to be both a possible problem as well as a solution to a variety of issues. ot surprisingly given that many of them self–identified as designers, the role of the designer and the possible transformation of design practice was also a theme. inally, the ramifications for design and manufacturing and related political and legal issues such as I

was also a theme.

Materiality It’s sort of the same as when styrofoam came out. You know, can you picture a world without styrofoam now elson, cultural sector It’s more on the fringes of design right now, but we’re starting to see more hand–crafted furniture hand–crafted wood furniture is starting to make a comeback, as kind of a reaction against the

s

s disposable mentality

regarding products. Mark, industrial design My perspective on the 3d printing ... I didn’t actually print my object at the workshop, because, you know, I didn’t need the physical object I actually really like the digital sphere, where I can have all kinds of stuff, without having to carry it around with me. on, e–business consultant The hands–on nature of the workshop highlighted the material ualities of 3D printing, the particular aesthetic uality of fabricated objects, as well as their environmental ramifications. In the uote above, elson, for example, predicts a world where such 3D printed things are as ubi uitous as styrofoam, and wonders about the ramifications of this. Mark compares 3D printing and hand–crafted design and in doing so articulates his anxiety about how widespread access to desktop fabrication technologies may increase the ‘disposable object’ mentality. imilarly, on focuses on how the virtual object he created at the workshop was enough

he liked its virtual form without needing a physical version.

These uotes reveal some deep ambiguities as to the possibilities of desktop fabrication. On one hand, there is a sense that the technology creates the potential for novel commercial and cultural expression, and that this potential will chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

2 /42

3/29/2015


have widespread impact. On the other hand, desktop fabrication is also seen as having negative ramifications, as increasing our already existing ‘throw–away’ culture. uch ambiguities also demonstrate an insecurity that many designers feel about their role in society. They worry about the objects they are creating and whether or not they are trivial. This concern is exacerbated by a sense that design is becoming an increasingly mainstream activity. Design crowdsourcing The one thing I think I had almost a visceral reaction to was the one comment that was made and it’s probably because I’m a designer but the idea that this is heralding the end of good design . I just thought that was a load of baloney. ecause, you know, my friend might have a really good pair of scissors, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to let her cut my hair Megan, industrial design I can understand that perspective, and I can understand being defensive, but I don’t think that just having 3D printing devalues craftsmanship. I don’t think you can just magically replace old ways of doing things ... there could be craftsmanship inherent in something that has been digitally modelled ... after it comes out of the printer, it’s still not perfect. things.

ow we engage with it can be very creative and very time consuming it’s just a different way of doing

olly, industrial design

ecause many of the workshop participants were industrial designers, there was much discussion around 3D printing posing a threat to their areas of expertise. ere, Megan downplays the technological novelty of 3D printing diminishing the uality of good design through democratization and crowdsourcing, stressing instead that it is a ‘tool’ like any other what scissors are to hair . olly saw that 3D printing, though commonly regarded as an ‘automated process’, does not replace design skill and craftsmanship, but rather transfers various forms of expertise to different areas, such as modelling effectively to achieve high uality 3D prints. egal issues I is really hard. I’ve published about a dozen software patents, but I don’t agree with them, so it’s a weird place to chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

2 /42

3/29/2015


be ... We have a whole culture of kids growing up who have no concept of intellectual property. They take stuff of the Web, and mix and mash it together, upload it to YouTube, and that’s just the way things work. The tools are available, it’s easy to do, and they’re actually creating new things and new value, but not legally allowed to ... olicy always lags what’s actually happening in the world.

on, e–business consultant

ike with small snap connectors, there’s patents all around that sort of stuff ... but all of a sudden, with 3d printing, you could just print one for free ... It’s a hard uestion it’s hard to say what will become of it. It definitely would be a threat, for lack of a better term. Mark, industrial designer Intellectual property and other legal issues were not widely addressed during the workshop session. Despite the above uotes, participants were unsure how fabricated objects might participate in current I regimes. ike on, many acknowledged a shift in cultural conceptions of property, seeing the ‘mash–up’ culture of the Web as creating new kinds of value. owever, most also understood how current owners of I might see desktop fabrication as a threat. Mark’s uote provides an example of this. ertainly, more thinking and research needs to be done in this area. hanging industries I think that if designers are flexible, and you move your company in certain ways, people will still need you. ust maybe not in ways that you think that they will ... I don’t think that people’s jobs will be lost, and that people will stop needing designers or design–type people in the world they just need to adapt to meet the needs of clients present yourself with different values and offer different things.

olly, industrial design

ight now, alot of the bigger projects we send out to get prototyped. Which is really good too, because they are able to update their machines it s their business, so they should always have the latest and the greatest. ut, as costs go down, I think those types of companies are probably going to have to find a new model. Megan, industrial design If you’re talking about creating rapid prototyping objects for sale, are things like those amazing light fixtures that look like sponges or foam, with undercuts galore, enclosed areas, that you could never mold using injection molding chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

29/42

3/29/2015


processes. I think that is where, from a consumer perspective, it could actually take off. ut otherwise, you just can’t beat five cents a part by a hinese manufacturer. Megan, industrial design These comments point to awareness among the group that as 3D printing gains adoption, the structure and practice of affected small and medium sized businesses will be transformed. s olly observes, as more of their clients obtain and use 3D printers, designers may have to adjust their practices around such developments, rather than resist them. Megan also sees that the rapid evolution of digital fabrication will put increased pressure on companies who provide outsourcing of rapid prototyping services to innovate rather than become obsolete. owever, Megan was less optimistic about changes to existing industry practices in the near future while she could see niche markets for 3D printed products, the entrenched infrastructures and economic efficiencies of injection molding will be difficult to ‘break’. uturism and work The week following the workshop, the authors of this paper met to reflect upon and discuss our impressions of the session and our observations of participants. rom the many threads that were drawn out, two were found to be particularly resonant. One was tension around the ways in which 3D printing potentially reframes existing notions of work involved in making things, and the potential trivialization of both design and objects that might result. s one observer noted, There seemed to be the suggestion that if you break your cup from Ikea, and you go to your 3D printer to replace it, that replacement cup is more trivial than the Ikea cup ... . It is notable, however, that ‘ease’ of effort in replacing a cup implied by this statement somewhat contradicts the visible difficulty that most participants experienced during the tutorial in navigating the tools provided in order to successfully print a pendant of their own. nother thread that was uite evident from comments expressed during the session discussion was that of ‘futurism’ and more specifically, what the impending ubi uity of desktop 3D printing will mean for consumer culture. One observer remarked on how intuitive it was to talk about the economic aspect of it ... but when you think about it, it’s not necessarily an economic subject. This sense, that the changes that may occur are not just technical but e ually social and economic in nature provides the frame to contextualize the results from our environmental scan. The socio– chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

30/42

3/29/2015


technical nature of what has previously been considered from a linear and technology–driven perspective is a major theme in science and technology studies, information studies, and the study of communication more generally. It is interesting to note that, at least among participants in the emergence of 3D printing, this insight has become almost mundane.

onclusion In this paper we have highlighted a variety of social and technological innovations associated with digital desktop fabrication. One aspect of DD is clear

it is not merely a new tool or apparatus, but constitutes a new mode of

material engagement that both productively and problematically recombines knowledge work, craft, and design in novel ways.

ually, DD can be considered a social phenomenon, one in which the crowdsourcing, sharing, and

‘mash–up’ practices that are already mainstream around other digital media forms become instantiated in material artifacts. While such moves entail shifts in how objects are designed, produced and evaluated, also disruputed are the professional roles of designers, the relationships between producers and consumers, and the nature of work itself. While it is early days, it is clear that with DD , more people are going to be more engaged in making and that the role and purpose of traditional manufacturers will ultimately change. s noted above, this vision includes such changes as making, appropriation and modifying as collaborative acts of alternative modes of consumption and civic engagement, rethinking notions of what constitutes hand–made, machine–made, well–crafted or customized products individuals and micro organizations taking amateur inventions from conception to final market through newly formed spaces and channels. ere, we feel there is a role to play for governments and creative sector interests that goes beyond the current initiatives now in place. cholars such as oger Martin and ichard lorida have highlighted the importance of the creative sectors for economic growth as well as for generally culturally sensitive and supportive cities. . Infrastructure


31/42

3/29/2015


In the previous section we described 3D printing technologies in their current context as well as various novel ‘spaces’ within which digitally mediated fabrication of material things is flourishing. We also outlined how these developments are encouraging increased citizen involvement in the economy through making, prosumption, and micro entrepreneurship. It is notable that the most prominent platforms in this area have not originated in anada, but rather in urope

ep ap, hapeways, onoko and the nited tates Maker ot, Thingiverse, oogle . While not yet

a leader in the area of digital desktop fabrication, countries and regions should ensure readiness for increased adoption of such systems, spaces and related practices by having in place a solid foundation of supportive infrastructure. s the use of digital desktop fabrication platforms expands, strong and wide–reaching digital networks are needed to support the use, connectivity and growth of novel spaces for fabrication. lso, because these spaces involve transforming raw materials to physical products that also must be distributed and exchanged, physical network infrastructure that supports efficient transport and shipping of those goods should also be maintained. . iteracy iven the blurring of the boundaries and changing conceptions around labour and skilled work brought about by the convergence of the digital and material domains, it is vital that the education and training of the workforce keep ahead of these developments in order to maintain a leadership position in the global digital economy. or example, those who work in areas with strong traditions of hand production craft, for example will increasingly find themselves using digital knowledge to navigate network forums and online communities. lso, as desktop digital fabrication technologies such as 3D printing proliferate and spread into homes, schools and small businesses, greater fluency with 3D digital content will be re uired. kills must be developed and maintained for such work as creating and editing 3D models using the wide array of available

D software and other methods reading, editing and converting those

models amongst an e ually wide variety of file formats managing 3D content databases effectively and efficiently checking 3D models for integrity, authenticity and ‘3D printability’. t the same time, those who are accustomed to working exclusively within a digital environment may find themselves, to a greater degree, confronting often problematic issues of materiality, mechanics and structural assembly as it becomes more common for the digital content they create to be transformed to physical form.


32/42

3/29/2015


3. egislation s mentioned earlier, we chose 3D printing as a lead indicator of the wider phenomenon of the materialization of information because it heralds a future of citizen participation through creative and inventive making. owever, there are foreseeable frictions that arise alongside this future that will likely re uire legislative consideration and resolution. We spoke earlier of the possibility of online repositories of user–generated 3D models to develop in to wikis–of– things , vast online catalogues of digital object representations ranging from the everyday to the fantastical that are continually updated, shared, disseminated, freely downloaded, and re produced in material form on a desktop 3D printer. In effect, we may soon live in a world in which everyday objects, as with digital software and other media, are collaboratively created and made available as open source . This ability of digital material representations to be shared so fluidly gives rise to a number of issues with legal ramifications. One could be liability if someone downloads, prints and installs a crowdsourced 3D model of a shelving bracket, for example, uestions arise as to whether the design had been ade uately engineered and tested, and who if anyone would be liable for harm or damages resulting from structural failure. egislation currently abounds in the interest of consumer safety in the marketplace, but as more people use 3D printers to fabricate useful objects in lieu of purchasing them from a ‘known source’, the extent of that safety is brought in to uestion. There also exists the possibility that 3D printing will be used to purposely circumvent laws in various ways for example, though a certain jurisdiction might prohibit the import of a certain type of product a weapon, for example , 3D printing a digital model of that product after electronically transporting it to the jurisdiction easily bypasses efforts to ‘keep it off store shelves’. nd finally, charged debate around intellectual property I taking shape, as examined by radshaw, et al.

and fair use as it pertains to 3D printing is already

as well as Weinberg

. With emerging desktop digital

fabrication and 3D scanning technologies, designs for physical things will be increasingly duplicated, reverse engineered, shared and distributed by users lawfully or otherwise. The widespread appropriation practices already seen with digital music and video will inevitably migrate from virtual environments to the physical, and the ensuing challenges will re uire decisive policy that strikes the appropriate balance between freedom and constraint. . Initiatives chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

33/42

3/29/2015


Through our ongoing research into the socioeconomic conse uences of the materialization of digital information brought about by such technologies as digital desktop fabrication and 3D printing, a key theme has emerged that should be considered when designing and implementing public initiatives to support a strong digital economy. That is, we see that digital media cannot be considered as a separate and distinct sector within the economy per se rather, digitally mediated creative work is integrated in highly specific ways into a wide array of production practices, and increasingly, this includes production of the non–digital. o longer does the term digital media automatically imply content that is both produced and consumed exclusively in digital form. s shown in this paper, digital information virtual electronic ‘bits’ is becoming increasingly porous with physical representation material tactile ‘atoms’ . Thus the notions, assumptions and understandings of what constitutes digital media and for that matter, information technology are thrown in to uestion and demand broader consideration. inally, it is important to note the need for additional, on–going research in this area. DD brings together a number of important socio–technical developments that are meaningful for a variety of social science and humanities fields. ew forms of community and community exchange, new types of artistic and cultural expression, transformations of the notion of embodiment and materiality, renewed emphasis on the means of production and the idea of a public good. Disciplines such as communciation, economics, political science, sociology, anthropology, technology studies, not to mention information our home discipline all provide insights for cross–disciplinary studies. bout the authors Matt atto received his hD from the niversity of alifornia, an Diego in

3, writing his dissertation on the social

organization of the inux development community. ollowing this, he completed a two–year post–doc at the etherlands Institute for cientific Information umanities and ocial ciences in msterdam oundation

IWI and in – W . In

helped create the irtual nowledge tudio for the , he was awarded a etherlands cience

WO grant to study the use of computer simulation and modeling technologies in archaeology and in

was given a one–year fellowship in the

Mlab, an innovative digital humanities laboratory located at the

niversity of me , weden. e moved to the niversity of Toronto in


.

34/42

3/29/2015


Matt is the director of the ritical Making lab at the niversity of Toronto. This facility provides students and faculty researchers with basic electrical, craft, and computing e uipment that can be used to design, develop, and explore material fabrication and technical prototyping. Matt is also the director of ThingTank ab, http

www.thingtanklab.com

a private–public–academic consortium interested in investigating, exploring, and

building capacity around new developments in tangible interfaces, smart objects, and digital infrastructures. Departing from the traditional model of the hackerspace, ThingTank is an digital economy trading zone , a virtual and physical space where Ontario companies, academic institutions, and community organizations can leverage their joint knowledge and skills in order to support each other in doing novel research, creating innovative products and services, and fostering creative and engaging work in the Internet of things. Direct comments to matt dot ratto at utoronto dot ca obert ee is a professor at the chool of nimation, rts and Design at heridan ollege in Oakville, Ontario, where he teaches courses in design drawing, architectural illustration, and interaction design. n active member of ThingTank ab, his research interests attempt to synthesize concepts and techni ues from his background in architecture with the challenges, problems and opportunities posed by contemporary digital information systems. obert’s ongoing work has included explorations into ‘tactile’ data visualization using open source hardware and software, programming parametric virtual sculptural forms in processing, as well as examining the physical and social dimensions of desktop 3D fabrication technologies. In

he defended his thesis, entitled 3D rinting

onvergences, rictions, luidity . cknowledgments The authors would like to thank the ocial ciences and umanities esearch ouncil for their funding of the project The Materialization of Information and the Digital conomy under the nowledge ynthesis rant on the Digital conomy program. We would also like to thank the aculty of Information at the niversity of Toronto for their continuing support of cutting edge research on our changing information environments. eferences chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

35/42

3/29/2015


. alc and . ampbell, . rom D and to innovative manufacturing, In . Ivan, . ancea, . ilip, . hicos, M. Mihali, and . imon editors . o M ’ omputing and solutions in manufacturing engineering. rasov, omania Transylvania niversity of rasov. . aumberger,

. Methods of re uirement specification in the context of product individualization and mass

customization,

roceedings of the Third World ongress on Mass customization and ersonalization. ong ong

ong ong niversity of cience and Technology. Y. enkler,

. The wealth of networks

ow social production transforms markets and freedom. ew aven, onn.

Yale niversity ress. . radshaw, . owyer, and . aufe, I Ted, volume , number , at http

. The intellectual property implications of low–cost 3D printing, www.law.ed.ac.uk ahrc script ed vol

bradshaw.asp

, accessed

une

. M. urton, process,

. Design for rapid manufacture The impact of direct additive manufacturing on the industrial design h.D. dissertation, oughborough niversity.

. ampbell, D. De eer, . arnard, . ooysen, M. Truscott, . ain, M. urton, D. yi, and . ague, . Design evolution through customer interaction with functional prototypes, ournal of ngineering Design, volume , number , pp. . hin,

.

– 3 .http

dx.doi.org

3

.

ow mass customization changes the design process MIT Media ab’s oncept ar roject,

roceedings of the Third World ongress on Mass customization and ersonalization. ong ong

ong ong

niversity of cience and Technology. . Duffy and . een, http

.

an anyone be a designer

www.fastcompany.com magazine


ast ompany

open debate extra.html

October , at , accessed

une

. 3 /42

3/29/2015


conomist,

. 3D printing The printed world

accessed 3 une

dx.doi.org

. ershenfeld, ew York

.

. Design .

ultural probes, Interactions, volume , number , pp.

,

–

3

. ab The coming revolution on your desktop

from personal computers to personal fabrication.

asic ooks.

. ebhardt,

3. apid prototyping. Munich

anser ublishers.

. ague, . Tuck, I. ampbell, M. uffo, . Dickens and T. Wohlers, report

www.economist.com node

.

. aver, T. Dunne and . acenti, .http

ebruary , at http

apid prototyping and manufacturing

. opkinson, . ague, and . Dickens editors , age. hichester Wiley. . ughes and M. inclair,

.

. apid manufacturing

automated craft

une

onference, at http

.

ociality with objects

, number , pp. –3 .http

Y. oren and . arhak,

.

ew York niversity ress.

ocial relations in postsocial knowledge societies, Theory ulture dx.doi.org

.

utomobile interior personalization


www.idsa.org next stages

.

. onvergence culture Where old and new media collide. ew York

. norr etina, ociety, volume

n industrial revolution for the digital

ext stages in automated craft The integration of rapid manufacture technologies roceedings from the ID

. enkins,

apid manufacturing, In Wohlers

tate of the industry. ort ollins, olo. Wohlers ssociates.

into craft and DIY applications, , accessed

.

3 Trends and analysis,

roceedings of the M 3 /42

3/29/2015


World onference on Mass ustomization . uznetsov and . aulos, ’

.

ersonalization, pp. – .

ise of the expert amateur DIY projects, communities, and cultures,

roceedings of the th ordic onference on uman– omputer Interaction

and at http

www.staceyk.org hci uznetsovDIY.pdf

. essig,

une

xtending oundaries, pp.

. Mowatt, products, In

.

–3

,

enguin ress.

www.lunar.com inside capabilities.html 3 , accessed

une

.

. Impacts of the digital economy The shift to consumer–driven competition and life–span . ehal and . ingh editors . Digital economy Impacts, influences and challenges. ershey, a. Idea

roup, pp. 3 – . heingold, Wesley.

apabilities, at http

I

.

. emix Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. ew York

unar Design,

3. 3. The virtual community

. itzer and . urgenson, digital ‘prosumer’, 3 .http

, accessed

ordi

.

omesteading on the electronic frontier. eading, Mass.

roduction, consumption, prosumption The nature of capitalism in the age of the

ournal of onsumer ulture, volume

dx.doi.org

.

. ells and . owyer,

ddison–

3

, number , pp. 3–

33

. Directly incorporating electronics into conventional rapid prototypes,

the th ational onference on apid Design, rototyping and Manufacturing. igh Wycombe, . .

roceedings of entre for apid

Design and Manufacture. . ennett,

. The craftsman. ew aven, onn. Yale niversity ress.

T. impson, . iddi ue, and . iao editors , chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

. roduct platform and product family design Methods and 3 /42

3/29/2015


applications. ew York

pringer.

D. Tapscott and . Williams, . Turner,

ow mass collaboration changes everything. ew York

. rom counterculture to cyberculture

utopianism. hicago . Turner, http

. Wikinomics

andmade vs. digitally fabricated

ugust , onoko, at

missing the point handmade vs digitally fabricated 3 , accessed

blog.ponoko.com

M. Weinberg,

tewart rand, the Whole arth etwork and the rise of digital

niversity of hicago ress.

. Missing the point

. von ippel,

ortfolio.

une

.

. Democratizing innovation. ambridge, Mass. MIT ress. . It will be awesome if they don’t screw it up 3D printing, intellectual property, and the fight over

the next great disruptive technology, at http up 33 , accessed

une

www.publicknowledge.org it will be awesome if they dont screw it

.

ditorial history eceived

ebruary

accepted

une

.

Materializing information 3D printing and social change by Matt atto and obert ee is licensed under a reative ommons ttribution– on ommercial 3.

nported icense 3 .

Materializing information 3D printing and social change by Matt atto and obert ee irst Monday, olume http

, umber

uly

firstmonday.org ojs index.php fm article view rticle 3


3

3 39/42

3/29/2015


doi

.

fm.v

i .3

reat ities nitiati e of the ni ersit of llinois at hicago ni ersit

i rar 3

irst Monday

in s http:

stratas s com

http: reprap org 3 http: ma er ot com http: http:

log ma er ot com categor in the ne s ma er ot com

http: pp3dp com http:

shape a s com

http:

pono o com

http:

st diol dens com

http:

shape a s com creator

http:

thingi erse com

http: 3 http:

log ma er ot com

3 d plo ric train trac adapter

z dac

thingi erse com thing:

http:

shape a s com galler

http:

shape a s com model

fat fran ie


cm html gid mg 40/42

3/29/2015


http:

instr cta les com inde

http: firstmonda org o s inde php fm article ie

rticle 3

http:

shape a s com t torials things to eep in mind

http:

ets com

http:

log pono o com

missing the point handmade s digitall fa ricated

http:

thingtan la com

http:

la

ed ac

ni eid ni e com

ahrc script ed ol

radsha

asp

3 http: d doi org http:

fastcompan com magazine

http:

economist com node

http: d doi org http:

open de ate e tra html

3

idsa org ne t stages a tomated craft

http: d doi org

3

http:

stace

org hci

znetso D

3

http:

l nar com inside capa ilities html

3

http: d doi org

3

http:

log pono o com

33 http:

p

pdf

3

3

missing the point handmade s digitall fa ricated

lic no ledge org it

3

http: creati ecommons org licenses

3

http: li rar

ill e a esome if the dont scre

it p

nc 3

ic ed


41/42

3/29/2015


et a free

ernote acco nt to sa e this article and ie it later on an de ice reate acco nt


42/42

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH COPYRIGHT AND 3D PRINTING? e

INSTITUTE FOR EMERGING INNOVATION

MICHAEL WEINBERG JANUARY 2013

Page 1

Introduction† 3D printing provides an opportunity to change the way we think about the world around us.1 It merges the physical and the digital. People on opposite sides of the globe can collaborate on designing an object and print out identical prototypes every step of the way. Instead of purchasing one of a million identical objects built in a faraway factory, users can customize pre-designed objects and print them out at home. Just as computers have allowed us to become makers of movies, writers of articles, and creators of music, 3D printers allow everyone to become creators of things.

However, the copyright habit is a hard one to break. For many people exposed to 3D printing for the first time, the question that follows “is it real?,” “how does it work?,” and “how can I get one?” is “what about piracy?” And by piracy, they usually mean copyright infringement. This whitepaper does not directly answer the piracy question. 3D printing is a tool and, like any tool, can be used for productive and not-so-productive purposes. Making unauthorized copies of physical objects protected by copyright is copyright infringement, whether those copies are made with a 3D printer or a whittling knife. It will happen.

3D printing also provides an opportunity to reexamine the way we think about intellectual property. The direct connection that many people make between “digital” and “copyright” is largely the result of a historical accident. The kinds of things that were easiest to create and distribute with computers – movies, music, articles, photos – also happened to be the types of things that were protected by copyright. Furthermore, it happened to be that the way computers distribute things – by copying – was exactly the behavior that copyright regulated. As a result, copyright became an easy way to (at least attempt to) control what people were doing with computers.

Instead, this paper is an attempt to answer the unvoiced question that comes before concerns about piracy: is this object protected by copyright in the first place? After all, if there is no underlying copyright there can be no infringement of that right.

That connection between copyright and digital begins to break down as one moves away from movies, music, articles, and photos, and towards gears, cases, robots, and helicopters. As the connection frays, it serves as a reminder that not everything – not even every digital thing – is protected by copyright. In fact, most (but by no means all) physical objects are not protected by any type of intellectual property right. That means that anyone is free to copy, improve, distribute, or incorporate those objects as they see fit.

That being said, copyright looms so large over our digital lives that it merits a special investigation. Readers interested in a broader discussion of the intersection of intellectual property and 3D printing (and an examination of how policy may evolve to accommodate the latter within the former) may be interested in our previous whitepaper It Will Be Awesome if They Don’t Screw it Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual Property, and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology.3

Of course, copyright is not the only type of intellectual property. Just because a thing is not protected by copyright does not mean that it is not protected by a right such as patent or trademark. In fact, many objects are not protected by copyright precisely because they are the type of “useful object” that is (or can be) protected by patent.2

This freedom is not a new development, nor is it a loophole. 3D printers do not take away intellectual property rights any more than computers grant them. But they do provide an opportunity for people to reexamine old assumptions about how the system works. † Thanks to Leily Faridzadeh and Joe Newman for helping with research on issues in this whitepaper. 1 Although this whitepaper is expressed in the language of 3D printing, much of it is applicable to an entire host of technologies that can broadly be categorized as “digital manufacturing.” These digital manufacturing technologies – which include things like low cost computer aided design (CAD) programs, digital scanners, CNC mills, and laser cutters bring high precision manufacturing into the hands of individuals and small business owners in a way that may fundamentally change the economics of manufacturing and creation. While 3D printing tends to get the most attention, the real change will come as people become comfortable with all of these technologies. 2 Unless otherwise mentioned, for the purposes of this paper, discussion of “patents” is limited to traditional utility patents, not design patents. While design patents can protect works that are also protected by copyright, see, e.g. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954), they are also relatively narrow and easily avoided by manipulating the digital design for a physical object. 3 Available here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-dont-screw-it-up.

Page 2

A Quick Review: Types of Intellectual Property and How Law Works Before going further, it is worth reviewing two things: how copyright fits in with patent and trademark, and how law works in the United States.

Copyright, Patent, and Trademark Copyright, patent, and trademark are the three primary types of intellectual property. Generally speaking, copyright covers creative works, patent covers technical works, and trademark covers the ways in which goods are identified in the marketplace. This section will focus primarily on the relationship between copyright and patent, as trademark is a slightly different animal and is less important to theanalysis.4 In the United States, copyright and patent rights can both be traced to the Constitution and are designed to encourage the creation and dissemination of creativity and knowledge.5 The rights are related but do not overlap: copyright and patent are mutually exclusive6 and their types of coverage are different in important ways.

Copyright automatically protects those works from the moment they are written down (or painted, or filmed – the technical term is “fixed in a tangible medium”).7 Copyright also protects an “original” work that is not unique in the world as long as the author was unaware of existing versions. In most cases, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years after her death. Finally, copyright infringement can be an expensive proposition. The law allows rightsholders to assume – without the burden of actually proving harm – damages of up to $150,000 for willful acts of infringement.8 All of this means that copyright is very easy to get, lasts a very long time, and is expensive to infringe upon. In contrast, patent covers useful articles – things that do things. Essentially, patent covers the types of things that you would look to an engineer or scientist to produce: machines, technical systems, and compounds. Unlike copyrights, you need to apply for a patent before you can get any protection. In addition to paying the application costs and being willing to wait, in order to get a patent you need to prove that your machine, system, or compound is actually new and nonobvious to society as a whole – not just new to you. If you get your patent, it will last for 20 years. If someone infringes on your patent, you need to prove damages. Compared to a copyright, a patent is hard to get and does not last very long.

Copyright covers artistic, creative works. Essentially, copyright covers the types of things that you would look to an artist to produce: paintings, movies, novels, and sculptures.

Copyright

Patent

Covers artistic, creative works Automatically protects a work upon fixation Work does not have to be new to society Lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years after death Law assumes damages for infringment

Covers useful articles Must be applied for Work must be new to society Lasts for 20 years Must prove damages from infringment

Figure 1: Characteristics of Copyright and Patent Protection Unlike copyright and patent, trademark is not designed to encourage creation so much as it is designed to give consumers confidence that a manufacturer they trust stands behinds the goods they are purchasing. Also, of the three, trademark is the only type of right that is not drawn from the Constitution. For a more detailed discussion, see It Will Be Awesome. 5 The Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for a limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. 6 Copyright law explicitly excludes the “mechanical or utilitarian aspects” of a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work from protection and limits protection of designs of useful articles so that it does not include “the utilitarian aspects of the article” itself. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Also, a “procedure, process, system, method of operation” described by a copyrighted work (an article, for example) is exclude from copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). In contrast, patents are generally available for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. 7 While there are good reasons to register your work protected by copyright, that registration is not a prerequisite for protection. 8 17 U.S.C. § 504 (c)(2). 4

Page 3 In a practical sense, copyrights and patents are mutually exclusive. If you have a useful article you cannot protect it with a copyright. Conversely, you will not be issued a patent on an artistic work.9 That means that if something is eligible for patent protection – even if it does not have patent protection – it cannot be protected by copyright. This dichotomy is part of the reason why most of thephysical world is not protected by any type of intellectual property. Most physical objects serve some utilitarian function, which means that they are not eligible for copyright protection. However, even though they can generally be described as being in the patent sphere, these objects are, in all likelihood, not protected by patent. Why? First, most physical objects are not really new or nonobvious enough to secure patent protection. Of those truly new and nonobvious objects, only a portion of them are worth the trouble of patenting. And of those that actually have been granted patent protection, only a small portion will still be protected under patent’s 20-year term.10 The result of all of this is that only a small portion of the objects coming out of a 3D printer will actually be protected by intellectual property: those objects protected by copyright and some number of useful objects protected by an active patent. The rest – those objects that do something but are unprotected by patent – will be free to be used by anyone for any purpose.

Figure 2: Only a small percentage of useful objects will protected by an active patent at any time

This stands in stark contrast to many of the things that we traditionally think of as being created on a computer (the emails, pictures, movies, etc.), almost all of which will be automatically protected by copyright for the rest of the author’s life plus an additional 70 years. That is why this paper focuses on copyright. Being able to identify when copyright does and does not protect an object is the first step in knowing if copying or building upon it will lead to trouble.

9

As alluded to above in footnote 2, supra, an exception to this is a design patent. See, e.g., In re Yardley, 493 F.2d 1389, 181 USPQ 331. This means, for example, that for many readers the patent on every part of the computer or television they had growing up has expired.

10

Page 4 How US Law Works Not surprisingly, widespread access to 3D printing is likely to raise some novel legal issues. “Novel legal issues” is another way of saying “questions without concrete answers.” That uncertainty can be frustrating, and it means that this paper will not always contain easy-to-apply answers to reasonable questions. It also means that, as more cases are brought that involve these issues, the answers may start to change. Nonetheless, this section may make it easier to understand how we can simultaneously have laws and not know how they apply to a situation. The United States uses a common law system. Under this system, Congress passes laws and courts apply those laws to specific situations. Courts explain why and how they applied the law the way they did in judicial decisions. The next time a case comes up regarding the same law, courts and lawyers look to that past decision for guidance on how to apply the law in the new case. Often they will fight about how analogous the facts of the old case are to the facts of the new case, and therefore how applicable the old logic is to the new set of facts. Over time, the logic in these individual decisions is distilled and abstracted into a series of rules. These rules are applied to new cases. When fact patterns are relatively consistent – robbing a bank is essentially the same act every time – this

Figure 3: US Federal Circuits

system is fairly straightforward. However, when patterns change, both sides struggle to convince a court that the new pattern is analogous to the facts that produced the rule that it prefers. As a result, it can be hard to generalize about rules for complicated problems that come up only rarely or that have never come up in the past. After all, every past decision is based on a specific set of facts, so if there are not very many decisions it can be hard to abstract a handful of rulings into a more general rule. This is further complicated by the fact that the United States is broken up into 11 judicial zones (plus the District of Columbia and a special Federal Circuit) called “circuits.” Each circuit can have a different set of rules on how to apply a given law. In theory, these “circuit splits” are eventually settled by the Supreme Court, but that can take some time. In the meantime, the law is simply applied differently in different parts of the country. All of this is just a long way of explaining a simple point: some of the copyright questions raised by 3D printing do not have good, universal answers.

Page 5

3D Printing Fits Within the Existing Online Copyright System

choices: accept that the file is noninfringing and move on or sue the uploader for copyright infringement. Critically, at no point in this process does the site evaluate the claims of either side.

Over the past fifteen years, a fairly robust system has evolved to deal with websites that host copyright-protected content that is uploaded by users – a broad category that includes everything from massive sites like YouTube to personal blogs that allow comments. The good news is that, thus far, the system has been able to handle copyright-protected 3D printing-related content about as well as it handles everything else. While this might strike some as faint praise, at a minimum it suggests that the online copyright rules do not need to be rewritten just to accommodate the appearance of 3D printing on the scene.11 This system is governed by rules enacted as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The core concept is fairly straightforward: websites that host content for others are not copyright experts. They are not courts or police. As such, forcing them to police their sites for copyright infringement is neither desirable nor tenable. It is not desirable because the costs associated with evaluating every file uploaded to a site for potential copyright infringement would make starting a new site almost impossible. It is not tenable because identifying copyright infringement is not a mechanical process. Simply recognizing that an uploaded file matches a file protected by copyright is merely the first of many steps to identifying infringement. This is a process better left to courts, not private companies. Therefore, the DMCA requires the hosting sites to act as impartial messengers between uploaders and rightsholders. Anyone can upload a file to a site. If a rightsholder objects, they send that site a request to take down the file (known colloquially as a “DMCA takedown notice”).12 When the site gets that request it takes the file down and alerts the uploader about the notice. The uploader then has two choices: accept the takedown or fight it. If the uploader chooses to fight, she notifies the site that there is no infringement. The site then reposts the file and informs the rightsholder that the file is back up. At that point, the rightsholder has two

Figure 4: DMCA takedown flow chart

That is not to suggest that the system is perfect. For a series of concrete ways to improve copyright, check out www.internetblueprint.org. For more information about this process, ChillingEffects.org hosts an extensive archive of takedown notices as well as information and resources for further understanding how it all works. 11 12

Page 6 That System Generally Works More broadly, this process that allows rightsholders to request works be taken down without going to court informs how many rightsholders patrol all of their rights online. For physical objects protected by copyright, this system appears to be working. When someone uploads the file for an object that is protected by copyright, rightsholders have successfully requested that it be taken down.13 Conversely, we have also seen companies avoid making copyright claims that were not supported by law. 14

...But Sometimes It Doesn’t

Inspired by Ulrich Schwanitz’s ‘challenge’ about the “Impossible Penrose Triangle” I thought I’d give it a try. Looks pretty neat. 15

Unlike Shapeways, the website Thingiverse is built around sharing design files. As a result, because it was now up on Thingiverse anyone could download the design, understand how it worked, and print out their own version at home. Schwanitz did not appreciate artur83’s behavior and sent a request to Thingiverse that the model be removed.16 Thingiverse complied, but eventually public outcry convinced Schwanitz to dedicate his design to the public domain and retract the takedown request.

Of course, just as this “notice and takedown” process can be abused in other areas, it can also be abused in relation to 3D printing. As is the case in situations unrelated to 3D printing, this abuse often occurs when someone objects to something happening online and simply assumes that they can use copyright to stop it. The story of the first 3D printing-related copyright takedown request is a case in point. A designer named Ulrich Schwanitz created a 3D model for an optical illusion called a “Penrose triangle.” He uploaded his design to a website, Shapeways, that allows designers to sell 3D printed objects and invited the public to purchase a copy in the material of their choice. He also, for better or worse, both claimed that creating this design was a massive design achievement and refused to tell anyone else how he made the object. As is often the case on the internet, shortly thereafter another designer, Thingiverse user artur83, uploaded a Penrose triangle with the comment:

Figure 5: You too can download and print your own Penrose triangle

A great example of this process in action was Paramount’s request that designer Todd Blatt remove his copy of the cube that plays a central role in the movie Super 8. The cube, which is essentially a sculpture, fits well within the scope of copyright and Paramount had already licensed its reproduction to another company. As such, Paramount was probably well within its rights to request that Blatt take the model down. Interestingly, if the cube worked in real life the same way it did in the movie, it might be a useful article that falls outside the scope of copyright. See Michael Weinberg, 3D Printing Expands How You Should Think About Copyright: The Super 8 Cube Edition, Public Knowledge Policy Blog, June 28, 2011, http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-expands-how-you-should-think-abou. 14 Thingiverse user Sublime’s version of a Settlers of Catan board is a good example of this. Sublime created a new interpretation of the board and pieces for the board game Settlers of Catan. Sublime’s board contained all of the elements necessary to play Setters of Catan, but they look nothing like the ones sold by the company behind Setters of Catan. The “idea” of a game and its utilitarian aspects have long been outside of the scope of copyright law. See, e.g. Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 914-15 (2nd Cir. 1980); Mulligan v. Worldwide Tupperware, Inc. 972 F. Supp. 158, 162 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). Sublime copied what he needed to copy in order to make his pieces work within the rules of the game, but not the appearance of those pieces themselves. Commendably, as of this writing the company behind Settlers of Catan has not requested that Thingiverse take down the board. See Michael Weinberg, 3D Printing Settlers of Catan is Probably Not Illegal: Is This a Problem, Public Knowledge Policy Blog, Jan. 28, 2011, http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-settlers-catan-probably-not-illeg. 15 artur83, Penrose Triangle, Thingiverse, Feb. 21, 2011, http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6456. N.B. While Thingiverse currently displays this triangle’s creation date at Feb. 21, 2011, it was mostly likely created at least as early as Feb. 16 – the day it was featured on the Thingiverse homepage and the day that artur83 first registered on Thingiverse. 16 See, Bre Pettis, Copyright Policy, Thingiverse Blog, February 18, 2011, http://blog.thingiverse.com/2011/02/18/copyright-and-intellectualproperty-policy/ 13

Page 7 Although the story ends well, there is a gaping hole at the center of it: the entire narrative assumes that Schwanitz has a copyright in his design that was copied in the first place. This assumption overlooks a few critical things. First, the Penrose triangle itself predates Schwanitz’s design by decades. That raises questions about how much of Schwanitz’s work is actually original. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Penrose triangle is a version of an optical illusion.

As 3D printing and modeling grow in popularity, it is likely that we will see more companies and individuals assuming they have a copyright for a design or object and demanding removal of unauthorized versions. While most modern songs, movies, and pictures are protected by copyright, the same cannot be said for physical objects. For that reason, when a site receives a takedown request it may be wise to at least consider if the object is protected by copyright in the first place.

Optical illusions are arguably beyond the scope of copyright.17 If Schwanitz did not own a copyright in his design, he had no right to demand that it be taken down in the first place.18 It is unlikely that Schwanitz engaged in a detailed analysis of the copyrightability of his original design before issuing his takedown notice. Instead, trained by over a decade of takedowns related to music, movies, and other digital works protected by copyright, he may have simply assumed that he had a right that was being infringed upon by artur83.

There are at least two theories that would place optical illusions outside of the scope of copyright. The first is that mechanisms that convey optical illusions are, as a category, useful objects. That would make them eligible for patent protection but not eligible for copyright protection. The second is that the entirety of the design is encompassed by its use as an optical illusion. Therefore, granting someone a copyright in the design would also grant them a copyright in the idea of the illusion – a merger of idea and expression that copyright law seeks to avoid. See footnote 46 below. 18 There is also the question about whether artur83 copied Schwanitz’s design file, the printed object, or a picture of the printed object. The relevance of this question is discussed in the Copyright on an Object, Copyright on a File section below. 17

Page 8

Questions on Copyrightability and 3D Printing Sometimes the intersection of 3D printing and copyright is a clean one. Purely artistic physical objects will be protected by copyright as sculptural works. This category would include things like 3D models of characters from movies, video games, and comics. That does not mean that every reproduction of those objects will be infringement,19 but it does mean that many will. However, as the Penrose triangle story suggests, the intersection of 3D printing and copyright is often not a clean one, and the situation tends to get complicated quickly. There are at least three major areas where bright line rules are still developing. The following sections attempt to outline them.

Figure 6: A pig sculpture is copyrightable subject matter (Steven Weinberg)

Kind of Creative, Kind of Useful: Severability The ends of the copyright/patent spectrum are fairly easy to describe. Abstract sculpture? Protected by copyright. Breakthrough new hinge? Protected by patent. But what about things in the middle? What about things that are kind of artistic and kind of useful? More specifically, what about things that have some artistic features and some useful features? Can they be protected by copyright?

Figure 7: A hinge is patentable subject matter (Topfscharnier By Pavel Krok, via Wikimedia Commons)

19

If it is protected by a limitation and exception to copyright, such as fair use, even literal copying is not an infringement.

Page 9 The law addresses these questions with a seemingly straightforward process called severability. If an object has both artistic and useful features, the copyright does not extend to protect the entire thing. Instead, copyright protection is limited to the artistic features that can stand alone – assuming there are copyrightable features that can stand alone. It protects those features by “severing” them from the rest of the object. If the artistic and functional features cannot be separated, the law errs on the side of keeping useful objects available to everyone and excludes the object from copyright protection altogether. This process reflects a conscious decision by Congress. In a report accompanying the Copyright Act, Congress explained that it did not intend copyright to protect industrial products that happen to have “aesthetically satisfying and valuable” shapes.20 Instead, only “physically or conceptually” severable elements could be protected by copyright.21 For example, if a chair has a carving on the back, the carving can be protected but the chair itself remains outside of the scope of copyright.22 This is because the carving can stand alone as a viable artistic creation even without the rest of the chair.

Although it is frustrating that these various tests and examples do not point to a single identifiable answer, reviewing them can provide some insight into how courts try to think about this issue. The remainder of this section attempts to describe the most important cases and the rules that have come out of them. Hopefully, understanding these cases will make it easier to anticipate how courts may handle these questions in the future. The fact pattern for all of these cases is essentially the same. One person (or company) creates and successfully markets an object. Another company makes an exact copy of that object and starts to sell it as well. There is no question that the second object is a literal copy of the first object. The first company sues the second company for copyright infringement. The second company claims that there is no copyright to infringe. At that point it is up to the court to sort it all out.

Actually applying this idea has proven something of a challenge. Only a few cases contain examples of elements that can actually be physically separated from each other in any meaningful way. More often than not, courts find themselves trying to identify “conceptually” separable elements. This is almost never easy. To further complicate things, courts have not agreed on a uniform way to think about conceptual severability.23 Different circuits have different tests to apply, and those tests evolve over time. While all of the tests seem to be trying to achieve the same thing, the same case could result in different outcomes in different circuits. Figure 8: This chair is a useful object not protected by copyright. However, the image can be severed from the rest of the chair and protected by copyright. (Flickr user Paul74) 20

See, H.R.Rep.No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 55 (1976). Id. 22 Id. 23 The absence of a single rule does not mean that there are no rules. Each circuit has its own rule that is enforced within that circuit. But those rules can change depending on the circuit. 21

Page 10 A Pair of Fancy Belt Buckles This case dealt with a pair of fancy belt buckles.24 On one hand, a belt buckle is a useful object – it holds the ends of your belt together and prevents your pants from falling down. On the other hand, these were artistically designed belt buckles that went well beyond what was needed to hold a belt together and pants up. Could those fancy elements be severed from the utilitarian ones? The court did not want to give the original manufacturer a copyright on belt buckles, which could result in a monopoly on the useful object. However, there was at least an argument to be made that there were severable artistic elements of the buckles worth protecting under copyright. Ultimately, the court found that the belt buckles had “conceptually separable sculptural elements” and granted those elements – and those elements alone – copyright protection.25 The court came to this conclusion by looking at which elements were primary and which elements were secondary to the object. In the case of the belt buckles, it found that the sculptural/ornamental elements were primary and the utilitarian functions were secondary.26 To do so it relied on the testimony of expert witnesses that the buckles rose to the level of creative art, as well as the fact that people had used the buckles as nonfunctional decoration on other parts of their bodies.27 That meant that the buckles were used in ways unrelated to their utilitarian function, presumably because of their independent aesthetic value. Rule to find severability: Determine if artistic elements play a primary or secondary role in the object.

24

Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc., 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1980). See id. at 993. 26 Id. 27 See id. at 993-994. 25

Figure 9: The original buckles in question

Page 11 A Sculpted Mannequin This case dealt with four department store mannequins: two male and two female torsos without necks, arms, or backs.28 One pair was shaped with bare torsos and one pair was shaped with torsos wearing a shirt. They were designed this way in order to display various shirts and jackets to customers. When a competitor copied the mannequins, the original creators sued.

The court pointed out that “works of applied art or industrial design which have aesthetic or artistic features” are not protectable by copyright merely because they are “aesthetically satisfying and valuable.”29 Instead, objects need to have elements that are separable from the underlying industrial purpose in order to receive copyright protection. The fact that the mannequins were originally sculpted out of clay – a technique associated with sculptural art – also did not bring the mannequins within the scope of copyright. Just because the mannequins could be classified as sculpture did not mean that they were protected as sculpture.30 In the end, the court did not find that there were any conceptually separable elements of the mannequins. This was because any ornamentation on the mannequin was largely driven by the utilitarian need to display clothing. There was no way to imagine artistic features that were added to the complete utilitarian object. Without copyright protection anyone, including the defendant in this case, was free to copy the mannequin.

Rule to find severability: Look to see if any potentially severable elements were driven by utilitarian needs.

Figure 10: The shaped mannequins Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1985). Id. at 418. 30 See id. 28 29

Page 12

Figure 11: A ribbon style bike rack (Flickr user orijinal)

A Bike Rack This case involved a bike rack that you may see every day.31 The RIBBON rack is a bike rack made of tube bent into a wavy line. It was actually based on a wire sculpture that was unquestionably protected by copyright. However, the conversion from wire sculpture to tube bike rack required significant alterations. Although the design is aesthetically pleasing, the courtultimately found that it was the product of an industrial design process and was not protectable under copyright. Even well-executed industrial design remained industrial design, and therefore beyond the scope of copyright.32 Helpfully, the court actually attempted to spell out a test for finding conceptual separability.33 The test was explained as follows:

If design elements reflect a merger of aesthetic and functional considerations, the artistic aspects of a work cannot be said to be conceptually separable from the utilitarian elements. Conversely, where design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer’s artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences, conceptual separability exists.34

What does this mean? Simply being a creative designer of a useful object is not enough to grant the object copyright protection. As long as you are worried primarily about the functionality of the object, the object will be considered a useful object. If, however, there are elements that are designed largely without regard for functionality, those may be independently protected by copyright. While not every circuit has adopted this test, at the very least it provides some guidance on how to think about the elusive concept of severability. Rule to find severability: Determine if there are creative elements that were designed without regard for functional requirements.

Brandir Int’l, Inc. v. Cascade Pac. Lumber Co., 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir. 1987). See id. at 1147. 33 Actually, the court borrowed a test first proposed by Professor Robert Denicola. See id. at 1147-48. 34 Id. at 1145. 31 32

Page 13 A Beauty School Head

Where Are We Now?

The final case involves a mannequin head sold to beauty schools and used to teach hair styling.35 The head in question was designed to imitate what the court described as “the ‘hungry look’ of high-fashion, runway models.”36 The head was designed once and then sold under various names with various types of hair and skin color combinations.

As of this writing, there is no single, straightforward test for severability. One court identified at least six versions of the test, although it did call the beauty school head test the most persuasive analysis that existed.41

The court assumed that the head was a useful article because it was a teaching aid. The real question was if there were parts of the head that could be severed and protected by copyright.37 In this case, the court largely adopted the test from the bike rack case.38 As a bonus, it restated the test in somewhat easier to understand language: If the elements do reflect the independent,artistic judgment of the designer, conceptual separability exists. Conversely, when the design of a useful article is as much the result of utilitarian pressures as aesthetic choices the usefuland aesthetic elements are not conceptually separable. 39

How was the rule applied? The court granted copyright protection for the face of the head. First, it found that there were many ways to create a face for a mannequin, which reduces concern about granting the owner any sort of critical monopoly.40 Second, it looked back to the original design process of the face. The company had hired an independent artist to develop the face, but had not given the artist any specific dimensions or any other technical requirements. That suggested that the design of the face was not particularly constrained by industrial design requirements. Rule to find severability: Determine if independent, artistic judgment drove the creation of the nonfunctional elements.

As a result, severability remains a fact-specific inquiry. While some cases are straightforward, the outcome of others will depend on the circuit, judge, and even individual lawyering. Frustrating as that may be, some important things can be learned from thinking about severability. First, severability acts as a reminder that useful objects – even those that are the product of industrial design – are largely outside of the scope of copyright. Without copyright protection, many industrial design products will not benefit from any type of intellectual property protection at all. Second, severability reduces the pressure to make a binary decision about classifying an object as useful or artistic, and by extension protected by copyright or not protected by copyright. With severability, an object need not be alluseful or all-artistic. Parts may be protected by copyright, while others may be free to be copied. Third, severability is an area to watch as 3D printing has more contact with the legal system. Decisions by courts in relatively obscure cases can fundamentally change what is and is not protected by copyright. That means that when you see an article about a new copyright severability case, it may be worth stopping to take a look. Even small changes to the line between severable and not severable, and therefore copyrightable and not copyrightable, may have massive ripple effects. Although the courts have yet to settle on a clear, universal, and easy to apply rule regarding severability, today the best rule of thumb is probably the one expressed in the beauty school head case. If the elements of the design are non-functional and were developed without regard to utilitarian pressures, they may be protected by copyright. However, if the design of elements was largely influenced by the practicalities of making and using the object, they are unlikely to be protected by copyright.

Pivot Point Int’l, Inc. v. Charlene Prods., 372 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2004). Id. at 915. 37 See id. at 920. 38 See id. at 927. 39 Id. at 931 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 40 Id. 41 After which, of course, the court declined to apply that test. See Galiano v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 416 F.3d 411, 417-18 (5th Cir. 2005). 35 36

Page 14

Copyright on a File, Copyright on an Object

42

Physical objects can live in a digital form. For 3D printing, this digital form is often that of an .stl file.43 These files can be thought of as the object equivalent of a .pdf file – they are more or less universally printable by 3D printers and allow objects to be transferred digitally around the world.44 But are they protected by copyright? And if they are protected by copyright, what does that mean? .Stl files are certainly protectable by copyright. Copyright law specifically mentions “maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans” as included within the scope of works eligible for protection.45 However, that does not automatically mean that every design file for a physical object is actually protected by copyright. After all, if a given diagram is the only practical way to virtually represent a physical object, a copyright on that diagram would prevent anyone from making any virtual versions of the object.46 This would give the holder of that copyright a great deal of control over the distribution and manufacture of the object itself.

The design of a useful article...shall be considered [a work eligible for copyright protection] only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. 47

Put more simply, designs are only protected by copyright to the extent that they go beyond the utilitarian requirements of designing a useful article. Not surprisingly, in practice drawing this line can become extremely complicated. This is especially true in situations, like those described earlier, where an object combines useful and artistic elements. However, these types of objects further complicate an already complicated analysis. In the interest of simplicity, the rest of this section will walk through four different scenarios designed to highlight what these lines mean in real life. While the details can become complex, the analysis is guided by a simple principle: courts must find a way to provide copyright protection to qualifying works without inadvertently using 3D printing and digital designs to expand copyright’s scope.

In order to avoid this outcome, copyright law limits the copyrightability of these types of works:

A warning: this may be the most speculative section of this whitepaper. 3D design files tend to compress prior distinctions between diagrams and physical objects, and the law is struggling to catch up. It would not be a surprise if future court decisions and/or Congressional action change the conclusions in this section considerably. 43 The .stl file is usually the final version of an object, but oftentimes the object is first created in another program with another file extension. For example, the free program SketchUp saves files as a .skp. Free online 3D design programs such as Tinkercad allow you to send designs directly to third party 3D printing services or download the file as a .stl or .vrml (or two-dimensional .svg). These other types of files can be converted into .stl. 44 Although, like .pdf files, they can be hard to modify once they have been created. 45 17 U.S.C. § 101. 46 This problem is known as the “merger doctrine” or the “idea/expression dichotomy.” Copyright does not protect ideas; it only protects expressions of ideas. If there are many ways to express an idea, each expression of that idea will have strong copyright protection. For example, there are many ways to express a story about a boy and a girl falling in love, so each version of that story will have strong copyright protection (but no author will be able to stop someone else from writing another story about a boy and a girl falling in love). Alternatively, if there are a very limited number of ways to express an idea, then each expression will have very little copyright protection – or no protection at all. If the idea that a baffle should be attached to a rectangular surface exactly 15 mm from the edge can only be expressed one way (or an extremely limited number of ways), that idea and expression of that idea are said to have “merged.” The result is that the one and only way of expressing the idea is not protected by copyright. See, e.g., Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880); Kay Berry Inc., v. Taylor Gifts, Inc., 421 F.3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2005); Yankee Candle Co., Inc. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., LLC, 259 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2001); Franklin Mint Corp. v. Nat’l Wildlife Art Exch., Inc. 575 F.2d 62 (3rd Cir. 1978); Crume v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. 140 F. 2d 182 (7th Cir. 1944). 47 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). 42

Page 15 Useful Objects

Scanning a Useful Object Incredibly precise laser scanners can create highly accurate virtual models of physical objects.48 Among other things, they allow people to turn existing physical objects into portable, and alterable, digital files. Although there is a limited amount of case law on the question at this point, it also appears that such scans are not independently protected by copyright.

Figure 12: No one can stop you from making a copy of this screw

The justification for this is that the scans are not sufficiently “original” to qualify for copyright protection.49 There is no question that 3D scanning is labor intensive and complicated. However, just because it is labor intensive and complicated to create something does not guarantee copyright protection.50 Good 3D scans create exact replicas of the physical objects being scanned, and at least at this point in time are not recognized as creatively interpreting the object in any way.

Purely useful objects, like a screw, are not protected by copyright. While they may be protected by patent, as discussed above, many of them will simply not be protected by any intellectual property right at all. Generally speaking, the existence of a digital file should not be used to claw useful objects out of the public domain. There are at least two ways to create digital design files for useful objects. One is to scan an existing object. The other is to design the useful object in a virtual universe with a computer aided design (CAD) program. Strangely enough, how the file was created may very well impact its copyright status. Figure 13: A high resolution 3D scanner While scanning capability has traditionally been limited to purpose-built scanners, that is beginning to change. Microsoft’s Kinect accessory has been used for 3D scanning. Other services, such as Autodesk’s 123D Catch, can take photos taken by any digital camera and turn them into 3D digital representations suitable for 3D printing. 49 See Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008) (considering a 3D scan of a truck for use in commercials); Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., v. Corel Corporation, 25 F.Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), modified 36 F.Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (high quality photographs of public domain works are not independently copyrightable). It is worth noting that this lack of originality was originally used to justify excluding photographs from copyright protection. The theory was that photographs merely captured the world as it existed, and therefore were not sufficiently original for protection. In time, courts recognized that most photographs are the result of a number of creative decisions made by the photographer with regard to framing, lighting and arrangement. See Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884). It is impossible to say if the law will grow to recognize similar artistry in 3D scanning. However, the purely functional application of 3D scanning to capture physical objects for production or replication purposes may reduce the likelihood of this happening. The fact that many 3D scanners explicitly try to reproduce the scanned object as faithfully as possible further undermines claims of originality. 50 This “sweat of the brow” justification for copyright protection was famously rejected in a case where the Supreme Court denied copyright protection for a phone book. See, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Phone books are hard to put together, but their appearance and arrangement are dictated by the requirements of users (that they include everyone with a phone number listed alphabetically) and therefore do not require any creativity to arrange. 48

Page 16

Figure 14: Objects can be scanned and turned into digital files

As a result, there does not appear to be an independent copyright in the file containing a 3D scan of a useful object.51 Since the scanned object is a useful object, the object is not protected by copyright either. This means that anyone, without having to ask permission, is free to reproduce, change, or use a digital file of a physical object that was created by scanning that object.

Purely artistic elements of the design file, like photographs in the background or shading and coloring could potentially be severed from the more utilitarian elements that describe shapes, sizes, and relationships. This analysis would help to establish if any independent artistic elements exist to be protected.53

Creating a Useful Object in CAD Instead of being transferred from the physical world to the digital world via a scanner, useful objects created in CAD software exist first in a digital world. Once again, as a useful object the object itself (as it would exist physically) is not protected by copyright. Furthermore, even if the design file is protected by copyright, creating a physical version will not infringe on any copyright that exists in the file. No copyright on the design of a useful object extends copyright protection to the object itself.52 The legal question arises when someone tries to copy the file. As mentioned earlier, diagrams and technical drawings are protectable by copyright, but only to the extent that the creative elements exist independently of the utility of the diagram. In order to determine the copyrightability of any given design file, a court may do a severability analysis. The analysis would not focus on the object itself, but rather the contents of the file.

Figure 15: This image combines a digital representation of a screw with a photograph to give the design some context. If a digital file included both the technical information needed to describe the screw and the photograph that gave it context, the technical information would not be protected by copyright but the photograph would be. A court may try to sever the technical information and the photograph to determine copyrightability.

It bears repeating that this conclusion is open to reexamination and revision as courts are confronted with more cases centering on the copyrightability of such scans. While current case law supports this conclusion and the reasoning behind the conclusion is sound, attitudes towards 3D scanning may evolve over time. 52 See, e.g. Robert R. Jones Assoc. v. Nino Homes, 858 F.2d 274 (6th Cir. 1988) (copying a house is permitted even if plans are protected by copyright); Imperial Homes Corp. v. Lamont, 458 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1972) (copying a house is permitted even if plans are protected by copyright); Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. Case No. MJG-06-2662, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112846 (D. Md. 2011) (copying of copyright protected plans is infringement, using authorized plans to create unauthorized articles is not); Morgan v. Hawthorne Homes, Inc., Civil Action No. 04-1809, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31456 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2009) (copyright in design protects design, does not prevent creation of building based on design); Gusler v. Fischer 580 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (using copies of technical drawings to create article not infringement, creating copies of technical drawings can be infringement); Niemi v. Am. Axle Mfg. & Holding Co., No. 05-74210, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50153 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (no copyright violation when defendant made multiple objects after obtaining plans and permission to make only one); Eliya, Inc. v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, No. 06 Civ 195 (GEL), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66637 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (copyright in pictorial representation of useful article does not grant rights in article); National Medical Care Inc., v. Espiritu, 284 F. Supp. 2d 424 (S.D.W.Va. 2003) (copying structure without copying plans is not infringement). 53 See, e.g. Kern River Gas Transmission Co. v. Coastal Corp., 899 F.2d 1458 (5th Cir. 1990) (map in dispute was the only way to represent . . . 51

Page 17 It can be hard to predict the outcome of any individual severability analysis, but many 3D design files that simply represent an object without additional context may lack severable creative elements (and therefore copyright protection). CAD environments give designers a standard way to show sizes, shapes, and relationships. If there is only one way to represent a given useful object in a CAD program, it is unlikely that a court would grant the designer of the object copyright protection in the design file. Doing so would prevent anyone else from representing that useful object digitally. If a court determines that parts of the file are protected by copyright, then copying that file without permission will be copyright infringement. If there are no copyrightable elements of the file, then, as with the file generated by a scanner, anyone would be free to copy the file. No matter how a court decides to treat the file, the copyright on the file by itself would not restrict production of the purely useful object represented by the file.54 Furthermore, there is some indication that copying a file of a useful object protected by copyright for the purposes of creating the useful object is not copyright infringement.55

. . . a pipeline’s location); Tensor Group Inc. v. Global Web Sys., Inc., No. 96 Civ. 4606, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19596 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (defendants must show that there is only one way to express the part to be free of copyright liability); Guillot-Vogt Assoc., Inc. v. Holly & Smith, 848 F.Supp. 682 (E.D. La. 1994) (defendant must show that plans are the only meaningful way to depict an article to avoid infringement liability). However, at least one court has held that blueprints themselves are not useful articles and therefore a severability test would be improper. See Gemel Precision Tool Co. v. Pharma Tool Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2093 (E.D.Pa. 1995). 54 See note 52, supra. 55 Prior to a law passed to specifically protect buildings, blueprints were protected by copyright but buildings were not. In cases where defendants were accused of copying the blueprints and a building, courts generally found infringement for the blueprint copying but not for the building copying. However, defendants who could show that they did not need to copy the blueprint (if, for example, they had an authorized copy already) in order to copy the building were not held liable. . . .

Page 18 Creative Objects The issues surrounding creative objects are much more straightforward. There is no concern that granting copyright protection to a design file will somehow expand the scope of copyright because the object itself is already protected by copyright. However, it is worth considering who owns which parts of this puzzle.

Scanning a Creative Object As with scans of useful objects, scans of creative objects do not create a new copyright.56 Unlike scans of useful objects, scans of creative objects are copies of existing works protected by copyright. That has two ramifications. The first is that anyone scanning a creative object needs the permission of the rightsholder of that object. Scanning makes a copy, and copies are exactly what copyright regulates. Even though the scanner is not creating a work eligible for copyright protection, she is still copying the creative object.

Figure 17: If Joe Biden wants to distribute the digital file he needs permission from Michelle Obama, but not from Barack Obama

The second has to do with who needs to grant permission before the file is copied. Remember, the file created by the scan is not protected by its own independent copyright. That means that the scanner has no copyright interest in the file, and therefore the scanner’s permission is not needed to copy the file. (See Figure 16.) That does not mean that the file can be copied and distributed freely. The file is still a copy of a creative work protected by copyright. Copying and/or distributing the file requires permission from the person who controls the copyright over the original object. (See Figure 17.)

Figure 16: Michelle Obama owns a copyright in the pig sculpture. Barack Obama does not own a copyright in the scan file . . . This balancing allowed the copyright for the blueprint to coexist with the lack of copyright protection for the building. Unfortunately, the nature of digital technology – where everything is copied countless times – could make this distinction harder to maintain. Hopefully future courts recognize the underlying wisdom of preventing a copyright in a design from granting protection for the object depicted in the design, and find a way to advance it even as technology changes. See, e.g. Forest River, Inc. v. Heartland Rec. Vehicles, LLC, 753 F. Supp. 2d 753 (N.D.Ind. 2010) (expressing disinclination to recognize a distinction between creating an article with original or duplicated plans); Gusler v. Fischer 580 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (using copies of technical drawings to create article not infringement, creating copies of technical drawings can be infringement); Niemi v. Am. Axle Mfg. & Holding Co., No. 05-74210, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50153 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (no copyright violation when defendant made multiple objects after obtaining plans and permission to make only one); National Medical Care Inc., v. Espiritu, 284 F. Supp. 2d 424 (S.D.W.Va. 2003) (copying structure without copying plans is not infringement). But see Robert R. Jones Assoc. v. Nino Homes, 858 F.2d 274 (6th Cir. 1988); Imperial Homes Corp. v. Lamont, 458 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1972) (although both cases are pre-Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act and therefore may have limited instructional utility today). 56 See Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., v. Corel Corporation, 25 F.Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), modified 36 F.Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).

Page 19 Creating a Creative Object in CAD This is perhaps the most straightforward scenario. When a creative object is created in a CAD program, that file is protected by copyright. Copying and/or distributing the object requires permission from the rightsholder. Creating the creative object in physical form also requires permission, because that physical object is a copy or derivative work of the CAD design. Unlike the case of useful objects, copying the physical version of the creative object designed in a CAD program also infringes on the copyright in the CAD design.

Useful Object File Created by Scan

File Created in CAD

Figure 18: Copyright on digital files

Not copyrightable - lacks required originality and can’t be derivative work because underlying object is not protected by copyright.

Creative Object

No independent copyright, but will still be a copy/derivate work of the object itself. Need permission from object creator, but not scanner in order to copy. At least copyrightable in theory. How- Independent copyright in file. Object ever, actual copyrightability will turn is probably derivative work of the file. on merger analysis. Creating object Independent copyrightability of object from the file will not violate any copy- as derivative work also possible. right that exists in the file. Copying the file to create object may or may not be copyright infringement (cases differ) but will probably be influenced by merger analysis. If you need to copy the file to create the object, unauthorized copying may be easier to justify.

Page 20

Does Licensing Matter? One way to avoid some of these thorny copyright questions is by distributing objects and designs with permissive licenses such as those provided by Creative Commons. Unfortunately this solution can break down when applied to physical objects beyond the scope of copyright. To put it simply, you cannot license what you do not have. A license is a conditional permission to use: I grant you the right to make copies of my work as long as you comply with these conditions. If you do not comply with the conditions, then your copies are in violation of my copyright. However, if there is no copyright, there is no need for permission, and no way to enforce the terms. A license without an underlying right is legally meaningless. For example, adding a Creative Commons license to a door hinge (a useful object) grants you no legally binding control over anyone who uses that hinge. If someone copies the hinge without complying with the license, there is nothing you can do because the copies do not infringe on any rights.

Licensing Non-Copyrightable Objects All of that being said, licensing of noncopyrightable files can serve at least two useful purposes – one legal and one cultural. The legal purpose is something of a hedge against future legal change. As detailed in this paper, there are many open questions surrounding just what types (and parts) of objects are and are not protectable by copyright. Granting a license today means that the usage conditions of the object are clear no matter how copyright law evolves in the future. As long as the creator does not believe that merely granting the license gives them the right to control non-copyrightable parts of the work, there is little downside to futureproofing the status of the object. The second, cultural, purpose is probably the more important one. Licensing can be an important signaling device even when it is not legally enforceable. Attaching a Creative Commons license is a signal that the creator wants to include her work in an ever-expanding and evolving network of creativity. It gives the rest of the community confidence that they can build on the object. There are already strong examples of this type of community understanding bearing fruit in the world of 3D printing. Thingiverse, a website dedicated to sharing 3D design files, is centered on the notion of sharing one’s own work and building on the work of others. Every object on Thingiverse lists information about what it is derived from and what has been derived from it. This has created a rich ecosystem of creation, design, and innovation. (See Figure 20.)

Figure 19: I can offer you a license to paint the Brooklyn Bridge pink, but since I do not own the Brooklyn Bridge the license will not be of much help when you are arrested for vandalism.

There are, however, potential downsides to licensing objects not protected by copyright. These are especially clear when you move away from permissive licenses towards more restrictive licenses. Objects that are not protected by copyright, but have restrictive licenses attached to them, could discourage completely lawful uses. They could also allow creators to intimidate others. When used responsibly and realistically, licensing noncopyrightable objects can be worthwhile. However, their actual legal enforceability must always be greeted with a degree of skepticism.

Page 21

Figure 20: On Thingiverse, a single design can spawn an entire family of remixes, improvements, and changes. (Sean Michael Ragan - http://www.smragan.com/2012/06/11/the-heart-gears-phenomenon-a-physible-family-tree/)

Licensing Design Files By and large, licensing design files raises the same questions and concerns as licensing the objects themselves. As detailed earlier, not all design files are protected by copyright. For those that are protected by copyright, the owner is free to license them as they see fit. For those not protected by copyright, licensing can serve as a useful social signal to others who might want to use the file. This signal can be socially productive if a Creative Commonstype license is involved, because it is inviting people to use what they are already allowed to use. It can also be socially counter-productive if a restrictive license is used, because it might prevent people from making use of an object that they are, in fact, free to make use of.

Finally, it is unlikely that any license of a copyrighted design file could be used to assert copyright-style control over an object that is beyond the scope of copyright. In cases where a maker of a physical object does not need permission from the creator of the design file, even Creative Commons-style restrictions on a design file could not force a maker of the object to share and share alike.

Page 22

Conclusion By now, an attentive reader will have noticed that many of the questions raised in the paper do not have simple, easyto-apply answers. That is in large part a function of the way the legal system tackles new questions. At this point in the history of 3D printing and consumer access to digital manufacturing, many of the most interesting questions are only beginning to assert themselves. Although it is possible to draw guidance and principles by analogy from cases not involving 3D printing, it is too early to confidently state how future courts will view them in light of 3D printing. This shifts the opportunity and responsibility for creating reasonable, workable rules to three places. The first two are the legislature and the courts. As detailed in It Will Be Awesome, there are many ways that 3D printing and digital manufacturing can be handled poorly by both. Legislatures may take steps to legislate against an imagined dystopic future that would probably never come, cutting off unanticipated positive developments in the process. Courts may react to the unknown by expanding the scope of intellectual property rights and infringement liability in counterproductive ways. But both the legislature and the courts can take steps to protect innovation. Legislatures can say no when incumbents try to push laws designed to criminalize a new technology. Courts can protect legally defensible, but culturally novel, ways of doing business. After all, it was the Supreme Court’s refusal to hold the creator of the Betamax liable for copyright infringement that gave us VCRs, DVRs, MP3 players, and more. The third – and perhaps most important – place to develop rules is the community itself. Community norms matter. This is especially true when it is unclear exactly how traditional intellectual property laws apply – if at all. Developing a way to recognize and reward true innovators without relying on costly, drawn-out legal battles is the most effective way to stave off the creep of copyright expansion. If there is a system that already works, most people will not need to grasp for novel copyright theories.

Ultimately then, the burden is on the community and the organizations that host the community not to blindly assume that copyright covers everything. This is not to say that copyright should be rejected, or that legal orders should be ignored. Instead, it is a reminder of the value of healthy skepticism. If someone is asserting copyright over an object, take a moment to consider if copyright can even apply in that case. Make assertions of infringement public so that the wider community can understand who is claiming what kinds of rights. For better or worse, this last burden will fall heaviest on the sites that host design files and provide a forum for 3D designers to gather, share, and sell their wares. The way they react to takedown notices will heavily influence the willingness of rightsholders to attempt to exercise questionable control. While these sites would be prudent to comply with all property formed DMCA takedown requests, what they do after taking something down (and how they handle marginal cases) will have a disproportionate impact on how the community, and ultimately the wider world, thinks about copyright and 3D printing. Until there is better legal clarity, cultural clarity is the best way to protect the development of 3D printing.

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks

he orld s est ne ideas m sic and art

on ention of cran s

Why the nineteenth century’s golden age of pseudoscience may be a precursor of our own by ob MacDougall ©

O

Magazine, Spring 2011

ravda ssian for tr th as the official ne spaper of the o iet omm nist art from the start of the olshe i e ol tion to the final da s of the o iet nion fter the collapse of o iet comm nism ravda fell on predicta l hard times he ne spaper as sold to foreign o ners ho rein ented it in the s as a rather shameless s permar et ta loid he pages that once deli ered the pondero s dictates of the remlin ere gi en o er to reathless reports on e tra terrestrial in aders ghostl apparitions and the c rati e properties of goat testicles his ma e a fitting fate for a ne spaper hose tr th as ne er m ch more than tit lar t ravda s transformation li eration decline stri es me as a ind of metaphor for o r hole information en ironment as e pass from the top do n mass media of the t entieth cent r to the interacti e digital media of the t ent first


1/1

3/29/2015


on ention of cranks


2/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks

n ention to ass ime


Dale a rence

he shorthand stor of o r o n re ol tion is

no familiar n the t entieth cent r

e

ilt po erf l tools

hich

a fe people co ld roadcast their ersion of tr th to a mass a dience n the est at least s ch po er as s pposed to come ith responsi ilit ro nd o r presses and ll p lpits e ilt codes of professional cond ct and hierarchies of e pertise

t no the orld has t rned

et or ed digital and social media are toppling the old

the intellect al a thorit of t entieth cent r instit tions

oda

e are told e er

siness models and

od can roadcast to e er

od

or at least spea to themsel es e ha e mo ed from the cathedral to the azaar from the one oice of o r o n entral ommittees to the post o iet cacophon of itter and o e i ipedia and e o some this is the happ da n of a more democratic mar etplace of ideas t is hard to riefl

ac er

and ntr th

dge a re ol tion still in progress and harder still to sa m ch a o t toda s social and technological

changes that has not alread onl

o others it is a descent into cran dom

een said

into historians of technolog

hate er else ne media does each inno ation in comm nications t rns s if ntil the no elt of this or that tool fades

e are all Marshall Mc

han

conscio s of and c rio s a o t the media e se log posts a o t logging t eets a o t itter oo s a o t the o solescence of oo s: e er ne form of comm nication prod ces a similar moment if onl a moment of critical self reflection


3/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks

t reall am a historian of technolog


Does that e pertise e

ip me to offer an thing ne to this de ate

m training has ta ght me is to e er ar of ma ing predictions a o t the f t re nother thing is that do t a historian can al a s sa : his has all happened efore hich in fact it has

ne thing hen in

he golden age of cran dom here ha e al a s een people ho elie e in odd things and those ho fi ate on impossi le in entions or miracle c res he mar et for comforting falsehoods remains llish in good times and ad t the cran s and pse doscientists of the nineteenth cent r ere remar a le in terms of the ide e pos re the achie ed the large a diences the reached and the an

et of strangeness the laid o t efore their era s mar etplace of ideas

patent medicines to c re all ills

ac

ac doctors ha

ed

ard in entors toiled o er perpet al motion machines and political prophets

ro ght forth strange commandments to lead their faithf l to some promised land istorians of science ha e identified a partic lar disco rse of eccentricit ritain

ritons orro ed a ord from geometr and astronom

that flo rished in nineteenth cent r

as in the or it of a comet an eccentric circle is one

that is not concentric ith another circle to descri e indi id als ho o ld not fit into the social or intellect al categories of the da ictoria arroll s oo cience and ccentricity descri es the era s fad for eccentric iographies its close association of science and strangeness and a corresponding fascination ith o ndar crossing frea s or h

rids of the nat ral orld

hermits and misers

arl

egetarians and gl ttons

ictorian eccentrics ere an eclectic et as the cent r

nch: cross dressers and n dists

ore on the la el more often ecame affi ed to

amate r scholars hose theories transgressed emerging o ndaries et een literar genres or scientific fields his nineteenth cent r disco rse of eccentricit helped to define and entrench a ne intellect al order hardening lines et een the disciplines n nineteenth cent r

et een professionals and amate rs and et een legitimate and illegitimate ideas merica the closest e

et molog of the ord cran croo ed and the ord cran

i alent la el as not astronomical

t mechanical: the cran

he

in this sense is not clear it as pro a l a conflation of cran s original root meaning meaning irrita le

t the term too hold in the nineteenth cent r

a to descri e an one in the grip of an impla si le idea chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

nited tates as a

merican ideas a o t cran dom or ed in m ch the same 4/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


a as arroll s disco rse of eccentricit t ith a more political edge merican cran s ro tinel conflated mechanical social and financial ideas he dott pontificating cran ecame a recognized s m ol of the age and allegations of cran dom and

ac er fle

ac and forth in the oistero s political com at of the era

con ention of cran s he o erlap et een cran dom in ention and political reform as on clear displa at the so called ran s a meeting of the merican imetallic eag e at the hicago

orld s air of

attended this con ention in order to promote the remonetization of sil er gold sil er and paper mone treet and

ashington orthodo

as central to merican politics in the

3

on ention of

i h ndred delegates

he mone de ate et een ad ocates of s in a a that is hard to fathom toda

all

fa ored a gold standard and o ld e reformers li e the imetallic eag e faced

harsh derision from the esta lishment pea ing of the pro sil er con ention in 3 the hicago erald said he air seems to reed cran s and the demon of destr ction is a road in the land t the ma or of hicago arter enr arrison

elcomed the imetallists

e opened the con ention ith a speech sa ing

am rather glad to elcome s ch l natics as o

t is said o are l natics

Mem ers of the imetallic eag e arml appla ded arrison s

remar s and spent the rest of the conference addressing each other as fello l natic and 3 as a ear of economic panic merican econom

sa

rother cran

eag e mem ers shared a elief that an in ection of sil er c rrenc into the

o ld relie e s ffering farmers and restore prosperit to the

est

t sil er as far from the onl

topic disc ssed hile the ealth and po erf l sa the gold standard as a asic tenet of economic prosperit and e en moral pro it something dre eccentrics and odd alls to the sil er ca se and dre sil erites to e er more radical ideas t a moment hen merica seemed to teeter on the rin of financial r in the con ention of cran s offered an e plosion of nostr ms in entions theories and c res

lat earthers and spirit alists r

ed sho lders ith rain ma ers

and prognosticators of all inds ne of the stars of the con ention as Minnesota ongressman gnati s Donnell

Donell is remem ered toda as a

op list leader he rote the ringing pream le to the op lists maha latform in e also rote se eral oo s a o t the lost ci ilization of tlantis the end of the orld and the secret messages encoded in ha espeare s pla s chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

5/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


their tr e a thor rancis acon t hicago in 3 Donnell de ated arl ro ne a alifornia sho man ho dressed li e ffalo ill and in pri ate li e nnie a le ho com ined his o n political acti ities ith tr ing to in ent a fl ing machine and ha ran s that ro ne met aco o ngest son egal ender

ing a patent medicine called

arl s alifornia

t as also at the on ention of

o e a reen ac ad ocate so committed to monetar reform that he named his o e had in ented his o n patent medicine the e ocati el named o a and

had his o n technological prescriptions for the nation s economic ills organize o e s rm

re

a famo s protest march to

ashington

ogether

ro ne and o e

o ld go on to

h ndreds of nemplo ed or ers ho oes and

tramps ran dom as at once a mechanical acti it and a political one and the t o ere often intert ined

ran s slipped

easil et een the political technological and scientific realms often tr ing to ring the tools of one to ear on the pro lems of another ach had their o n indi id al ho horse t on the hole the on ention as an optimistic gathering

he ca inet of c res on offer for merica s economic ills testified to a deep elief or desire to elie e that

politics economics science and societ remained nderstanda le and perfecti le

ordinar fol

en ran lin s ghost ohn M rra pear as a ni ersalist minister in nineteenth cent r e ngland pear as a reformer: an opponent of the death penalt an ad ocate of omen s s ffrage a sta nch a olitionist and an operator in the ndergro nd railroad n

pear as attac ed

an anti a olitionist mo and eaten ithin an inch of his life

se ere head in ries and spent se eral da s slipping in and o t of a coma elie ed contacted

e recei ed

ome time after this e perience

pear as he

the friendl ghost of en amin ran lin

his as not as n s al as it might so nd n the middle to late nineteenth cent r

millions da

led in spirit alism

isiting s ances decoding ta le rappings p shing i a st le planchettes and atching medi ms emit ectoplasmic goo nd no spirit from the other side no messiah no rich dead ncle no lost child comm nicated ith merican spirit alists more fre

entl than the n

iet shade of en amin ran lin

messages to and from dead lo ed ones spo e o t on the iss es of the da chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

rom e ond the gra e

ran lin transmitted

and lect red on scientific topics li e /1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


magnetism and alloons he ind strio s ran lin had apparentl ept s in the afterlife for he often pro ided his li ing correspondents ith descriptions of ne in entions: self ad sting indo linds an impro ed fl sh toilet and the li e ndre ac son Da is a leading spirit alist no n as the o gh eepsie eer offered an ingenio s e planation as to h

ran lin appeared so fre

entl in spirit alist s ances and h spirits in general had onl recentl

tal ati e t as ran lin s spirit Da is said that had posth mo sl in ented the

elestial elegraph

ecome so hich the

dead co ld send messages ac to the li ing orld e erend pear spent the ne t t ent

ears doing ran lin s idding and constr cting in entions of ran lin s design

efore eing contacted ran lin pear had sho n no partic lar interest or aptit de for in ention or technolog ndeed a friend called him ite destit te of in enti e geni s scientific no ledge or e en ordinar mechanical a ilities

t this the friend ent on made pear all the etter adapted to eing ran lin s instr ment since he as

neither disposed nor a le to interpose an

ndesired s ggestions of his o n Despite this lac of mechanical a ilit

e er tas that pear ndertoo for the spirit orld com ined the technological and the political machine as meant to li erate omen from dr dger of the hated telegraph monopol machine he said lo e ohn M rra

as the radical agitation of an inert societ

pear as ndo

as a mechanical representation of

to r n fore er or to prod ce more energ than it sed

tedl a cran

con erting po ert into a

he aim of the

ndance and pre dice into

e as also a tireless ad ocate for the poor and oppressed

em lematic of a t pe f pear as one of a ind his stor as not

is net or of telepathic medi ms as meant to rea the grip

is perpet al motion machine the e Motor

merica itself t as not meant merel

is impro ed se ing

nd he as

o ld ill minate little more than his o n ps cholog

cratch an eccentric nineteenth cent r in entor and o find a reformer

t he

cratch a nineteenth cent r

reformer and o generall find an attic f ll of mechanical in entions or schemes gain and again reformers and in entors in this era reached for machine metaphors descri ing democrac or the econom as a mar elo s

t malf nctioning machine

machine that o ld go of itself

ineteenth cent r

mericans admired their onstit tion as a

ran in entors literalized this metaphor conflating the dream of a perpet al motion

machine ith political or spirit al rene al

he machiner of go ernment the said


as r n do n or st c

t if the /1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


nation as a malf nctioning machine then it stood to reason it co ld e fi ed li e a machine

here had to e some

small ad stment a priming of the p mp or an application of a le grease that o ld resol e all contradictions et een moralit and progress or po ert and prosperit Metaphors are sed for poetic effect of co rse and this ma es them slipper so rces for historical anal sis cran

metaphor as more than poetr

t as an arg ment in itself

s a o e so elo

et to the

as the ancient credo of

ermetic magic and cran s and other marginalized thin ers carried that philosoph into the nineteenth and t entieth cent ries er literalized metaphors and analogies ere engines dri ing cran and pse doscientific tho ght

he information e plosion of the nineteenth cent r he

rgess hale in the oc

Mo ntains of ritish ol m ia is one of the orld s most cele rated fossil deposits

he soft odied creat res fossilized there ere prod cts of the am rian e plosion a great flo ering of life that egan some million ears ago he are izarre to h man e es: spin orms and finned cr staceans lim less predators ith serrated g llets fi e e ed opabinias ith ac m li e sno ts n his oo Wonderful ife tephen a o ld made the rgess fossils famo s as e idence for the strangeness and contingenc of life e arg ed that the am rian e plosion contained far more di ersit and ariet of life forms than e ist toda he nineteenth cent r

as a ind of am rian e plosion for intellect al life

he mental soil of the era as crammed

ith an e traordinar di ersit of notions and enth siasms man no e tinct heir remains can e fo nd nearl e er here deposited in the great li raries and instit tions of orth merica and rope and in dedicated collections li e the Massach setts nstit te of echnolog s rchi es of seless esearch e need not em race or endorse the e tinct ideas of the nineteenth cent r to learn from them o ld sa the di ersit of the rgess hale as po erf l e idence against all self congrat lator isions of e ol tion as an p ard path to ards o rsel es t is eas t not ill minating to dismiss the cran s of the past hat if e approached them instead as paleontologists approach the rgess hale e might ell as hat as it a o t the nineteenth cent r that allo ed s ch intellect al di ersit to flo rish nd hat changes in that intellect al en ironment led to the mass e tinction of chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


so man theories pse dosciences and memes he eighteenth cent r

en ran lin s da

had een mar ed in oth ritain and merica

the scarcit and control

of information s the historian ichard ro n p t it the most o io s feat re of the merican information en ironment at the eginning of the eighteenth cent r as the relati e scarcit of information its limited topical range and the cr cial importance of social stat re in determining ho possessed access ran lin himself did agitate for more open flo of information no ledge sho ld not e loc ed in li raries and learned colleges ran lin arg ed: the great oo of at re is open to all e promoted the circ lation of ne spapers the postal ser ice as a mass medi m and the democratization of science as a cr cial ci ic good n ran lin as fired as postmaster of all ritish colonies in merica after lea ing go ernment doc ments to the colonial press e ecame the first postmaster general of the nited tates the follo ing ear t then as no the lo dest ad ocates for the free circ lation of information ere often the most connected and not al a s self conscio s a o t the pri ilege on hich their access to information rested s a printer a postmaster and an acti e participant in the trans tlantic rep lic of letters ran lin as ired in to net or s of fairl p to date information incl ding scientific and technical no ledge political and economic theor gossip and c rrent e ents his set him apart from all t a fe of his contemporaries nformation and learning ere l ries a aila le to onl an elite fe and the a thorit to spea on most topics as tightl controlled

la and c stom

ll this changed in the information e plosion of the nineteenth cent r

heap print and a prof sion of presses cran ed

o t a flood of oo s pamphlets ne spapers and roadsides echnolog pla ed a role in this e pansion t st as important ere political choices and c lt ral shifts ising literac created a mass a dience or a diences for the printed ord and a prof sion of genres and st les oth catered to and created ne comm nities of politics and taste panding and increasingl afforda le postal ser ices p t all these doc ments in motion ritain introd ced a niform penn post in the nited tates democratized its postal rates in n oth co ntries postal ser ice represented a grand ci ic endea or a ma or in estment in information infrastr ct re at a time hen go ernments ere relati el small and disinclined to inter ene in economic life 3 the nited tates ostal er ice as igger than the arm and represented o er three arters of the entire federal ci ilian or force he rench tra eler le is de oc e ille reported from the hinterland of the ppalachians in that ear: here is an astonishing circ lation of letters chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

9/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


and ne spapers among these sa age oods he first half of the cent r

itnessed a similar e plosion in p

lic speech

re io sl

sec lar orator had een rare

and confined to a narro range of spea ers and topics the s and 3 s p lic spea ing had entered its o n golden age eformers ed cators scientists and salesmen com ined information and entertainment to reach a diences ig and small ompetition for eardr ms the attention econom of the nineteenth cent r red di ersit rather than niformit ith an a dience for e er opinion and a platform for e er ca se he era s menagerie of arring political tri es reen ac ers opperheads old gs nti Masons nti Monopolists ello Dogs and more as one e pression of this fragmentation ll mar et in millennial mo ements and religio s splinter sects as another the middle of the cent r ichard ro n concl ded merica had gone from a societ here p lic information had een scarce and chiefl nder the control of the learned and ealth fe to a societ in hich it as a nder no control other than the interests and appetites of a ast pop lar p lic of cons mers

ndant and

he ndisciplined age of science s access to information e ploded science came along for the ride or m ch of the nineteenth cent r there as little effort to define the o ndaries of legitimate and illegitimate science or cent ries efore the t pical scholar of nat re had not een a specialist t a generalist da came into general se after the s

ling in a ariet of academic disciplines ndeed the term scientist onl

mericans in partic lar em raced the ideal of a democratic science

no a le and accessi le to all

ran lin ecame the

patron saint of this tradition in the cent r after his death an e emplar of an ee no ho and practicalit the archet pal scientific merican he magazine of that name egan p lishing in promoting a ran linian faith that the common man co ld and sho ld e a participant in the orlds of science and technolog cientific sho men li e en amin illiman and d ard itchcoc reached h ge a diences ith l ce m lect res nd strialists f nded mechanics instit tes p lic li raries and technical schools to ed cate s illed or ers and to eep them o t of p

s

he spread and pop larit of s ch instit tions enco raged hopes that idespread scientific enlightenment co ld e achie ed he characteristic of o r age declared illiam ller hanning is not the impro ement of science rapid chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

10/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


as this is so m ch as its e tension to all men he middle nineteenth cent r has een called the democratic age in nglo

merican science

ne can easil

o erstate the egalitarianism of science in this era st as one can o erstate the egalitarianism of nineteenth cent r democrac itself t it is certainl tr e that amate rs and da lers o tn m ered professionals or specialists in the intellect al life of the period he nineteenth cent r en o ed if not a democratic certainl an ndisciplined mar etplace of ideas ndisciplined oth in the sense that it lac ed m ch order or restraint t also in the sense that it lac ed formal academic disciplines he lines et een science politics in ention reform and entertainment remained l rr nd the lines di iding s fields ithin those fields had hardl et een dra n tonomo s fac lties specialized o rnals and professional g ilds ere largel late nineteenth cent r in entions he h per narro specialization of t entieth cent r academe la decades in the f t re he dar er side of this intellect al di ersit as a real hostilit to e pertise n li er endell olmes enior no pop list he arned the grad ating class of doctors at ar ard Medical chool that the ra le o ld al at their professional a thorit he ltra radical ersion of the a iom that all men are orn free and e al has in aded the regions of science olmes declared ignorant rise to ta e their place

he dogmas of the learned ha e lost their a thorit

t the dogmas of the

he res lt of all this as a fairl la less mar etplace of ideas here theories and practices flo rished not eca se the ere tr e t eca se the co ld find a er itles li e Doctor and rofessor ere appropriated an od anted them ar ers called themsel es professors as did an o teachers tailors phrenologists and acro ats ineteenth cent r mericans e perienced medicine one historian has ritten as a smorgas ord of possi le

ho

panaceas some from licensed doctors in their offices and some from ac s selling from carts on street corners t o ld e hard to design an intellect al en ironment more hospita le to ac er and cran dom to eccentric scholars and odd ideas et the climate changed as the nineteenth cent r ore on s the leading edge of scientific no ledge ad anced most sciences ecame less descripti e and more a stract he or eing done in fields li e ph sics chemistr and chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

11/1

3/29/2015

astronom increasingl re

on ention of cranks


ired trained specialists ith e pensi e e

ipment

nd irt all all of the disciplines

de eloped ela orate theoretical str ct res and precise technical terms nstit tional changes mirrored and reinforced these trends rofessional societies ecame more formal and e cl si e olleges and ni ersities esta lished grad ate schools and specialized research instit tions cientists and in entors ecame increasingl dependent on corporate or go ernment f nding the t entieth cent r most in entions or ad ances co ld not e made solitar da lers t ere the or of teams of professional researchers at elite ni ersities or corporate la s he gro th and rea cratization of go ernment p shed political amate rs a a from the le ers and gears of democrac in m ch the same a his as a period of aggressi e o ndar

or

as professionals of all sorts campaigned to consolidate their a thorit

and p rge their g ilds of amate rs rofessionalization in ol ed the identification and remo al of da lers and dilettantes erms li e cran and ac ere deplo ed as acc sations and epithets as the older participator of democratic or ndisciplined science declined the t entieth cent r a o ld e ran lin ho da led sim ltaneo sl in electrical political and moral e periments o ld s rel

ision

e dismissed as a oo or a cran

he politics of cran dom i e scientific o tsiders radical reformers co ld e la eled cran s and l natics and caricat res of the political acti ist as cran in entor or patent medicine ac ere increasingl sed to discredit political reform he consistenc of the la el is remar a le ran as not a la el that e er od sed against their political opponents it seemed to get sed again and again in the same specific a s hen the ne spaper editor orace reele ran for president against l sses rant in he as compared to the cran of a hand organ contin all grinding o t the same old t nes he political cartoonist homas ast famo s for his satirical images of oss eed and amman all corr ption as e all c tting in depictions of reele as a crac rained pontificating cran hat as orace reele s crime e as a spirit alist an a olitionist and a egetarian e as ch ith ool hair and little ro nd glasses a tempting target for ast s pen e did da le in science and in ention he rote a oo a o t scientific farming that ast or ed into almost e er cartoon of reele chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

12/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


he dre t reele also challenged the financial orthodo ies of the da hen the philosopher ohn is e as a li rarian at ar ard in the s he ndertoo to c ll ar ard s li rar of hat he called insane or eccentric literat re n an essa is e rote a o t ran s and their rotchets hat did he single o t for partic lar ridic le ot spirit alism not phrenolog not perpet al motion t free sil er and financial reform emem er Ma or arrison

ho elcomed the con ention of pro sil er cran s and l natics to hicago

hree months

after the con ention arrison as assassinated shot a dist r ed o ng man named atric rendergast rendergast as it t rned o t something of a cran e as an o sessi e ad ocate of enr eorge s single ta

ho

rote long ram ling letters to st a o t e er od in hicago s p lic life is trial in hich he as represented larence Darro t rned on the estion of hether rendergast as a tr e l natic that is medicall and legall insane or simpl a dangero s political cran eca se of his political leanings the prosec tion as a le to con ince the

r of the latter

rendergast h ng in part for his cran dom

e sho ld not e s rprised that the cran stor ended p intert ined ith the mone estion he mone de ate as for post i il ar merica a rning h gel di isi e iss e t fired passions and in ited ordinar mericans to arg e o er the nat re of their co ntr and its ne corporate econom oin’s inancial chool a pro sil er treatise that ohn is e ridic led as alchem sold one million copies in the s o man oo s a o t fiscal polic are read one million ordinar mericans toda et the mone de ate is no remem ered if at all as something a stract and arcane his is a meas re of ho thoro ghl financial conser ati es discredited their pop list foes Defenders of the gold standard associated monetar reform con incingl and damningl ith all manner of crac rained in entions and mechanical schemes he t entieth cent r

o ld e reformers p shed ac t the t rn of the cent r the ere e er more marginal o ld e the age of the e pert an era of highl specialized no ledge of clearl defined g ilds

and hierarchies of professional a thorit and e pertise

ran t as e e seen the orld has t rned

he doomsa ers and the cheerleaders for o r

e

that the old hierarchies of no ledge and e pertise ha e een toppled or o tflan ed Ma chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

orld all seem to agree e the t entieth cent r

ill 13/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


pro e to e the a erration ith its professional g ilds its ele ation of e perts and all its po erf l tools for letting a fe insiders spea to and for e er od else f e are entering a ne era of ndisciplined no ledge and inno ation it is orth loo ing ac at the last s ch age istor remem ers fe eras as inno ati e as the late nineteenth cent r least in technological terms t one o ld also ha e a hard time naming a period that em raced more fla ors of pernicio s nonsense s that the trade off on the ta le and cran s

re e entering a ne golden age of pse doscientists

at

ac s

he parallels are pers asi e s in the nineteenth cent r o r o n information e plosion as triggered technological changes t c lt ral and political factors gi e it form he nternet is oth printing press and postal ser ice on a scale that ran lin s ghost o ld ne er ha e elie ed e se it to connect across continents and oceans e en as e s di ide li e o r nineteenth cent r fore ears into tri es of affinit opinion and taste e c lt re is a ind of consilience engine mashing p data and ea ing connections et een disciplinar silos oda s logs ear a remar a le resem lance to the ne spapers of the ante ell m era: a motle an et of indi id al often partisan oices ith m ch content clipped and c rated from other so rces ontemporar distr st of e perts and disill sionment ith traditional instit tions inspires hopes for ne models of online participation hile sim ltaneo sl f eling the ne cran dom rightening economic political and en ironmental challenges ens re high demand for simple c res and eas ans ers ne might ish to dra a line et een scientific and political cran s old f sion is a cran idea eca se it doesn t or it is harder to e as definiti e a o t fringe ideas in politics or economics et in the histor of cran dom s ch distinctions are rarel respected ohn M rra pear s est for perpet al motion as ne er reall a o t the la s of thermod namics nd ho can claim that the attle et een creation and e ol tion is not as m ch a o t politics as science onfronted ith tenacio s pse dosciences li e creationism or the pse dohistorical eliefs of the r th mo ement and the irthers e co ld st cl c o r tong es at the foolishness of the ine pert masses t ma e it o ld it e more fr itf l to as li e a paleontologist at the rgess hale hat intellect al niche does this comm nit inha it

hat emotional or intellect al f nctions does this elief f lfill

here is m ch to e said for g ilds and hierarchies of a thorit and e pertise chrome-extension://iooicodkiihhpojmmeghjclgihfjdjhj/front/in_isolation/reformat.html

t the ha e their costs

he scientific 14/1

3/29/2015

on ention of cranks


e perts of the earl t entieth cent r o ert rned all manner of s perstitions he also drasticall narro ed the accepta le range of in ir and elief rogressi e era political e perts made go ernment more efficient t less acco nta le p shing ordinar citizens a a from the machiner of politics and contri ting to hat a rence ood n called a mass fol a of political resignation t a time hen political apath and scientific illiterac are idespread there might e something to learn from a moment hen so man ere so fiercel engaged and so certain there m st e a sol tion to all the orld s oes e ma e pect o r ne cent r to e profo ndl inno ati e t e m st also anticipate o r share of eccentrics ac s and cran s ob MacDougall is associate director of the entre for merican tudies at the niversity of Western Ontario in ondon, anada. e is a historian of business, technology, and culture, especially information networks in nineteenth century merica. e blogs about history, games, and play at http www.robmacdougall.org and http www.playthepast.org 3 . is book, he eople s elephone: he ise and all of the ndependent elephone Mo ement, will be published this winter by the niversity of ennsylvania ress. ec mseh ies ere, an augmented reality game he is designing about the War of , will be loosed upon the world in the summer of

S

ri e

S are

.

O

i

ri e

Do the sharing thing

in s http: http:

ehance net Dale a rence frame ro macdo gall org


15/1

3/29/2015

3 http: http:

on ention of cranks


pla thepast org scope mag com s

et a free

scriptions

ernote acco nt to sa e this article and ie it later on an de ice reate acco nt


1 /1

Wearable Computing

Editor: Paul Lukowicz N University of Passau N [email protected]

The LilyPad Arduino: Toward Wearable Engineering for Everyone Leah Buechley and Michael Eisenberg

E

lectronic textiles, or e-textiles, are an increasingly important part of wearable computing, helping to make pervasive devices truly wearable. These soft, fabric-based computers can function as lovely embodiments of Mark Weiser’s vision of ubiquitous computing: providing useful functionality while disappearing discreetly into the fabric of our clothing. E-textiles also give new, expressive materials to fashion designers, textile designers, and artists, and garments stemming from these disciplines usually employ technology in visible and dramatic style. Integrating computer science, electrical engineering, textile design, and fashion design, e-textiles cross unusual boundaries, appeal to a broad spectrum of people, and provide novel opportunities for creative experimentation both in engineering and design. Moreover, e-textiles are cuttingedge technologies that capture people’s imagination in unusual ways. (What other emerging pervasive technology has Vogue magazine featured?) Our work aims to capitalize on these unique features by providing a toolkit that empowers novices to design, engineer, and build their own e-textiles.

THE LILYPAD ARDUINO Researchers, designers, students, and hobbyists can use the LilyPad Arduino construction kit to build soft, wearable computers. Figure 1 illustrates the most 12

PERVASIVE computing

recent version of the kit—a commercially available product that we developed in collaboration with SparkFun Electronics. It contains • a main board, which runs on 2.7 5.5 V and comprises an ATmega168V microcontroller, a reset switch, an indicator LED, 16 Kbytes of program memory, an 8-MHz processor, a 10-bit analog-to-digital converter, and 20 I/O pins, including 6 analog inputs and 6 pulse-width modulation (PWM) outputs; • a 5 V power supply—with one AAA battery, an on/off switch, an indicator LED, and an NCP 1400 DC-DC step-up converter, and capable of supplying a maximum of 100 mA; • a speaker; • a vibrating coin-cell pager motor; • an accelerometer with an ADXL330 3-axis acceleration sensor, +/ 3 g in each direction, and an analog output of 0 3 V; • an ambient light sensor, with an analog output of 0 5 V; and • an RGB LED. To build an e-textile, the user sews modules together. The “petals” on each flower-like module can be sewn through with conductive thread that creates both physical and electrical connections, attaching components to a design’s background fabric and providing buses for power and data transmissions between pieces. The user can program the micro-

controller in C with the popular open source, free, and relatively user-friendly Arduino programming environment, downloading programs to the board via a USB-to-serial adapter. We based the commercial kit shown in figure 1 on the research prototypes we developed at the Craft Technology Lab. Although the commercial version uses traditional, hard printed circuit boards (PCBs), we based our research prototypes on soft, laser-cut fabric PCBs—a technology we developed that lets us implement complex circuitry on cloth. Figure 2 shows a close-up of a fabricbased LilyPad microcontroller module sewn into a dance costume we made. In this version, the stitching goes directly through the PCB’s conductive fabric, and embedded sensors control computergenerated music and lighting. (In the commercial version, holes in the petals allow for a similar kind of sewing.) Table 1 describes several other devices that people have built with the kit. Our motivation in developing the LilyPad Arduino was to build an accessible yet powerful and open-ended toolkit. We strove to develop a system roughly analogous to the popular Lego Mindstorms kit that introduces people to robotics. We wanted to create a medium that could engage a variety of people in creative experimentation with computing and electronics while teaching them basic skills in these areas. To evaluate our kit, we conducted user studies that have interesting implica-

Published by the IEEE CS N 1536-1268/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: MIT Libraries. Downloaded on March 28,2010 at 09:54:29 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Analog input 2

1/tx

0/rx

a5

a4 UART bootloader 3 PWM programming header (plugs into USB serial adapter) 4 –

Reset switch

SPI programming header

5

Status LED blinks on reset

6 PWM 7 8

(b)

a2

ATmega168V

+

(a)

a3

PWM PWM 11 PWM 10 9

a1 a0 13

12

PWM: Pulse-width modulation UART: Universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter

Figure 1. The LilyPad Arduino kit. (a) The microcontroller is in the center. From the bottom going clockwise: power supply, speaker, vibrating motor, accelerometer, light sensor, and RGB LED. (b) Diagram of the microcontroller module.

tions for pervasive computing, engineering education, and the technology world more broadly.

USER STUDIES So far we’ve conducted six user studies where people of various ages and backgrounds used versions of the LilyPad Arduino to build their own wearables. Each study was in the format of a workshop titled “Learn to Build Your Own Electronic Fashion” and had a similar structure. At each session’s start, participants—most of whom had no previous programming or electronics experience—were introduced to these topics as well as to sewing techniques. Then, under an instructor’s guidance, they designed and built a wearable. Each workshop culminated in a fashion show or exhibition that let the participants show off their work to friends and family. Figure 3 shows pictures from two workshops: in figure 3a, two girls work on their designs, while in figure 3b, two teenagers have fun with a project during an exhibition party. A APRIL–JUNE 2008

Figure 2. A textile-based LilyPad Arduino module.

touch-sensitive shirt—built by the girl in figure 3b—makes silly noises when someone squeezes her waist. We taught three workshops to middle and high school students (ages 10 to 17) in school or after-school settings. In each case, the workshop was listed in a course catalog and students signed up

voluntarily. We taught the other three workshops to a mixture of teenagers and adults whom we invited. The workshops provided us with settings that we used to iteratively improve our kit design and develop an e-textile course curriculum. In our final two classes, having developed a stable class PERVASIVE computing


13

WEARABLE COMPUTING

WEARABLE COMPUTING

TABLE 1 Devices built with the LilyPad Arduino. Description

Components

Creator, setting

Touch-sensitive shirt; makes silly sounds when it is touched in certain places.

Main board, power supply, speaker, skin resistance sensors built from conductive fabric

A 17-year-old girl, during an electronic-fashion workshop

Police hat that makes siren noises when a switch is pressed.

Main board, power supply, speaker, switch

A 10-year-old boy, during an electronic-fashion workshop

Fortune-telling shirt; when the wearer touches a button, the shirt answers a question by randomly lighting up an LED next to a phrase like “Most definitely.”

Main board, power supply, LEDs, switch

A professional teacher, during an electronic-fashion workshop

Neural network quilt with squares that can be snapped together with different “weight” strips to form a simple neural network; LEDs show which neurons are firing.

Several main boards, LEDs, resistors

Graduate students, during an embedded-computing course

A hat that keeps its wearer awake: when the wearer’s head falls to his chest, vibrating motors shake and speakers chime to keep him awake.

Main board, power supply, accelerometer, vibrating motors, speaker

A graduate student, during a physicalcomputing course

I think electronic fashions would be cool presents. My friends thought my hat [was] sooooooo cool … so I’m just sending you an email to say I loved your camp so much!

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Students at work during our user studies. (a) Two students work on their e-textile designs. (b) Students have fun with the wearables they built.

structure and usable kit, we began to investigate more complex issues. We were particularly interested in motivational and affective issues: who chooses to participate in our courses, why they choose to do so, whether they become engaged in the experience, and what, if any, lasting impact participating in a workshop has on them. Although our studies are preliminary, the results are suggestive and interesting. First, in the three workshops in which participants were (self-selected) middle and high school students, 25 out of 31 attendees were young women. In a remarkable reversal of traditional patterns, we were able to consistently attract overwhelming female majorities 14

PERVASIVE computing

to what is essentially an embedded computing course. What’s more, many of the students (though not all) expressed passionate interest and engagement in the class. Here is a sample of positive feedback from four students that we collected from surveys and an unsolicited email: [The class] was amazingly fun, I learned a lot, and we get a really cool garment out of the class! [I would be interested in taking another class in electronic fashion] because you make something that has technology but it still has the design aspect.

Our data also indicates that the experience might have been an empowering and motivating one for some students. In the last workshop, five out of eight students who completed post-surveys reported that they’d be interested in taking future classes in electronics or computer science as a result of their experience, and one 15 year old wrote in a survey that she’d probably take future classes in computer science because “I thought programming would be a lot harder than it really is.”

T

hese results point the way toward interesting avenues for future investigation. E-textiles might well serve as an introduction to longer-term interest in computing and engineering. But beyond this, e-textiles might ultimately produce a sea change in the ways that students perceive computation and technology. After all, it wasn’t so long ago when computers were room-sized www.computer.org/pervasive


WEARABLE COMPUTING

“giant brains” and available only to a few elite practitioners in academia, government, and industry. Computing is certainly more widespread and accessible today; but as a field of study, it can still seem unnecessarily exclusive and daunting to the hobbyist or beginner. The image of the obsessive, reclusive hacker does have an idiosyncratic appeal; but at the same time, it conjures echoes of the removed fraternity of technicians from the earlier era. E-textiles present an alternative look at computation—pervasive, soft, flirtatious, playful, theatrical. We can at least imagine such a style of computational design as an enticement to children or teenagers who would otherwise feel that technology is only for passive consumption. Our possibly utopian hope is that e-textile design can, over time, become a means through which hobbyists, craftspeople, and (perhaps most powerfully) children can become technologically fluent—and can express themselves creatively as well.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the US National Science Foundation for funding this research under grant EIA-0326054.

Leah Buechley is a postdoctoral researcher in the Craft Technology Group and the Computer Science Department at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Contact her at Leah.Buechley@ colorado.edu. Michael Eisenberg is an

PURPOSE: The IEEE Computer Society is the world’s largest association of computing professionals and is the leading provider of technical information in the field. MEMBERSHIP: Members receive the monthly magazine Computer, discounts, and opportunities to serve (all activities are led by volunteer members). Membership is open to all IEEE members, affiliate society members, and others interested in the computer field. COMPUTER SOCIETY WEB SITE: www.computer.org OMBUDSMAN: Call the IEEE Member Services toll-free number, +1 800 678 4333 (US) or +1 732 981 0060 (international), or email [email protected].

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE STAFF

President: Rangachar Kasturi* President-Elect: Susan K. (Kathy) Land, CSDP;* Past President: Michael R. Williams;* VP, Electronic Products & Services: George V. Cybenko (1ST VP);* Secretary: Michel Israel (2ND VP);* VP, Chapters Activities: Antonio Doria;† VP, Educational Activities: Stephen B. Seidman;† VP, Publications: Sorel Reisman;† VP, Standards Activities: John W. Walz;† VP, Technical & Conference Activities: Joseph R. Bumblis;† Treasurer: Donald F. Shafer;* 2008–2009 IEEE Division V Director: Deborah M. Cooper;† 2007–2008 IEEE Division VIII Director: Thomas W. Williams;† 2008 IEEE Division VIII Director-Elect: Stephen L. Diamond;† Computer Editor in Chief: Carl K. Chang†

Executive Director: Angela R. Burgess; Director, Governance, & Associate Executive Director: Anne Marie Kelly; Associate Publisher: Dick Price; Director, Membership Development: Violet S. Doan; Director, Finance & Accounting: John Miller; Director, Information Technology & Services: Neal Linson

* voting member of the Board of Governors † nonvoting member of the Board of Governors

BOARD OF GOVERNORS Term Expiring 2008: Richard H. Eckhouse; James D. Isaak; James Moore, CSDP; Gary McGraw; Robert H. Sloan; Makoto Takizawa; Stephanie M. White Term Expiring 2009: Van L. Eden; Robert Dupuis; Frank E. Ferrante; Roger U. Fujii; Ann Q. Gates, CSDP; Juan E. Gilbert; Don F. Shafer Term Expiring 2010: André Ivanov; Phillip A. Laplante; Itaru Mimura; Jon G. Rokne; Christina M. Schober; Ann E.K. Sobel; Jeffrey M. Voas Next Board Meeting: 16 May 2008, Las Vegas, NV, USA

associate professor in the Department of Computer Science and the Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Contact him at duck@ cs.colorado.edu. APRIL–JUNE 2008

revised 3 Mar. 2008

COMPUTER SOCIETY OFFICES Washington Office. 1828 L St. N.W., Suite 1202, Washington, D.C. 20036-5104 Phone: +1 202 371 0101 Fax: +1 202 728 9614 Email: [email protected] Los Alamitos Office. 10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, Los Alamitos, CA 90720-1314 Phone: +1 714 821 8380 Email: [email protected] Membership & Publication Orders: Phone: +1 800 272 6657 Fax: +1 714 821 4641 Email: [email protected] Asia/Pacific Office. Watanabe Building, 1-4-2 Minami-Aoyama, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0062, Japan Phone: +81 3 3408 3118 Fax: +81 3 3408 3553 Email: [email protected]

IEEE OFFICERS President: Lewis M. Terman; PresidentElect: John R. Vig; Past President: Leah H. Jamieson; Executive Director & COO: Jeffry W. Raynes; Secretary: Barry L. Shoop; Treasurer: David G. Green; VP, Educational Activities: Evangelia MicheliTzanakou; VP, Publication Services & Products: John Baillieul; VP, Membership & Geographic Activities: Joseph V. Lillie; VP, Standards Association Board of Governors: George W. Arnold; VP, Technical Activities: J. Roberto B. deMarca; IEEE Division V Director: Deborah M. Cooper; IEEE Division VIII Director: Thomas W. Williams; President, IEEE-USA: Russell J. Lefevre

PERVASIVE computing


15

A KitofNoParts    by Hannah PernerWilson    B.S. University of Art and Industrial Design Linz, 2007    Submitted to the Program in Media Arts and Sciences, School of Architecture and Planning, in partial  fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Media Arts and Sciences at  the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 2011    © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2011. All rights reserved.          

ABSTRACT  I demonstrate a new approach to building electronics that emphasizes the expressive qualities of  diverse materials as well as the skill and creativity of the builder. I believe that a more insightful and  skilled process is also capable of producing more intelligible and personal results. Conventionally  electronics that are built from a kit‐of‐parts have been optimized for speed, efficiency and  repeatability of assembly. While this approach demonstrates the power of modular systems that  have made many of the technologies we rely on possible, it also constrains us to particular styles of  building, influencing what we build as well as impacting how we come to think about electronics. In  order to promote a different approach I have developed a series of techniques that allow us to build  electronics using a variety of craft materials and tools. A collection of electronic samples showcases  the results and the potential of these techniques, and a public website documents these techniques  in the form of “recipes”. Besides containing instructions on how to build electronics these recipes  are also detailed accounts of my development process that aim to promote further exploration and  material investigation, instead of straightforward replication. After developing this collection of new  techniques, documenting and publishing them, I ran two workshops in order to observe how my  approach fared in practice. Workshop participants were invited to build their own electronic  projects from a new and diverse set of materials and tools. Observing participants’ process led me to  reflect on their different styles of building and evaluate to what extent a Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach  supports a building style that is more understandable, and allows individuals to work more freely  and expressively with the materials and tools involved. Currently our approach to building  electronics is shaped by industrial standards and discrete components. The Kit‐of‐No‐Parts  counters this approach by introducing the notion of craft and putting emphasis on skilled use of  tools, intimate knowledge of materials, with the aim to produce more diverse and intelligible  results.    Advisor:          Leah Buechley  AT&T Career Development Professor  Program in Media Arts and Sciences, MIT 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS     

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................6  BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................................8  Electronics....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8  Industrial Production...................................................................................................................................................... 8  Individual Prototyping and Building........................................................................................................................ 8  Construction Kits .............................................................................................................................................................. 9  Liberated Circuits ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10  Electronic Textiles ......................................................................................................................................................... 10  Paper Crafts and Electronics..................................................................................................................................... 10  Maker Cultures................................................................................................................................................................ 11  Craft ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12  Craft Today ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13  BUILDING A KITOFNOPARTS...................................................................................................... 15  Mapping A Space....................................................................................................................................................................... 17  Sourcing Supplies and Information .................................................................................................................................. 20  Sourcing: Conductive Paints ..................................................................................................................................... 22  Producing Samples................................................................................................................................................................... 26  Samples: Carving............................................................................................................................................................ 29  Documenting Recipes.............................................................................................................................................................. 38  Recipe: Electroplating.................................................................................................................................................. 40  The Website ................................................................................................................................................................................. 52  COLLECTION OF EXAMPLES ............................................................................................................ 55  Carved Pixels ............................................................................................................................................................................... 56  Carved Traces ............................................................................................................................................................................. 57  Cast Traces................................................................................................................................................................................... 58  Etched Traces ............................................................................................................................................................................. 59  Gilded Traces .............................................................................................................................................................................. 60  LaserEngraved Traces (and PressFit Components) ............................................................................................... 61  Linocut and LinoPrinted Traces ....................................................................................................................................... 62  Painted Traces ........................................................................................................................................................................... 63  Paper Speakers .......................................................................................................................................................................... 64  Plated Seashell Speaker ......................................................................................................................................................... 65  Plated Traces .............................................................................................................................................................................. 66  ScreenPrinted Traces............................................................................................................................................................. 67  Sculpted Motor........................................................................................................................................................................... 68  Vinylcut Traces .......................................................................................................................................................................... 69  WORKSHOPS ........................................................................................................................................ 70  First Workshop .......................................................................................................................................................................... 73  Second Workshop ..................................................................................................................................................................... 80       

4 

REFLECTIONS ON PROCESS ............................................................................................................. 88  Balancing Method and Intuition ........................................................................................................................................ 89  Being Explicit About Tacit Knowledge ............................................................................................................................ 89  Documenting in RealTime ................................................................................................................................................... 90  Styles of Approach .................................................................................................................................................................... 90  Rehearsing and Debugging .................................................................................................................................................. 91  Concluding Remarks................................................................................................................................................................ 92  APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................. 93  BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................... 95  Websites ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 96     

   

5 

INTRODUCTION  The MIT Media Lab is a place to imagine, prototype and build technologies. Situated within this  environment, the High‐Low Tech research group looks at the processes, audiences and cultures  surrounding technologies and at how these surrounding elements impact technology. We care about  the kinds of people who are drawn to creating technology. We promote diverse, accessible and  creative ways of approaching technology. Finally, we encourage and support the formation of  communities and cultures around these new audiences and processes.   In my work, I look at how we build electronics and at the materials and tools we build with. The Kit‐ of‐No‐Parts is a new approach to building electronics that emphasizes the expressive qualities of  diverse materials as well as the skill and creativity of the builder. This approach is represented  through a set of techniques that include, among other things, ways to sculpt and plate electrical  connections, cut paper speakers, carve wooden dials and paint color‐changing pixels. I believe that  this new approach to building will lead to a greater diversity of electronics that are more  understandable and unique.  In industry, “kit‐of‐parts” describes an approach to designing discrete components that function as  modular parts within a coherent system. These parts have been optimized for speed, efficiency, and  repeatability of assembly. The Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach emphasizes building outside of these  systems. While I incorporate a variety of parts in my techniques, I do not confine myself to working  within their constraints.   I am not the first person to address some of these problems surrounding electronics. A whole range  of electronic construction kits (picoCricket [picoCricket, w2011], Phidgets [Greenberg and Fitchett,  2001]) have been designed to make electronics more understandable, and accessible, making them  appeal not only to children but also to artists and designers (Arduino [Arduino, w2011]). The  LilyPad Arduino, a sewable microcontroller platform, is an example of how a new and more  expressive approach to building electronics engages diverse communities and produces new kinds  of technologies [Buechley and Hill, 2010]. A range of prototypes and projects from within the field of  Interaction Design demonstrate some of the different kinds of technologies that could exist if we  were to approach technology with a focus on more social, cultural and ethical implications [Dunne,  2005].   What differentiates my approach from toolkits and critical designs is that I am not introducing a  new set of more understandable parts or examples of what technology might one day become.  Instead I am developing new processes for creating technology by re‐introducing the notion of craft.  Taking a craft approach to building electronics introduces an insightful and skilled process that is  also capable of producing more intelligible and more personal results. This process and its results  appeal to individuals and communities who were previously not drawn to building electronics  themselves.  Before the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach, I had been working with textile crafts and electronics for  several years. My previous work includes an online library of textile sensors [How To Get What You  Want, w2011], a series of hands‐on workshops [Perner‐Wilson et al., 2011] on the topic of Do It  Yourself (DIY) textile sensor interfaces as well as a series of projects that include a wearable game  interface and a motion‐capture costume.       

6 

  In approaching my thesis, I selected and categorized electronic components, conductive materials  and craft processes and mapped them into a collective space. Within this space I sketched  connections between different categories and used these intersections to generate ideas. I  proceeded to realize these ideas through making and testing samples. Making samples meant  combining different materials and tooling processes in a systematic way in order to test what  worked and what didn’t. While I was systematic about my sample making, I also relied on my  intuition. This process of producing samples forced me to think explicitly about my style of working  and how to convey it as an approach. Through my thesis document I am interested in  communicating not only the results of my experimentation, but also the experimental approach  itself.   The results of my thesis work include a collection of examples and a website. The collection of  examples demonstrates what one can build when craft skills and expressive materials become an  inherent part of the building process. They showcase the results of the variety of techniques I  developed such as copper‐plated seashell speakers and ornamentally gilded gold circuits. The  website documents the techniques used to create these examples as recipes, so that this approach  can be applied by others. These recipes are not just straightforward step‐by‐step instructions one  can follow to achieve the result; instead, they are detailed accounts of my process. They attempt to  prompt others to build upon my work, rather than simply replicate it.  In order to get an understanding of how my work impacts how we currently build electronics, I  discuss to what degree it supports a building style that is more understandable, and to what degree  such transparency allows individuals to work more freely and expressively with the materials and  tools involved. Through two workshops I look at others’ ability to apply these techniques  successfully, and at how the use of craft materials and tools influences their perception of  electronics. I am interested to find out who is drawn to this building approach, what motivates them  to engage with it, how they experience the process and what they want to build.   In the following chapters, I describe related work and background information relevant to my  thesis. I detail my experimental process of building the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts and document my  techniques in the form of recipes. I introduce a collection of examples that showcase what kinds of  electronics can be built with the techniques I’ve developed. Through summarizing and analyzing the  workshops I’ve conducted, I reflect on my process as well as on the results of that process. 

 

   

7 

BACKGROUND  In this chapter, I introduce building processes as they relate to electronics and craft. I describe how  electronics are designed and manufactured as discrete components and how we prototype and  build electronics at an individual level. While this first section on electronics is focused on how we  build within systems of parts. In a second section titled “Liberated Circuits” focuses on electronics  outside their systems by exploring other forms of building with electronics that, for different  reasons, build electronics in more unconventional and unintended ways. In a final section on craft, I  describe what it means to craft and to what extents craft today incorporates technology.  Electronics  Industrial Production  Today the majority of electronic components are mass‐manufactured. Standardization and a kit‐of‐ parts approach to production have made large‐scale manufacturing fast, efficient and affordable. An  elaborate supply chain delivers materials that have been made workable, their flaws removed to  render them uniform and predictable. Standardized production or “workmanship of certainty” as  David Pye calls it [Pye, 1968], allows us to build technologies that are more complex than any one  human could ever make himself or herself. The results of this process demonstrate the power of  black boxing [Pugin, 1853] and division of labor, without which many of the technologies we rely on  today would not exist. But these results also illustrate the influence that this standardized approach  has on how technology looks, feels and functions.  “In particular there has been a pronounced development in the idea of a building as a kit of parts  whose individual functions are tested and known, whose cost and performance has been set and whose  use can be specified in one country and used in another and everyone concerned knows what to  expect.“ [Craft and the Turing Test for practical thinking, Peter Dormer, The Culture of Craft, 1997]   The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), which was founded in 1906 and works  towards developing industry standards, describes the goal of standards as allowing for the assembly  of electronics that “perform, fit and work safely together” [IEC, w2011]. Some of these benefits of  standardization can also become limitations. In first‐world industrial societies we have already  begun to think of electronics in terms of standardized parts and it is hard to break with these  conventions. When we think of a transistor, we think of the specific component packages and not of  the actual materials and material properties used to make the transistor itself. The way transistors  are designed, their package and form‐factor, have little to do with how they work. This way in which  parts tend to black box functionality, hiding mechanisms and functional materials, makes them less  intuitive and understandable and harder for individuals to use in unexpected or expressive ways. I  believe that parts libraries and standardized industrial systems constrain how we build, what we  build as well as how we think about electronics. Figure 2 shows an assortment of standardized  electronics components.  Individual Prototyping and Building  The ways in which we currently sketch, prototype and build electronics, even as hobbyists within  the vicinities of our own homes, rely on standardized parts. A range of tools exist that allow us to  prototype and easily disassemble our designs built with these parts. This style of working, too,  stands in contrast to the approach I am proposing.      

8 

I want to briefly introduce some of the ways in which we currently build electronics to better  contrast it with the approach I’m proposing. Breadboarding is a common electronics term used to  describe the process of prototyping circuits on a breadboard. The name “breadboard” comes from  the way early radio enthusiasts used actual breadboards or pieces of wood as platforms to which  they screwed and attached the individual parts of their radio circuits [Fig. 1, left]. Today  breadboards are rectangular plastic construction bases with a grid of holes spaced to fit the leads of  most through‐hole components [Fig. 1, right]. Jumper wires are used to create additional  connections on the breadboard.  

  Figure 1. Left: 1922 One tube breadboard radio by A.C Gilbert Erector (image taken from  nwwone.org). Right: Modern breadboard with components and jumper wires.  To design more durable and permanent printed circuit boards (PCBs), one can use software that  allows for the selection of components from a library of standard parts to be laid out in a design. The  software helps optimize the arrangement of individual parts and the connections between them.  The final design can then be exported to create files for industrial or individual production through  chemical etching or milling the circuit from a copper foil laminate.  Construction Kits  Construction kits make electronics accessible; they lower the entry bar to science, engineering and  technology disciplines and allow more of us to build our own electronics. Similar to industrial  production, the parts of a construction kit function inside modular systems, yet whereas in industry  parts are optimized for engineers to build with and machines to mass‐produce, the parts of a  construction kit are designed with attention to how an individual uses them to build, understand,  and learn.   A range of physical computing toolkits are aimed at bridging the gaps between programming and  building electronics and their interactions with the physical world. Toolkits such as Phidgets  [Greenberg and Fitchett, 2001] and Arduino [Arduino, w2011] have made programming and  building interactive projects so accessible that artists, designers and students all over the world are  integrating electronics in their work. PicoCrickets [Fig. 2] are physical computing modules for  children designed to be easily integrated with the physical world to emphasize and promote artistic  expression.     

9 

  Figure 2. Left: Electronics components (image taken from printedcircuit1.com). Right: PicoCrickets by  PICO are based on research from the Lifelong Kindergarten group at the MIT Media Lab (photo from  Smart Design).  Liberated Circuits  Besides industry, individual prototyping and construction kits, there are other approaches to  building electronics. Building outside of industrial production is often associated with building as a  form of personal expression or aesthetic creation. The following paragraphs summarize some  contemporary movements that represent independent, expressive and more materially diverse  building processes related to electronics and technology.   Electronic Textiles  The field of Electronic Textiles (E‐Textiles), the seamless integration of electronics and textiles,  represents one of the more integrative material approaches to building electronics with and from  fabrics as well as other soft, flexible and malleable materials. Research in this area [Buechley and  Hill, 2010] has shown that introducing a new palette of materials and tools for building electronics  attracts new audiences and generates a new diversity of electronic artifacts. These artifacts are not  only aesthetically intriguing but also functionally novel and often the result of a personal encounter  with technology.   A new set of toolkits such as the LilyPad Arduino [Buechley et al., 2008][Fig. 3], Fabrickit [Fabrickit,  w2011] and the Schemer [Schemer, w2011] are designed to facilitate the integration and  combination of electronics and textiles. While these toolkits support and enable a new community  of builders to realize their own E‐Textile projects they also introduce new processes and new styles  of working that lie in between the plug and play world of electronics and the world of textile  handicrafts.  Paper Crafts and Electronics  In 2007 and 2009 two conference workshops titled Transitive Materials [Transitive Materials,  w2011] focused on integrating material technology and computation. The academic papers  presented at these workshops included the work on Pulp‐Based Computing [Coelho et al., 2009]  that introduced electronics into the papermaking processes allowing for electrical connections,  bend sensors and LED lights to be embedded within paper. Pulp computing also introduced a     

10 

screen‐printed flat speaker coil that inspired the paper and seashell speakers I introduce in my  thesis. Another paper on Co‐Designed Paper Devices [Saul et al., 2010] included documentation of a  gilded circuit made from gold leaf that was used to actuate a paper robot. 

  Figure 3. Left: LilyPad Arduino embedded in an ETextiles project. Right: Screenprinted speaker coil  on handmade paper by Marcelo Coehlo (image taken from eyemotive.com).  Combining paper, electronics and computation has also been one of the research directions of the  High‐Low Tech research group. Electronic Popables [Qi and Buechley, 2010] is an interactive pop‐ up book that showcases how electronics and pop‐up mechanisms can be integrated to produce new  results that combine artistic expression with craft and engineering skills. The Living Wall [Buechley  et al., 2010] is a large‐scale painted interactive circuit that appears as a decorative floral wallpaper  pattern, integrating functional circuit layout and the electrical properties of conductive paint with  appearance and aesthetics.   In many ways the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach sprung from a realization that in attributing many of the  novel and diverse results of E‐Textiles and paper computing solely to the different materials they  were made from, we are overlooking the impact that the shift in process was having on electronics ‐  namely a shift from the established practice of assembling electronics from a kit‐of‐parts, to a  process of crafting electronics.   Maker Cultures  In this subsection I introduce a variety of different building communities that, in my opinion,  represent styles of building with electronics that take place “outside the box”. By this I mean that  they make explicit efforts to work with electronics in unconventional ways, for a variety of reasons  that include resourcefulness, customization and aesthetics.  Hacker spaces [Fig. 4] have established themselves in many places as a physical space to build and  hack electronics together.   Circuit bending is a style of modifying mostly cheap toy circuits to illicit interesting electronic  sounds. Bent circuits are often housed in custom‐built containers from re‐assembled parts and  scraps, bringing together electronics components and household items.     

11 

Steampunk [Akah and Bardzell, 2010] is a subculture that, among other things, modifies and builds  electronics to look like they originated from the Victorian area. While many Steampunk electronics  are replicas of modern technology, they incorporate a range of materials and styles that are  reminiscent of a past era in which steam power was widely used. The results are sometimes  electronic artifacts that stand out because they look nothing like typical consumer electronics [Fig.  4]. 

  Figure 4. Left: Nosebridge hacker space, San Francisco (photo taken from mattleaf.com). Right:  Rhombus Maximus by Alex Neretin  a steampunk computer mouse made of copper, brass and walnut  wood (image from behance.net).   The term Do It Yourself (DIY) has experienced recent popularity and media attention. O’Reilly’s  Make Magazine [Makezine, w2011] and Maker Faires [Maker Faire, w2011] are big supporters of  this new maker movement. Maker culture has also very successfully leveraged the Internet as an  international platform for communities to meet and exchange projects and information. Ravelry  [Ravelry, w2011] and Instructables [Instructables, 2011] are examples of online communities based  around sharing information, publishing projects and acknowledging others’ work.   Cultures of making exist around materials, tools, and community spaces as well as around the  artifacts that people make but the mindset of the individual maker is just as much an important part  of these cultures. Jay Silver describes a Maker Methodology [Silver, 2009] that promotes making as  a mindset, where the world is your palette and you and your body play a role in the way you build,  learn create and interact with electronics.  Craft  Craft materials and crafted artifacts are often praised for their aesthetic, decorative and material  qualities and yet we hardly consider them in terms of innovativeness or usefulness. We generally  consider crafted artifacts to be shaped by the skilled “workmanship of risk” [Pye, 1968] and the  personal knowledge [Dormer, 1997] of the individual craftsperson as well as by the materials and  tools involved.    “A craft object often reveals much about the skill and the technology used to make it. The relationship  between craft process and product is likely to be, if not quite transparent, then at least relatively  accessible to most of us. There is pleasure from wearing or using something whose creation we can    12   

both admire and understand. In a world where we have lost touch with the business of making things,  the craft object restores for us the connection between making and using. By contrast, design conceals.  Not only do we not understand how designed objects are made, we do not understand how they work.”  [Helen Rees, Patterns of making: thinking and making in industrial design, The Culture of Craft,  1997]  Craft Today  Looking at contemporary practices of craft, there seems to be a split between contemporary craft  that leverages technologies in support of traditional practices, such as the online knitting  community Ravelry [Ravelry, w2011], and contemporary craft that takes a more radical stance on  establishing new forms of craft expression in modern society, such as Knitta [Knitta, w2011] and  Hyperbolic Crochet [Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef, w2011]. Knitta is a collective of knitters who  use knitting as a form of graffiti. Hyperbolic Crochet has become a world‐wide movement that  celebrates the craft of crochet to produce mathematical structures that represent coral reef  structures in an attempt to draw attention to the threats that global warming is having on this  natural wonder. 

  Figure 5. Left: Knitta grafitti (image taken from hugznbitchez.com). Right: “Crochet Coral and  Anemone Garden" with sea slug by Marianne Midelburg (photos copyright The IFF by Alyssa Gorelick).  Craft emphasizes process, the materials and tools involved as well as the skill and joy in manual  labor. Craft has become defined as other to industrial production and this comparison has  emphasized more of the social and economical aspects of craft, craftsmanship and artisanal  production. The result is that these aspects to have an impact on how we view craft and crafted  artifacts.   The common image we conjure up of the craftsperson’s workspace, while full of materials and tools,  is outdated in terms of technology and innovation. The modern craft workspace exists. It includes  computers and other high‐tech electronics and yet when we think of craft we picture the nostalgic  workspace that represents the birthplace of the kinds of artifacts we typically view as crafted. While  craft has come to embrace technology for production [Ann Sutton quoted in Dormer, 1997, p145],  community building and social networking [Torray, 2009][Rosner, 2010], there are few approaches  that have brought us a framework in which to craft technology itself.      

13 

    In the following chapters I detail my thesis work that explores the process and possibilities of  building electronics by combining the skilled, material and personal qualities of craft, the  expressive, tinkering and resourceful qualities of maker culture with established forms of building  electronics from a set of discrete components. I describe the series of techniques that I have  developed in order to promote what I believe is a more materially diverse, functionally transparent  and expressive style of building electronics.   

   

14 

BUILDING A KIT‐OF‐NO‐PARTS 

  Figure 6. Snapshot of my workspace taken during the process of building a KitofNoParts.  The introduction explained my motivation and described my approach and in the background  section I painted a picture of how we build and craft with electronics today. In this chapter, I will  detail the stages I went through in creating my thesis work. Figure 6 shows a snapshot taken of my  workspace while I was building the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts.  Throughout this description of my process of developing new techniques I talk about samples,  examples and recipes, as shown in Figure X. While intimately related, these are three separate  things. Samples are the experiments I produced to develop new techniques. Examples are the  demonstrations I made to showcase these techniques. Finally, recipes are the instructions I wrote in  order to share these techniques with others.   For organizational purposes I will describe the different stages of building a Kit‐of‐No‐Parts in a  linear order. But in practice there was much overlap and back and forth between stages that is  better illustrated as shown in Figure 7.       

15 

  Figure 7. Illustration of the process of building a KitofNoParts. Mapping Space: Visualizing the  conceptual framework of my thesis to generate ideas. Sourcing Supplies and Instruction: Acquiring the  necessary materials, tools and information to begin work. Producing Samples: Testing new techniques  through a succession of samples. Making Examples: Designing a collection of examples that showcase  my various techniques. Workshops: Holding two workshops to share techniques and gather feedback  on how they are received. Documenting Recipes: Writing up my successes and failures for others to  follow. Website: Launching the website and filling it with information.  As I continue to talk about the techniques I developed, I want to be clear that I’m referring to a  particular style of building that comes closer to craft than engineering, that is limited by skill and  not by toolset and that is defined by risk and not by certainty. I began my exploration looking for  tools that would allow me to work expressively with a wide range of materials; for techniques that  require skill and emphasize material qualities. I was looking to achieve diverse and unique results.  There isn’t a clear line I can draw between the expressive process I’m trying to describe and the less  expressive processes I’m trying to counter. The mindset and attitude of the maker play a large part  in how expressive the building process is. This is why the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts is as much about attitude  as it is about concrete techniques and recipes. 

   

16 

Mapping A Space 

  Figure 8. Snapshot of categorizations made in the process of mapping space.  The first step I took in exploring the intersections of craft and electronics was to look separately at  the domains of electronics, materials and building processes. I was interested in how each of these  three domains described and categorized themselves. I listed the different kinds of categorizations I  could find for each domain and then selected the one that was most relevant for my intentions.  Sometimes this involved mixing categorizations and even inventing my own. Figure 8 shows a detail  of such a categorization.  Electronics can be categorized by electrical properties (conductive, resistive, piezoresistive,  piezoelectric, dielectric/isolating…) or by package norms (surface mount, through‐hole...), but  conventionally they are categorized by discrete component (traces, resistors, capacitors, sensors,  actuators, power, transistors, integrated circuits…) as listed in established literature such as The Art  of Electronics [Horowitz and Hill, 1989]. While thinking of electronics in terms of electrical  properties helped me to think of individual components from a new perspective, I decided to go  with the common categorization. My reasoning for this was that it was not my immediate goal to  change how we categorize electronics, but rather how we build them, which includes building with  them.     

17 

Materials are conventionally categorized by chemical elements and compounds (metals, ceramics,  wood, polymers...) but can also be categorized by form‐factor (solid, liquid, powder, gas…) or by  conductivity (conductive, resistive, piezoresistive, piezoelectric, dielectric/isolating…) I chose to  pre‐select conductive materials and then categorize them by form‐factor. My reasoning for this was  that such a majority of conductive materials fall into the metals category that this category would  distinguish less differences and categorizing materials by form‐factor allowed me to relate them  more easily to processes and tools.  Building Processes are categorized differently, depending on domain. Industrial processes are  sometimes listed by process type such as chemical process, heat process or physical process but  more commonly they are categorized by similarity of function such as casting, molding, forming,  machining, joining and polishing. Craft processes are traditionally categorized by material  (metalwork, woodwork...) and by process (carving, weaving...) but this is not so much a  categorization as a way of naming crafts. I decided to categorize crafts in modern manufacturing  terms and to list them as additive, subtractive and deforming processes, another common  categorization used in manufacturing handbooks such as Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing  [Groover, 2010].    It is interesting to note that each of these three categories describes itself differently through its  choice of naming and categorization. Electronics are very much discrete components that have been  categorized by industry and their manufacturing terms. Materials fall naturally into scientific  categorizations, but could just as easily be described and categorized into more tactile or emotional  categories such as rough, soft and cold. While crafts describe themselves through materials and tool  processes such as woodwork or carving, industrial processes focus on how materials are worked  into their final form, either through adding, removing or shaping the materials.   After trying out various combinations of the above domains and categorizations, I found the  following combination most supportive of generating ideas for new techniques. I chose to list  conductive materials by substance and then by form‐factor on the left and processes by additive,  subtractive and deforming on the right. I chose not to include electronic components as a category  and instead have them result from the various material‐process intersections. This mapping worked  out very well for me and in the following I give a more detailed listing of what I included.  Conductive materials were listed as metal, metalized and non‐metallic. Within the metal and  metalized categories I listed metal types such as copper, silver, gold, nickel. Within the non‐metallic  category I listed carbon, intrinsically conducting polymers (ICPs), salt, plasma. The next subcategory  was form‐factor. In metals I included things like foil, sheet, rod, pipe, wire, mesh, leaf, bead, filing,  powder, fiber, screw, nail and hinge. Metalized form factors included fabric, tape, thread and yarn.  Non‐metal form‐factors included powder, fiber, liquid, solution, coating, gel, fabric, paper, tape,  pencil lead and gas.  Craft processes were categorized as additive, subtractive and deforming. I divided additive into  applying and fusing. Applying included printing, painting, coating, plating and drawing. Fusing  included gluing and laminating. Subtractive processes were divided into cutting and removing.  Technically, cutting is not always subtractive and can fall in the deforming category. Cutting  included ripping, tearing and separating. Removing included carving, engraving and etching. And  finally, the deforming category was subdivided into molding, casting, folding and interlocking.  Molding and casting included throwing, sculpting, shaping and curing. Folding included creasing.     

18 

Interlocking included weaving, knitting, crochet and knotting. Many of the techniques in the  interlocking category are prevalent in textile crafts and to some degree I explicitly tried to avoid  these because I was looking to combine craft techniques that had not already been explored in E‐ Textiles. 

  Figure 9. Brainstorming sketches on top of categorization map that lead me to develop techniques.  The sketches in Figure 9 show my brainstorming sketches for select components on top of the  completed map that helped me draw intersections between materials and techniques. These  sketches also depict concrete ideas for techniques that I went on to develop. The first sketch on the  left describes a method for incorporating natural materials such as leaves and shells as base  structures for electronics. This idea evolved into a recipe for electroplating seashell speakers. The  second sketch on the right describes an approach to sculpting and carving electronics from  conductive materials and this idea evolved into recipes for carving electrical connections out of  wood as well as an attempt at sculpting precious metal clay to make tilt sensors and motors.   Having used my map to generate these concrete ideas I began the process of ordering supplies,  finding instructions and developing new techniques.    

   

19 

Sourcing Supplies and Information 

  Figure 10. Image taken of the spatchula tool display at the local art and craft supply store where I  purchased several of my supplies.   Having generated ideas for new techniques I was ready to begin sourcing and acquiring the  necessary materials and tools [Fig. 10]. In this chapter I describe how I used different information  sources to find supplies and instructions. Through select examples I share what I learnt about these  new materials, tools and techniques through the process of obtaining them.  The types of media I found most useful included other peoples written accounts of their processes,  especially when they included details not only regarding what but also why they chose a certain  material or tool. Photos were extremely valuable because they captured more information than the  person thought to write about. Sketches helped illustrate details that were otherwise hard to depict  or describe. While videos were often tedious to watch at length, they were great sources of all kinds  of implicit details that I had a hard time finding in explicit documentation.   I chose online media over other forms of instruction such as apprenticeships, classes and even  printed literature. My reasoning for this was that I intended to use similar forms of documentation     

20 

for my own work and it seemed like the perfect opportunity to experience learning from them first  hand.   I drew most heavily upon the instructional resources both before and after, and less so during my  process of making. Instructions are not only a source of how‐to information but also a great place to  look for information pertaining to the materials and tools involved in a process. Other places to look  for this kind of information include the online and offline shops that manufacture and distribute  these resources. These websites often make suggestions as to what collections of products belong  together, giving you an idea of all the supplies involved in a particular craft or process.   Approaching a new field of practice can be an overwhelming experience in terms of the amounts of  new information one encounters. This can make it hard to find the precise instructions or detailed  information that one is looking for. Sometimes I give up on finding what I’m looking for relatively  early in favor of a more hands‐on learning experience. I find that even after a brief hands‐on  encounter with some of the materials and tools, I’m in a much better position to oversee and  comprehend the masses of information available online. By figuring things out myself, my  vocabulary grows, allowing me to better describe what I’m looking for and I become better at  judging relevant from irrelevant information.   In order to illustrate some of the details of my sourcing process for materials I describe my search  for conductive paints that I was looking to use for painting and casting conductors.  

   

21 

Sourcing: Conductive Paints 

  Figure 11. Collection of conductive paints mixed at different ratios, with different mediums, and stray  bottle of gilding size.  Conductive paints are produced for variety of applications. Historically some paints were  conductive because they contained metallic color pigments, but today there is a whole industry  around the production of conductive paints for printing circuits as well as painting walls to shield  entire rooms from electromagnetic frequencies (EMF).   My goal was to find conductive paints that could be applied to a variety of different surfaces and  materials. I also wanted to combine them with base mediums such as screen‐printing base, block‐ printing base and even latex so that I could cast stretchy conductors [Fig. 11]. I was looking to  achieve a variety of conductive ranges that included: “Very conductive”, less than 10 Ohm resistance  across roughly a distance of 10cm and no wider than 1cm,  “Resistive”, in the K Ohm range across  roughly that same length and distance, and “Piezoresistive”, having electrical properties that change  under physical influences such as pressure and stretch.   Being able to paint, print, stamp and cast electronics, as well as have them be stretchable and  flexible, opens up many exciting possibilities.      

22 

One of the first trails of thought I follow when looking for a new material is whether I could possibly  make it myself. In terms of conductive paint this could be something like grinding pencil lead and  mixing it with a binder, and indeed if you search online you find a variety of instructions for mixing  your own conductive paints and glues. Most of them mix graphite with a medium such as liquid tape  or two‐component epoxy, a medium that will shrink rather than expand during drying or curing so  that the non‐conductive medium will not separate or encapsulate the conductive powder particles  but instead to compress them. I had experimented with this in the past and while it was possible to  make my own conductive paints I was looking for something more conductive than I had been able  to achieve previously.  I often begin my search for a specific material, not online, but by thinking if the material is contained  in or a part of any commercial product. Often times finding a commonly available variant of what  one is looking for can save time as well as cost. Silver paint, for example, is contained in conductive  pens that are sold for fixing electrical connections on circuits. I have had little luck getting these  pens to work well and dispense their conductive ink nice and smoothly, but they can easily be cut  open and the silver paint extracted to be used in other ways. While metallic markers and magnetic  wall paint seem like they might be conductive, neither of them are. Metallic markers either contain  only minimal amounts of metal particles, not enough to conduct, and often they don’t contain any  conductive materials. Iron filings in magnetic wall paint are too dispersed in their medium to  conduct electricity.   Another way to find materials in odd places is to consider all the different forms and form factors it  might be sold as. Conductive paints are also sold in spray cans both for shielding your home as well  as for shielding boxes that contain sensitive circuits.   There are countless manufacturers and distributors of conductive paints online and because  conductive paint is used in a variety of applications it is sold in different packaging and amounts.  Conductive paint for EMF shielding purposes, where customers might be painting the walls of their  house, comes in buckets, while the same paint for jewelry plating processes comes in small jars.  When making samples one often only wants small quantities of any material to test before placing a  large order. It is always worth while to contact the company directly and ask for samples of their  product(s). Often times the samples amounts are extremely generous and free. Other times you will  pay. Before purchasing amounts of a specific product it is great to have access to smaller quantities  to make sure it will work for your purposes. In looking for conductive paints online I found  numerous manufacturers and suppliers and was surprised to find quite a number of them that were  “local”, or rather based in New England. While it can be convenient and helpful to order from a local  supplier sometimes I did not restrict myself as I began by browsing websites.   Browsing some of these websites can be overwhelming due to the amounts of products and  datasheets filled with new kinds of information. I find it helps to take notes and sketch charts in  which I can compare the properties and prices of the items I come across. I then begin formulating  emails to the supplies of the companies I’m interested in. In the emails I often request more  information on specific products and inquire about samples. I also briefly described what I am  working on. The Kit‐of‐No‐Parts website was not quite setup at that point but as soon as it was, I  linked to it in order to reference my work and help explain what I was doing. I heard back from two  or three companies, one of which asked me to more precisely specify my purpose. It turned out that  they mix their paints for each order after clients specify what they want. At that point I was looking     

23 

for a conductive paint that would conduct even when stretched. The company sent me a sample of  one of their paints screen‐printed on a piece of fabric to demonstrate its flexibility and ability to  work on porous materials. While the paint looked interesting I did not end up purchasing it for two  reasons: it was a solvent based paint that required thinning and it needed to be dried and cured for  up to 15 minutes at temperatures above 100 °C. While unfortunate, our lab space is not setup with  good ventilation or a curing oven, making work with some materials more tedious than others. But  thinking that I also want my techniques to be available to a wide audience, choosing not to work  with higher‐maintenance materials such as this one, often make my work more accessible.  The conductive silver paint I did end up purchasing from another supplier was water‐based and  dries extremely quickly at room temperature, WB‐101 from conductive compounds [Conductive  Compounds, w2011]. Unfortunately silver paints are not cheap and this one cost $1.25 per gram.  They did not offer samples, but they did sell sample amounts at this price. Some companies have  relatively large minimum orders, which meant I could purchase 100g for $125. Compared to many  of the other materials and tools I was using in my process, this was definitely among the most  expensive purchases. 100g of the paint was less than 100ml and at first did not seem like much at  all, but it ended up lasting me throughout my process as well as throughout the workshops.  One of the most valuable things I have learned through requesting sample amounts of materials is  that the people who manufacture the products are often just as interested in my project as I am in  their product. They want to know what I am using their product for and even if it is working well or  not. The people who engineer and make the materials know a lot about them and one just has to get  in contact with the right person and not be afraid to explain what it is one is working on. I have  found some people extremely understanding of unusual sounding applications and actively helping  me find good solutions.  Smaller companies may have a smaller product range but they might also be more flexible and able  to produce something for you specifically. Even the fact that you can contact them and get a  personal response from the person in the right position gives you better access to their expertise.  Large companies often produce large amounts to meet industrial orders. They tend to be less  interested in one‐off projects because their revenue comes from big sales. Even if your project is  successful, the amounts you might end up purchasing from them are nothing on the scale of their  returns. Also, if their machines are set up to run large orders, then it is not easy for them to make  anything in small amounts. It is not that large companies as such don’t care about your project, it is  just that their business model does not always scale to your project.  The Internet is a vast and intriguing landscape of resources. Instead of walking into a store you  browse an online shop and it is hard to not let a website’s design influence the impression you have  of their products. Some industrial websites are especially hard to navigate and can appear dodgy.  After getting used to these sites you become more adapt at looking past what is often just poor  design. Many companies don’t have a designer or simply don’t care as much about their online  presence because it is not their main interface with their clients. Instead orders are placed directly  over the phone.   It is interesting to look at the different audiences some industries cater their products to, especially  when these are niche markets one wouldn’t immediately consider having anything in common with  one another. Conductive fabrics are a nice example of how the Electro Magnetic Field (EMF)  shielding industry produces products that are being sourced by individuals sewing interactive light‐    

24 

up garments and people shielding their homes from EMF. Often times these different communities  are not even aware of each other.   As these observations accumulate, they make up a large part of this process. These details are what  make this process more diverse, transparent and individual than placing your order for pre‐ assembled parts with a company like DigiKey [DigiKey, w2011] and being able to assemble  everything the next day. 

   

25 

Producing Samples 

  Figure 12. Samples of different color thermochromic paints on different heating elements that include  steel thread, copper paint, carbon paint, silver paint and copper tape.  This section describes the process of producing samples, of trying things out through systematic  making and testing [Fig. 12,13]. While it is a methodological process it also benefits from intuition.  Especially as you gain experience working with materials and tools, one develops a feeling for what  works and what doesn’t. I’ve found that balancing method and intuition works well, so long as I  keep track of everything I do.  While sample making thrives on the freedom to branch out and explore new possibilities, one also  needs to know what one is looking for. Ideally one already knew what one was looking for when  sourcing the materials and tools, as described in the previous chapter. In the process of building a  Kit‐of‐No‐Parts I established a routine of making samples that went something like this:  (1) Try to make a conductor, a continuous and reliable electrically conductive surface or solid that  can be controlled in terms of dimensions and spread (the equivalent of a wire). (2) Connect this  conductor, for example to the lead of an electrical component. (3) If 1 and 2 are successful, then try  to isolate the conductor and “jump” over it with another one, creating an intersection of two     

26 

overlapping conductors that are not electrically connected. (4) Connect one of the conductors you  have made to another, this can be seen as part of step 3 as part of jumping a trace is to connect two  existing traces. (5) Based on experience from the previous samples, think of possibilities for  resistors, capacitors, input and output. For example: switches, pressure sensors, heating elements,  motion, and color change. 

  Figure 13. Left: Samples of conductive paints and powders mixed with latex in an attempt to make a  stretchy conductor that can be cast. Right: Samples of conductive paints and rubbers mixed with  various mediums such as matte acrylic medium, fabric medium, latex and puffy fabric paint in an  attempt to create paintable substance with piezoresistive properties.  For roughly two months I spent every day trying to demonstrate how the selection of materials and  tools I had chosen could be worked into functional electronic circuits. Each time, I roughly followed  the succession of samples listed above. Of all the work that went into this thesis, this stage took the  longest, was the most challenging and fun, yet remains the least complete. The process of trying  things out never really ends, there is always something left to try.   Whatever samples I made, I always kept track of what I did and how I did it. I noted the materials I  used, how I combined them, sometimes even when I combined them – so that I could compare  results over time. As experiments accumulate, these notes become invaluable. They allow one to go  back and reference any prior experiment and pick up from there. Sometimes experiments led full  circle and I found myself trying something I had done before. Well‐organized notes allowed me to  check back and reference my previous results. Sometimes it paid off to make extra samples that  could be used in further experiments. While working on a project, never throw anything away.  Especially not failed experiments or excess samples, one never knows when one might need them.  During the actual process of producing samples I found a good balance between browsing  instructions and figuring things out for myself. This also helped me concentrate on the tangible  materials at hand to not go back and forth between reading and making. Often, the conclusions I  reached were inline with existing documentation but having figured it out for myself, even if it took  me longer than following instructions would have, gave me an insight to the materials and tools that  I wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.  

   

27 

To better illustrate some of the details of the sample making process, I describe how this played out  for carving wood circuits. 

   

28 

Samples: Carving 

  Figure 14. Samples of carved wood circuitry that include a variety of conductive materials such as  copper and silver paints and imitation gold leaf. In an attempt to create elements such as conductive  connections, dials, thermochromic heating elements and speaker coils.  The term “carving” can mean many different kinds of carving, depending on the materials involved.  Even woodcarving encompasses a range of different techniques. In this chapter I describe the  process of developing techniques for carving wood circuitry and explain my series of samples [Fig.  14] that I made to explore and experiment with what would work and what didn’t.  What appealed to me most about carving wood as a technique was that it would allow me to work  sculpturally in three dimensions as well as incorporate some of the aesthetic and tactile qualities of  wood. Knowing what I wanted to achieve was key in figuring out where to start as well as how to  move forward through the sample making process. My goal was to develop a process that allowed  me to carve circuits out of wood, leveraging and exposing its material qualities.   One day at the craft store I picked up my first carving tool. I had done no research on carving, any  knowledge I had on carving came from glimpsing other people carve and from examining carved  objects. It is interesting to pay attention to all the places one encounters relevant information. Even  at the craft store, just by looking through the variety of tools for sale. Sometimes tools come     

29 

packaged with elaborate information, and even instructions. Other times there is nothing. These  carving instruments had very little information attached to them but still, from the variety of  different kinds of tools I could already gather some useful information. Carving tools come with  different blades, shaped in variations of a V or U shapes and various flatness of angles from a sharp  V to a perfectly flat line. Another form of information I was able to obtain then and there was  through comparing different qualities of the same tool. I could distinguish this by comparing the  quality of the blades, some of which already had notches in them. And the design of the handles,  some of which were not shaped ergonomically. I could confirm my intuitions by comparing prices.  That day I purchased a single very small V‐shaped carving tool.  

 

 

Figure 15. Left: Carving supplies. Conductive silver paint, paintbrush, wood, acrylic paint, sandpaper,  carving tools and superglue. Right: Carving copper painted wood using a flat carving tool.  I’m not sure if the idea came to me when I picked up the tool or if I had already been thinking of it  prior to that. My plan for carving wood circuits was to create a conductive layer on top of wood that  could then be selectively carved away. Leaving conductive areas behind where I wanted them. This  concrete idea of what I wanted to achieve determined what samples I started making. Figure 15  shows a selection of some of the carving supplies I worked with as well as a demonstration of  carving with one of the carving tools.  The first set of samples I made was aimed at achieving a highly conductive surface on wood. For this  I mixed a water‐based copper paint from LessEMF [LessEMF, w2011] with different mediums at  different ratios. The mediums I chose were acrylic medium and latex and the medium to copper  ratios I chose were, 1:1 and 1:2. My choice of mediums and ratios were based on intuition and on  previous experience working with the paint on paper. From this I knew that the paint was brittle  and I wanted to mix it with something that would hold the copper particles together better than just  water. I also made samples using copper paint with some water to thin it, but without any medium. I  applied single coats of all my mixtures to individual 4 x 4 cm wood squares using a soft paintbrush  so as to minimize visible brushstrokes. When the paint was dry I measured surface conductivity. All  of the acrylic and latex mixes were good, except the 1:2 copper to latex mix which was seemingly  not conductive. The samples of pure paint thinned to various degrees with water were not  consistently continuously conductive, in other words flakey.  

   

30 

Since three of these first samples were successful (and I had made extra), I began carving traces  using my new tool. I carved traces of various thicknesses both with and against the grain of the  wood. I discovered that if I carved a too narrow trace against (perpendicular to) the grain of the  wood then this would not conduct, while a trace of the same thickness that ran inline with the grain  of the wood was conductive.  

  Figure 16. Copper paint mixed with medium and painted on wood. Traces carved to match the spacing  between leads on throughhole microcontroller.  My intuition was that the grain of the wood was too rough and the paint was cracking across the  hills and valley of the grain. Also, the carving process of moving the tool perpendicular to the grain  damaged the surface along the edges where the tool removed material. When cutting very slim  traces this meant that these damages might disrupt the full trace. One reaction was to think of  accepting this, in which case all thin traces simply must run inline with the grain of the wood. There  is something nice about how the properties of a material can dictate how you work with it and what  it is capable of. At the same time, there were so many ways of solving this problem. I could sand the  surface of the wood making it smooth and more uniform to reduce the unevenness that might have  been causing the conductive paint to crack. In addition to this I could also apply a layer of primer,  again sanding this down to create an even smoother surface. Both of these options worked, allowing  me to carve narrow traces any which way I liked across the surface of the wood without having to  worry about disrupting conductive connections [Fig. 16].   While I was happy with this result because I felt good about overcoming a hurdle, sanding down the  surface and priming it disguised the wood’s surface structure, which is what had initially appealed  to me. In a further attempt to maintain more of the wood qualities of this technique I went and  bought another tool that I had seen when purchasing the first. A flat version of the V shaped tool I  was using. With the flat version I could easily remove all the areas of paint that were no longer  valuable as functional conductive surfaces in my circuit. This exposed the wood underneath the  paint. It also gave a sculptural quality to the surface, as it was no longer flat with ridges, it now  showed more contrast. Depending on how deep I carved I exposed different layers of wood and  binding material that were differently colored.  At this point I had also received a new conductive silver paint, WB‐101 from Conductive Compounds  [Conductive Compounds, w2011], that was much more conductive than the copper I was using     

31 

previously. I could apply it without medium to achieve a very smooth and highly conductive surface  and, because the silver particles were smaller, it had a lower viscosity letting more of the wood  structure show through. Figure 17 shows images of a speaker coil being carved from a layer of silver  paint on wood. The image also shows the use of the two different carving tools that I had acquired. 

  Figure 17. Carving speaker coils using different tools.  Before I go on to describe the next step in this sample process, I’d like to go back to the very first set  of samples and note an observation that I made, that relates to why the one copper paint and latex  sample on wood did not conduct.  When mixing conductive paints and powders with latex to be able to cast a conductor I tried a lot of  different ratios and many of them were not conducting, but I discovered some interesting facts. The  conductive materials were heavier than the latex and because the latex took time to cure, these  would settle to the bottom of the mixture, creating an isolating latex layer on top but exposing  conductivity on the bottom. My procedure for measuring conductivity was to poke the probes of the  multimeter into the cured latex and check for continuity. I wasn’t getting a reading on some of my  samples, but at some point I realized what was happening. Figure 18 shows an upside‐down (from  the way it was cast) speaker coil that that is conductive underneath but not when measuring from  above. The latex does an excellent job at isolating, even against pointy millimeter probes.   When a sample does not do what one expects of it, it is important not to give up on it too easily.  Some of the steps I take to insure this is first to double‐check and make sure the sample is what I  thinks it is, especially if I was certain it would work. Without going back and re‐doing the  experiment, I check that I didn’t accidentally use a wrong ingredient or miss‐measure a ratio.  Sometimes just thinking back over the process or looking at photos of the process helps jump my  memory. Then I check that my test setup isn’t faulty and try to think of another way to test the  sample as well as testing it for other interesting properties, sometimes not the ones I was originally  looking for. Getting to know the sample, developing a theory of why it isn’t working, describing what  properties it does have and spend some time thinking about what it might be good for are all helpful  things to do in order to get the most out of this process.   Another example of a failed attempt related to my casting samples is of mixing latex with carbon  paint. I first spread out a thin layer of latex and then with the tip of a toothpick dripped carbon     

32 

paint/latex mixture into the uncured layer of latex. The result was not conductive at all, not even  highly resistive or stretch sensitive. But what happened as the pure latex and carbon paint blend  cured was that at the edges the carbon expanded into the latex forming very geometrical patterns.  Although electrically uninteresting, they were extremely beautiful [Fig. 18]. 

  Figure 18. Left: Example of a cast speaker coil from conductive copper paint and latex. The copper  particles have sunk to the bottom (side shown) of the latex, creating an isolating layer on top and  exposing them on the bottom. Right: Carbon paint mixed with latex and cast in uncured latex. Not  conductive but the black carbon paint trickled out into the latex at the edges creating an interesting  pattern.  Back to carving wood. The next step in making samples was to find ways of connecting my carved  traces to component leads. Since wood is stiff and will not bend or flex too easily or too much, a  simple and immediate way of doing this was to superglue the components down to the wood and  then paint additional conductive paint between the lead and the carved trace. If the wood were  flexible and would bend at this joint, the paint would probably crack and the connection would not  be reliable. When gluing the component down by its leads be careful not to coat the lead entirely in  glue otherwise the glue encapsulates them in an isolating layer, intercepting the connection you are  trying to make. The images in Figure 19 were taken with a USB microscope of the connections I just  described, they also show the surface mount LED lights inset into the wood. This was done by  carving out a small hole that could fit the LED before gluing it down. These painted connections  were very reliable.   Another way of making the connection between the component lead and the carved trace was to  push the leads of a through‐hole component into the wood and again apply additional paint around  the lead to connect it to the paint on the wood. This worked well if the wood was soft enough.   Now that I was able to carve connections and connect to connections, I wanted to be able to jump  connections. I used some of my earlier samples to test different non‐conductive materials as  isolators for jumping carved traces. I tried acrylic paint, primer paint, wood glue, acrylic sealer and  nail varnish. Two layers, with drying in between layers, of all of these samples worked fine. Pieces of  masking tape or transparent tape also worked. I found nail varnish to be one of the most convenient  because it dries fast and comes in many different colors including transparent which makes it  almost invisible, especially if you coat the entire circuit in a protective sealant at the very end. The     

33 

left image in Figure 20 shows an example of the nail varnish applied to the traces before jumping  over them with an additional layer of conductive paint. 

  Figure 19. Images taken with a USB microscope of the (left) the leads of a microcontroller and (right)  a surface mount LED painted over with silver paint to make electrical connections to the rest of the  circuit.  In the next step of sample making I ran into a problem. I had successfully isolated my trace against  the probes of my multimeter, but when I painted across the isolated trace with more conductive  silver paint, my two traces, that should have been isolated from one another, were electrically  connected. As far as I could tell it was not that the nail varnish was affected by the conductive paint  and let it seep though, but rather at the very edges of the trace the nail varnish had not properly  sealed it. The silver paint was extremely viscous and very conductive, it could get into even the  smallest hole and even the smallest amount of paint could make a good electrical connection. I was  able to solve this problem by re‐doing my sample and being extra careful in applying the nail  varnish and paying attention that it sealed over the edges of the carved trace and into the valley. 

  Figure 20. Left: Carved wood circuit containing a microcontroller and three surface mount LED lights.  Right: Carved wood circuit traces coated in two layers of nail varnish to isolate them.     

34 

Before I continue to describe some the next samples in this process, I want to mention that I also  tried out different ways of carving traces in wood. These included carving first and then saturating  the carved trace with paint as seen in Figure 21. In this case I could submerge the component leads  into the conductive paint while it was still wet to make the connections. 

  Figure 21. Left: Carved traces for microcontroller leads. Right: Carved traces filled with copper paint.  A variation on this technique used the lasercutter to engrave the traces instead of carving them by  hand. Images of this can be seen in Figure 22. 

  Figure 22. Images of laserengraved traces saturated with copper paint. Throughhole components  have been pressed into the wood for electrical contact and stability. Left: Closeup of microcontroller.  Right: Closeup of LEDs, speaker and microcontroller.  The next step in the process was to begin thinking of elements that could be integrated and used in a  circuit in meaningful and useful ways. I began lasercutting press‐fit coin‐cell holders like the one  shown in Figure 23 and the dial switch that has a press‐fit hole in it for a toothpick to fit as a peg  around which it can rotate [Fig.23].  

   

35 

  Figure 23. Left: Carved dial with pressfit peg joint. Right: Lasercut pressfit coincell battery holder  being carved to create a sloped surface.  As well as another press‐fit coin‐cell holder made by screwing two small screws into the conductive  paint [Fig.24]. 

  Figure 24. Images of the metal screw pressfit battery holder without (left) and with (right) the coin cell battery.   I also tried carving painting and then plating wood successfully [Fig. 25]. The following images show  some close‐ups of a pair of headphones that I worked on. The structure of the headphones was  lasercut out of plywood and the electrical connections were explicitly made visible as an integral  part of the design. 

   

36 

  Figure 25. Carved, painted and then electroplated copper traces in wood.  In the end I was very pleased with this technique I developed for carving circuits and some basic  circuit elements from wood. But, as I mentioned in the very beginning of this chapter, the process of  experimenting and trying things out never really ends. If anything, it continuously spawns new  ideas. Even writing about this process and recalling the details generated new ideas and thoughts on  improvements.   The next chapter is about documenting recipes. Recipes are an opportunity for reflection as well as  for refining techniques, through choosing how to convey them and what information to include.  

   

37 

Documenting Recipes 

  Figure 26. Sketches of the craft techniques and electronics components as used on the website.  In the previous two chapters I described the processes of sourcing supplies and making samples to  refine good techniques and throughout these processes I documented everything I was doing. In this  chapter I now describe the procedure of translating these processes and the documentation into  recipes and publishing them on the website. Figure 26 shows sketches that I drew of the different  craft techniques and electronic components that are featured in the variety of recipes on the  website.  When writing up my work as recipes I try to convey two things. First, I try to include the breadth of  documentation covering a specific technique and to include every related detail. Having thorough  documentation makes it easier for me to insure that I’m not forgetting anything because I can use  the documentation as a reference and guide to jog my own memory. Second, I want the recipes not  only to describe how to do something right and get things to work, I also want to convey my  experimental approach of sample making and material investigation. To achieve this I try to write  very honestly and straightforward about what I did, how I did it and why I did it. I write equally  about what worked and what didn’t. To this end some recipes might feature more failures than  successes. And some recipes might be just an initial idea that I have not yet set out to realize. It is     

38 

important for me to emphasize this point that my recipes are different from what one usually  expects a recipe to be. My recipes are not straightforward step‐by‐step instructions, they are  documentation of the knowledge I acquired during my process and a means for me to convey my  approach.  In thinking about how I formulate my recipes for others to read I was inspired by Richard Sennett’s  book chapter on “Expressive Instructions” [Sennett, 2009]. Sennett details three recipes on how to  prepare a boned, stuffed chicken and points out differences in the instructions as they were written  with the cook, the food and gastronomy in mind. Where the cook is the person following the  instructions, the food are the ingredients or the materials and tools involved in the recipe, and  gastronomy is the bigger picture. When writing my recipes I try to focus on all three points. I  consider the cook in my writing by describing my own experiences, hoping to make it more  accessible for others to relate to. I am thinking of the food when I include details and use analogies  to explain how things feel and behave. Gastronomy for me is the bigger picture of sample making  and I consider this throughout each recipe by constantly promoting an experimental approach  where “just try it” is always an option.   To show the details and scope of my documentation I have included my recipe for sculpting and  electroplating copper conductors. Figure 27 bellow shows screen‐shots of this recipe as it appears  on the Kit‐of‐No‐parts website. 

  Figure 27. Screenshots of the electroplating recipe as it appears on the website. 

   

39 

Recipe: Electroplating 

  Figure 28. Electroplated Fimo sculpted circuit with microcontroller, LED lights and coincell battery.  Introduction  Electroplating is a technique for coating a conductive object in a thin layer of metal. It uses  electrodepositing to transfer metal ions in a solution from one electrode to another, depositing a  thin layer of metal on the conductive material attached to the negative electrode of your direct  power supply. This technique is used in jewelry making to plate natural objects such as leaves,  flowers and seashells. Once one gets the hang of it, electroplating is a very straightforward and  relatively simple process. It took me some time to get a feeling for the process and all the materials  involved, but now it allows me to sculpt three‐dimensional circuits as well as include found objects  such as seashells in my circuit designs.   This recipe describes the process of sculpting acrylic clay, firing it and then electroplating it with  copper metal to form fully functioning circuit connections, create a magnetic battery holder, shape a  skin resistive switch and embed some electronic components; in my case an Atmega ATtiny85  microcontroller and some LED lights [Fig. 28].       

40 

Materials and Tools 

  Figure 29. Left: Electroplating supplies: Rectifier, copper sulfate, replenishing brightener, copper rods,  silver paint, paint brush, glass container and alligator clips. Right: Snapshot of my electroplating setup.  The materials and tools used in this process can be sourced from a combination of local craft,  hardware and online shops. To begin electroplating and sculpting circuits you will need the  following materials and tools, some of which are depicted in Figure 29.   A rectifier: A direct power supply that allows you to control the amount of voltage and current you  supply. Rectifiers cost from $100 upwards. Some models are sold specifically for plating and include  Sherri Haab's E3 kit [Sherri Haab, w2011].    Copper sulfate: Commonly sold as a root killer and can be purchased from local hardware stores. It  can also be purchased through a variety of online electroplating supply stores such as Rio Grande.   Replenishing brightener: Midas also sells a replenishing brightener solution can be added to the  plating bath to maintain the bath's ability to produce a bright finish.    Some copper metal: The positive lead from your DC power supply connects to a piece of copper  metal that is submerged in the plating bath, this can be a solid piece of sheet copper or a rod that  can be bent in a spiral to fit the shape of your plating container.    A container: Depending on the shape and size of the objects you plan to plate you'll want to select a  container for plating in. This container should be of a material that will not contaminate the  solution, nor be affected by the solution's corrosive properties. Transparent glass containers work  well since they also allow you to better see the object you are plating.   Alligator clips: You will need alligator clips or similar to connect from the leads of your power  supply to the copper rod as well as to the object you are plating.   Conductive paint: some other recipes I read said that they were plating objects coated in carbon  paint but I could not get it to work well for me. Silver paint is not as cheap as carbon, but the water‐ based silver paint WB‐101 from Conductive Compounds worked best for me.   Some Fimo: or another kind of polymer clay.   An oven: a toaster oven will work too.   Some electronics components: to include in your circuit.       

41 

Sculpting your Circuit  For sculpting you circuitry you can choose from a variety of polymer clays and their firing or  hardening methods. The following steps describe in detail the process of molding Fimo, an acrylic  clay that can be fired at a low temperature in an oven or toaster oven for half an hour. Benefits of  the low firing temperature are that you can fire your sculpted circuit containing certain electronics  components without destroying the electronics, and also it cools quickly and you can continue to  work with it as soon as it has cooled down. After firing, the clay is firm, yet flexible and can  withstand the etching properties of the plating bath. Other, more porous clays need to be sealed  before plating them if their substance is affected either by liquid or the acid of the plating bath. For  shaping your circuitry you might also like to keep a selection of common sculpting tools at hand,  such as ribs, needles, knives and rolling pins as well as a surface to working on. 

  Figure 30. Left: Microcontroller with legs bent outwards and pressed into the long pieces of acrylic  clay. Right: Addition of three LED lights that all connect to the same ball that will be the ground  connection.  To begin sculpting the Fimo start by rolling and kneading your clay in your hands, warming it up to  make it more workable. As you shape the material you can incorporate various electronics as you go  [Fig. 30]. You can do this by sculpting clay around them or by pressing them into the clay. As you  work the clay into it's final form you need to plan where the connections between your electronics  will run so that they match the connections in your circuit diagram.   Firing  When your Fimo sculpture is finished it can be fired in your oven or even in a toaster oven [Fig. 31].  Check the packaging for precise instructions on what temperature and for how long you should fire  your piece. The Fimo that I used could be fired at 110°C for 30 minutes, at this temperature you can  fire most electronics with the clay and not damage them. Fimo softens as it heats up in the firing  process and this might affect the structure of your piece. Depending on what you have sculpted you  might need to create some support structures out of toothpicks or similar materials that can  withstand the heat of the firing process. Right after firing the Fimo is hot and still soft, leave it to  cool before proceeding.      

42 

  Figure 31. Left: Fimo sculpture in toaster oven. Right: Fimo sculpture after being fired.  Applying Conductive Paint  The copper sulfate plating bath is also an etchant. If the object you want to plate is of a material that  might be affected by the etching properties then you first want to seal it with a layer of varnish. For  this you can use a whole range of products, for smaller objects one of the most convenient options is  to use nail varnish, since it also dries relatively quickly.  In order for the copper to selectively plate to areas that you would like it to, you first need to make  the surface of your object electrically conductive in these areas. While there are a variety of different  conductive paints that can be applied to various surfaces, I had the most success using a water  based silver paint WB‐101 from Conductive Compounds [Conductive Compounds, w2011]. You can  thin the paint with water and with a paintbrush apply a single layer to the areas of the object you  wish to plate [Fig. 32]. Paint selectively, but keep in mind that when you go on to plate these areas, if  they are not interconnected then you need to connect separately to each of them.  

  Figure 32. Left: Applying silver paint with paintbrush. Right: Disassembled circuit. 

   

43 

There are some things you can do to get around having to make multiple connections or to plate  each separate conductive area one at a time. One solution is to have all your conductors meet in an  area that you can later cut away or remove. A trick for this shown in Figure 44 is to use a piece of  copper tape that you can stick to the surface of the object and have the conductive paint connect to  it by painting on top of it. After the plating is done you can score the copper metal buildup around  the tape and then peel it off. Another variation of this approach is shown in Figure 33, where a wire  has been superglued to the seashell and then silver paint has been painted on top of it. Be careful  not to completely coat the wire in superglue, otherwise you create an isolating layer and the wire  and the paint will not be electrically connected.  Another solution is to use multiple alligator clips to interconnect all your separate conductors to the  cathode of your rectifier. Beware that alligator clips and any other metal items that get in contact  with the plating solution will corrode over time unless you rinse and dry them after use. 

  Figure 33. Left: Seashell with silver paint and wire super glued to surface as a point of connection.  Right: Seashells that were accidentally left in plating solution over night. The shells were etched by the  solution but protected where the conductive paint had been applied.  The following images in Figure 34 show a seashell coated in carbon paint. The plating attempts were  less successful than with the silver paint. While in the image on the left the homemade plating bath  did not achieve a nice layer of copper, it did coat almost the entire shell. In the image on the right the  shell only plated close to where the alligators clips were attached, even after being left in the plating  bath for longer periods of time. Most likely the copper paint that I was using had too high a  resistance. 

   

44 

  Figure 34. Plating using black carbon paint instead of silver. I did not have much luck with this. Left:  Carbon painted seashell in homemade plating bath would only plate at higher voltage and copper  buildup would happen fast, be contaminated and wash away. Right: Same shell after rinsing plated in  commercial plating solution worked better but copper buildup would only happen in select areas, even  when left in for longer periods, up to half an hour.  Plating Bath  You want your plating bath to be in a container suitable to the size of the object you are plating as  well as the piece of copper metal that will be your anode in the plating process. If you are using a  rod then you can bend it in the shape of your container so that it surrounds the object you are  plating as shown in Figure 36.   When I first started electroplating I was set on making my own plating bath. I had read on various  online tutorials that it is possible to create the plating solution yourself. When etching copper fabric  in salt and vinegar the solution turns green and crystallizes as it is left to dry. I had been saving  these crystals because they are poisonous and should not be poured down the drain. Reading up on  copper sulfate it sounded like these crystals were a form of copper sulfate that I could dilute in  water to make a plating bath. The images in Figure 35 show my attempt at diluting the crystals and  plating a coin. This was not successful, though I am not sure of the exact reasons, I suspect is might  have to do with the purity of the solution. 

   

45 

  Figure 35. Preparing my own plating bath from the crystallized remains from etching copper fabric in  salt and vinegar.  The second homemade solution I tried making was to dissolve citric acid in distilled water. After  noticing that it did not work [Fig. 36, left], I ran low voltage across two copper electrodes for awhile  until the solution turned turquoise.  

  Figure 36. Left: Preparing my own etching solution from salt and vinegar. After some time the solution  begins to turn light blue. Right: My own etching bath prepared by dissolving citric acid in distilled  water. After awhile the solution turns blue, as the picture shows.   I proceeded to plate in this turquoise bath and my attempts were finally somewhat successful. The  problem was that the copper buildup was very rough and looked like it was rusting as it was plating  as seen in Figure 37. Whatever copper buildup I achieved would wash away under running water. 

   

46 

  Figure 37. Images of plating process in a homemade plating bath. The copper buildup looks rough and  rusty and rinsed off with water.  After all these unsuccessful attempts at creating my own plating solution I finally ordered some  professional Midas copper sulfate jewelry plating solution from Rio Grande [Rio Grande, w2011] as  well as a bottle of replenishing brightener and these worked wonderfully. The following procedures  were all done with this commercial plating solution.  Power Settings and Connections   Set your rectifier to supply a very low voltage, less than 1 Volt and do not limit the current. Connect  the copper metal (Anode) to the positive pole of your rectifier. And the object you are plating  (Cathode) to the negative pole of your power supply. If you look up the copper plating process  online [Sherri Haab, w2011] you will find lots of illustrations that indicate what to connect to what  as well as what exactly is happening with the copper electrodes in the plating bath.   Submerge the object completely in the plating bath and make sure the areas coated in silver paint  do not touch the copper anode. When the plating process begins it will draw current and if your  rectifier has a display then you can watch the amount of current it draws increase. Check the object  within the first minute to ensure it is plating, if all is going well then you should see a tint of copper  forming on top of the silver paint as shown in Figure 38, right.   Continue to plate the object until you’re satisfied with the copper layer. This might take anywhere  from a few minutes to much longer, depending on the size and conductive surface area of your  object. If the copper does not look shiny, you can add a few drops of the brightener solution to the  bath. 

   

47 

  Figure 38. Left: painting seashell with conductive silver paint. Right: Seashell during plating process.  After the first few seconds you can already see a fine buildup of copper.  When the plating is complete, remove the object and rinse thoroughly with water to remove all of  the copper sulfate solution. Copper sulfate is poisonous so make sure not to get it in your mouth or  in contact with any utensils that you use for food! 

  Figure 39. Left: Removing plated object from bath. Right: Rinsing after removing from plating bath to  remove copper sulfate solution.  ReAssembling the Circuit  You can begin to reassemble the plated pieces of your circuit [Fig. 40]. The great thing about plating  is that you build up a layer of copper metal that you can then solder to, creating extremely robust  connections.  

   

48 

  Figure 40. Left: Partially plated and assembled circuit. Right: Closeup of the magnetic battery holder.  Figure 41 shows close up images taken with a USB microscope. While the connections to the  microcontroller were soldered, the connections to the LED lights were painted and then plated. You  can see how to the right side of the LED the plated copper seamlessly covers the Fimo as well as the  right led of the LED. 

  Figure 41. USB microscope images of the soldered and plated connections.                 

49 

The Final Result  The following Figures 42 and 43 show images of the final plated circuit. 

  Figure 42. Images of the finished copper plated circuit with the three different colored LED lights lit up. 

  Figure 43. Images of the front (left) and back (right) of the copper plated circuit.  Comments and Reflections  Besides sculpting and plating acrylic clay you can also plate a variety of other objects. Including  seashells, and even flexible and porous materials such as paper and fabric [Fig. 44,45]. When plating  on slick surfaces copper traces will easily come off the surface. Though I have not done this (yet),  you could use this feature to cast circuit elements off of existing structures. A process in which the  electroplated metal is self‐supporting and can be removed for the base structure is called  electroforming. 

   

50 

  Figure 44. Other, flexible materials you can plate: paper and fabric. Even though plating instructions  recommend that you seal porous materials before submerging them in the plating bath to prevent the  etching properties of the bath to affect the object, I successfully plated paper and fabric. After plating  rinse the materials with clean water to get rid of all the copper sulfate. 

  Figure 45. USB microscope images of the copper plated paper. Left: Legs of a microcontroller soldered  to the copper. Right: Surface mount LEDs soldered to the copper traces.  Links  In learning how to successfully plate copper circuits I found Sherri Haab’s tutorials extremely  helpful. Sherri Haab is a jewelry making instructor and also develops her own techniques and  equipment that she shares with others. Her website [Sherri Haab, w2011] contains, among other  things, extensive and well‐prepared PDFs on how to plate natural materials for jewelry. She also  sells kits and supplies that include her own electroplating regulated direct power supply.  The publication “Jewelry: Concepts and Technology” by Oppi Untracht [Untracht, 1982] contains  detailed information about all the materials and tools involved in electroplating. You can view parts  of the books online through Google books.      

51 

The Website 

  Figure 46a. KitofNoParts website front page displaying select recipes in a grid organized by  electronics and crafts.  In this chapter I introduce how the website [A Kit‐of‐No‐Parts, w2011] came to be and explain its  current structure and contents. I will also detail some of the more technical aspects. Figure 46a  shows a screenshot of the website’s front page that displays select recipes listed in a grid organized  by electronics (columns) and craft techniques (rows).   The website went online early on in the processes of making samples and documenting recipes. It  was intended as a database that could grow and expend alongside the process. It also offered me a  way to visually organize my thoughts to help me structure my approach. It is the place where I  would compile notes, post results and share techniques.   The structure of the website developed over time but was always based on the initial  categorizations I chose when mapping the space I used to generate ideas. The current selection of    52   

categories is based on the kinds of techniques and resulting recipes I ended up developing and  documenting. Whereas in the beginning I had three categories that were electronics, materials and  processes, I ultimately narrowed this down to two main categories: electronics components and  craft techniques. I wanted it to be an easy and intuitive structure to navigate and to accommodate  the content I had created and was continuing to create. While I feel that the current structure lacks  some of the potential that less conventional categorizations might offer, I have also become used to  it and find it convenient for my own purposes.   The recipes on the website are organized as individual posts. These can be browsed by two main  categories, Crafts and Electronics. Within each of these categories are the following subcategories.  Craft: Additive ‐ drawing and painting, gilding, plating; Subtractive ‐carving, etching, cutting and  engraving; Deforming ‐ molding and casting and sculpting. And Electronics: Traces and connections,  resistors, sensors, actuators, capacitors and power options.  Figure 46b shows screenshots of the website listing recipes in the electronics category “Traces and  Connections” (left) and in the craft technique category “Molding and Casting” (right). The website  also features categories for “Ingredients” [Fig. 46c], “Equipment” and “Examples”. 

  Figure 46b. KitofNoParts website. Left: Listing all recipes in the “Traces and Connections” category.  Right: Website showing all recipes listed in the “Molding and Casting” category. 

   

53 

  Figure 46c. KitofNoParts website. Left: Listing “Ingredients”. Right: Showing the listing for “Metal  Leaf”.  The website was built using Wordpress [Wordpress, w2011], a free and open source software for  creating blogs and websites that uses a MySql database structure. The site is currently hosted on my  MIT student server space with the URL: “http://web.media.mit.edu/~plusea/” it can also be  accessed through the domain: “www.kit‐of‐no‐parts.at”.  

   

54 

COLLECTION OF EXAMPLES 

  Figure 47. Collection of Examples mounted on a wall. They represent the techniques developed in  building a KitofNoParts.  The examples that I introduce in this section were designed to each represent one of the different  techniques I developed. When viewed together they function as a sort of library or an exhibition of  the circuits, materials and techniques representing the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach [Fig. 47]. Besides  showcasing materials and techniques each example also demonstrates the possibilities of this  approach.   Some of the examples are interactive, others are intentionally left incomplete and some  unfortunately do not work. Videos of each of the examples can be viewed in the examples section on  the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts website [Kit‐of‐No‐Parts, w2011]. The interactive examples include a  microcontroller that runs a very basic program. When the, in most cases spiral, contact between  ground and input is touched, the microcontroller toggles between three LEDs that are connected to  its outputs. The touch sensing is done through a set threshold based on skin‐resistance. 

   

55 

Carved Pixels  This example demonstrates how thermochromic paints can be used to paint colorful displays that  are actuated through an underlying carved circuit [Fig. 48]. A dial in the center of the pixels directs  the current to different parts of the circuit, revealing the carved pixels one by one.  The plywood on which the circuit was created was first coated with primer and then sanded down  to create a smooth and less absorbent surface. An even layer of silver paint was applied to this  surface and left to dry. The circuit was first sketched out in pencil and then carved out using the  narrow headed carving tool depicted in Figure 17, left. After carving the circuit, stripes of  thermochromic paint were painted on top in an attempt to defer from the maze‐like design of the  carved traces. Different colors of thermochromic paint and pigment were mixed with a range of  colors of acrylic paint to create a variety of colors. The thermochromic colors become transparent  when heated and reveal the regular acrylic paint colors they were mixed with. Different color  thermochromic pigments react at different temperatures causing an uneven visual effect. In the  center a wooden dial with a conductive underside connects one side of the battery to different parts  of the circuit, depending on the direction it is pointing. The part of the circuit underneath the tip of  the dial begins to heat up because the 9V battery is shorted across the conductive paint.  

  Figure 48. Thermochromic Pixels. Left: Photo of full example. Right: Closeup of dial pointing in the  direction that the current is being directed. The path of the current causes the thermochromic paint to  heat up and change color. 

   

56 

Carved Traces  This circuit has been carved out of plywood and silver paint [Fig. 49]. When you touch the spiral to  the bottom left of the square the LED lights toggle on and off, one by one.  The plywood base was sanded down to smooth the surface but no filler was applied in order to  maintain as much of the wood’s natural surface structure as possible. Then a coat of silver paint was  applied and let dry. The microcontroller, LED lights and coin‐cell battery were laid out on the  conductive surface and, with pencil, the circuit connections were sketched out. When the design was  ready the excess silver paint was carved away using a narrow carving tool to make the narrow lines  and a flat tool to remove larger areas as shown in Figure 49. Small grooves were carved out for the  tiny surface mount LEDs to recede into.   Once the circuit was carved, the components were super glued to the surface and additional silver  paint was applied with a small tipped brush to bridge the connections between the painted wood  traces and the component leads. Details of these painted contacts can be seen in Figure 19. The coin‐ cell battery holder was made by screwing two small screws into the wood, penetrating through the  silver paint that connects them to the positive lead of the circuit. The screws are spaced so that the  battery press‐fits between them. Details of this battery holder can be see in Figure 24. 

  Figure 49. Carved Traces. Left: Example. Right: Closeup of microcontroller and LED lights in their  carved out groves. 

   

57 

Cast Traces  The circuitry in this example is cast from a silver paint and latex blend that, unfortunately does not  conduct electricity [50]. But never the less, this example demonstrates the possibilities of cast  stretchy conductors.   First a thin layer of latex was spread out on a piece of acrylic and left to cure. Once cured, the  microcontroller, LED lights and battery were all placed on top of this surface. Silver paint mixed in a  3:1 ratio with latex was then applied through the tip of a squeeze bottle to create the connections  seen in Figure 50. Finally, additional latex was used to coat the components and keep them in place.  Unfortunately this example does not work. In all my molding and casting attempts I was not yet able  to achieve a good conductor to latex mix that maintains the stretchy properties of the latex as well  as the conductive properties of the conductor be it a powder, paint or fiber. I was able to cast  conductors that had high resistances (in the Kilo Ohm range) but these could not be stretched,  otherwise the conductive contacts would be broken.  

  Figure 50. Cast Traces. Left: Example. Right: Closeup of microcontroller, demonstrating the  stretchiness and flexibility of this circuit. 

   

58 

Etched Traces  This example demonstrates the process of selectively etching copper fabric to create conductive  fabric circuits [Fig. 51]. The components for this circuit have not been attached to the fabric in an  attempt to draw attention to the delicate and aesthetic properties that can result from this  technique.   To etch this circuit, first a mask was cut from masking tape and transferred to a square of copper  rip‐stop fabric. Vaseline was applied to the cutouts of the stencil and the masking tape removed [Fig.  51]. The water repellent properties of the Vaseline work as a resist in the etching bath, protecting  the copper fabric in the places where the resist was applied. The fabric was then submerged in a  bath of one tablespoon of salt and one cup of distilled vinegar. Within four hours, most of the  copper, except for that protected by the Vaseline, had been etched away. The fabric was then  thoroughly rinsed to remove the salt and vinegar etchant and ironed between tissue paper towels to  remove the Vaseline.  The missing components can be attached to the circuit by sewing them on with conductive thread.  The leads of most electronics can be curled to create a loop that can then be stitched down similarly  to how one sews on a snap or loop fastener. In the case that a component does not have a long  enough lead, additional wire or crimp beads can be soldered to the component’s leads to make them  “sewable”. This is a common E‐Textile technique. 

  Figure 51. Etched Traces. Left: Example of circuit etched from copper ripstop fabric. Right: Removing  the masking tape stencil after applying Vaseline to the copper fabric as a resist.  

   

59 

Gilded Traces  This example demonstrates the ornamental and decorative properties of gold leaf and how they can  simultaneously function as an electronic circuit [Fig. 52]. This interactive example toggles on and off  between three LED lights that are mounted at the bottom of the vertical gold traces.  First the wood surface is prepared through sanding and applying black acrylic paint to create a nice  smooth black surface. After the circuit has been sketched out on this surface with pencil, size is  applied where the gold leaf should go [Fig. 52, right]. Size is an adhesive used in gilding; it is applied  to a surface and let dry for several minutes. When it has become tacky, metal leaf is then applied and  the excess brushed away. The circuit in this example was made from imitation gold leaf, which is  made from brass, a combination of copper and zinc.   The microcontroller and LED lights can be super‐glued to the wood for stability, and then their leads  can be soldered with care and flux to the gold leaf. Working with gold leaf is finicky and this circuit  has ceased to work. Tiny cracks in the gold leaf surface can be the cause of an electrical  disconnection that is not visible to the human eye. With the help of the USB microscope used in  previous examples, some of these cracks can be spotted. The process of bridging a cracked  connection is not straightforward since the layer of size that needs to be applied for the metal leaf to  adhere also creates an isolating layer. Applying uneven dabs of size to create an inconsistent cover  is one way to re‐connect to underlying circuitry. 

  Figure 52. Gilded Traces. Left: Example showing gilded circuit with presfit battery holder in top right  corner. Right: Applying size with a squeeze bottle and toothpick to create a tacky surface on which the  sheets of imitation gold leaf will stick. 

   

60 

Laser‐Engraved Traces (and Press‐Fit Components)  This example showcases how a lasercutter can be used to cut holes for various components such as  a coin‐cell battery, a microcontroller and a speaker that are just the right size so that the parts  press‐fit into them and do not fall out [Fig. 53]. The lasercutter can also be used to engrave channels  that connect the different components. This example has not been completed, but the next step  would be to saturate or flood the engraved channels with a conductive paint to make all the  electrical connections.  In the case of this circuit the press‐fit holes as well as the engraved traces were created in the  software Adobe Illustrator. This design was imported into the lasercutting software and different  elements were assigned different power and speed values as well as specified whether they should  be cut or engraved. 

  Figure 53. LaserEngraved Trace. Left: Example of circuit made by laserengraving the connections  between the components that have been pressfit into holes cutout holes. Right: Closeup of upside down microcontroller in a pressfit hole with leads recessed in the engraved traces. 

   

61 

Linocut and Lino‐Printed Traces  Carved from a sheet of linoleum this circuit can be coated in conductive paint and stamped to create  multiple prints. I have not yet been able to find a good mix of conductive paint and transfer medium  that allows me to make prints that conduct well.  To make the linoleum print, first the components used in the circuit were laid out on top of the  linoleum and then the circuit was sketched. With a linoleum carving tool the excess linoleum was  carved away, leaving the original linoleum surface as the circuit as seen in Figure 54, left.  Conductive silver paint and a linoleum print base were mixed and applied to the surface of the  carved linoleum with a roller. The paint only applied to the areas that had not been carved away.  Then a piece of paper was laid on top of the painted linoleum and with the back of a spoon the paper  was rubbed down carefully. Then the paper was peeled away, revealing the print shown in Figure  54, right. 

  Figure 54. Linocut and LinoPrinted Traces. Left: Example of circuit carved from linoleum with a silver  paint and linoleum transfer base mix applied to its surface. Right: Print made from the linoleum cut  featured on the left. Unfortunately the silver paint did not transfer well to the paper and so the traces  of this circuit are not conductive. 

   

62 

Painted Traces  This little circuit was painted on a piece of store‐bought handmade paper. Then the whole circuit  was electroplated so that a thin layer of copper formed on top of the paint and paper [Fig. 55]. The  plated copper makes the traces much more resilient to cracking when the paper is flexed and it also  means that the leads of the microcontroller and LEDs can be soldered to the circuit. The coin‐cell  battery is held in place by a tiny neodymium magnet taped to the back of the paper. The positive  lead of the microcontroller connects to the positive side of the battery with another such magnet  soldered to the end of a flexible wire.  In Figure 41 as part of the electroplating recipe you can see images taken with the USB microscope  of the plated traces and solder joints. 

  Figure 55. Painted Traces. Left: Example of small circuit painted on paper and then plated with  copper. Right: Closeup of plated paper circuit. LED lights and the microcontroller leads have been  soldered to the copper buildup, creating extremely robust connections.  

   

63 

Paper Speakers  This example, based on the Pulp‐Based Computing paper speaker [Coelho et al., 2009], showcases a  speaker that has been made on tissue paper, by taping a vinylcut copper coil on top of it [Fig. 56,  right].   The copper coil was drawn in Adobe Illustrator and cut out using a Craft Robo vinylcutter. Behind  the piece of tissue paper a small neodymium magnet is glued to the larger square of yellow paper  [Fig. 56, left]. In the lower left corner a small circuit taken from a Hallmark greeting card has been  mounted and a transistor added so that the audio signal coming from the sound circuit can be  amplified with an external power source.   When a 9V battery is connected to the two leads at the bottom right of the example and the switch  on the sound card is pressed, the speaker plays music. Whereas normally the coil inside a speaker is  wrapped cylindrically, in this case the coil is a spiral on a plane. As the current modulated by the  audio signal flows through the coil, it turns it into an electromagnet with a fluctuating magnetic field  so that the coil, and with it the tissue paper membrane, are repelled and attracted to the permanent  magnet mounted behind it. These fluctuations of the membrane cause air to be moved creating the  sound waves that we hear. 

  Figure 56. Paper Speakers. Left: Paper speaker example with greeting card circuit. Right: Closeup of  example in which you can see the neodymium magnet mounted underneath the paper speaker. 

   

64 

Plated Seashell Speaker  This example demonstrates how a limpet seashell can be made into a speaker by plating a copper  coil around its interior and exterior with a hole in the tip, that connects the two. Because the shell is  a much thicker membrane than the tissue paper described in the previous example, it vibrates less  given the same amount of current as the paper speaker, and so plays much quieter sound. But if one  holds the seashell up to one’s ear, one can hear it play music.  The example of the plated speaker pictured in Figure 57, left also shows the sound circuit, taken  from a Hallmark product, and the amplification circuit that includes a TIP 122 transistor and  connections for a 9V power supply.  The speaker coil was plated onto the seashell [Fig. 57, right], by first painting the coil with  conductive silver paint and then submerging it in the plating bath. Thin flexible wires were soldered  to either end of the coil making the connection from the speaker to the amplified sound source  coming from the circuit. 

  Figure 57. Plated Speaker. Left: Example of plated speaker and circuit that plays and amplifies sound.  Right: Three seashells with speaker coid plated to them. 

   

65 

Plated Traces  This circuit is sculpted from acrylic clay and then selectively electroplated to build a robust  conductive coating that will not crack when the traces of the sculpture are flexed or played with  [Fig. 58]. The components of this circuit include a microcontroller, three LED lights and a coin‐cell  battery holder.   In making the sculpted circuit the acrylic clay was sculpted right around the leads of the various  components and everything was fired in a toaster oven, without damaging the components. Then  conductive silver paint was selectively applied to make the connections between certain  components. When the paint had dried, the circuit was disassembled and the traces plated  individually. For details on this process, see the electroplating recipe featured in the “Recipe”  chapter.   After plating, the circuit was re‐assembled and the connections to the leads could now be soldered.  A skin‐resistance switch, situated in the upper left hand corner of the circuit, toggles between the  three LED lights each time it is pinched. The battery holder includes two magnets to ensure a good  electrical connection between the sculpture and the coin‐cell battery. 

  Figure 58. Plated Traces. Left: Example of plated traces as it appears in the example collection. Right:  Closeup of the example with all three LED lights lit up. 

   

66 

Screen‐Printed Traces  This example of screen‐printed traces shows how you can use traditional silk‐screen printing to  create circuitry on a variety of flat media [Fig. 59].   The circuit in the example was hand‐drawn and then scanned into the computer and translated into  vector graphics. The mask for the screen was cut out of masking tape with the lasercutter, using the  file created from the scan. The masking layer was then applied to the back of the screen and  additional areas were taped off with more masking tape. Copper paint was mixed roughly 1:1 with a  transparent screen‐printing base and then applied along the edge of the masked screen. With a  squeegee the paint was evenly distributed into the pores of the silk screen before laying the screen  down on a piece of paper and using the squeegee to pressure the conductive paint from the screen  onto the paper. Two to three layers of paint were necessary to create good electrical connections. In  this example only the microcontroller had been glued to the surface of the paper. The other  components could be attached in a similar manner and additional paint would need to be applied  between the printed traces on the paper and the leads of the components to make the electrical  connections.  The circuit in this example, though not fully assembled, includes connections for three LED lights,  one resistive input as well as a transistor for triggering a thermochromic pixel (see the first example  in this chapter). Many of the leads from the microcontroller connect to the lower right hand side of  the example square, these connection are for programming the microcontroller using a six‐ connection ISP programmer.  

  Figure 59. ScreenPrinted Traces. Left: Screen printed circuit on paper. Right: Screen printing using  conductive copper paint and masked silk screen. 

   

67 

Sculpted Motor  This extremely basic motor design has been assembled from a variety of materials such as  toothpicks and custom shaped Fimo fixtures [Fig. 60]. The assembly has then been electroplated,  forming a conductive layer of copper metal. When a 9 Volt battery is shorted across the two  connections, forcing the current through the wire wrap coil that is suspended between the two  poles, it creates a magnetic field around the coil that repels itself from a stack of magnets mounted  beneath. The motor begins to spin and the images of the bird and the cage merge into one.  

  Figure 60. Sculpted Motor. Left: Example of a motor assembled from toothpicks and parts sculpted  from acrylic clay. The assembly was then electroplated with copper. When powered, the coil begins to  spin, merging the image of the bird and the cage. 

   

68 

Vinylcut Traces  In this example, a circuit cut from copper adhesive tape has been transferred to a piece of clear  acrylic. A hole in the acrylic holds the coin‐cell battery in place and additional components have  been soldered into place [Fig. 61].  The design for the circuit was hand‐drawn and scanned. The scan was then translated into vectors  and sent to a Craft Robo vinylcutter which then cut it out from a sheet of adhesive copper tape. The  cutout circuit was transferred to the acrylic using masking tape, to ensure that all the traces stayed  in place. A hole for the coin‐cell battery was lasercut out of the acrylic and the connections to the  positive side of the battery extend over the edges of this hole. The negative side of the battery is  connected simply by sticking the negative lead of copper tape to the bottom of the battery as shown  in Figure 61. The microcontroller and LEDs were soldered onto the vinylcut traces to hold them in  place. The coil in the lower left corner is a skin resistive input that toggles between the three LED  lights every time you touch it with your finger. 

  Figure 61. Vinylcut Traces. Left: Copper traces mounted on clear acrylic. Right: Pressfit hole  containing coincell battery and copper traces making power connections to the battery along its sides  and bottom. 

   

69 

WORKSHOPS 

  Figure 62. Picture taken during the second workshop of a participant painting a conductor that will  then be used as a heating element to change the color of thermochromic paint, causing the outline of  the tree to appear.  After building, documenting and sharing the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts online, workshops were the next step  in disseminating this new approach. Workshops were also the ideal platform to interact with  individuals who were interested in learning these new techniques. I wanted to observe how other  people would take to the techniques, how they would experience the building process and what  they would want to build. Figure 62 shows a workshop participant painting a circuit on wood.  I organized two workshops that were held on consecutive Saturdays in the High‐Low Tech group  space at the MIT Media Lab. Both workshops were advertised under the same description, with the  exception that the first workshop was open to anybody while the second workshop was specifically  for individuals who had experience with craft. The calls for participants were published on the  website and sent out to the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts newsletter as well as to the High‐Low Tech newsletter. I  took the first 10 people who responded for either workshop and both workshops filled up within  the first week of advertising them.     

70 

The workshops were advertised as opportunities to learn the range of techniques documented on  the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts website. The following workshop description was included in the email that was  sent out as well as on the posters used to advertise the workshop that are included in the Appendix.  Have you ever wondered what kinds of electronics we would be using if we had crafted them ourselves?  What kind of interface would you have built to interact with your music? What would your alarm clock  look like? How would your doorbell feel? What shapes, sizes, colors, textures and functionality would a  craft approach to building electronics offer?  The KitofNoParts workshop introduces participants to a craft approach to building electronics.  Imagine you could sculpt a switch, carve a circuit or plate your own speakers. This workshop will cover  a range of traditional and contemporary craft techniques including gilding, carving, casting, sculpting  and plating, and demonstrate how a variety of craft materials can be formed into functioning  electronic artifacts.  The workshops started at 11 am on a Saturday and went until 6 pm, with a lunch break from 1‐2pm.  Each workshop began with a presentation that briefly introduced the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach and  went on to demonstrate the selection of techniques that would be possible during the workshop.   In structuring the workshops I had to decide on what to introduce, how to introduce it and how to  frame it so that participants had a clear idea of what to do and what they could expect to achieve. My  goal was to introduce a range of techniques so that I could see which ones participants wanted to  engage with. I imagined participants would develop an idea based on the available materials and the  kinds of output I presented in each workshop. Depending on the scope of their ideas, I did not  necessarily imagine all participants would complete their projects during the workshop, but I did  anticipate that they would be able to begin building and get a good introduction to the craft style of  working with electronics.   To collect feedback from the participants I prepared two surveys. Participants were emailed roughly  a day or two in advance of either workshop with a link to an optional online survey that asked  questions about their prior experience with art, craft, electronics and programming.  The day  following the workshop participants received another email with a link to a post workshop survey  asking questions about their workshop experience as well as asking them to rate things such as  workshop duration, difficulty and speed.  Although there was much room for improving the clarity, structure and focus of the workshops, they  both went well. An overwhelming majority of participants stated that they enjoyed being introduced  to the full variety of new techniques. It was exciting that both workshops filled up so fast. I knew  that there was a keen interest in the E‐Textiles and paper computing work from our research group,  but I wasn’t sure how popular a more general craft approach to electronics would be. Throughout  the workshops most participants were able to work fairly independently and nobody was at a loss  for an idea of what they wanted to build.  From my part, I thoroughly enjoyed watching everybody work with the materials and techniques I  had prepared, but both times it became apparent early on that in my planning I had expected too  much of a one day workshop. I crammed too much choice and newness and too little focus into the  flow of activities. Making it hard for participants to concentrate on learning and mastering a  technique. Not only was I introducing participants to eight different techniques and the materials to  go with them, I was also presenting electronics in a craft context. I underestimated how confusing it    71   

can be to receive so much new information at once. Even though I prepared illustrated information  on the electronics I introduced in each workshop, I did a bad job of selecting and introducing  electronics in a basic and straight  forward way that would have allowed participants more  creative freedom. Overall it was simply hard for them to immerse themselves and create something  new in such a short amount of time.   In the following two subsections I summarize the outcome of both workshops and focus on how the  Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach was conveyed and received. 

   

72 

First Workshop  Of the eight participants that attended the first workshop five were female and three male. Six  people filled out the pre‐workshop questionnaire and 5 the post‐workshop questionnaire. Of the  people that filled out the questionnaires all were between the age of 20 and 35.   The charts in Figure 63 illustrate some of the following observations. Everybody had at least a little  programming and art experience but roughly half the participants had no craft experience. This first  workshop contained more people with electronics experience than the second workshop. The  majority of participants considered themselves designers, electronics hobbyists and artists. Their  individual art experience included painting, photography and illustration. And their experience with  electronics included Arduino and E‐Textiles projects. The participants that had experience with  craft had worked with casting, papermaking, ceramics and jewelry as well as a range of textile  crafts. 

 

 

Figure 63. Workshop 1. Graphs showing participants’ responses to the preworkshop survey. Left: On a  scale from 1 to 7, how comfortable do you feel crafting, making art, programming and building  electronics? Right: How much experience do you have with craft, art, programming and electronics?  None, a little, some, do regularly, expert/professional.  In the questionnaire I explicitly asked whether people had previous experience combining crafts  and electronics and everybody responded that they had heard or read about it prior to the  workshop. Many of them had also already worked on concrete projects. It was interesting that so  many of the participants were already involved in combining art and electronics, but this was  probably tied to the fact that they found out about the workshop through the High‐Low Tech  newsletter.   When asked about their motivation for attending the workshop, I found the following two quotes  representative of two different reasons that participants stated for coming to the workshop that  day.  “I don’t have a lot of experience with electronics and find it very empowering to learn about technology  in a hands on/craft way.”  “I am working on an art project that integrates electronics with sculptural objects. I would like for the  circuit to be not only functional but an aesthetic part of the piece.” 

   

73 

This first workshop focused on making the speaker coils described in the previous “Example”  chapter. Participants were shown a variety of speakers made from various techniques and  materials. The challenge in introducing the speaker was that I needed to include a source of sound.  An easy solution was to provide a selection of Hallmark greeting cards that participants gutted for  the circuit. Some of the cards played pre‐recorded songs, others were recordable so that  participants could record and playback their own sounds. For the audio signal of the greeting card  circuit to make sound through the speakers, the signal needed to be amplified with a transistor and  a 9 Volt battery. These extra components were bulky and somewhat distracting from the techniques  I was trying to focus on. Since I was not focusing the workshop on a specific technique and needed  to focus it somehow, I was set on having the speaker and the speaker required these extra parts.  After the initial introductions and demonstration of the techniques, participants proceeded to  sketch and think about what they wanted to build. This is when it became most apparent to me that  while I had made sure to organize all the materials and tools required for the techniques, there were  not enough “other” craft materials around to inspire the kind of building I had envisioned.  

  Figure 64. Copying an existing design is a great way to get started as well as learn some things in the  process of building.   While I encouraged participants to focus first on building a conductive speaker coil, I did not enforce  it as an introductory activity. While some participants went about making the coil before anything  else others hesitated. In retrospect I should have considered this situation more. Having an  extremely structured introductory activity can be a great starting point that allows participants to  get to working with the materials and learning about them even if they are copying an example  design. Figure 64 shows participant’s speaker coils based off some of the examples I showed in the  introduction.  It is always a hard decision how many and what kind of examples to introduce in a workshop.  Everything you show has an impact on how participants come to think, especially because  workshops are often held in such short amounts of time these influences can really impact the  outcome of a workshop, both for good and for bad.  While roughly half the participants build variations of the paper speaker, the other half became  interested in the use of thermochromic paints that change color when heated. This interest sprung     

74 

from two participants in particular who had seen the thermochromic paints featured on the Kit‐of‐ No‐Parts website. They were looking to incorporate thermochromic paints in their own work as  painters and illustrators. Although these paints were not initially planned for the workshop, it was  not difficult to introduce them on the spot.   As participants began building their designs, one of the first things I noticed was that they lent  towards using materials and techniques they were already familiar with. Figure 65 shows some of  the works that participants created with materials they were familiar with. At first I thought I had  failed to introduce some of the other techniques clearly enough and participants were unsure of  them. On the other hand, this response made total sense. When you come to a new activity, even if  you are all set to try out everything you don’t already know, as you begin to work you naturally fall  back into thinking with and manipulating familiar materials and tools. Despite this being a natural  process, I could have done more to support participants in engaging with some of the more unusual  techniques such as sculpting and plating the polymer clay, and carving from wood. Introducing  these techniques as short and simple hands‐on introductory activities would have been one way to  do this.  

  Figure 65. Participants explored the use of thermochromic paints. Left: One participant experimented  with casting both thermochromic paints as well as conductive powders in latex to create materials that  could simultaneously conduct and change color. Right: Another participant explored the combination  of thermochromic paint with the speaker coil in order to animate her own paintings and illustrations.  One of the most essential tools in working with electronics is the multimeter, which can be used to  measure electrical resistance, check for continuity and also for capacitance. In the workshop  participants all used the multimeter to check their circuits for both good and bad connections [Fig.  66]. Besides being an extremely useful tool the multimeter also has a strong effect on supporting  explorative and more experimental approaches to electronics. In many ways it bares similarity to  Jay Silver’s Drawdio [Silver, 2009] tool, which supports and enables a playful exploration of  conductive everyday objects. 

   

75 

  Figure 66. The multimeter is an essential tool in any electronics workshops and maybe even more so in  a KitofNoParts workshop. Left: Participant testing a silver paint and wood circuit for continuity.  Right: Another participant looking at the resistance of her cast latex coil.   Participants spent the majority of the workshop working on their projects. Most participants began  with a sketch of their initial idea but soon moved on to building. Because participants chose to work  with techniques that they were familiar with they were able to work more independently. Also,  most of the participants in this workshop had prior experience with electronics and were  comfortable using the components and circuitry involved, working from the schematic drawing I  provided. The fact that participants in this first workshop had prior electronics experience might  have lead me to take this for granted in preparing for the second workshop and not giving a better  introduction to electronics, when it would have been necessary.  In the following I briefly summarize the kinds of projects that participants built as well as the  techniques and approaches they took.   Four out of the eight participants focused primarily on using paint and paper. Painting their speaker  coils and thermochromic heating elements as well as the connections to the other parts of their  circuitry using the conductive silver paint. One participant who worked on integrating the speaker  and thermochromic elements into the image of a frog found that his silver painted coil was not  conductive enough to play loud enough sound, so he went on to successfully plate his painted paper  coil. Although the first attempt at this failed because the paper was too absorbent and affected by  the plating bath which took a while because the conductive surface area was rather large. The  images in Figure 67 show the paper circuit submerged in the plating bath and then the finished  circuit with yellow thermochromic paint added as eyes that disappear when the heating connection  is made. 

   

76 

  Figure 67. Left: Painted paper speaker coil submerged in plating bath. Right: Finished circuit with  yellow thermochromic eyes.   One participant was inspired by a wooden cheese box she picked out of one of the materials bins  that were part of the workshop and build a maze from it. She used cardboard to construct the walls  of the maze inside the box and conductive paint to create the circuitry on the back. Two metal balls  inside the maze could recede into two holes, closing the circuit and turning on one of two LED lights  [Fig. 68]. This participant had previous experience with electronics and although LEDs were not  introduced as part of the workshop she asked to use them. As the workshop organizer and  facilitator I was not always sure how much I should direct people’s ideas towards incorporating the  Kit‐of‐No‐Parts techniques instead of reaching for standard components. In the case of the LEDs I  feel the participants could have possibly produced a more unique and materially integrated piece if  she had instead used thermochromic paint or even the speakers as her choice of actuated feedback.  But on the other hand her idea included the LED lights and at that time I was in the mindset of  helping participants realize their ideas, rather than thinking to persuade them to go in specific  directions. In retrospect I could have been more upfront about stating this as a goal of the  workshop. Telling participants that they were encouraged to take the less explored approaches and  apply the underused techniques. I could have more actively suggested specific solutions that lead to  the use of certain techniques, rather than leave it entirely up to participants to decide how they  wanted to work.  This same participant went on to gild a speaker coil on the inside of the lid of the wooden cheese  box [Fig. 68]. The idea was that when the box was closed, the power connection of the circuit would  complete, turning the circuit on and playing sound through the speaker. While the participant got  her maze to work, she struggled with the gilding technique, as metal leaf is extremely finicky to  work with. Although we got the speaker coil to be consistently conductive we ran out of time before  getting it connected to the rest of the circuitry in order for it to play sound. 

   

77 

  Figure 68. Left: Maze constructed inside a wooden cheese box. Right: Gilded speaker coil.  Two participants took a similar approach in two different areas. Both of them explored the  materials and techniques through making samples rather than working on a concrete project. One  participant took to casting a variety of latex samples with thermochromic paint [Fig. 65], as well as  with steel yarn and conductive powders to achieve heating elements. The other participant  experimented making a variety of speaker coils on different papers and substrates such as tape. One  of his more successful speakers was made on a post‐it note, which then lead to some possible  project ideas.  And finally, one participant incorporated sculpting and electroplating to make metal chimes. The  chimes were intended to be suspended in a space where they could be affected by passers‐by.  Causing the chimes to move and make contact with one another, which would trigger sounds and  ambient lighting effects. This participant sculpted a whole series of chimes, fired them in the toaster  oven and then plated them in batches. The plating did not go so well with so many at one time and  we reduced the number of chimes to get them to plate completely. The images in Figure 69 show the  sculpted chimes in the toaster oven as well as a batch of them in the plating bath. 

  Figure 69. One of the few participants who tried sculpting Fimo and electroplating it to create metal  chimes.    78   

Half an hour before the end of the workshop participants gathered to briefly present their work to  each other and to share not only what they had made but also how they had experienced the  process. Participants seemed pleased with what they had made and excited about the variety of  techniques, even if they had not been able to try them all. To give a better impression, here are some  representative quotes taken from the responses to the post‐workshop surveys.   When asked what their favorite thing about the workshop was:  “Seeing the demonstrations and then using the processes.”  When asked if they had suggestions for how the workshop or the tools and techniques used could be  improved:  “I just wish the gold leafing was a bit more reliable. It looks so neat and yet I am afraid it is too fragile  to be able to have a durable circuit.”  “Drawing smooth concentric spirals is difficult. Maybe have a stencil?”  When asked to share any other reflections or comments:  “It really allowed me to see how circuits could potentially be made from so many substrates. It was  almost an invitation to start experimenting with different materials and reinventing the form of the  circuit and how it can be integrated in a new way in an object.” 

   

79 

Second Workshop   Of the ten participants that attended the second workshop six were female and four were male. All  participants filled out the pre‐workshop questionnaire and eight the post‐workshop questionnaire.  Of the people that filled out the questionnaires all were between the age of 21 and 40.   The charts in Figure 70 illustrate some of the following observations. The majority of participants  considered themselves artists, crafters and designers. Few people had prior electronics or  programming experience. Participant’s art experience included painting, sculpture, ceramics, video  and electronic art. Participant’s craft experience included repurposing materials, metal smithing,  woodworking, ceramics, glass, paper crafts, jewelry, carpentry and a whole range of textile crafts  such as sewing, knitting and embroidery. It is interesting to me that this workshop, that was  directed at individuals with prior craft experience, attracted less participants with electronics  experience than the first workshop did.  

  Figure 70. Workshop 2. Graphs showing participants’ responses to the preworkshop survey. Left: On a  scale from 1 to 7, how comfortable do you feel crafting, making art, programming and building  electronics? Right: How much experience do you have with craft, art, programming and electronics?  None, a little, some, do regularly, expert/professional.  In response to the question about what motivated them to signup for the workshop, one participant  replied:  “I’ve always been interested in getting involved somehow, and was waiting for a workshop to open up  that seemed appropriate.”  I narrowed the number of techniques I introduced in the second workshop down to four: gilding,  electroplating, carving, and molding and casting. I also asked participants to bring something with  them that they had made and could possibly incorporate in the workshop, but did not have to. In the  previous workshop a number of participants had shown a keen interest in using thermochromic  paints that can be made to change color when heated up. So besides focusing on the speakers I also  included these color changing paints. Instead of using the greeting card circuits as a source for  sound I decided to use a pre‐programmed microcontroller, a small computer with eight legs and a  program loaded on it that played a different note, depending on the value of input connected to one  of its pins. This variable input could be achieved by painting a strip of carbon paint to create a  resistive track along which to move a conductive wiper that connected to the electrical ground of     

80 

the circuit. As with the greeting card circuit this option also included the transistor and 9 Volt  battery for amplifying the sound signal. 

  Figure 71. Images from the booklet handed out at the second workshop.  In addition to triggering the notes, the same microcontroller ran another set of commands. Every  time the input pin was triggered, no matter what the value, the program toggled between on and off  (high and low) on three output pins, allowing somebody to connect three different outputs to these  pins. This setup sounds complicated, and it was. In order to make all of this more accessible to the  participants I prepared a small booklet containing four circuit diagrams. One for making a very  silent speaker circuit using just a 3 Volt coin‐cell battery. Another for making the amplified version  of the speaker circuit. A very simple circuit for triggering and heating the thermochromic paint that  worked without the microcontroller. And the last, the most complicated, and which nobody  attempted, for toggling between three thermochromic pixels. Figure 71 shows two pages from this  booklet that introduce the different components and illustrate the amplified sound circuit. It turned  out to be too much for such a short workshop.  As participants begin to sketch out their ideas they used pens and paper to draw sketches and  schematics, but they also took the components and configured them around their object in order to  get a better idea of how things might come together. This happened more so in this workshop than  in the first. For one because some participants had brought artifacts with them that they wanted to  use in their design and so they had an object in front of them. And also because at the beginning of  the workshop I handed out bags containing the booklet and the components they would need to  build any of the four circuits it described. Going back and looking at some of the images I took  during the workshop the following two images struck me as reprehensive of this processes. Seeing  these images also made me think about some of the finer details of this initial sketching process.  The left picture in Figure 72, left shows a participant who brought a plain metal bracelet she had  made with her to the workshop and decided to “apply” the silent speaker circuit to it. In the  processes of figuring out where the components should go she experimented with different  placements, both by sketching a layout on paper as well as physically arranging the parts where she  imagined they could go on the bracelet. Having both the artifact and the components in hand  allowed her to think a in a certain way about the combination of crafts and electronics.     81   

The right picture in Figure 72, right shows another participant as he sketched out his circuit on  paper. He did not bring an artifact with him and so through sketching designed both the circuit and  the artifact. Though I can’t say exactly how this particular design process developed and what kind  of back and forth happened between electronics and artifact, I feel it worth thinking about how in  the process of crafting electronics one moves back and forth between the different worlds, both of  craft and electronics, as well as of two‐dimensional representation and the reality of final piece. And  to think about how the media used in facilitating this process such as flat paper and real materials  influence this prototyping/building process. I discuss these ideas more in the final chapter where I  try to summarize and reflect on different styles of approach. 

  Figure 72. Left: This participant brought a plain metal bracelet she had made with her to the  workshop and decided to integrate the electronics on her bracelet. Right: Another participant sketches  out his circuit on paper.  One participant shared a really interesting comment with me about her intent to focus solely on the  layout and visual aesthetics of the circuitry. In her design, which was painted on plywood, she first  used blue acrylic paint to prepare the surface upon which to paint the conductive silver paint. The  blue paint backdrop also created a prominent visual effect [Fig. 73, left]. I thought it was interesting  to consider her focus on two‐dimensional, two color, two material aesthetics as a nice concentration  that could be the focus of a future workshop.   Trial and error! One participant working with the thermochromic paints did not mix in enough  medium and when the paint dried it was very flaky [Fig. 73, right]. But an interesting thing that he  also did in this example was to paint the conductive paint on top of the thermochromic layer. While  I had taken to painting the conductor in the background to keep it invisible, I very much like the idea  of painting the conductor on top. Though I am not sure if in this case it was a conscious decision or  not.   As in the first workshop participants spent the majority of time working on their own projects.  Compared to the first workshop a majority of participants had little or no prior experience with  electronics. I found myself challenged to better explain the electronics I was introducing for which I  realized I had not prepared a simple enough introduction to. While the booklet I handed out  described the components and the circuits I had prepared, it was directed at an audience that was  already familiar with electronic components and schematics.      

82 

  Figure 73. Left: Participant focused on design of circuitry. Right: Trial and error.  Being used to working with circuit schematics one comes to more naturally view them as  abstractions of the actual implementation of a circuit and its components. Observing how  participants who were new to electronics worked with the circuit diagrams, this was not the case.  The way the circuit was layed out and represented in my hand‐out, which can seen in Figure 71 on  the left, was very literally taken up by some participants. Rather than consider other formats for  representing circuit connections, such as listing what connects to what and not drawing the  connections, it would have been better to start with a simpler circuit that only included a power  supply, a switch and some actuation. Of course, needing a sound source and amplified power, I had  had a hard time solving this for the speaker. But the thermochromic paint on the other hand can  work very nicely in such a simple configuration, where you paint your heating element and short  your battery across it in order to actuate the paint.  Of the ten participants in this workshop roughly half worked on projects that included speakers.  The other half used thermochromic paint. Unfortunately many of those incorporated the speakers  were less successful in getting them to work. I believe that to some degree this was because  participants really made an effort to integrate their speakers with their artifact and in doing so  encountered some challenges that took time to resolve. While with the visual qualities of craft you  can often begin to appreciate them even before they reach their ultimate form, with electronics it  can depend on everything being finished before there is even a chance that it might work. And then  the process of debugging begins. While debugging is part of the process it is a shame when it takes  up the majority of the workshop.  In the following I describe two projects that included speakers. They are also the projects that I first  introduced when talking about styles of approach in sketching and prototyping ideas, shown in  Figure 72.  The participant who brought the bracelet she had made with her to the workshop came up with the  idea of using the metal bracelet itself as the common ground connection that every component  connected to. She also used a small magnet on the battery so that this could be moved around the  bracelet. Because the metal of the bracelet was now part of the circuit, other parts needed to be  isolated from it in order to form separate connections. For this she used a clear nail varnish. Using a  dremel tool she drilled holes and cut slits in the bracelet to accommodate the components that     

83 

included the battery, the resistive sensor, the microcontroller and the speaker. She made the  speaker coil by weaving magnet wire in a circle, through the holes she had drilled in the bracelet.  But the insulation of the wire kept shearing on the edges of the metal holes, causing it to short with  the common ground and requiring it to be undone and redone multiple times. Ultimately we tried  testing the circuit by just wrapping the wire into a coil and taping it to the bracelet. The speaker did  not produce audible sound and, although I can’t be sure, I suspect this could be because the wire coil  was not fixed to it well enough causing it to vibrate the metal as its membrane, or else the metal of  the bracelet was too stiff to vibrate at such low power. In this case she could have tried  implementing the amplified version of the circuit, which would have required the extra components,  including the rather bulky 9V battery. Figure 74, left shows the bracelet as it looked at the end of the  workshop.  A project that incorporated the paper speaker was made on a piece of plywood cut out in the shape  of a washboard [Fig. 74, right]. The idea was that you could play the washboard with a conductive  wiper, which in this case was a chopstick coated in conductive paint, by moving it up and down the  resistive track painted with carbon paint. The rest of the circuit was painted with silver paint on  wood, in a similar style to the previously mentioned example of another participant that used blue  paint as a backdrop. The speaker was not painted on the wood but on a piece of paper that was then  connected to the wood circuit through two small metal screws. The speaker was extremely quiet  because it used only the 3 Volt coin cell and did not amplify the sound. Again, adding the transistor  and 9 Volt battery to amplify the sound would have made it louder but also bulkier. 

  Figure 74. Left: Bracelet with simple speaker circuit. Right: Wooden washboard instrument with  paper speaker.  The following three projects all used thermochromic paint as well as some carving, molding and  casting.  The work of one participant plays with our perception of the rather obnoxious sentence shown in  Figure 75. When the circuit is powered the image changes and an outline of the country of Spain  appears around the text. The result is a reference to how the participant feels about living in New  York during its cold winters, while in Spain, which is at roughly the same latitude, the winters there  are sunny and warm.     

84 

  Figure 75. Artwork by one of the participants, before (left) and after (right) completing the circuit  that causes the painted circuit to heat up and appear through the thermochromic paint.   The participant who made the artwork referencing Spain’s sunny winters was also one of the few  who began her process by creating a series of samples before attempting the final piece. She was  used to working with paint and also the idea for this artwork is something she already had in mind.  Coming at this process with skills to leverage as well as a strong idea makes a difference in how you  can work given a new set of tools and techniques.   One participant brought a selection of gemstones with him to the workshop and proceeded to make  Fimo molds of them that he could then use to cast latex mixed with thermochromic paint in [Fig. 76,  left]. He also included a layer of conductive paint in the mold as his heating element that would  cause them to change color. Unfortunately, even though the molds were small, the latex took forever  to cure when cast in these shapes. Another participant constructed a wooden box and painted  thermochromic paint on the different sides. Contacts underneath the paint revealed different shapes  when the cube was oriented in different positions to make electrical connections with the battery  [Fig. 76, right].     

   

85 

  Figure 76. Left: Thermochromic gemstones cast with latex in Fimo molds. Right: wooden box with  thermochromic display that reveals different elements depending on the orientation of the box.  The following final two examples of thermochromic paint were done on wood with heating patterns  painted underneath in the shape of the tree’s leaves [Fig. 77]. In the first example nothing but the  carved recession of the tree trunk and branches are visible until the circuit is powered to reveal the  leaf structures. A second and smaller iteration of this project changes color more dramatically  because the painted heating element heats much faster. This second version is coated it in a clear  lack, giving it a very finished quality. It also includes holes in the wood that bring the power  connections for the circuit to the back. The holes were drilled and then saturated with paint and  small screws were screwed in to make connections that could be clipped to with the alligator clips. 

  Figure 77. Left: Finished version of the work in progress featured at the very beginning of this chapter  in Figure X. Right: A smaller example of the tree featured on the left. Because of the much shorter  painted heat conductor, this one changes color much faster and spreads more dramatically.          

86 

At the end of the workshop participants gathered together to briefly present their projects. I asked  them also to reflect on how the workshop went as well as how it could be improved. The following  quotes taken from responses to the online post‐workshop survey nicely represent participant’s  conclusions.   When asked what their favorite thing about the workshop was:  “Learning about different conductive materials.”   “Seeing all the possibilities!”  When asked what their least favorite thing about the workshop was:  “It was hard to learn the skills quickly enough to make a project that worked.”  “Not being taught how to make electronic connections.”  When asked if they had suggestions for how the workshop or the tools and techniques used could be  improved:  “I think the workshop should either be longer, or focused on a smaller number of crafts/materials.”   “Having to figure out the circuit and the new materials at the same time was maybe too hard.”   “It needs to be longer, and demonstrating applications can be nice.”   

   

87 

REFLECTIONS ON PROCESS 

  Figure 78. The remains of carving a wooden circuit; a microcontroller, flakes of carved wood with  conductive silver paint on them, and the tips of two carving tools.  In the previous chapters I have detailed the process of developing and documenting my thesis, and  presented the outcome, which includes the website, a collection of examples and two workshops. I  would like to conclude my thesis with a series of reflections on process.  In terms of my own process I reflect on balancing method and intuition throughout my sample  making process. I discuss what it meant to document my results, in real‐time, as I was producing  them. I describe how launching the website, as a platform for organizing and sharing my work,  helped me to be more explicit about my processes and techniques.   Based on observations I made during the workshops I reflect on their different styles of building. I  describe the roles that sketching, prototyping, rehearsing and debugging play throughout different  kinds of building processes. 

   

88 

Balancing Method and Intuition  Throughout my sample making process I had no set strategy for balancing method and intuition.  Intuition played a part throughout the whole process, from sourcing the materials and tools, to  deciding what samples to make and how to test them for valuable results.   The more familiar I was with a certain material or tool, the more my intuition played a role in my  decisions. As I came to know a material, I would work more intuitively with it, producing samples  biased by what I thought would work and often refrain from trying things that I did not believe  could work. The less familiar I was with a material, the easier it was to stick to planning and  executing a particular series of experiments. This was due to the fact that I had not developed a  feeling for or an opinion on how a material would behave, and so my intuition did not bias me and  disrupt my plans. Interestingly enough, although this sounds like a whimsical way to approach  solving a problem, it worked very well for me in many cases. And, though I have no proof for this, I  do believe that finding a good balance between these two forces can lead to successful results, faster  and more efficiently than a process based on pure intuition or methodology.  Part of finding this balance between fact and feeling, method and intuition was also in knowing how  and when to transition between the search for prior work and hands‐on experimentation. Being  able to draw upon other people’s results is an extremely valuable part of this process, but so is  experimentation. My own experiments often took me weeks and lead me to the same conclusions  that I could have read up somewhere. But the knowledge I build from experience was more  complete and embodied that anything I could read up. Not only did I gain a sense for what could go  wrong, but also I developed an intuition for how to make things work.   Being Explicit About Tacit Knowledge  Being new to the variety of crafts I was introducing myself to, I tried to leverage my position of  simultaneous learner, experimenter and documenter. Nicola Wood [Wood and Horne, 2008] does  research into how tacit knowledge can be elicited through the help of an intermediate expert  learner and the structure provided by the documentation process. She describes how the expert  learner is able to construct “bridges” that can be used by the novice to acquire skill. Harper talks of a  similar process and calls it “disassembling intuition” [Harper, 1987]. The term codification describes  the process by which tacit knowledge is transformed into explicit knowledge.  As I was learning and documenting, I was in the position of an intermediate expert learner, and  became very aware of the tacit knowledge I was acquiring. Such knowledge included hunches about  how a particular material would behave, being able to predict what tool would work best for a  certain job, as well as becoming tactful in my practice. This heightened consciousness, regarding my  developing skills, did not necessarily make it easier for me to convey them. But, prompting myself to  produce documentation based on this awareness, did help me elicit information that in turn enabled  me to better reflect on how, and why, I was doing things a certain way.   In my role as learner, I drew upon and came to appreciate other people’s documentation. As I  became more familiar and experienced with certain tools I realized that I was able to uncover or  recognize additional information embedded within their documentation. The more I had in common  with the person who had written the documentation, the more I was able to relate to their accounts  and recognize important bits of information, where I had previously just seen text.      

89 

I able to detect embodied forms of information that were often embedded in their documented  accounts. As a novice learner it is often impossible to discern what kinds of information refer to  more embodied practices. This observation prompted me to try and include remarks that would  make this distinction even more explicit in my own documentation.   Documenting in Real‐Time  My best strategy for insuring that I document well, and that my documentation captures relevant  parts of my process, is to document in real‐time and throughout the whole process. I take notes  along with every sample; I take pictures of everything in process, finished, material, tool, broken,  fixed and working. I use video sparingly because it is time‐consuming to edit as well as watch, but it  is great for capturing procedures that are hard to convey otherwise. I always keep in mind the fact  that I will be using my documentation to convey my process to others.  This helps me be diligent  about capturing moments that have become trivial to myself. I consistently take pictures of what I  am doing, especially while I am learning and making mistakes.  While it occurred to me that I could mount a camera above my workspace and simply film my entire  process, I don’t believe this would result in better documentation, or that such an overwhelming  amount of documentation would be capable of conveying my process more precisely or in greater  detail. There is a huge amount of knowledge and detail embedded in the pictures I choose to take,  simply by the fact that I chose to take them. Every time I think of documenting, I document, and  have over time trained myself by be consistent in my documentation. While I don’t spend much time  thinking about documentation during the process, I do reflect on it when I am not in the middle of  producing work. I go over the documentation I have gathered and am able to detect gaps that I can  then go back and fill. I rarely repeat a process solely for the sake of documentation, but it does  happen. I also spend time thinking of good ways of capturing certain details or procedures. Pictures  are one of the mediums I use most in combination with written descriptions. I also try to sketch and  draw diagrams when I think they are helpful.  I launched the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts website roughly halfway through my process of sourcing supplies,  which was very early on in my process of getting hands‐on with the materials and tools. Setting up  the website at this early stage meant I could post my documentation there and develop the  structure and layout of the site alongside the techniques and recipes I was developing. Setting up  the website and figuring out the structure and design as I worked, turned out to be an excellent way  of capturing my process as well as the transformations of my thoughts as I was making, learning and  documenting. Publishing my process in this live manner meant that anyone who cared to check the  site regularly could follow my flow of organization in which I structured my thoughts through  categorization and layout.   Styles of Approach  During the workshops I observed participants’ processes and began to pay attention to the different  ways in which initial sketches translated into electronic artifacts.  Most participants began with a two‐dimensional sketch of their circuit and sometimes also their  artifact. Almost always the two were drawn in separate stages, one after the other. In the cases  where a participant was working with a particular artifact already in mind, the artifact might be  sketched first and then the circuit “applied” to it. To further visualize the final artifact with this  approach, participants would sometimes also physically layout the circuit elements on the actual     

90 

artifact to get a better feeling for how things came together. “Applying” the electronics to an existing  artifact, not traditionally associated with electronics, helped introduce new shapes and aesthetics to  the circuit layout and design of certain components, such as resistive switches, which could be  painted in many shapes. On the other hand this approach very much implies that electronics are  being applied to craft, that both are not part of the same process. That craft and electronics don’t  happen at the same time, that they are distinct and separate materials, tools and processes.  The most fluid approach to blending electronics and materials that I experienced and observed in  my own process, was that of having the materials in my hands, and being able to continuously work  them into their final form. This process involved being able to go back, make changes and undo  some of the things I had done. When working with conductive textiles and craft techniques such as  knitting and crochet I reached a point where I was not thinking about integrating electronics into  textiles, nor applying textiles to electronics, but was simply building and thinking equally and  inseparably of both domains.  Rehearsing and Debugging  The Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach blends crafts and electronics approaches to building, and in doing so  also blends the various steps associated with either process. In the following I would like to briefly  describe the roles that rehearsing and debugging played in my process of building and working  from a Kit‐of‐No‐Parts.  Reflecting on the craft process, Tim Ingold describes the following relationship between rehearsal  and performance.   “There is a critical moment, in implementing any task, when getting ready gives way to setting out.  This is the moment at which rehearsal ends and performance begins. From that point on there is no  turning back. Pencil marks can be rubbed out, but an incision made with the blade of a saw cannot be  contrived to disappear.” [Tim Ingold “Walking the Plank” in “Defining Technological Literacy –  Towards and Epistemological Framework” p.68]   What Ingold describes as rehearsing, for me was my sample making process. By making samples I  explored materials and mastered knowledge to develop my various techniques. I was then able to  apply this knowledge and skill to building the collection of examples that I presented.   While very much an electronics term, debugging is a process similar to the process of sample  making. Debugging is a process of spending time figuring out why something does not work. I would  argue that debugging is more prevalent in building processes that build upon pre‐designed and  manufactured components, whose exact functions are not all known to the person using them,  giving cause for the builder to spend additional time to understand how things work, when they  don’t work as intended. Debugging is a process you learn through experience, not only what to look  for, but how to keep looking until you figure it out. Debugging requires a mindset of not giving up,  because you know that the mistake lies somewhere and that you will find it eventually.  Through producing my samples I learned not only how to achieve desired results, but was also able  to characterize undesirable results. Being able to recognize why something did not work was almost  more useful than only knowing how to make things work and never experiencing failure.  This  experience, that came from making samples, was of great help later on in the process of debugging  my final artifacts. These ties between an experimental sample making approach and a problem‐    

91 

finding debugging approach are part of what makes the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts different from established  electronics building. These ties also contribute to making the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts a more transparent  and understandable approach.  Concluding Remarks  I hope that the accounts of my process, which I have reflected on in this final chapter, convey that  the Kit‐of‐No‐Parts approach to building electronics is truly different from the style of building we  currently associate with electronics. And that the techniques I have developed and presented in this  thesis demonstrate the potential of this different approach as well as show that it is capable of very  different results. Results that are not just different because of the materials they are made from but  different because of how they were made.  

     

   

92 

APPENDIX 

     

93 

 

   

94 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐

   

Anthony Dunne, Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience, and Critical Design  (The MIT Press, 2006).  Binaebi Akah and Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Empowering products: personal identity through the  act of appropriation. In Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended  abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (CHI EA '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4021‐ 4026.  Cristen Torrey, Elizabeth F. Churchill, and David W. McDonald, “Learning how: the search for  craft knowledge on the Internet,” in Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human  factors in computing systems (Boston, MA, USA: ACM, 2009), 1371‐1380.  Daniela K. Rosner, “Mediated crafts: digital practices around creative handwork,” in Proceedings  of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing  systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA: ACM, 2010), 2955‐2958.  David Pye, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, Revised. (Fox Chapel Publishing, 1995).    Douglas A. Harper, Working knowledge: skill and community in a small shop (University of  Chicago Press, 1987).  Greg Saul, Cheng Xu, and Mark D. Gross. 2010. Interactive paper devices: end‐user design  fabrication. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and  embodied interaction (TEI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 205‐212.  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.   Jay S. Silver. 2009. Nature as interface: MacGyver'ing and Martha‐Stewart'ing interactivity with  trees, pencils, grandpa, even the kitchen sink. In Proceeding of the seventh ACM conference on  Creativity and cognition (C&C '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 483‐484.  Jay Silver, “Awakening to maker methodology: the metamorphosis of a curious caterpillar,” in  Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Como,  Italy: ACM, 2009), 242‐245.  Jie Qi and Leah Buechley. 2010. 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). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 121‐128.  John R. Dakers, Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an Epistemological Framework  (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).  Leah Buechley, David Mellis, Hannah Perner‐Wilson, Emily Lovell, and Bonifaz Kaufmann. Living  wall: programmable wallpaper for interactive spaces. In Proceedings of the international  conference on Multimedia (MM '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1401‐1402.  Leah Buechley, Mike Eisenberg, Jaime Catchen, and Ali Crockett. 2008. The LilyPad Arduino:  using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer  science education. In Proceeding of the twenty‐sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human  factors in computing systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 423‐432.  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.  Marcelo Coelho, Lyndl Hall, Joanna Berzowska, and Pattie Maes. 2009. Pulp‐based computing: a  framework for building computers out of paper. In Proceedings of the 27th international  95 

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (CHI EA '09). ACM, New  York, NY, USA, 3527‐3528.  Mikell P. Groover, Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes, and Systems,  4th ed. (Wiley, 2010).  Oppi Untracht, Jewelry: Concepts And Technology, 1st ed. (Doubleday, 1982).  Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill, The Art of Electronics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press,  1989).  Peter Dormer, The Culture of Craft (Manchester University Press, 1997).    Prof. Richard Sennett, The Craftsman (Yale University Press, 2009).  Pugin, The True Principals of Christian Architecture (London, H. G. Bohn, 1853)  Saul Greenberg and Chester Fitchett, “Phidgets: easy development of physical interfaces through  physical widgets,” in Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on User interface software  and technology (Orlando, Florida: ACM, 2001), 209‐218.  Wood N and Horne G (2008). The new journeyman; the role of an expert learner in eliciting and  transmitting skilled knowledge. Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference,  Sheffield, July 2008.   

Websites  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  

Arduino, 2011: http://arduino.cc/  Conductive Compounds, 2011: http://www.conductivecompounds.com/  DigiKey, 2011: http://www.digikey.com/  Fabrickit, Papadopoulos & Eveland, 2011: http://www.fabrick.it/  How To Get What You Want, Perner‐Wilson & Satomi, 2011: http://www.kobakant.at/DIY/   How To Get What You Want, 2011: http://www.kobakant.at/  Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef, 2011: http://crochetcoralreef.org/  Instructables, 2011: http://www.instructables.com/  International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 2011: http://www.iec.ch/  Kit‐of‐No‐Parts, Perner‐Wilson, 2011: http://web.media.mit.edu/~plusea/  Knitta, 2011: http://www.magdasayeg.com/  LessEMF, 2011: http://lessemf.com/  Make Magazine, 2011: http://makezine.com/  Maker Faire, 2011: http://makerfaire.com/  PicoCricket, 2011: http://www.picocricket.com/  Ravelry, 2011: https://www.ravelry.com/  Rio Grande, 2011: http://www.riogrande.com/  Schemer, Aniomagic, 2011: http://www.aniomagic.com/schemer/  Sherri Haab, 2011: http://www.sherrihaab.com/  Transitive Materials, 2011: http://ambient.media.mit.edu/transitive/  Wordpress, 2011: http://wordpress.org/ 

 

   

96 

Designing for Repair? Infrastructures and Materialities of Breakdown Daniela K. Rosner Department of Human-Centered Design and Engineering, University of Washington [email protected] ABSTRACT

This paper explores issues that come up in practices of breakage and repair through two projects: the “XO” laptops of One Laptop Per Child in Paraguay and public sites of facilitated repair in California, USA. Collectively drawing on 15 months of ethnographic fieldwork, 156 interviews, and archival research, we find that breakdown and repair are not processes that designers can effectively script ahead of time; instead, they emerge in everyday practice. These practices are shaped by material, infrastructural, gendered, political, and socioeconomic factors – such as manufacturing limitations, access to repair parts and expertise, and environmental convictions – which designers often did not, and may not have been able to, anticipate. We call the material realities and practices of repair negotiated endurance, which is illustrated by four themes from our findings: the negotiated identification of breakdown, collaborative definitions of worth, the fraught nature of collaborative expertise, and the gendered stakes of repair. Author Keywords

Breakdown; design; infrastructure studies, maintenance; materiality; One Laptop Per Child; public sites of repair; repair; sociotechnical systems. ACM Classification Keywords

K.4.0. Computers in Society: general. INTRODUCTION

Over the last ten years, repair-oriented design, engineering, and policy-making have begun to take hold at local and global levels. Recent legislation reforms such as the Right to Repair Bill (http://righttorepair.org), for example, require automobile manufacturers to provide the same repair instructions and diagnostic data to consumers as they do to franchised dealerships. Going one step further, a few companies have proactively built repairability into their products. Patagonia has produced a jacket with a repairable zipper, asking consumers to take on fixing work themselves. Other projects enable repair through customization, such as the IKEA hacking movement wherein the modularity of mass-manufactured IKEA furniture turns unassembled pieces into LEGO-like reconfiguPermission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. CSCW ‘14, February 15-19, 2014, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Copyright 2014 ACM xxx-x-xxxx-xxxx-x/xx/xx...$15.00.

Morgan G. Ames Center for Social Computing, Department of Informatics, UC Irvine [email protected] rable units [34] or the GreaseMonkey browser plug-in that enables substantive end-user modification using the open standards of the Web [31]. Decades earlier, the Volkswagen Beetle of the 1960s was hugely popular around the world and often hailed as a force of democratization in part because of its ease of repair and modification [33]. On the other hand, within IT production one dimension of design is “planned obsolescence”: the manner in which a product is built to last for only a few years rather than a lifetime, and meant to be replaced, not repaired. The phrase “planned obsolescence” was popularized in 1932 by Bernard London in his pamphlet entitled “Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence” [22]. The concept is canonized today in technological observations-made-rules such as Moore’s Law, with its short turnaround for the doubling of computational power. In keeping with either Moore’s Law or London’s exhortation, a number of computers, electronics, and smaller consumer appliances have been designed to fail over time and be replaced. For example, battery-operated electronic products, notably recent releases of Apple iPhones and Macbook laptops, come with difficult-to-replace bonded batteries, and heating devices like toasters, hair dryers, and electric hot water kettles have flimsy resistive heating elements that are cheap to produce but not made to last. In this paper, we explore the theoretical and material dimensions of breakdown and repair practices in the ‘wild,’ attending to the points at which obsolescence is thwarted and repairability is not realized, and the social implications of both. In the process, we introduce the notion of negotiated endurance. This refers to the process by which different actors – including consumers, community organizers, and others – drive the ongoing use, maintenance, and repair of a given technology through the sociocultural and socioeconomic infrastructures they inhabit and produce. In this framework, breakdown and repair are not simply planned or avoided through design, but instead actively produced and reconfigured through use. We illustrate our argument with two case studies. The first chronicles the unexpected breakdowns and repair work on the “XO” laptops of One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) in Paraguay. The second explores the repair activities of the Fixit Clinic, a space where the public can bring broken appliances which volunteers help them repair. In both case studies, we explore how users approach breakdown and repair to provide new theoretical and practical insights into the design process. This involves questioning not only design for reparability in particular but also design practices in general – after all, products

are all repairable to varying degrees, and breakdown and repair are often part of use even if not of design. Those who are engaged in repair practices both acknowledge and complicate the politics of design, especially design that is meant to encourage or discourage repair. One contribution of this work is to theorize breakdown and repair as material states that are defined collaboratively in use. Moreover, both are closely tied to collective definitions of worth – as in, what is worth repairing. Why are people repairing or not repairing, and what does repair mean to them? How are objects designated as in need of repair in the first place? Our case studies show that breakage and repair both have multiple meanings and create different practices and roles, all of which offer different models of use and creativity. Another contribution is to highlight the political and infrastructural aspects of breakdown and repair. This builds on the work of Steve Jackson and others in this area [16,17,18,19,28,37], testing the ability of these theoretical contributions to travel to new political, economic, and social contexts, including technology democratization projects in the Global South (OLPC) and countercultural urban repair initiatives (Fixit Clinic). In this framing, repair is a political act, a repurposing of designed objects in ways that may or may not have been planned. Tools or facilities for repair are similarly political in that they can rewrite conventional beliefs about what we can change and how we can change it, or be an admission that breakdown has occurred. Finally, our case studies highlight how repair can be a privileged practice, relying on certain kinds of materials (replacement parts, testing equipment) and forms of expertise to be carried out. Related Literature on Repair

Before we turn to our case studies, we wish to acknowledge the small but vibrant ethnographic tradition that has emerged around the study of everyday maintenance in IT design. Decades prior to this work, Lucy Suchman, Julian Orr, and colleagues turned to the lives of photocopy machine repair workers to illuminate the limitations of codifying maintenance techniques [28,38]. Orr’s influential accounts of particular diagnoses exposed skilled service work as “necessarily improvised, at least in diagnosis, and centered on the creation and maintenance of control and understanding” [28:161]. Orr showed how repair workers not only use manuals and codified organizational knowledge; workers also rely on the retelling of “war stories” – personal accounts from the field often shared over lunch or informal meetings. Each repair activity involves situated actions whose intent, in Suchman’s terms, “must be contingent on the circumstantial and interactional particulars of actual situations” [38]. Others have studied practices and conceptions of consumer electronics disassembly in developing countries, as examples of thwarting planned obsolescence. Burrell [4], for example, describes how e-waste scavengers in Ghana, who are “invisible users” not planned for in the design process, retrieve parts from mobile phones, computers, and other electronics in landfills to reuse components and precious metals. Jackson et al.

[18] further explore what they term “repair worlds” in SubSaharan Africa to show how information technology infrastructures are routinely maintained and extended. Studying repair in the Global North, some work in HCI on sustainability has explored designing to enable maintenance and repair in order to support environmental concerns ([2] provides an example and [11] a summary), which we will see echoed in the motivations of the Fixit Clinic below. From “IKEA hacks” that rely on shared resources, online and off [34], to traditional crafts that can be learned through online how-to instructions [39], the Internet has created new opportunities kludging and hacking. Applying repair beyond hardware, Kelty [20] has studied the arcana of free software through the continuously rewritten fabric of the Internet. Beyond IT development, scholars have focused on a range of maintenance work, reconsidering aspects of building reconstruction [3], vehicle repair [8,9,15,22], electricity procurement [14], book restoration [35], routine work activities [16], and shared infrastructures [37]. Following from these scholars, this paper aims to examine practices of design and repair through the material conditions and cultural contingencies they surface. Drawing on two case studies that provide in-depth examinations of repair activity, we explore the myriad avenues in which repair work interfaces with design, especially the difficulties in designing to specifically enable or disable repair. This account illustrates some of the many complications that can arise in practice. Methods

The methods used in this study are largely qualitative and ethnographic but also include quantitative and archival elements. For the first case study, the second author conducted six months of ethnographic fieldwork in Paraguay in 2010 as a volunteer for Paraguay Educa, as well as archival research on One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) between 2008 and 2013. Paraguay Educa is a small non-governmental organization (that is, a group not affiliated with the Paraguayan government, with funding sources independent of government support), founded and run by local Paraguayans, which purchased OLPC laptops for around $200 each (near the cheapest price the laptop, and its non-tablet successors, ever reached [42]) with funding from the SWIFT banking group, the Inter-American Development Bank, Itaipú Dam, and other donors, and brought them to Paraguay in 2009. In 2010 the project consisted of 4000 laptops in 10 schools, and as of this writing includes 9000 laptops in 36 schools. The second author observed the effects of broken laptops in classrooms and at home during the course of field observations, and interviewed 133 participants in Paraguay, including children who had laptops that were broken to varying degrees or had been repaired. She iteratively coded her fieldnotes and interview transcripts to identify the dominant themes across all sources, one of which was breakage and repair, the data presented in this paper. The second author complemented this ethnography with quantitative data to corroborate her findings. Of particular importance to this analysis, she obtained from Paraguay Educa

complete logs of laptop breakage reports and repairs filed by the Paraguay Educa support staff, which were all recorded in a system custom-built by a Paraguay Educa developer. This data included types of breakage for each laptop in the program, allowing layering of additional levels of analysis including the laptop owner’s gender (categorized by their name, before anonymization of the dataset), grade (provided in the database), and whether they lived in the urban center or the rural outskirts of their city (determined by their school). The first author conducted nine months of participant observation at seven public sites of repair (six Fixit Clinics and one Repair Cafe) in 2012 and 2013. She engaged in informal conversations at those events with roughly 60 participants. She also conducted extensive formal interviews with 23 participants, including leaders and participants in four public sites of repair (Fixit Clinic, Palo Alto Repair Cafe, Pasadena Repair Cafe, Fixer’s Collective, and the Netherlands Repair Cafe), and leaders of related endeavors such as the Repair Clinic, Pasadena Repair Cafe, and the Flaming Lotus Girls. Lastly, she conducted in-depth research in the Fixit Clinic and Repair Cafe’s online archives and in individual participants’ collections. She transcribed her interviews and iteratively coded her fieldnotes and transcripts to find emergent themes. CASE STUDY 1. THE CONTESTED REPAIRABILITY OF OLPC LAPTOPS IN PARAGUAY

One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) represents one of the largest experiments in laptop-driven learning underway. About two and a half million of OLPC’s “XO” laptops are in use around the world, 85% of them in Latin America. It has also inspired derivative projects in both education and low-cost computing. Among the project’s promises were that the XO laptop would be rugged enough to withstand the roughness of child use and so easy to repair that a child could do it. In this section, we explore the social implications of laptop breakages in the field, noting the ways that actual breakage departed from the

idealized breakage that OLPC envisioned. The results make painfully concrete the possible material limitations of designing for repairability and the material requirements of repairwork. We also explore the implications that the approach OLPC encourages projects to take – every child owning their own laptop and being responsible for keeping it in good repair – has for social equity, one of the project’s goals. OLPC’s Idealized Repair Practices

OLPC’s XO laptop is the first of its kind to combine an allegedly ruggedized design, an open-source educational software suite, and full (if intentionally underpowered) computer functionality. The XO has no internal moving parts such as fans or a hard drive to jam or break when dropped; minimal connectors to get broken or dirty (just USB and audio, both covered by the XO’s antennae “ears” when the laptop is latched, plus a power connector and SD slot); a solid silicone membrane keyboard to make the laptop water-resistant; a thick plastic case to protect it from falls or other wear and tear; and only two sizes of screws – with extras included inside the handle – intended to make dismantling and repairing the laptop easier (see http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Disassembly and http://wiki.laptop. org/ go/ Screws). OLPC leaders, including the project’s founder Nicholas Negroponte, demonstrated the ruggedness of the laptop during talks and events by flinging one across a stage, then picking it up and turning it on, leading to expectations among those interested in implementing their project that the laptop was very difficult to break [5,43]. OLPC hoped that in addition to making the laptop robust to the use of children, these design features would encourage children to tinker with the laptop’s hardware (along with its open-source software) – in short, to be their own tech support, understanding the machine inside and out. OLPC’s first Core Principle, Child Ownership, encouraged locally-run projects to give laptops to children directly so that they could take the laptops home and learn anywhere and anytime, not just at school [27]. They also maintained that child ownership would encourage children to take better care of their laptops, and even empower them to repair the laptops themselves [26,30], providing an excellent learning experience and making them comfortable with ‘hacking’ the laptop. Because the laptop was ruggedized, they theorized, the repairs that would need to be made would never be too serious [41]. Though expecting children to repair their own laptops has been called naïve or exploitative by some critics, OLPC leadership Nicholas Negroponte, Seymour Papert, and others have defended it as the perfect learning experience, taking advantage of children’s supposedly natural proficiency with technology and allowing them to delve as deeply as possible into the workings of the machine. In a USInfo “Webchat” interview about OLPC in 2006, Papert directly claimed that having children repair the laptops is a matter of empowerment, not exploitation:

Figure 1. OLPC’s “XO” laptops in Paraguay, one decorated with stickers by its owner.

I believe in “Kid Power.” Our education system underestimates kids. It infantilizes them by assuming they are incompetent. An eight-year-old is capable of doing ninety per-

cent of tech support and a twelve-year-old one hundred percent. And this is not exploiting the children; it is giving them a powerful learning experience. [30] To assist these repair activities, OLPC developers and volunteers populated OLPC’s wiki with technical details about the laptop, often including descriptions and even debates about what the feature being discussed was meant to accomplish (see http://wiki. laptop. org/ go/ Battery_ and_ power for an example). While initially and ostensibly meant for laptop users at any level of expertise, over time this documentation became more and more aimed at people with a high level of technical proficiency. This tendency accelerated after the “Give 1, Get 1” XO laptops reached the hands of tens of thousands of OLPC enthusiasts across the United States and Canada around Christmas 2007 and 2008, before many OLPC projects around the world – including the one in Paraguay – had begun. As a result, most of these resources, which were nearly all in English, were aimed more at other tech-savvy enthusiasts than at novice users. Breakage in Practice: OLPC’s XO Laptops in Paraguay

Paraguay Educa, the locally-run non-governmental organization (NGO) in charge of the project of 9000 XO laptops in Paraguay (4000 first-generation XOs distributed in spring 2009, 5000 second-generation XOs distributed in spring 2011), initially embraced the Core Principles and central tenets that OLPC had laid out as important [1], including child ownership and the ruggedness of the XO. As a result of OLPC’s framing of the project, the NGO Paraguay Educa, as well as other projects including the country-wide, government-run project in Uruguay, did not stress the importance of being careful with the laptop or work to procure and stockpile repair parts. However, as we will see and as has also been described elsewhere [46], limitations in the XOs’ manufacturing process and the ways that children used laptops in practice – and the problems that resulted from both – differed from OLPC’s initial expectations of ruggedness and ease of repair, which they had passed on to many of the early projects. For one, the prevalence of cement corners and bumpy cobblestone streets in Paraguay meant that dropped laptops often did not emerge unscathed – and screens were the most frequent casualty. While the screen would generally survive impacts to the bumpered edges of the laptop, as would most likely happen in a demonstration onstage, some falls resulted in a direct impact to the screen surface itself, to which it was not nearly as robust. After an impact, a screen would often either go entirely black, rendering the laptop unusable (with no hookups for external screens nor a supply of external screens available), or would sport a cluster of permanently dead pixels, making it more difficult to use. Similarly, nearly every smartphone encountered in Paraguay had a cracked screen; one Paraguay Educa staff member cracked his the very day he bought it, much to his heartbreak. Though these smartphones could be repaired, the cost was prohibitive for even the relatively wealthy members of the NGO.

The location of the camera above the screen (like most laptops) also meant that children who were taking pictures with their laptops would often walk around with their laptops open and screens rotated to face out. While taking pictures was not that common an activity overall, one breakage of a screen rotated in this way was observed during fieldwork. Other observations involved close calls, as children sprinted across schoolyards or down cobblestone streets holding an XO on one arm, often open to play music. In interviews, children without working laptops or with laptop screens that had been replaced described using their XO on their bunk bed and accidentally dropping it a meter and a half to the floor, or putting it on a shelf or on top of a wardrobe only to have it jostled off. One child explained in an interview that she lent her laptop to her younger brother, and it was returned with a screen that no longer turned on, and no way for the family to afford the repair part. Overall, as of August 2010, one year and four months into the project, 403 (10%) of the 4000 laptops in use had unfixed broken screens. Another part that often did not stand up to children’s use was the AC adaptor. Though there was much early press regarding alternative power sources for XO laptops, nearly all in use around the world are charged conventionally by plugging them in to a power outlet. Through what was described by Paraguay Educa and OLPC technical staff in the field as a manufacturing flaw, the rubber used to make the cable for the first generation XO’s adapter was stretchier than it should have been which, when combined with some students’ tendency to swing their adapters or pull the adapters out of the wall by the cord, resulted in breakages. Still others suffered from a design defect that burned out the adapter unit itself. All in all, in August 2010, 21% of laptops had at one point logged a problem with charging, and 12% had unfixed adapters. While these two parts broke an order of magnitude more often than most others, they were not the only breakages, and moreover, these logged breakages were not the only problems with using the machines. For example, the membrane keyboard of the first-generation XO was made slightly too thin to withstand heavy use, and over time the membrane cracked at the edges of the most-used keys, inviting fidgety students to pick at them further or eventually falling off on their own. In August 2010, 3% were logged as broken. The trackpad on the first-generation XO was notoriously buggy and difficult to use (see http:// wiki. laptop. org/ go/ XO-1/ Touchpad/ Issues) – not technically “broken” (in the sense that it was not functioning as designed) but still an impediment to use. Also frustrating to students and teachers both was the laptop’s slowness and its much-too-small one-gigabyte solid-state hard drive, which would fill up quickly with students’ Internet-enabled mediacentric usage patterns. These issues came to be collectively understood and discussed under the framework of breakage, though not all had a clear path for repair. Even more troubling, breakages tended to recreate gendered and socioeconomic divisions. While software problems were roughly equal, an August 2010 data sample noted that more

boys had hardware problems than girls (with a ratio of just over 4 boys for every 3 girls), especially the kinds of hardware problems that resulted from rough handling, following Paraguayan gender norms similar to those in the United States that generally allow boys to be more rambunctious than girls. Similarly, three laptops belonging to rural students had hardware problems for every two belonging to urban students per capita, though software problem reports were roughly equal between the two groups. This was perhaps a result of longer walks home and more unsupervised time as parents worked late. The potential for the project to be a social leveling force was thus undermined by laptop breakage. A few of the employees from the NGO Paraguay Educa and OLPC noted that such problems were likely the result of the tradeoff between using more easily-serviceable parts and costcutting, with the decision often falling on the side of cutting costs to approach as closely as possible the $100 target price for the laptop (though it wasn’t able to get much below $190). This meant that some parts were in fact epoxied to the motherboard and were nearly impossible to service. In this way, the idealism that OLPC initially had for the laptop being easily repairable was tempered by limitations imposed by the laptop’s manufacturers, who were not as committed to the ideals of open hardware. In sum, though OLPC’s hardware designers anticipated some potential problems, their early claims that the laptop was unbreakable and that children could do the necessary repairs, as well as limitations in manufacturing, led to a number of problems among projects using first-generation XOs. The much larger project in Uruguay reported similar results [9,10,32]. In fact, estimates of the number of inoperably broken laptops in Uruguay ranged from 25% to 35% despite the government’s extensive investment in repair facilities and subsidization of repair parts [36:11]. Several of these problems were fixed in the second-generation XO, but that does not help those who received first-generation laptops (and the second-generation XOs had their own manufacturing problems, such as a wireless card that failed more frequently). Though many technologists may think nothing of upgrading their devices frequently, hundreds of thousands of first-generation XOs are in use by students around the world, with little hope or budget for an upgrade, even after the laptop’s five-year expected lifespan. Material Requirements of XO Repairability

With the exception of power adapters, none of these breakages resulted in repairs that children could do without a supply of replacement parts. However, compounding the problems caused by laptop breakage, Paraguay Educa, being a small non-governmental organization running a relatively small project by OLPC’s early expectations, had difficulty procuring these parts. According to Paraguay Educa’s technical staff, OLPC told the NGO in 2009 or 2010 that they simply do not sell repair parts, since OLPC was too small to handle the maintenance of projects themselves. As a workaround, Uruguay’s much larger government-run program went directly to the manufacturers to buy a large number of spare

XO parts, and sold the NGO Paraguay Educa small batches of them out of goodwill – though much of this supply, especially the parts that broke most often, was quickly exhausted. As a result, during this fieldwork, just over one quarter of Paraguay Educa’s laptops had documented but unfixed hardware problems. Of the 1095 unfixed hardware problems in Paraguay Educa’s inventory system in August 2010, one year and four months since laptops were distributed, 474 involved a broken charger, 403 a broken screen, 139 a broken keyboard or trackpad, and 79 other hardware issues. Some of these breakages could be repaired without replacement parts. One could borrow a charger or splice its cables for a temporary fix, tape bits of paper over the missing keys on the keyboard, or buy an external mouse if one’s family was wealthy enough – some mice were observed in use, especially in the more wealthy private schools. However, a broken screen was particularly problematic. It was not only common, but it also rendered one’s laptop unusable until a replacement screen was available and one’s family saved 303,600 guaranies (about $65) to buy one. Only the charger broke more often, and only the motherboard cost more to replace. Even when repair parts were available, many were prohibitively expensive for many Paraguayan families. While the official minimum wage in Paraguay in the second half of 2010 was 1,507,484 guaranies (about $320) a month [44], minimum-wage laws were under-enforced [40] and the majority of the population worked either in the exempt public sector or in Paraguay’s still-extensive informal economy [13], making significantly less than minimum wage. In particular, rural families, many of them subsistence farmers with side businesses selling home-grown or homemade products on the side of the road, were unlikely to be able to afford repair parts, even though the repair labor, supplied by the NGO Paraguay Educa’s technical support team that rotated through all of the schools in the program every week, was free. As a result, aside from chargers – which, with the possibility of splicing, had roughly equal rates of repair in urban and rural schools – most hardware problems were repaired roughly twice as often in urban schools as in rural schools. Thus, though the laptop program did help lessen the socioeconomic urban-rural divide in Paraguay, in some ways, the divide persisted in both breakage and repair rates. One obvious solution to problems of breakage is one of more resources: extra laptops for school use, a consistent source of repair parts, and perhaps money to subsidize the cost of parts in cases of financial need, much like Uruguay’s project had – though even with these resources, Uruguay’s reported breakage rates were also quite high. Lacking these resources – as a small non-governmental organization dependent on donations and, like many small NGOs, often on the brink of running out of funding – Paraguay Educa had to look to other solutions. One initiative that they began during this fieldwork used parts from two broken laptops belonging to children in the same family (siblings or cousins) to make one working laptop that the children co-owned.

Other initiatives focused on changing the narrative from the one initially provided by OLPC – that laptops were rugged enough to even be thrown around – to one that emphasized their fragility and the responsibility of students or families in preventing breakage. During fieldwork in 2010, Paraguay Educa embarked on a campaign publicizing how to care for XO laptops, detailing under what conditions the laptops should be used (sitting down, the laptop resting on a solid surface, plugged in if possible), how to clean them, and how to do simple diagnostics. The NGO’s trainers showed videos on the topic to students, and some teachers created and hung posters about how to care for XOs in their classrooms. The training sessions for teachers in the second phase of the project, who received second-generation XOs (with a 4GB hard drive and a better trackpad) in 2011, emphasized not OLPC’s message about the ruggedness of the laptops but their fragility and the expense of repairs. While it was too early to assess the results of this campaign in 2010, of note here is that it departed from the story often told by OLPC and the press about the laptops to one based on what was happening to laptops on the ground. Along these lines, one of the more enthusiastic laptop users encountered during fieldwork was also one of the most fastidious and had independently concluded that the laptops needed to be cared for. She carefully swabbed her keypad and trackpad with an ethanol solution every day and exhorted her sixthgrade classmates to do the same. Breakdown of laptops did lead to collaborative technology use – but not particularly the kind that OLPC, or students, really wanted. In the classroom, some teachers had students without working laptops pair up with those who did to do laptop work, but these students were often relegated to observation rather than active participation. Some children with broken laptops were able to borrow a laptop from a family member or (less commonly) a friend who rarely used theirs, though their use of the borrowed machine was generally more circumscribed than use of their own laptops would be, as the lender and borrower sought to balance memory usage, program installation or deinstallation, and general care for the still-working machine. Moreover, since the lender had to reclaim their machine at least for classroom use and assignments, the borrower generally lacked the complete freedom with the borrowed machine that they would have with their own machine – or, in some cases, got the lender in trouble by deleting needed software or finished assignments. But more often, students with broken laptops just did not use a laptop anymore. Practices of Repair in Paraguay

Though the leaders of OLPC hoped that children could do repairs themselves, almost all repairs were done by the NGO Paraguay Educa’s teacher trainers or their technical support team, which consisted of two full-time staff members and a number of part-time volunteers from a local university. Some repairs, such as software re-installation, power cable splicing, and checking for loose connectors, could be done on-site at the schools, each of which the team visited once a week.

Some students and a few teachers took interest in these repairs, and the repair staff members were often surrounded by a cluster of students as they fixed laptops. A few teachers and students learned some basic diagnostics this way – one enterprising teacher offered a cable-splicing service for 5000 guaranies ($1), and one student made a point of getting the latest software from the repair staff and installing it himself on his friends’ computers, though this often unfortunately overwrote all of their personal projects. Interestingly, most of the students who engaged with the repair staff were boys. Though several girls interviewed were just as interested in their laptops as the most interested boys, they had less interest in repair, labeling it as a “boy’s activity,” citing their shyness with the all-male repair staff, or saying they preferred to prevent breakage as reasons for not engaging. Even when female teacher trainers (or the author, also female) tried to engage them in repair, they were not interested. Paraguay Educa’s programming staff, which was quite skilled (even pushing software updates upstream to the official worldwide software distribution) and sometimes included international volunteers, also occasionally took on some repair and diagnostic work to discover software bugs to fix. They worked almost entirely at one particular school, taking about a day a week of one sixth-grade class to install new versions of the software and observe for bugs. The director of this school was the most outspoken in her support of the project, even incorporating it into her school’s charter (and then trying to claim a greater share of scarce project resources in exchange). The international volunteer from OLPC who overlapped with several months of this fieldwork was even more proactive. He encouraged students, boys and girls alike (though girls were often shy with him), to learn to do basic hardware diagnostics – in effect running an informal repair clinic in the classroom, though in observations, such repair activities only happened hesitantly with his direct intervention and encouragement. He was moreover unique in this activity; other Paraguay Educa employees, while not avoiding students, also did not usually encourage them to become involved to that degree. Almost all repairs that required a replacement part could not be done on-site, and required the repair staff to first wait for repair parts to be available (sometimes a long wait, as demand for some parts, especially screens and chargers, outstripped supply), and then to collect the cost of the part (sold at-cost to students) from the student’s family – if they could afford it – before they could make the repair. After the cost was paid, they took the computer back to their office, did the repair, updated the software, and returned the computer to the child in a subsequent visit to their school. Sometimes long waits would lead to confusion and frustration on the part of students and teachers, who thought their laptops had been permanently confiscated when in reality they were just waiting for repair parts. And if families couldn’t afford repair parts, as many rural families in particular could not, another site of socioeconomic division would emerge as laptops were relegated to the backs of closets or tops of shelves, reduced to “bricks.”

CASE STUDY 2. FIXIT CLINIC AND PUBLIC SITES OF FACILITATED REPAIR

We have seen the complications that can arise from breakage and in repairing products designed to be easily repaired. What of products not necessarily designed for repair, but embedded in worlds with ample resources and expertise? To further explore contemporary landscapes of repair, we now delve into a world of nails, screwdrivers, and multimeters in urban repair clinics like the Fixit Clinic in the California East Bay. These community-supported events were created to help average consumers fix and learn to fix their broken products, such as an iPhone with a shattered screen, a toaster without heat, or a pair of old blue jeans ripped down the backside. Like the OLPC project in Paraguay, the organizers aimed to encourage learning through electronics tinkering which, as we will see, became difficult to support in practice. The Material Infrastructure of the Fixit Clinic

In contrast to the limited material access in Paraguay, more expertise and infrastructure were available in the repair events in the Bay Area and more repair occurred as a result. The Fixit Clinic, our primary site of investigation, is a site of facilitated repair based in Albany, California, a city just east of San Francisco. Peter, an MIT engineering graduate, founded the project in late 2009 after years of trying to coordinate a free space with the requisite technical competencies to facilitate it. He had originally tried to partner with a local electronics dealer but found that the idea of teaching repair skills to the general public threatened the store’s key demographic, the trade workers whose livelihoods depended on for-profit repair services. Eventually Peter found an available community space in Albany through local contacts and recruited his first repair volunteer through his conversations with the electronics store. Since that time, Peter and his repair volunteers, or “coaches,” have hosted more than fifty events in libraries, community centers, museums and hackerspaces (community-operated workspaces, often focused on electronics tinkering) across the Bay Area and beyond, including Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Massachusetts. The events operated as “pop-up” affairs, with anywhere from ten to two hundred visitors and three to thirty repair-savvy volunteers descending on donated spaces with broken items in hand. Volunteers reported enjoying showing and telling visitors how to tinker with and interrogate mass-produced items, helping them take apart electronic devices, identify broken or missing parts, and understand the mechanisms underneath. Over the past year, Peter’s Fixit Clinic has become part of a growing network of parallel sites with such names as the Fixer’s Collective (New York City), the Restart Project (London), and the Repair Cafe (Netherlands). While Peter named the Fixit Clinic for its emphasis on diagnosis, he admitted that his approach was largely aspirational. “We’re going to try to fix it,” Peter explained, “but it’s not clear we’re going to be able to.” As his work reveals, the viability a fix is not dependent on the product alone, but on the many factors surrounding its use and repair, including the expertise of the volunteers, the amount of leisure time available, the ease with which the issue

could be diagnosed, and the parts and tools coaches and visitors had available. These events present a case of extending the use of products not necessarily designed for repair to reveal tensions within: reuse versus recycling, serendipity over planning, and the promotion of technical expertise. Locating Expertise and Participation

What it meant to restore or maintain an item not only depended on the owner’s experience with the thing but also the nature and distribution of expertise at the Clinic. As in Paraguay, it was the facilitators of repair (the coaches), and not the participating owners of the devices, that were most often observed enacting repair through tinkering and disassembly. At one Fixit Clinic in the Richmond area of San Francisco, three sisters in their early twenties brought in a broken sewing machine they had picked up on the side of the road. Once plugged in and turned on, the machine ran at a snail’s pace and eventually stopped. Guided by E., a female coach and retired teacher, the sisters spent three hours taking the machine apart, oiling its parts, and trying to adjust a dial that seemed to have broken off. When E. decided the fix was beyond her, S., a male coach with a background in engineering, suggested replacing the purportedly missing part with a short peg. He inspected the machine and found three holes on the inside of the dial. To S., the holes looked as though they had once fit small pegs that enabled the dial to turn and adjust the motor. Taking S.’s advice, the sisters found a peg-like part that matched the diameter of the existing hole, picked up a screwdriver, and proceeded to twist the screw into the hole. Forty minutes later, after several passes between sisters, the screw was ground well inside the hole. When the sisters returned the dial to its place on the sewing machine, the result was unexpected: the machine was unable to move at all. The machine, now less functional than when it entered the Clinic, was a mystery. What did it look like before it broke? Out of breath and depleted of ideas, the sisters decided to return home and bring back a second broken sewing machine they had acquired, which they hoped to use as a model for how the plastic dial should look and behave. While the sisters were away, J., a male participant with a background in engineering joined the sisters’ table and began inspecting the mechanism for turning the dial. He took apart the machine from the opposite end, unscrewed the compartment on the underside, and ultimately discovered a bobbin (a small spool of thread) rolling around in the bottom of the machine. With the bobbin removed, the machine suddenly began running smoothly. This successful fix is worth considering for the kinds of expertise it brings to light. Despite their notable investments, neither the sisters nor the coaches were responsible for fixing the machine. The eventual fix was far simpler than anyone had suspected: removing a loose bobbin. Many fixes were like this, accomplished without owners’ involvement or without their understanding of how or why a particular part failed. Disassembling and reassembling a device, and perhaps using

an air spray to clear the inside of dust in between, would lead to mysterious functionality or new problems, some of which remained impossible to diagnose. Messing with a machine and exploring its possibilities for disassembly was the primary mode of repair, highlighting the value of tinkering and improvisation in the repair process.

Ultimately my surreptitious goal, which I conveyed to you the very first day, is that we’re ultimately trying to get people to a place were they can help to make better policy choices. That we’re demystifying technology so that when technology comes up as a societal issue people can participate in that dialogue more coherently than they’re able to now.

Beyond the serendipitous character of the fix, the distribution of expertise that led to it was highly gendered. In the above vignette, it was the two male participants with engineering backgrounds, not the sisters or female coach, who decided the machine’s fate, even when some of their suggestions were ultimately less critical to the fix. The fact that E. left the scene after designating her level of technical skill insufficient – though she could have discovered the bobbin herself if she had disassembled the machine, as J. had done – was representative of the majority of female participants observed passing work onto male volunteers or waiting for assistance before diving into disassembly, ultimately underestimating their mechanical competencies. Among the male participants, J. eventually fixed the machine, but S. provided advice that led to hours of trying to find and install a set of replacement pegs that never existed. The multiple interceptions of repair work by men at the Clinic were examples of broader patterns of gendered expertise and technical confidence in which some work is seen to appeal to, and align with, male over female volunteers and attendees. Peter noted,

The notion that repair work, and facilitated repair in particular, has the power to educate and transform how people see and understand technology was a common theme among coaches and organizers of the events, and was sometimes taken up by participants as well. At a Fixit Clinic in Minneapolis, a visitor brought broken antique radio that he and his girlfriend found at a thrift store. When they saw the radio, they immediately plugged it in and turned it on and the first sound they heard was an Otis Redding song that they both loved. After buying the radio and bringing it home, his girlfriend dropped it, rendering it dysfunctional. Bringing the radio to the Fixit Clinic, the visitor explained that his girlfriend’s birthday was two weeks away and he wanted to repair it for her. “When he told that story,” Peter later explained, “every coach was like: I want to work on that!” There were as many as five coaches vying to fix the broken radio, while Peter stood at the other side of the room already plotting to take a modern radio and somehow transplant it into the antique case as a last resort to get the radio functioning. After considerable tinkering, the Fixit Clinic coaches got the radio to play again. Several days after the Clinic, the visitor later emailed Peter to explain that before he gave the radio to his girlfriend he had checked it, and the radio was no longer working. The man opened up the radio, found that a speaker wire had gotten loose, and proceeded to fix the wire on his own. “So he was able to get it working without having to bring it to another Fixit Clinic,” Peter exclaimed. According to Peter, attending the Clinic had given the man the confidence to take on his own repair. Yet, as in Paraguay, such independent repair work was uncommon (only three independent repair experiences were observed during nine months of fieldwork).

If two or three women come to each Fixit Clinic – you know, women, because that’s what they are [laughs] – and they repair fabric things there, and broken sewing machines come in, they take the lead in trying to repair those. And if not we know the other Fixit coaches will just come in. In practice, the care of fabric, clothing, and jewelry fell to women, while male volunteers and attendees tended to take on electronics repair, reflecting the work of the tech-savvy international volunteer from OLPC and female students’ relative disinterest in repair. Though organizers’ aims were progressive, they still distinguished craftwork from mechanical repair and fell back on gendered divisions of labor. Narratives of Empowerment & Sustainability

One key objective of the Fixit Clinic and other repair events was to enable learning through restoration: returning new screens to damaged iPhones, restoring heat to broken toasters, and patching a pair of tattered pants all while instilling an interest in technology development and innovation. At the Fixit Clinic, as for OLPC, repair work was seen to enable technological learning through tinkering with electronics. This motivation expanded to include ideas of technical empowerment – knowing more about technology and making more informed choices around technology as a result – and sustainability – advancing reuse over recycling and disposal. In the case of empowerment, broken items became byproducts of diagnosis as well as materials to work with and absorb, offering new opportunities for reinvention. Peter explained:

At repair events, rather than telling ‘war stories’ (such as the trials and tribulations that Orr’s [28] copy machine repair technicians shared over lunch), coaches instead retold uplifting stories such as the radio gift as a way of rehearsing and reinforcing a desired narrative of empowerment. When the narrative did not match up, the story was not retold. One story rarely mentioned, for example, was of the many participants who came to fixing events for the free repair services rather than for the chance to learn about repair. For example, at a Repair Cafe in Palo Alto, an elderly man and his wife had brought in a slow-to-heat toaster he was given by his ex-wife. In use for over fifty years, the toaster was on its last legs; its mechanism for lowering the toast had weakened. Though his current wife was eager to see it die, the toaster symbolized memories the man was not ready to give up. The repair event was an opportunity to keep these memories alive, and all it took was waiting in line. During their time at the Cafe, the couple moved between a few sets of volunteers before someone discovered that the existing spring had loosened. The

toaster’s performance improved when a volunteer used the same spring at a quarter of its length, creating the necessary tension to lower and raise the toast. The couple had little to do with the fix but watched as the toaster became functional once again. As in Paraguay, empowering participants to do repairs themselves was an ideal state that rarely emerged in practice. Linked to this idealization of repair were reflections on sustainability, consumerism, and mass manufacturing. Event attendees would comment on the environmental impact of fixing devices and organizers were eager to promote sustainable processes of repair and reuse over recycling. Before launching her events, for example, the founding organizer of the Netherlands based Repair Cafe had been a journalist focused on education and then, changing focus, environmental policy. But for her journalism was not enough: I no longer wanted to be an outsider or just a neutral describer. But I wanted to do something myself. And I wanted to really add something. And this was what turned out to be the Repair Cafe. The organizer described feeling a “sense of urgency” as she learned of the dangers of consumerism and energy use to environmental sustainability. This kind of urgency could be felt at multiple levels and in many capacities, as it related to local events and traumatic changes. The founder of the New York Fixer’s Collective explained: We wanted to take care of ourselves and not rely on experts for our needs. And when something big happens, like 9/11, people tend to want to come together. And just human contact is important. And, you know, you can’t get that by Googling your answers online. Even as devices were removed from participants’ hands, the act of tinkering with technology and taking pleasure in its deconstruction was seen by the volunteers and event organizers to change how people approached not only their devices but also technology design more broadly. Repair work incited forms of innovation that were practical and collaborative – such as the three people helping to fix the Sunbeam toaster or the six people diagnosing the sewing machine. Despite this appearance of cooperative repair and reinvention, during observations, fixes were often born out of individual tinkering: one coach reusing a wobbly spring, or one volunteer discovering a loose bobbin. This tension between collaboration and individual work, as we have seen in the OLPC program, reveals how repair becomes a privileged act, supported by technical expertise, and, in doing so, becomes political, aimed at shifting how people learn and care for their environment. In this regard, repair work and its ideological aims become embedded in networks of practice that are local and specific. DISCUSSION

Through stories of broken devices and tricky fixes – repairing things not meant to be repaired or not being able to repair things that were – our fieldwork has highlighted some of the complicated, contingent aspects of technology care and repair. We have seen that on the one hand, communities lacking re-

pair infrastructure – even when they do have expertise – may be stymied by a device designed (or at least intended) to be repairable; while on the other hand, communities with access to a high degree of expertise and repair infrastructure can at times overcome even planned obsolescence. In Paraguay, the material realities of the machine and the environment, perceptions of the usability and usefulness of the XO laptops, limited access to repair parts, and socioeconomic and gendered factors all shaped the laptops’ repairability. Who required, paid for, and conducted repairs were all fraught categories, revealing persistent underlying inequalities and challenging the individualist narrative of the empowered child tinkerers able to repair their own laptops. While OLPC did attempt to specifically design to enable repair, the issues that still came up suggest that designing for repair is more complicated than it may initially appear. In public repair events, by contrast, tinkering and customization could at times recover items that may have been designed to be discarded, not replaced. Though the work to achieve a fix was often far simpler than participants or coaches expected, it was still treated as privileged expertise, accomplished by the coaches rather than the participants. Despite this division of labor, the process of learning to fix consumer electronics was cast as political action, aiming to improve environmental awareness, inform policy-making at local and global scales, and ultimately promote greater empowerment of consumers and more environmentally responsible futures. While there are differences between our two cases, there are also a number of material, social, and ideological parallels that help us understand repair in practice. In particular, both cases illustrate aspects of what we term negotiated endurance. By this we mean the ways that maintenance, care, and repair are negotiated – often collaboratively – in use and the meaningmaking associated with use, rather than the meanings prespecified by designers. In both case studies, we saw that the process of breakdown and repair was not something that device designers or event planners could effectively script ahead of time. Based on these observations, we argue that designers’ intentions to plan or divert such outcomes can often be rendered ineffective without accounting for the specific material, economic and cultural infrastructures that are at play in use. Although these results may point to a hopelessness in designing to enable (or disable) repair-work, as material realities disrupt design intentions, we feel that there is hope, and our findings should not be taken as a reason to abandon efforts to design to enable repair. Like those involved in repair – motivated in various ways by both ideology and necessity – we see breakdown and repair as integral parts of technology use. Moreover, despite the current trajectory toward even more disposable clothing and electronics, we believe that repair practices may well become more important as resources become more difficult to come by, as fewer can afford replacement, as landfills overflow, and as knowledge of what happens downstream when technology is abandoned becomes more widespread. While London hypothesized that planned

obsolescence would drive the economy out of depression by stimulating spending, here we promote attending to repair activities as a source of new ideas and different opportunities for development in design and engineering. As such, we turn to our case studies and the repair literature to highlight the importance of negotiated endurance. We highlight four themes that illustrate this concept as it relates to the CSCW community: the negotiated identification of breakdown, the collaborative definitions of worth in determining what to repair, the fraught nature of collaborative expertise that repair practices surfaced, and the gendered stakes of repair at play throughout. Each of these themes highlights material, social and ideological parallels between our case studies. Negotiated Identification of Breakdown

One shared theme across our sites of repair is the different kinds of breakage that people not only recognized but also made use of while working with technology. For example, breakage was not viewed as a singular phenomenon; instead, definitions of breakdown lay on a continuum. Some breakage existed without rendering a device completely unusable, yet could still be significant to the user (such as the missing keys or difficult trackpad of the XO laptops, or the Sunbeam toaster that moved slowly as it retracted). Some aspects that were understood by participants as ‘breakage,’ indeed, had come with the device, such as the XO’s small hard drive or the bonded batteries in some consumer devices. The emergence of particular ideas of breakage also may have a complicated relationship with expected lifespans of products. While the fieldwork in Paraguay was not after the XO laptops’ expected five-year lifespan, the students using the laptops nonetheless did not have much hope for an upgrade after that time, meaning that these laptops will likely be asked to perform long beyond this timeframe. On the other hand, products that might still be under warrantee at the Fixit Clinic were sometimes turned away with advice to try the manufacturer first. We also sometimes saw that breakage could be rehabilitated without repair in the conventional sense through processes of “upcycling” or reinvention, where creative reuse enabled participants to re-envision discarded things, such as the antique radio housing a modern one or one working XO laptop made from two broken ones. As a dimension of negotiated endurance, the emergence of conceptions of breakdown in practice rather than being predicted ahead of time illustrates some of the complications for repair-work in practice. Collaborative Definitions of “Worth”

In both of our case studies, we found that what was deemed worth repairing was tied to the collective practices in which the devices were entrenched, including the repair’s economic costs, socioeconomic constraints, demands on time and effort, and social rewards. In Paraguay, many students’ families’ lack of disposable income made repairs unaffordable, even when repair parts were available. As a result, laptop repairs were generally less worthy than other pressing household expenses for which income

was already reserved. Moreover, because most leisure activity on the laptops involved using them as a portal to music, videos, and videogames, many parents and teachers involved with the project initially saw the laptops as a “mere toy,” not something worth taking care of or repairing. While it might be tempting to blame this framing on the fact that the laptops were given out to students and teachers for free, it was more the lack of initial messages of the expense of the laptop and its potential value in the classroom, combined with this collaborative sense-making, that led to this effect. Indeed, when Paraguay Educa noticed their non-use and breakage and started emphasizing their value in the classroom, opinions on the laptops’ worth changed dramatically from a “mere toy” to a “learning device,” even though usage patterns had not changed as much. Participants in repair clinics had generally already decided that a device was worthy of repair – or at least investigation – by just showing up with it, though at times their presence was more due to curiosity than by the perceived value of what they brought. Still, stories of worth being collaboratively-defined abounded. While the antique radio provided an example of a formerly low-worth product taking on significance for a couple and then the Fixit coaches, there were also cases when coaches would advise against fixing objects, particularly when the object was cheap and the repair difficult (e.g. repairing the delicate wires of a phone charger) or if the device was expensive and “official” repair might be free (e.g. broken iPhones that could be taken to Apple’s Genius Bar). In these cases, coaches steered participants toward particular conceptions of worth centered around repair. These collaborative definitions of worth arose as a second facet of negotiated endurance. The Fraught Nature of Collaborative Expertise

In our two case studies, we found interesting negotiations around what constituted collaborative repair-work, which involved negotiating between repair ideals and practices on the ground. Overall, the notion of collaborative expertise did differ from commonly-held ideas of expertise as guarded and separated from everyday use – and, as Fixit founder Peter found, could even be threatened by it. For example, while the process of fixing a car is often considered “servicing” and the main points of collaboration are dropping off the car, agreeing to repairs, picking the car up, and paying, the Fixit coaches, as well as the one volunteer in Paraguay, wanted repair to be a deeply participatory endeavor and invited attendees to adjust and refigure electronic devices much like one might fiddle with a recipe – and work with each other to do so. At the same time, we saw that in both case studies, those who actually diagnosed most problems and carried out most repairs were rarely the owners of the device (the students in Paraguay or the participants in the Fixit Clinics). Though in both case studies the participants were meant to be more involved, they often gladly ceded control over the repair to the staff or coaches with the most experience. Thus, though these case studies were meant to challenge patterns of expertise and could raise interesting discussions about privileged work and

paid labor as well as about the tendency to replace rather than repair, they ultimately reified notions of expertise. Still, repair work in the Fixit Clinic and OLPC classrooms afforded opportunities for socialization and tinkering, even as they ultimately reified notions of expertise as the coaches or repair staff accomplished many of the repairs themselves (whether by proxy or directly). In this way, these forms of hands-on engagement both promoted and contested the collaborative character of expertise. The task of diagnosing and repairing was passed from coaches/staff to participants, and then back to the coaches/staff. Expertise began with an ideological stance (the importance of technological learning), but was then shaped by the social relations that emerge between device owners and the repair coaches/staff, tech-savvy individuals enabled by the material training they received. As such, repair expertise is a fraught collaborative endeavor, exposing a third dimension of negotiated endurance. The Gendered Stakes of Repair

A final theme we observed concerned the broader sociological stakes of repair. At public sites of repair, such as the Fixit Clinic, as well as the classrooms, schoolyards, and homes of XO laptop use, we have seen how repair became a privileged practice, relying on infrastructures of diagnostic and repair parts, socioeconomic constraints in defining worth, and unevenly-available expertise, all of which may be easy to take for granted until they are absent. Repair did not always become “empowering” for users in these settings. Rather, it could become a bottleneck to a working laptop, an obstacle in the classroom, a divider between rich and poor. These sociological stakes are particularly important in projects like those described in our case studies, where one of the goals was to democratize technology use and repair. The complications that arose despite these best intentions highlight how complicated and stubborn these inequalities can be. In particular, we want to take this opportunity to critically examine some of the gendered implications of repair work in our two case studies. Despite their progressive aims for inclusivity, both the Fixit Clinic and the non-governmental organization Paraguay Educa inadvertently prompted participants to enact traditional gender roles by selectively taking up and rejecting the work of repair in gendered ways, and not challenging the assumptions that participants brought to the table as well. In the Fixit Clinics, female coaches may be seen – and to see themselves – as lacking the competencies of their male counterparts and move toward “low-tech” processes of sewing and mending, which can often be seen as less skilled and less important [8]. In classrooms with OLPC laptops, female students were more careful with their laptops and shied away from repairs performed by the all-male repair staff and even female trainers (and the author). This reticence, and the fact that it was rarely challenged, reflected established Paraguayan gender dynamics that – much like gender norms in the United States – gave boys permission to perform both rambunctiousness (leading to breakage) and technical expertise (in repair).

At both sites, by articulating differences between material practices of craft and technology tinkering, participants distinguished male and female competencies and reaffirmed divisions between gendered metaphors for technology design, e.g., low-tech and high-tech, soft and hard, gentle and rough, shy and fearless, and so on. This echoes similar findings of other researchers regarding the gendered nature of tinkering, craft-work, and repair (e.g. [8,12]) and beyond (e.g. [25]), as well as gendered patterns of expertise in computing and engineering cultures more generally (e.g. [21,24,29,45]). Our account corroborates this literature and extends it to two new sites of repair-work that highlight the stubborn nature of these inequalities, particularly the ways that gender norms are collaboratively reinforced in practice. CONCLUSION

Building on a lively tradition of infrastructure studies, this paper has presented a picture of repair that highlights its political stakes and social contexts. Our two cases have exposed instances of design for repair in and through practice, from programs aimed at increasing technological access and expertise overseas to local sites of technological learning concerned with enhancing public awareness of environmental impacts and technological possibility. Our discussion describes four themes that emerged from both case studies: the cultural emergence of breakdown, collaborative definitions of worth, the fraught nature of collaborative expertise, and the gendered stakes of repair. All of these are part of what we call negotiated endurance, in which the lifecycles of the devices were not determined ahead of time but negotiated during use around these four themes. On the material level, manufacturing limitations, access to repair parts and infrastructure, warrantee status, and even the composition of roads factored into the maintenance and repair process, whether enabling or stymieing repair. On the social level, what was first considered “broken” and then determined to be “worth” repairing was something that depended on context, including access to disposable income, perceived value of the object, and perceived ease of repairs. Moreover, those who actually diagnosed most problems and carried out most repairs were the repair staff or volunteers rather than the owners of the device (the students in Paraguay or the participants in the Fixit Clinics). This last point also relates to ideological parallels between the cases: both OLPC and the Fixit Clinic hoped that participants would repair their own devices, finding empowerment along the way, and both ‘designed’ with this in mind (OLPC a laptop, Fixit Clinic an environment or experience). However, on-the-ground negotiations complicated these ideologies and brought out hidden constraints and biases that could thwart them, such as the gendered nature of repair in practice. All together, these parallels undergird negotiated endurance, the work by which different actors – including consumers, community organizers, and others – drive the ongoing use, maintenance, and repair of a given technology around the different sociocultural and socioeconomic forces at play.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was made possible by the gracious assistance of our participants. We also thank Fred Turner and Lilly Irani for their feedback on both of our projects, as well as the Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program (HPDTRP) at Stanford for funding research at the Fixit Clinic. REFERENCES

1. ABC Color staff. El proyecto “Una laptop por niño” comenzará a funcionar en Paraguay. ABC Digital, 2008. 2. Blevis, E. Sustainable Interaction Design: Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse. Proc. CHI ’07, ACM Press, (2007), 503. 3. Brand, S. How Buildings Learn. 1994. 4. Burrell, J. Invisible Users: Youth in the Internet Cafes of Urban Ghana. MIT Press, 2012. 5. Cellan-Jones, R. Negroponte - Throwing the Laptop. YouTube (video for BBC News), 2008. http://youtube.com/ watch?v=-tqFEzDou6s. 6. Crawford, M.B. Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the Value of Work. Penguin, 2010. 7. Dant, T. The Work of Repair: Gesture, Emotion and Sensual Knowledge. Sociological Research Online 15, 3 (2010), 7. 8. Dawkins, N. Do-It-Yourself: The Precarious Work and Postfeminist Politics of Handmaking (in) Detroit. Utopian Studies 22, 2 (2011), 261–284. 9. Derndorfer, C. Plan Ceibal Expands New Repair System to Address High XO Breakage Rates. OLPC News, 2011. http://olpcnews.com/countries/uruguay/plan_ceibal_expands _new_repair_system_to_address_high_breakage_rates.html. 10. Derndorfer, C. Plan Ceibal’s 4-Year Cost Increases From $276 to $400. OLPC News, 2012. http://olpcnews.com/countries/uruguay/plan_ceibals_4_year _cost_increases_from_276_to_400.html. 11. DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., Brynjarsdóttir, H. Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. Proc. CHI ‘10, ACM Press. 1975–1984. 12. Dunbar-Hester, C. Geeks, Meta-Geeks, and Gender Trouble: Activism, Identity, and Low-power FM Radio. Social Studies of Science 38, 2 (2008), 201–232. 13. Federal Research Division. Country Profile: Paraguay. 2005. 14. Graham, S., Thrift, N. Out of Order: Understanding Repair and Maintenance. Theory, Culture & Society 24, 3 (2007), 1–25.

18. Jackson, S.J., Pompe, A., Krieshok, G. Repair Worlds: Maintenance, Repair, and ICT for Development in Rural Namibia. (2012). 19. Jackson, S.J. Rethinking Repair: Breakdown, Maintenance and Repair in Media and Technology Studies Today. In Media Meets Technology. MIT Press, 2013. 20. Kelty, C. Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Duke University Press, 2008. 21. Kotamraju, N.P. Playing stupid, caring for users, and putting on a good show: Feminist acts in usability study work. Interacting with Computers 23, 5 (2011), 439–446. 22. London, B. Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence. 1932. 23. Maanen, J. V. Escape from Modernity: On the ethnography of repair and the repair of ethnography. Human Studies 13, 3 (1990), 275–284. 24. Nafus, D. ‘Patches don’t have gender’: What is not open in open source software. New Media & Society 14, 4 (2011), 669–683. 25. Oldenziel, R. Boys and Their Toys: The Fisher Body Craftsman’s Guild, 1930-1968, and the Making of a Male Technical Domain. Technology and Culture 38, 1 (2008), 60–96. 26. OLPC staff. About the Laptop: Hardware. OLPC Website, 2007. http://one.laptop.org/about/hardware. 27. OLPC staff. OLPC Principles and Basic Information. OLPC Wiki, 2012. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Principles_and _Basic_information . 28. Orr, J.E. Talking about Machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Cornell University Press, 1996. 29. Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., Stienstra, M. Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values 29, 1 (2004), 30–63. 30. Papert, S. Digital Development: How the $100 Laptop Could Change Education. USINFO Webchat, via OLPC Talks, 2006. http://olpctalks.com/seymour_papert/seymour_ papert_usinfo.html. 31. Pilgrim, M. Greasemonkey Hacks: Tips & Tools for Remixing the Web with Firefox. O’Reilly Media, 2009. 32. Plan Ceibal. Síntesis del informe de monitoreo del estado del parque de XO a abril de 2010. 2010.

15. Harper, D. Working Knowledge: Skill and community in a small shop. University Of Chicago Press, 1987.

33. Rieger, B. From People’s Car to New Beetle: The Transatlantic Journeys of the Volkswagen Beetle. The Journal of American History 97, 1 (2010), 91–115.

16. Hencke, C.R. The Mechanics of Workplace Order: Toward a sociology of repair. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 44, (1999), 55–81.

34. Rosner, D., Bean, J. Learning from IKEA Hacking: “I’m Not One to Decoupage a Tabletop and Call It a Day.” Proc. CHI '09, ACM Press.

17. Jackson, S.J., Pompe, A., Krieshok, G. Things Fall Apart: Maintenance, Repair, and Technology for Education Initiatives in Rural Namibia. (2010), 83–90.

35. Rosner, D.K. The material practices of collaboration. Proc. CSCW ’12, ACM Press, 1155.

36. Salamano, I., Pagés, P., Baraibar, A., Ferro, H., Pérez, L., Pérez, M. Monitoreo y evaluación educativa del Plan Ceibal. 2009.

41. Vota, W. Joel Stanley’s OLPC Job: Baking, Breaking Invincible XO-1. OLPC News, 2007. http://olpcnews.com/ hardware/screen/olpc_job_breaking_xo-1.html.

37. Star, S.L., Strauss, A. Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 8, 1-2 (1999), 9–39.

42. Vota, W. XO Laptop Price Increase & Maybe Decrease. OLPC News, 2009. http://olpcnews.com/sales_talk/ price/xo_laptop_price_increase_204.html.

38. Suchman, L.A. Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.

43. Vota, W. Negroponte Throws XO on Stage Floor “Do this with a Dell” - Everyone a Twitter. OLPC News, 2009. http://olpcnews.com/forum/index.php?topic=4597.0.

39. Torey, C., Churchill, E.F., Mcdonald, D. Learning How: The search for craft knowledge on the internet. Proc. CHI ’09, ACM Press.

44. WageIndicator Team. Salario Mínimo: Paraguay. Tu Salario, 2011. http://tusalario.org/paraguay/Portada/salario/elsalario-minimo-mensual-es-de-1.341.775. 45. Wajcman, J. Technofeminism. Polity, 2004.

40. US State Department staff, Bureau of Democracy Human Rights & Labor. 2008 Human Rights Report: Paraguay. 2009.

46. Warschauer, M. and Ames, M.G. Can One Laptop per Child Save the World’s Poor? Journal of International Affairs 64, 1 (2010), 33–51.

Bibliocircuitry and the Design of the Alien Everyday Charity Hancock, Clifford Hichar, Carlea Holl-Jensen, Kari Kraus, Cameron Mozafari, and Kathryn Skutlin

Abstract

This essay describes, models, and advocates for the role of reflective design in bibliography and textual studies. Popularized by Donald Norman, reflective design promotes critical inquiry over usability and exploratory prototyping over fully realized productions. We highlight four projects undertaken by the authors that embody reflective design, including three that explore the crossed codes of print and electronic books. A larger aim of the essay is to position bibliotextual scholarship and pedagogy as design-oriented practices that can be used to imagine the future as well as reconstruct the past.

I n an online video about the role of tinkering in learning, Michael Smith-Welch, a leading figure in the Maker movement, shows an image of a vintage General Electric print advertisement from the early 20th century (Smith-Welch 2013). At the center of the ad are two refrigerators, one closed, the other open and well-stocked with food (Figure 1). Emblazoned above them are the words “The Finest Refrigerators General Electric Ever Built”. On either side is a captive audience of men and women dressed in formal evening wear gazing admiringly at them, unable to turn away. By way of unpacking this curious scene, Smith-Welch reminds us that once upon a time refrigerators were novel technologies, things to be marveled and exclaimed over rather than taken for granted. Today, he suggests, we do the same thing with our fancy 3D printers, shiny gadgets, and robotic vacuums: we marvel. “But that will go away,” Smith-Welch opines. “They will become part of our everyday life. And that’s great, but my point” — and here we come to his central thesis — “is to make sure they don’t quite disappear” (2013). Currently an artist-in-residence with the American Visionary Art Museum and part of the instructional team behind FutureMakers, a mobile makerspace, Smith-Welch has spent much of his career developing new Textual Cultures 8.1 (2013): 72–100. DOI: 10.14434/TCv8i1.5051.

C. Hancock et al. : Bibliocircuitry and the Design of the Alien Everyday | 73

Figure 1. Vintage General Electric print advertisement for the “Monitor-Top” refrigerator (1934). Source: http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/refrigerator-age.

learning technologies for kids and advocating for tinkering as a way of knowing. “Don’t let the computer disappear!” has become his mantra for expressing the conviction that new computational tools and platforms should be inspectable, modifiable, and programmable if they are to fulfill their educational promise. For that reason, their technical wizardry must remain visible, because the moment it disappears, the devices become impenetrable black boxes, closed to investigative reasoning. Smith-Welch’s distinction between visible and invisible technology can be usefully mapped onto the influential human-technology relationships defined by philosopher Don Ihde. In Ihde’s terminology, a transparent instrument or technology — one that recedes from view — gives rise to either an embodiment relation, in which the technology becomes an extension of the self (a hammer, a pair of eyeglasses) or a hermeneutic relation, in which the technology becomes a vehicle for displaying a conventionalized

74 | Textual Cultures 8.1 (2013)

notation or writing system (a thermometer, a literary text) that references the world (1990, 72–96). Embodiment relations allow us to see through a technology, while hermeneutic relations allow us to see with a technology (Pierce and Paulos 2011, 2406). Conversely, an intrusive technology — one in which the medium continually distracts us from the message, or the object relentlessly asserts its status as object — gives rise to an alterity relation. While alterity relations may sometimes be the consequence of technical malfunctioning or breakdown (e.g., the notorious “blue screen of death” displayed by the Windows operating system), they are just as often the product of fascination and curiosity, and thus frequently carry positive associations (Ihde’s example is the whimsy of a spinning top [1990, 100]). Alterity relations allow us to look at a technology, rather than through it or with it (Pierce and Paulos 2011, 2406). Smith-Welch’s argument, then, recast from this vantage point, is that alterity relations have a critical role to play in achieving technological fluency, and embodiment or hermeneutic relations may in some instances interfere with that. In this essay we apply Smith-Welch’s insights to the book as material artifact. In everyday contexts, printed books — like household appliances, old wallpaper, or the floorboards beneath our feet — “withdraw” from view, to invoke Ihde’s terminology (1990, 48). They do so principally by virtue of their familiarity: it is their very ordinariness that makes them invisible. The field of bibliotextual studies has partially overcome this limitation through recourse to history: when we take the long view, the instability of the book and the myriad forms it has assumed — clay tablet, papyrus scroll, codex manuscript, and e-device, to name a few — serve to radically defamiliarize it. History thus provides an extensive reservoir of diverse bibliographic models whose ongoing availability, when taken advantage of, can help restore alterity relations. Method plays a crucial role too. Physical bibliography, perhaps more than any other literary subdomain, is a hands-on discipline involving specialized instruments (collators, magnifying glasses, raking light); instructional materials (facsimile chain line paper and format sheets); and analytic techniques (examination and description of format, collation, typography, paper, binding, and illustrations). Book history courses frequently include not only lab exercises, but also studio exposure to bookbinding, printing, and papermaking. To study the book as a material object, then, is to make use of the hands. Such “tinker-centric pedagogy,” as Jentery Sayers calls it (2011, 279), deepens the alterity relation by enabling us to engage more fully with the thingness of books — with their tactility as much as their visual properties. The tactile experience draws on an expanded range of gestures and manual operations to reveal the secrets of the book’s material


composition: holding it up to the light, turning it upside down, pressing a magnifying glass to its surface, even physically dissecting it if the book in question is part of a teaching collection. Nor is apprehension limited to just sight and touch: the quest for book knowledge enlists all our senses. Nostalgic discourse surrounding the printed book often invokes smell, for example, and bibliographic lore is replete with mentions of the bibliophagi, or book-eaters, chewing and ingesting pulp.1 In this essay we introduce the practice of reflective design as a means of establishing alterity relations and working toward technological fluency in the domain of bibliography and textual studies. Reflective design complements the recent emphasis on critical making in the digital humanities: the embodying of ideas or arguments in things. Ian Bogost’s carpentry, Wolfgang Ernst’s media archaeology, and Bruce Sterling’s design fiction are all significant disciplinary touchstones. Part of the human-centered design philosophy of Donald Norman, reflective design foregrounds critical investigation over usability. In his classic book on emotional design, Norman situates reflective design within a tripartite system exemplified by three teapots that sit atop his kitchen shelf:

Figure 2. Norman’s teapots, each emphasizing a different design paradigm. From left to right: reflective, visceral, and behavioral design (From Norman 2004, 5). 1. On the bibliophagi, see Jackson 1950, 154–73.


Norman’s so-called “masochistic” teapot on the left is rendered perversely unusable by the position of the spout above the handle; the Nanna teapot in the middle combines charm and functionality; and the tilting teapot on the right — which involves temporarily leaning the pot backward to steep the tea leaves — is an exercise in studied usability. Adopting the terminology of reflective, visceral, and behavioral to refer to the predominant design orientation of each, Norman argues that “it is not possible to have a story about design without all three”. However disparate the teapots seem, taken together they speak to a coherent design philosophy; they combine an applied perspective (the behavioral dimension) with a more playful or provocative one (the reflective dimension) (Norman 2004, 5–6). The visceral dimension exemplified by the Nanna teapot brings beauty into the equation as well.2 The role of reflective design in this trio is key: it is what helps us discover fault lines in the objects, artifacts, or systems being explored — the location of a teapot’s spout or, say, the stitched binding that turns otherwise loose sheets of paper into books — and in doing so allows us to imagine them otherwise: to see them as alterable rather than immutable; as possibility spaces rather than rigid, inherited structures.3 It is this dimension of design that allows us to envision ourselves as creative agents of change. The subjunctive perspective enabled by reflective design — the ability to inhabit the possibility space of the “what-if?” — is an essential component of technological fluency. Defined by Jonathan Lukens and Carl DiSalvo as “the capability to understand, use, and assess technology beyond its rote application” (2012, 24), technological fluency is sharply distinguished from literacy: Fluency, in contrast to literacy, affords creativity. If I am literate in a language, I can read, write, and speak it, but if I am fluent in a language I can write poetry or a novel or use the language in ways the literate cannot. Technological fluency is the ability to be creative with technology; it is a vital component in a participatory culture in which the design, use, and evaluation of technologies is an open process that goes beyond the purview of experts. (24) 2. This paragraph and the one that follows originally appeared in modified form in Kr aus 2012. 3. This cognitive view of creativity is elaborated in Byrne 2007, 194–6. Byrne adopts the language of “faultlines” and “joints” in reality to characterize the counterfactual process, which she in turn borrows from Douglas Hoftstadter.


Drawing on the National Research Council report “Being Fluent with Information Technology” (1999), Lukens and DiSalvo point to the importance of adopting a future-oriented perspective and “anticipating and adapting to changing technologies” (2012, 27). Within the context of bibliotextual studies, reflective design not only disarms complacency, allowing us to see the book-as-artifact anew, but also foreshadows alternative conceptions of the book. Common labels that have emerged for such prefigurative models or representations include “design fiction” (Bosch 2012), “speculative design” (Lukens and DiSalvo 2012) and “imaginary media” (Parikka 2012, 41–62). In our usage, reflective design may be viewed independently of these practices, or as a natural adjunct to them. As previously stated, one of its primary purposes is to defamiliarize an object by making its constituent parts, attributes, properties, or affordances visible and explorable, thereby revealing potential sites of change. Reflective design can also act as a staging area for design fiction, a space where essential preparatory and experimental work can be carried out. In the sections that follow, we introduce four prototype projects undertaken by the co-authors as part of Kraus’s fall 2012 seminar, “Book 2.0: The History of the Book and the Future of Reading”. Each project shows reflective design at work, reminding us that prevailing notions of “bookness” aren’t hard-coded into reality, but are instead susceptible to change. Each also extends the tradition of critical making that has long characterized History of the Book studies, as well as some strands of textual scholarship, such as the deformative practices of Jerome McGann and Lisa Samuels. And finally, three of the projects can be interpreted to varying degrees as artifactual rejoinders to so-called digital dualism: the fallacy that analog and digital are entirely distinct and separate domains (Jurgenson 2011). Both Hichar and Mozafari’s books, for example, are intricate cross-wirings of atoms and bits. While physical books serve as the base or substrate of their designs, their functionality is enhanced by the addition of miniature computers known as microcontrollers, which transform the books into programmable media. Adopting a different set of strategies, Hancock and Skutlin’s print book includes sections that visually imitate the user interface of Twitter, the popular microblogging service, thus blending the semiotic codes of page and screen. Such impersonation occurs frequently in transmedia storytelling, where media — like characters — often serve as doppelgangers of one another.4 Although such a print rendition of Twitter 4. Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) and other transmedia fictions are often structured by one medium “composting” another, to borrow a metaphor from Bruce


lacks interactivity, it required the authors to compose text in units of 140 characters or less each, a constraint that proved to be highly generative. As used in our title, the term “bibliocircuitry” is meant to capture the spirit of reflective design. In one sense, we are interested in thinking about physical books as platforms for experimenting with computation. But we also intend the term figuratively and more broadly to refer to a range of exploratory methods, such as those adopted by Carlea Holl-Jensen, that can lead — vitally — to understanding the codex form in new and different ways. Like anatomical illustrations that reveal inner tissues and organs, these methods permit us to see the unseen: the circuitry of books that combine pulp and silicon, but also the everyday material and structural affordances of books, which are so engrained in the culture that they habitually go unnoticed. By making the page, not the screen, the experiential site of computation, Hichar and Mozafari explore what Steven Johnson calls the “adjacent possible”: alternative cultural configurations that grow out of the present order of things (2010, 23–42). Hichar’s The Pussycat Said to the Owl is an altered book in the tradition of British artist Tom Phillips’ A Humument, which surfaces a new narrative out of a pre-existing Victorian novel by selectively collaging and painting over the text, leaving some fragments intact to tell a radically different story. In Hichar’s case, an unlikely base text serves as the occasion for a visual adaptation of Edward Lear’s classic nineteenthcentury nonsense poem, “The Owl and the Pussycat”. Neither born-digital nor digitized — nor yet entirely paper-based — Hichar’s electronic book is a hybrid space in which analog and digital components are co-expressive. Exemplifying an emergent form of e-literature, The Pussycat Said to the Owl uses its bibliocircuitry to animate otherwise static print pages of text and illustration. Consistent with Andrew Piper’s claim that “the digital provides us with a critical lens to see the bibliographic with fresh eyes” (2009, 8), Hichar has invested her found book with new affordances while simultaneously preserving the old. As her account makes clear, reflective design infuses process as much as product: the act of integrating several Arduinos into the project attuned her to the materiality of the page and the body plan of the book in ways that would have been quite impossible otherwise. Sterling (2005, 14): i.e., the signs of one communication channel are translated into those of another. In the Cathy’s Book ARG franchise, for example, an email or SMS GUI is frequently visually rendered on the page, capturing the look — if not the materiality or interactivity — of the original digital environment (Stewart et al 2008).


The thickness and opacity of the paper and the volumetric space of the artifact dictated design constraints and opportunities. The result is a harbinger of future bookscapes in which the mixing of material and digital fabrication is commonplace.5 Unlike a sleek contemporary machine whose protective outer covering serves to conceal what lies within, the first draft of a new technology often exposes its own mechanisms, making it seem less a mass-produced commodity than a bespoke design. While it may indeed be the case, as Arthur C. Clarke would have it, that any “sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” this claim does not usually extend to a technology’s embryonic states, which can seem almost to carry the blueprints of their own design. The wireframe fuselage of the Wright brothers’ 1903 aircraft clearly reveals how the plane was constructed, for example, and steam-powered precursors of the automobile often look like they’re held together by duct tape and chewing gum. Similarly, the open design of Mozafari’s interactive book, like a cutaway diagram of a train, shows precisely how the book was made. With the help of a microcontroller board and alligator clips, Mozafari embeds his print edition of Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan” with touch-triggered sound, giving the reader a multisensory experience of the poem. Like the “guts on the outside” futurist techniques of the Archigram collective — who in the 1960s celebrated buildings with exposed pipes and tubes — Mozafari’s book flaunts its status as technology by not attempting to hide its electrical components (Medway 2008). In addition to scaffolding learning and creativity, the project is consistent with a long tradition of speculative design making use of such externalization of parts.6

5. Improbably, the same type of miniature device controlling the LEDs embedded in Hichar’s luminous illustrations is also used to help power the Large Hedron Collider at the CERN laboratory in Switzerland. From a personal odyssey to reimagine what a book might be to the collective quest to understand the physics of the universe, the versatile Arduino platform underlies both. See Banzi 2012. 6. One example — greebling — originates in the movie industry (Wikipedia 2013). Also described as “guts on the outside,” greebling refers to the practice of covering the surface of spaceship models designed for science fiction cinema with a finely milled mash-up of parts from hobbyist model kits (Wikipedia 2013). This technique was thought to give the spacecraft a more futuristic appearance. Similarly, steampunk design is notable for the extrusion of mechanical parts such as wheels, gears, cogs, and springs onto the surfaces of objects, such as clocks.


In the sections that follow, each author adopts the first person “I” perspective to highlight salient themes and ideas expressed in their productions, as well as details related to process and materiality. We conclude the essay with some final thoughts on the role of design — both reflective and speculative — in physical bibliography and textual criticism.

“The Hollow”: Form That Foils Content (Carlea Holl-Jensen) My project arose from a curiosity about how the form of a book might prevent, or at least frustrate, access to the text, in order to manipulate the reader’s experience of its content and challenge her understanding of the text’s meaning. To answer this question, I devised a format for a single-signature book in which a single sheet of paper is folded so that four of the exterior edges of the finished book are uncut bolts. In physical bibliography, “bolts” are the folded edges that result from folding larger sheets of paper into a gathering or quire (Belanger and Herdrich 2007, 16). In familiar bindings such as quarto and octavo, one or two edges may be folded — and would traditionally have been cut open, either by the printer or by the owner of the book — but never all three edges. The diagram below demonstrates the process of folding the book (Figure 3). As a result of this design, only four of thirty-two pages are immediately available to the reader. All other pages are inaccessible within the folded paper, with the exception of some of the interior pages on the verso side of the open book, which can be glimpsed but not fully unfolded (Figure 4). The quire may be cut open, but only at the risk of destroying the integrity of the book itself, as some of the pages may come loose when the edges are cut, and parts of the text may even be destroyed. Such a format explores the opportunities presented by what Matthew Kirschenbaum calls the comparative space of the book: “the two-page opening of a standard codex, presenting recto and verso pages to the reader” (2008, 2). The pages that face one another, which seem to present a continuous narrative, in fact obscure a significant portion of the narrative within. Instead of a genuine affordance (visual information that reliably indicates how an object should be used or operated), they telegraph a false affordance (a deceptive cue that signals a type of use that the object ultimately cannot deliver on) (gaver 1991). The text appears to be readable as a coherent narrative, but this appearance is misleading. Though the exterior narrative


Figure 3. Folding format created by Holl-Jensen to maximize the number of bolted or uncut edges of the book.


Figure 4. Some of the interior pages on the verso side of the open book are partially accessible, but cannot be turned as they would be in a conventional codex.

is sensible, it’s far from the whole story. In short, the construction of the book obscures the text, raising questions about the relationship between form and content (Figure 5). To explore this relationship, I applied my format to a short story I wrote, “The Hollow,” in which a young woman ventures into the woods to find a childhood friend who was lost there years ago. The four accessible pages give away very little of the story: the reader knows that the narrator is going into the woods in search of a long-lost “you,” whom in the end she believes she’s finally found. But what the reader doesn’t know — can’t know, without cutting the book open — is the story of how the “you” was lost, which casts the narrator’s search and the likelihood of her success in a very different light. From the exterior pages, this story appears to be one of reconciliation after a long and anxiety-ridden absence, while the text as a whole presents instead a grieving friend’s descent into self-delusion. In this way, the format of the book presents two very different versions of the story, which may challenge the reader’s efforts to make meaning in the text. The portion of the story the reader has instant access to does not provide the whole picture. A fuller understanding of the text can be made


Figure 5. Finished prototype of “The Hollow,” showing the front cover (left); a bird’s eye shot of partially concealed text (right); and two of the four pages of the story fully accessible to the reader (superimposed image). Twenty-seven pages are concealed due to the way the paper has been folded.

available by cutting the book open, or may not be available at all, if the reader decides not to cut it. But can a work succeed if the majority of its meaning is inaccessible? Is access to those “deeper” levels of significance necessary to construct a text that affects readers emotionally or aesthetically? In the case of “The Hollow”, it’s tempting to say that such access is necessary. The abbreviated version is drastically different from the full text, and from my perspective the exterior narrative seems a thinner, less compelling story than the full narrative contained within the enclosed pages. Through the manipulation of form, one text is made into two almost entirely different stories. Though the abbreviated version may seem to depreciate the story, the interplay between these two different versions may ultimately enrich the reader’s experience of the work. In this regard, this format highlights the alterity relation, or the extent to which a given technology becomes conspicuously present to the user. Denying or frustrating access to the text in the conventional way (turning


consecutive pages to advance the narrative) defamiliarizes the experience of reading, to the point that the reader becomes aware of the book as an object again, rather than as a mere container for text. Meaning is shown to reside not just in the content of the book, but also in how that content is presented on the page. It may be this focus on form that separates “The Hollow” as a manuscript from “The Hollow” as an artist’s book, a medium which Johanna Drucker says “integrates the formal means of its realization and production with its thematic or aesthetic issues” (2000, 376). One is a work of fiction. The other is an artifact. Though they both contain the same words, the possibilities of the latter are at once impoverished and enriched because of its relationship to its physical form.

The Pussycat Said to the Owl: Electronic Circuitry in an Altered Book (Clifford Hichar) In the development and construction of The Pussycat Said to the Owl, I was reminded of a quote from Thomas Edison: “Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration”. The concept for this project was by far the easiest part of the task: to create an artist’s book inspired by Tom Phillips’ A Humument, Edward Lear’s “The Owl and the Pussycat,” and Jie Qi’s “Computational Sketchbook”. Similar to Tom Phillips, I selected a base text, Paul Nixon’s Martial and the Modern Epigram, and painted over the pages to reveal my own story. Then I incorporated technology — the Lilypad Arduino — to animate and enhance the book, bringing passages from “The Owl and the Pussycat” to life. For Phillips and myself, the selection of the text was a matter of chance (Maynard 2003, 82). The text was on hand and affordable; I had bought it years earlier under the mistaken impression it was a copy of Martial’s Epigrams, rather than a book about them. The haphazard selection of a text is not without ramifications, and it meant having to struggle with a word choice that was not ideal for the story I wished to tell. It was, however, also fortuitous. As I worked on the project, I was forced to confront the affordances of the book — specifically this book. I appreciated the thickness of the page and strong binding, ideal for supporting the Arduino components and use of watercolors. Further, I became acutely aware of details such as the small image of a sailing ship on the title page, which recalled the peagreen boat that is a key image from Lear’s “The Owl and the Pussycat”. But why this poem as inspiration for my illustrations and text? I knew that I wanted to work with Lear’s “The Owl and the Pussycat” because of


Figure 6. Title Page of the altered book I created showing the small image of the sailing ship, which I painted pea-green in honor of Lear’s “The Owl and the Pussycat”.

yet another serendipitous discovery. When I was reading the poem, I came across the unfinished sequel Lear had started, “The Children of the Owl and the Pussycat”. In this poem, the Pussycat has died from a fall and left the Owl alone with all their children. The Owl and the Pussycat’s children narrate the poem and state: Our mother died long years ago. She was a lovely cat [. . . .] In Sila forest on the East of fair Calabria’s shore She tumbled from a lofty tree — none ever saw her more. Our owly [sic] father long was ill from sorrow and surprise, But with the feathers of his tail he wiped his weeping eyes. (Lear “Children”)

The images seemed so unnatural for a children’s tale — too adult, too real, too sad — and it made me think differently about the original poem. What if The Owl and the Pussycat wasn’t a children’s poem, but was reimagined as a story for adults? What if I were to allow the sequel to color


Figure 7. Illustration of the Owl singing to the Pussycat and showing the more mature imagining of the nonsense poem’s characters. An Arduino board embedded in subsequent pages controls light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that make the stars visible outside the Pussycat’s window twinkle (see also Figure 9).

its predecessor, modernize and update it, and transform the original from a nonsense poem into something grittier and more realistic? I allowed this concept to influence my illustrations for “The Owl and the Pussycat”. In this new light, lines such as “they took some money and plenty of honey wrapped up in a five pound note” suggest that the two didn’t have a large income between them, if a five pound note could contain it all — some coins at best. The phrase “plenty of honey”, however, signals sweetness and implies they are very much in love. As I carried this interpretation through, I decided that the Owl might be a struggling musician (thus keeping late hours playing in clubs and earning the nickname of a “night-owl”), and he’d work at a rather dingy nightclub and live in a distressed apartment with broken blinds. Further, while I found myself being unconsciously drawn toward more natural images for the romantic passages — a sort of fantasyland among the harsher images of the city — I wanted that world to exist only around the lovers and those that they drew into its orbit such as the Turkey and the Pig. Rather than having the Owl


and the Pussycat find the Pig in a park, then, I had them encounter him on a deserted street of lamp posts, the “trees” of the city. This dichotomy between the natural world and the city — between lovers and all the rest — I allowed to continue to play out within the found passages in Martial.7 I did not originally intend to do this. As mentioned earlier, while the material affordances of Martial were ideal for my purposes, the language was not and caused some difficulty. On certain pages I struggled to find words that would fit my needs and I was forced to be creative about my placement of the bound pages, covering over the most difficult ones. That alone, though, was not enough to solve the problems I was facing, so I created two voices: the first is masculine and pessimistic, belonging to the world of the city, and speaks in angled “rivers” — a term Phillips uses to describe the connections between words in A Humument. The other I imagined to be a woman’s voice who speaks in curves and whose images are optimistic and natural. In this way it allowed me to create passages that could “talk” with each other: one distancing and alienating and the other trying to draw in and play with the other. I felt this approach worked seamlessly with my larger thematic conversations between the past and future of the book, between texts, and between pages. I will concede, though, that doing this was not enough to make the text flow smoothly, but I endeavored to keep it as polished as possible across facing pages of the text, in effect requiring each set of such pages to act as a vignette. In this way, I also allowed comparative space to play a role in my project. Often the comparative space of a book gets lost in various electronic formats, such as on the Kindle where one is presented with only a single page at a time. While many books don’t set about making use of this affordance as a key feature of their design, I wanted to do just that. I designed many of the opposing pages specifically to engage with each other. “The Owl and the Pussycat” passages are arguably the most obvious use of the affordance, but the found passages are the best use of it. For example, on pages 98 and 99 of Martial, I gave each of the voices in the found text a page, allowing the opposing pages to also rhetorically oppose each other (Figure 8). To augment the effect, I drew the backgrounds of these pages to mirror each other. One background features wedding bands and vines — images of life, love, and the binding of things together in a positive way — while 7. I have adopted the phrase “found passages” or “found text” on analogy with the more established “found object” (objet trouvé in French). The term is intended to convey the critical appropriation of pre-existing cultural material — in this case text — into new artistic contexts.


Figure 8. Pages 98 and 99 of the altered Martial showing the use of comparative space and two “voices” in conversation with each other. One voice is visually associated with angles, the other with curves.

on the opposing page the same shapes became those of shackles and chains reflecting the other voice’s interpretation of the concept of marriage. In conclusion, I wanted to set out to challenge and design around specific affordances of the book by playing with the idea of comparative space. Through manipulation of this attribute, facing pages would be allowed to “talk” to each other, and other pages — made thicker by pasting groups of them together — could hide the technology components, thereby highlighting the animations, not the mechanisms responsible for them. Although the determined reader can readily access the microcontrollers, I wanted to make the integration between technology and the book seamless. One must look at the finished product as a whole, understand it as a cyborg, yet also yield to its effects. The reader can pull back the curtain to see how the book is made, but also decline to do so. Some of the “conversations” that went into the creation of this book will never be seen by a reader at all. In order to learn how to program the Arduino, for example, I was forced to put into conversation different programming guides and software, such as Amici (a visual programming


Figure 9. The “guts” or mechanics of the book exposed. On top of the page at right are four tiny LEDs that align with the stars in the illustration on the other side of the adjacent leaf (see Figure 7). The miniature Arduino in the middle, powered by the battery below, is used to control the LEDs (other sections of the book incorporate the original Lilypad Arduino, which is larger in diameter). Conductive threads rather than wires complete the circuit. Near the top of the page at left is a semi-transparent slip of paper, which allows the light from the LEDs to shine through the design on the opposite side.

environment) and the basic Arduino software. By comparing multiple methods for programming different behaviors, I was able to understand the Arduino language and create new code tailored to my unique vision. Even then it took a great deal of experimentation and failure to achieve the desired results. In the end, I was able to make the stage lighting in one illustration change colors, stars in another illustration sparkle, and the moon in a third shine on the lovers’ beach dance. In fact, the embedding of the Arduinos and associated LEDs created a three-way conversation of their own among the art, the language, and the technology. The Arduino components — displays, switches, batteries, and circuit boards — only function when connected by the conductive threads. Similarly, the found text of the artist’s book only has meaning when the “rivers” — the painted or


drawn counterparts to the threads — are harmoniously strung together to connect words. The Arduino components illuminate the page, while the “river” components illuminate the text (Maynard 2003, 83).

Designing a Multimodal Reading Space for Coleridge’s “Kubla Kahn” (Cameron Mozafari) My project began in an attempt to reconceive the affordances of the book and to create a more interactive reading experience. By redesigning the codex, I intended to put the emphasis on cognitive meaning making processes, which involve not only the eyes scanning text, but also a full body engagement with the book. The prototype seeks to make apparent Alberto Manguel’s assertion that “the pleasure derived from reading largely depends on the bodily comfort of the reader,” a comfort I sought to produce — or at least invoke — through speculative design (1996, 151). Often, when we want to read most deeply and effectively, we need to get ourselves in a certain mood. We move around or make adjustments in our environment to find something that will trigger that mood for us. Maybe we put on a song, or maybe we read some background information about a text before settling in with the text itself. When reading poetry, for example, we may receive comfort from reciting the lines aloud to get a sense of the meter or the tone of the poem. We may take notes in the margins of the book or circle key words that generate ideas we may wish to return to later. Reading, in other words, is a practice situated in larger medial and physical contexts that can be purposefully altered to create more affective experiences. In “Bookscapes”, Matthew Kirschenbaum (2008) lists five observable structuring affordances of the traditional book. First, the book is both sequential and random access (we can read it linearly or open it to any passage arbitrarily); second, it’s a volumetric object that “store[s] information in three-dimensional space”; third, it is finite and bounded; fourth, it has a comparative visual space; and fifth, the book, by virtue of its margins, is writable as well as readable (Kirschenbaum 2008, 1–2). A book, in other words, is a technology designed to promote certain types of use behaviors and discourage others. But books are designed, and designs are arguments. If we don’t like the argument, we can always change the design. With standard e-book devices, many of the affordances of print — for example, comparative visual space — are lost entirely or are simulated through software rather than directly implemented in hardware. By contrast, my interactive project seeks to redesign the codex to both retain Kirschenbaum’s five analog affordances and to add additional affordances


Figure 10. The interactive edition of Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan” imposes digital and physical circuitry onto the codex to afford the modality of sound through the modality of touch.

made possible by digital technology, namely touch and sound. These new features support a more multimodal reading experience. Multimodal literacy, as Gunther Kress asserts, is not a theory, but rather “maps a domain of enquiry” where questions about the logics of different modalities can be asked and answered (2009, 54). As a functioning prototype, my project expands the modal resources of the book to create an audio-annotated volume. While the idea of connecting print books and sound is in no way novel — indeed, there is a long tradition of speaking picture books sold to children for educational purposes — the ability to quickly engineer one’s own working prototype using cheap electronics and creative software is noteworthy. Combining W. H. Auden and Norman Holmes Pearson’s Norton softcover edition of The Portable Romantic Poets with a laptop, a microcontroller, open source software, some clips, some wires, some graphite, and some good old fashioned ingenuity, I constructed a prototype of what an interactive physical book might look and act like. The interface is haptic: when users touch any of the graphite markings on the pages of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “Kubla Khan,” they complete a circuit communicating to the computer that a specific key has been pressed. The computer, which


Figure 11. Touching the graphite markings completes a circuit and triggers a prerecorded audio track, managed by software running on the computer.

is running the key-mapping software Soundplant, uses the trigger of the key to start a prerecorded audio clip. Touching the top of the first page of “Kubla Khan,” for example, causes calming Chinese hammer and dulcimer music to play and thus sets a complementary reading mood. This music is not only soothing but also adds an immersive contextual element to the reading of the poem, a direct reference to the “damsel with a dulcimer” of the final stanza whose song leads the speaker to contemplate whether he can “revive within [him]/ Her symphony and song” that would allow him to “build that dome in air” (Coleridge 1978, 154). Touching the words “woman,” “chasm,” “earth,” “fountain,” or “fragments,” on the other hand, initiates critical audio commentary on the sexual innuendo and dull sexism running through the poem. Such critical commentary allows for readers to hear arguments that point to particular passages. The microcontroller used to connect book to machine is a Makey Makey, which is built on top of the Arduino platform. With it, real-world objects can be made to function as input devices: fruit, wooden blocks, shells, dominoes, beer cans, charms, macaroni, pet rocks, pinwheels, coins, and just about anything else can be used in place of a keyboard to update

C. Hancock et al. : Bibliocircuitry and the Design of the Alien Everyday | 93 Figure 12. Listening to an argument frees the eyes to explore the text of the passage and to follow the argument’s close reading in a multimodal, multisensory real time (click the image for a video clip of the book in operation).

one’s status on Facebook, publish to Tumblr, or build a model of the Empire State Building in Minecraft. Created by Jay Silver and Eric Rosenbaum, the Makey Makey’s website invites the user to “alligator clip the internet to your world”. The playful marketing slogan echoes William Gibson’s 2010 contention that “cyberspace has everted. Turned itself inside out. Colonized the physical”. While it is possible to pass data wirelessly between the device and the computer via Bluetooth technology, my own copy of The Portable Romantic Poets is conspicuously tethered to my laptop, making visible the circuitry that connects world and machine. As Alyson Fielding writes in an online artist statement for her own hybrid, interactive book project, “a digital book shouldn’t mean we need to let go of the emotional connection to a physical object, and combining books with technology doesn’t have to mean a device with a screen”. She continues: “It can be about using the best of technology to further our relationship with the physical book as object”. In modifying the design of the book to promote interactivity, we allow for new affordances to reshape our conception of how books are used and what they are used for. We can make explicit various extralinguistic aspects inherent in reading and socially acting upon a given text. My modified pages of “Kubla Khan” allow for more avenues of meaning making than the traditional book affords. Replete with music, sound, recitation, personal commentary, oral performance, and other personalized touches, it models a very different kind of bookscape — and critical edition — than that exemplified by W. H. Auden and Norman Holmes Pearson’s Portable Romantic Poets.

The House of Her: An Alternate Narrative Unraveled Through Deformance (Charity Hancock and Kathryn Skutlin) Our project was born from a question: “How would a classic text translate using social media as its template?” When we approached the idea of collaborating on an altered text, we decided it would be interesting to invert the tone of a classic work of fiction, ultimately finding ourselves drawn to Gothic literature, as it is cast on one end of the tonal spectrum. Edgar


Figure 13. The mirrored covers of The House of Her project, which play off its theme of inversion.

Allan Poe’s short story, “The Fall of the House of Usher,” proved an excellent candidate due to its brevity, prototypical gothic elements, and its rich potential for diverse interpretations (Figure 13). Since we inverted the text generically, we also decided to work our altered storyline backwards through our source text, juxtaposing the inverted original alongside the altered text. In this way, form mirrors content. Drawing on Samuels and McGann’s concept of deformance, which involves a reader approaching a familiar text, taking it apart, and reassembling it as something new, we were able to offer a new interpretation and open up the liminal spaces within our source text that were previously unexplored. Looking specifically at poetic works, Samuels and McGann, in “Deformance and Interpretation,” assert that “the critical and interpretive question is not ‘what does the poem mean?’ but ‘how do we release or expose the poem’s possibilities of meaning?’” (1999, 28). As Johanna Drucker points out, “Students regularly come to the classroom intent on finding the ‘meaning’ of a poem within an apparently stable text, as if it were a self-evident and self-identical work” (2009, 67). By deconstructing a text’s fundamental framework of meaning, however, one can begin both to deform and perform a work as a text that is alive and mutable, rather than a static work with a fixed arrangement. Samuels and McGann outline four aspects of deformance: reordered, isolating, altering, and adding (1999, 36–7). For The House of Her we focused on two of these aspects — reordering and altering. Instead of read-


ing our entire source text backwards word-for-word, we broke down the linearity of “Usher” into paragraphs, the order of which we reversed. By reading the source text backwards, we were able to engage with a “deformative procedure [that] puts the reader in a highly idiosyncratic relation to the work,” freeing us to construct an interpretation of our own, unhindered by the story’s original trajectory (1999, 36). Despite the idiosyncrasies associated with deformance, as Samuels and McGann note, “Reading Backward is a highly regulated method for disordering the senses of a text” (1999, 36). With respect to unraveling our alternate narrative, we faced additional decisions regarding our word-selection process, ultimately constraining ourselves to words composed of letters that originally appear in consecutive order. Instead of a limitation, our self-imposed constraint led us to discover feminine pronouns existing within words such as “Usher” and even “atmosphere,” a crucial innovation for our desire to emphasize a character (Madeline Usher) who rarely appears in our source text. We often found ourselves with multiple narrative possibilities within a single paragraph, demonstrating the generative power of our constraint. When we decided on a blatant destabilization of the narrator’s perspective, we risked our text’s logic crumbling in on itself, since “The Fall of the House of Usher” is written as a first-person account. To avoid the perceived pitfall of casting every part of Poe’s original narrative into doubt, we instituted logical constraints or “truths” that stabilized the framework of The House of Her. Themes from our source text such as the physical and mental decay of the Ushers were kept intact, along with the inciting incident (the narrator going to visit his old friend Roderick Usher). These truths guided the narrative and set a backdrop for our alternate storyline, allowing us to focus mainly on our interest in developing a love story between our narrator, R. T. Arran, and Madeline Usher. Despite our guiding truths, we still were engaged in what McGann and Samuels term a “stochastic process,” meaning our narrative was overall an unpredictable one (1999, 36). Taking shape as a Twitter feed, our altered text was constrained by the 140-character limit of tweets as well as contingent upon the availability of words offered to us in the original paragraphs (Figure 14). For us, each ‘invented’ tweet of The House of Her expresses the thoughts of R. T. Arran to an invisible audience, chronicling his story for the world to read. We interspersed his tweets with clarifying hashtags, importing material to further mark Arran’s progress as a lover caught in the throes of an unrequited love affair. Our decision to add material to the base text was guided by the dual nature of hashtags as external interventions that link the text to preexisting meta-narratives (such as love and devotion)


Figure 14. Shot showing the use of comparative visual space for juxtaposing source text (left) and altered & inverted text (right) in the form of a Twitter timeline. The narrator’s name, “R. T. Arran,” is “Narrator” spelled backwards. The tweets were derived from the words in blue font visible in the source text at left. We tested each tweet’s length by plugging it into Twitter’s “compose new tweet” box, which includes a built-in character counter.

as well as humorous commentaries adding to the language of the original tweet. Although readers are unable to respond to Arran’s tweets in real time as they would in a live Twitter feed, the blank spaces between his tweets invite our readers to make The House of Her a writable (as well as readable) text. We consciously chose to present our altered text as multimodal printed literature, a hybrid of sorts that retained Twitter’s aesthetic and linguistic features but not its digital medium (Gibbons 2012, 1). We wanted to preserve and emphasize the connection between our source text and altered text, as well as capitalize on the series of inversions within The House of Her; by consciously utilizing the print affordance of comparative visual space, juxtaposing the inverted altered text opposite its source, we were able to do so (see Kirschenbaum 2008). Carrying this concept to completion, our finished piece contains a dual narrative — read one way, it’s “The Fall of the House of Usher,” flip it over, and it’s The House of Her.


Coda: The Design of the Alien Everyday In the recently published Digital_Humanities from the MIT Press, the authors — five self-described “practitioner-theorists” — move design thinking to center stage of the humanities (Burdick et al. 2012, vii). Echoing the increasingly pervasive sentiment that one can make arguments with things or, in the words of Ian Bogost, “do philosophy” with artifacts (2012, 85), they position design as a core DH competency (12–6). Although more often linked to the studio arts, such practice-led approaches in the humanities are by no means unprecedented: Joseph Viscomi’s Blake and the Idea of the Book, for example, brilliantly reverse engineers the nineteenth-century British artist’s illuminated books through hands-on experimentation involving the tools, materials, and chemicals Blake would have routinely used in his printmaking shop (1993). Similarly, Anne McCants’ course The Distaff Arts teaches MIT students the basics of medieval textile technologies by having them spin and weave (rather than just read about spinning and weaving) (Turkel and Elliott, forthcoming). And recently, William Turkel and Devon Elliott have been exploring the history of stage magic by recreating working models of nineteenth-century physical apparatuses for levitation and vanishing tricks (Turkel and Elliott, forthcoming). Each of these examples validates the proposition that “when used to pose and frame questions about knowledge, design becomes an intellectual method” (Burdick et al. 2012, 13). The projects described above partake in the venerable tradition of practice-led methods that, as stated in the introduction, have long been associated with History of the Book studies. Where we depart from bibliographical precedent, however, is in our temporal orientation: we have designed these projects less to understand the past than to imagine the future; our point of view is primarily prospective rather than retrospective, although we draw extensively on history. The power of reflective design, as we see it, is that it allows us to carve the book at its joints: to identify, rearrange, mutate, augment, and deform its component parts in order to create a new vision of what a book might be. Understood in these terms, reflective design is the design equivalent of mereology: the study of the relationship of parts to wholes.8 In discovering and manipulating parts and material affordances, the book becomes an alien technology, simultaneously “ordinary and weird” (Bogost 2012, 65). The alien, as Ian Bogost writes in Alien Phenomenology, “isn’t in the Roswell military morgue, or in the galactic far reaches, or in the undiscovered ecosystems of the deepest sea and most 8. The term is mentioned in Bogost 2012, 22–3.


remote tundra. It’s everywhere” (2012, 133). It’s in pipe cleaners and earbuds, dandelions and sprockets, plane hangars and toadstools.9 And it’s in the plainness and strangeness of books. In these projects we see the alien in the co-location of print and digital parts; in the frustration of bolted edges; in the grafting of a social media skin onto the page. They remind us that the affordances of the conventional book aren’t permanently baked into the cultural zeitgeist, but can be continuously designed anew. And they remind us — convincingly and bracingly — of “the awesome plenitude of the alien everyday” (Bogost 2012, 134). University of Maryland

Works Cited “Amici Communitybeta”. Amici Community. Dimeb and Universitat Bremen, n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2013. http://dimeb.informatik.uni-bremen.de/eduwear/get-started/. Banzi, Massimo. 2012. “How Arduino is Open-Sourcing Imagination”. TED talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/massimo_banzi_how_arduino_is_open_sourcing_ imagination.html. Belanger, Terry and Peter Herdrich. 2007. The Anatomy of a Book: I: Format in the Hand-Press Period. Charlottesville: Book Arts Press. Bogost, Ian. 2012. Alien Phenomenology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bonanni, Leonardo. 2009. “Leah Buechley Presents the Computational Sketchbook by Jie Qi at Ars Electronica 2009”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lij4rV4h_SA. YouTube, 06 Sept. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. Bosch, Torie. 2012. “Sci-Fi Writer Bruce Sterling Explains the Intriguing New Concept of Design Fiction”. Slate 2 March http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_ tense/2012/03/02/bruce_sterling_on_design_fictions_.html. Burdick, Anne, Johanna Drucker, Peter Lunenfeld, Todd Presner, Jeffrey Schnapp. 2012. Digital_Humanities. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Byrne, Ruth. 2007. The Rational Imagination. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

9. The practice of assembling surprising strings of words is adopted by Bogost, who refers to them as Latour Litanies (2012, 38). They’re intended to draw attention to the alterity of the mundane everyday. A few examples of Latour Litanies from Alien Phenomenology: • Mountains, fruit, atmospheric effects, nuclear warheads, sandwiches, automobiles, historical events, relics • Sea urhins, kudzu, enchiladas, quasars, and tesla coils • Plumbers, cotton, bonobos, DVD players, and sandstone • Toilet seats, absinthe louches, seagulls, trampolines

C. Hancock et al. : Bibliocircuitry and the Design of the Alien Everyday | 99 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1978. “Kubla Khan: or, A Vision in a Dream”. In The Portable Romantic Poets, edited by W H. Auden and Norman Holmes Pearson, 152–5 Penguin Books: New York. Drucker, Johanna. 2000. “The Artist’s Book as Idea and Form”. In A Book of the Book, edited by Jerome Rothenberg and Steven Clay, 376–88. New York: Granary Books. ———. 2009. SpecLab: Digital Aesthetics and Projects in Speculative Computing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fielding, Alyson. “Enchanted books: storytelling through gestures and movement”. The Literary Platform. http://www.theliteraryplatform.com/2013/03/enchantedbooks-storytelling-through-gestures-and-movement/. Gaver, W[illiam]. 1991. “Technology affordances”. Proceedings of the CHI. New York: ACM Press. 79–84. Gibbons, Alison. 2012. Multimodality, Cognition, and Experimental Literature. New York: Routledge. Gibson, William. “Google’s Earth”. New York Times (New York) August 31, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/opinion/01gibson.html?_r=0. Hayles, N. Katherine. “The Transformation of Narrative and the Materiality of Hypertext”. Narrative 9 (2001): 21–39. Ihde, Don. 1990. Technology and the Lifeworld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Jackson, Holbrook. 1950 (2001 rpt.). The Anatomy of Bibliomania. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Johnson, Steven. 2010. Where Good Ideas Come From. New York: Riverhead Books. Jurgenson, Nathan. 2001 (24 Feb.). “Digital Dualism Versus Augmented Reality”. Cyborgology. http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/02/24/digital-dualismversus-augmented-reality/. Kirschenbaum, Matthew. 2008. “Bookscapes: Modeling Books in Electronic Space”. Human-Computer Interaction Lab 25th Annual Symposium, May 29, 1–2. Kr aus, Kari. 2012. “Introduction”, Rough Cuts: Media and Design in Process (2012), The New Everyday, MediaCommons http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/ tne/pieces/introduction. Kress, Gunther. 2009. “What is Mode?” In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, edited by Carey Jewitt and Gunther Kress, 54–66. New York: Routledge. “Language Reference”. Arduino. Arduino, n.d., accessed 24 Oct. 2012. Lear, Edward. 2012. “The Children of the Owl and the Pussy-cat”. Edward Lear, The Children of the Owl and the Pussy-cat. Edward Lear Home Page, accessed 06 Dec. 2012. http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/pw/cop.html. ———. 2012. “The Owl and the Pussycat”. Edward Lear, The Owl and the Pussycat. Edward Lear Home Page, accessed Dec. 2012. http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/ pussy.html. Lukens, Jonathan and Carl DiSalvo. 2012. “Speculative Design and Technological Fluency”. IJLM 3: 23–40.

100 | Textual Cultures 8.1 (2013) Mangen, Anne. 2008. “Hypertext fiction reading: haptics and immersion”. Journal of Research in Reading 31: 404–19. Manguel, Alberto. 1996. A History of Reading. New York: Penguin. Maynard, James L. 2003. “‘I Find/I Found Myself/and/Nothing/More than That’: Textuality, Visuality, and the Production of Subjectivity in Tom Phillip’s ‘A Humument’”. The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Associate Thinking Post-Identity 36: 82–98. Medway, Pete. 4 May 2008. “Buildings with Their Guts on the Outside”. Blog post. http://petemedway.blogspot.com/2008/05/buildings-with-their-guts-on-outside .html. Norman, Donald. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. ———. 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. Parikka, Jussi. 2012. What Is Media Archaeology? Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press. Phillips, Tom. “A HUMUMENT”. The Official Site of A HUMUMENT. N.P., 2012. Web. Accessed 24 Oct. 2012. Pierce, James, and Eric Paulos. 2011. “A Phenomenology of Human-Electricity Relations”. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 2405–8. Piper, Andrew. 2009. Dreaming in Books: The Making of the Bibliographic Imagination in the Romantic Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pope, Rob. 1995. Textual Intervention: Critical and Creative Strategies for Literary Studies. London: Routledge. Samuels, Lisa, and Jerome McGann. 1999. “Deformance and Interpretation”. New Literary History 30: 25–56. Smith-Welch, Michael. 2013. “Tinkering with Intention: Creative Learning, Computers, and Makerspaces”. Video. 14 March 2013. HCIL Lab. http://www.frequency .com/video/michael-smith-welch-tinkering-with/84273498/-/5-1098870. Sterling, Bruce. 2005. Shaping Things. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Stewart, Sean, Jordan Weisman, Cathy Brigg. 2008. Cathy’s Key. Philadelphia: Running Press. Turkel, William, and Devon Elliott. Forthcoming. “Making and Playing with Models: Using Rapid Prototyping to Explore the History and Technology of Stage Magic”. Past Play. Vancouver: UBC Press. Viscomi, Joseph. 1993. Blake and the Idea of the Book. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wikipedia Contributors. “Greeble”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http:// en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeble&oldid=553582186 (accessed May 21, 2013).

Taking Culture Seriously: Educating and Inspiring the Technological Imagination Available on: www.academiccommons.org December 2005 Anne Balsamo Professor Interactive Media, School of Cinema and Television Gender Studies, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences University of Southern California

Introduction: On the Relationship of Technology and Culture Ignorance costs. Cultural ignorance -- of language, of history, and of geo-political contexts -- costs real money. Microsoft learned this lesson the hard way. A map of India included in the Windows 95 OS represented a small territory in a different shade of green from the rest of the country. The territory is, in fact, strongly disputed between the Kashmiri people and the Indian government; but Microsoft designers inadvertently settled the dispute in favor of one side. Assigning the territory (roughly 8 pixels in size on the digital map) a different shade of green signified that the territory was definitely not part of India. The product was immediately banned in India and Microsoft had no choice but to recall 200,000 copies. Through a release of another version of its famous operating system, Microsoft again learned the cost of cultural ignorance. A Spanish-language version of Windows XP OS marketed to Latin American consumers presented users with three options to identify gender: “non-specified,” “male,” or “bitch.” In a different part of the world, with yet a different product, Microsoft again was forced to recall several thousand units. In this case the recall became necessary when the Saudi Arabian government took offence at the use of a Koran chant as a soundtrack element in a Microsoft video game. The reported estimate of lost revenue from these blunders was in the millions of dollars.1 These examples illustrate the very real ways in which cultural ignorance costs money and good will in the big business of technological innovation. In this case, several seemingly insignificant details incorporated into state-of-the-art digital applications not only resulted in the recall of several widely distributed products and damage to a global brand,

1. “How eight pixels cost Microsoft millions,” Jo Best, c|net News.com. http://news.com.com/How+eight+pixels+cost+Microsoft+millions/2100-1014_3-5316664.html.

but also demonstrated a grand failure of multicultural intelligence within the ranks of a multinational corporation. Although it is tempting to deploy these examples as a contribution to the popular pastime of Microsoft bashing, that response is neither creative nor particularly insightful. Rather, I use the examples of the costliness of a multinational corporation’s cultural blunders to assert that the process of technological innovation must take culture seriously. Moreover, I argue that the process of technological innovation is not solely about the design and development of new products or services, but rather is the very process that creates the cultures that we inhabit around the globe. Technology is not an epiphenomenon of contemporary culture, but rather is deeply intertwined with the conditions of human existence across the globe. Although we are now more than a century past the dawn of the industrial age, the global distribution of the benefits of industrialism, i.e., basic health and subsistence-level resources, remains disturbingly uneven. In considering the significant loss of life due to recent hurricanes in the southern U.S. it is clear that the demarcation between rich and poor does not map simply onto the division between the global North and South. The tragedy revealed a wide-scale ignorance of the reality of the technological situation of people living in those regions. Evacuation orders were not only late in coming, they only addressed those who were already technologically endowed with the means to flee to safer ground, i.e., the automobile, or to those who had access to other technological resources, such as planes, trains, or buses. When lives are at stake, which is often the case with the deployment of large-scale or new technologies, it is ethically imperative that the technological imagination must explicitly consider cultural, social, and human consequences. This imagination must be trained to imagine the unimaginable—that is, to actively imagine unintended consequences. When developing new technologies, culture needs to be taken into consideration at even a more basic level: as the foundation upon which the technological imagination is formed in the first place. I define the technological imagination as a character of mind and creative practice of those who use, analyze, design and develop technologies.2 It is a quality of mind that grasps the doubled-nature of technology: as determining and determined, as both autonomous of and subservient to human goals. This imagination embraces the possibility of multiple and contradictory effects. This is the quality of mind that enables people to think with technology, to transform what is known into what is possible, and to evaluate the consequences of such creation from multiple perspectives.

The Interdisciplinary Education of the Technological Imagination

2. The resonance with C.W. Mills’ notion of the “Sociological Imagination” is intentional here. C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination (London: Oxford UP, 1959). See also: Michel Benamou, 1980. “Notes on the Technological Imagination,” in Teresa De Lauretis, Andreas Huyssen, and Kathleen Woodward, eds. The Technological Imagination: Theories and Fictions. (Madison, WI: Coda Press, pp: 65-75). Taking Culture Seriously

1/21/08

Balsamo, 2

Every discipline within the contemporary university has been transformed by the development of new technologies, whether technology now becomes an “object” of study, as in the humanities and legal studies; a tool of knowledge production, as in the social and medical sciences; or a domain of new disciplinary knowledge, as in the engineering sciences, cinema, and communication studies. This means that every discipline within the university has something important to contribute to the development of new technologies. Universities need to actively educate and inspire researchers, teachers and students to develop a robust technological imagination. This is an educated “quality of mind” that is by nature thoroughly interdisciplinary. To understand technology deeply one needs to apprehend it from multiple perspectives: the historical, the social, the cultural, as well as the technical, instrumental and the material. We must develop interdisciplinary research and educational programs that enact and teach skills of creative synthesis of the important insights from a range of disciplines in the service of producing incisive critique of what has already been done. From this critique emerges the understanding of what is to be done. In this formulation, the traditional role of criticism is expanded. No longer an end in itself, criticism of what has already been done is a step in the process of determining what needs to be done differently in the future. Our educational programs need to teach skills of critical thinking that lead to creative proposals for doing things differently. Then we need to teach students how to do things differently with technologies: how technologies are built, how they are implemented, how they are reproduced and how they affect cultural arrangements. This is the foundation of innovative research and new knowledge production. This is the work of the university-educated technological imagination.

Figure 1: How the university contributes to significant cultural change through the development of new technologies Taking Culture Seriously

1/21/08

Balsamo, 3

Educational programs that seek to develop a robust technological imagination must include training in 1) the history of technology, 2) critical frameworks for assessing technology and identifying effects, 3) creative and methodological use of technological tools, 4) pedagogical activities and exercises that create new technological applications, devices, and services, 5) architectural and virtual spaces for social exchange and creative production, and 6) international studies and policy analysis that provide appropriate cultural and institutional contexts of assessment of effects. This is the necessary multidisciplinary foundation for the development of new technologies. Moreover, there is a category of technology—what might be labeled technologies of literacy—that serve as the stage for the elaboration, reproduction, performance, and dissemination of culture across the globe. Technologies of literacy include the development of pedagogical methods for educating literate citizens who not only understand the technologies already available, but who will be equipped with the intellectual foundation and habits of mind to respond and use the new technologies that will become commonplace in the future. This is a crucial dimension of the education of life-long learners. Thus these educational programs must experiment and develop innovative pedagogies that engage multiple intelligences: the social, cultural, and emotional, as well as the cognitive and the technical. Furthermore these pedagogies must utilize the full range of new technologies that enable multiple-modes of expression in the production of educational materials and educational output: visual, textual, aural, corporeal, and spatial. In this way these programs both draw on new technological literacies and engage faculty and students in the creation of the literacies of the future. In a research context, the manifestation of this imagination comes through the collaboration of faculty and researchers from different disciplines working together on projects of social and cultural significance to create human-centric technologies. The output of their research may take several forms: innovative technological devices, applications, research monographs, presentations, demonstrations, performances, and installations. The guiding strategy for all these research projects is that they “take culture seriously;” culture serves as both the context for the formulation of the research problem in the first place, and as the domain within which significant technological developments will unfold. In this way, this kind of technology-based research understands its ethical dimensions and acknowledges its ethical responsibilities. To do this right, we need to ground these interdisciplinary efforts in new ways of thinking about technology. We need a new educational philosophy that can guide our efforts to create “original synners”—students who can synthesize information from multiple perspectives.3 We need to develop new institutional structures for research and new pedagogies that support the development of the technological imagination and inspire its practical application. We need new analytical frameworks that enable us to imagine the 3. This is an explicit reference to Pat Cadigan’s novel, Synners (New York: HarperCollins, 1991). For a more complete discussion of the education of original synners: “Engineering Cultural Studies: The Postdisciplinary Adventures of Mindplayers, Fools, and Others” Science + Culture: Doing cultural studies of science, technology and medicine, eds. Sharon Traweek and Roddey Reid (New York: Routledge, 2000: 259-274). Taking Culture Seriously

1/21/08

Balsamo, 4

multiple consequences of the deployment of new technologies. I also argue that we need to specify the ways in which all of us within the university are accountable for the future of technological development. Designers and engineers need to address their cultural responsibilities. Humanists and social scientists must contribute creative direction as well as critical analyses. In an effort to suggest a starting point for new multidisciplinary collaborative applied technology-based research projects that take culture seriously, I offer the following three broad questions: What are the most pressing cultural issues within the US and across the world? All technologies rearrange culture. We know that new technologies are especially useful in facilitating interactions among people from different cultures. How is the project of cultural reproduction served by new technologies? How will current as well as traditional cultural memories be preserved over time? How should we choose what to forget? What role does narrative play in the technological reproduction of culture? How is narrative itself a technology of culture? What new narrative devices/applications need to be developed to aid the reproduction of culture? The use of new digital devices for entertainment and pleasure yields contradictory effects. While some people in the developed world enjoy an expanded range of mobility, enabled by the development of mobile communication devices, others become more sedentary and confined within a limited orbit Through the use of global telecommunication networks people can expand their global awareness through virtual visits. What are the cultural possibilities and consequences of virtual mobility? What is the future of embodied play and entertainment? What implication does this have for the design of playgrounds, digitallyaugmented performance spaces, and the development of creative toys? What are the implications of virtual tourism for the reproduction of privilege and mobility? What are the cultural possibilities of technologically-augmented reality? What are the literacies of the 21st century? Literacy is a technological phenomenon. The development of new technologies of communication and of expression not only influence but demand the development of new literacies. These literacies do not compete with traditional print-based literacies, but rather build on and complement them. Current undergraduate students will become the next generation of scholars and researchers who will go on to develop new technologies of literacy, new genres and devices of cultural expression, and new forms of scholarship and research. How will we prepare them for this important cultural work? What technologies can be developed to teach basic literacy? What new kinds of reading devices will be useful in the future? How will our educational materials need to change to address the many kinds of literacy that will be required of future generations: reading, writing, digital, technological, multimedia? What will the textbook of the future look like? What are the possibilities of multi-player distributed gaming for the development of educational experiences? What will scholarship look like in 10-15 years? Interdisciplinary collaborations and research provoke the need to develop new forms of scholarship, publications and other modes of cultural outreach. These new forms in turn offer an opportunity to experiment with modes of expression made possible by the development of new digital technologies. In the process, new forms of knowledge production emerge. New forms of scholarship Taking Culture Seriously

1/21/08

Balsamo, 5

will require the development of new authoring and publishing tools. We already know that authoring and designing are merging; what kinds of digital authoring environments are needed to support scholarship across the curriculum? Collaborative scholarship is a global phenomenon: how can social networking applications be used for scholarly and educational purposes? These social networking applications facilitate communication among scholars and lay people, thus offering a stage for the forging of radically new collaborations for the production of knowledge. Traversing the binary distinction between “scholar” and “amateur” promises to transform the educational scene within the university, effectively opening up the university to the world in unprecedented ways. How can the communication of scholarship and new research be enhanced through the development of multilingual digital applications, widely distributed digital archives, and new collaboration platforms? What are the stages for knowledge transfer from the university to the broader public, which now includes so-called “amateurs” who are also actively engaged in new knowledge construction (through the development of folksonomies, for example)? A trained technological imagination is the critical foundation required by the next generation of technologically and culturally literate scholars, scientists, engineers, humanists, teachers, artists, policy makers, leaders, and global citizens. Creating research programs and new curricula that explicitly address the education of the technological imagination are the ways in which the university will contribute to significant cultural change. Instead of a Bridge, How about a Collaboratory? In 1959, when C.P. Snow first described the gulf between the sciences and the humanities as a “two culture” problem, he implored educators to find ways to bridge the divide.4 He took pains not to blame one side or the other for the failure to communicate because he believed that neither “the scientists” nor the “literary intellectuals” had an adequate framework for addressing significant world problems. In the intervening half-century since the publication of Snow’s manifesto there have been several attempts to bridge the “two culture” divide. While some of these attempts resulted in spectacular failures (“The Science Wars” of the 1980s), others represent modest, but on-going interventions (The Society for Literature, Science and the Arts). The development of Science and Technology Studies programs (STS) are noteworthy academic programs that train students to investigate the cultural and social implications of science and technology. Few if any of these programs or institutional experiments have successfully brought humanists, social scientists, scientists, and engineers together—as peers—to collaborate on the production of new applied research that results in the creation of new technologies. Future attempts to bridge the two cultures will be of limited success as long as these groups of scholars continue to see themselves as standing on opposite sides of the divide, or if the groups continue to regard each other as hierarchically advantaged or disadvantaged. I believe that the time is right to take up Snow’s challenge once again, not to work on building bridges per se, but rather to create a new place for the practice of multidisciplinary, collaborative technology-based research. 4. C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures: and a Second Look (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Taking Culture Seriously

1/21/08

Balsamo, 6

In 1989, a professor at the University of Virginia coined the term collaboratory to describe a new institutional structure for collaborative research. As of Fall 2005, there are dozens of collaboratories around the world, most of which are virtual spaces that utilize digital network technologies to support the collaboration among researchers at distant physical locations. Many of these collaboratories are actually collaborations among laboratories located around the world, where the individual laboratories are (presumably) still organized in the typical fashion around a single PI’s research or a single topic. To date the collaboratories that involve humanities scholars focus almost exclusively on humanities computing research, where the projects involve the development and use of a high-end digital infrastructure for digitizing, archiving and searching specialized collections of historic materials, most typically books, manuscripts, and images. While these efforts and others such as the various “digital library” projects are absolutely necessary and valuable, they represent only one vector of research that unites the humanistic with the technological. In 2002, a group of humanities program directors formed a virtual collaboratory called HASTAC: The Humanities, Arts, Science and Technology Advanced Collaboratory designed to promote the development of humane technologies and technological humanism.5 The programs participating in HASTAC each have attempted to create some sort of institutional space for collaborative research involving humanists and technologists. The efforts include humanities computing programs as well as interdisciplinary humanities institutes that have a particular focus on science and technology. Inspired by HASTAC discussions and meetings, I assert that there is a critical need to create physical collaboratories that bring humanists, artists, media producers and technologists together to build human-centric technologies. This requires a physical space where researchers from multiple disciplines work together as peers to design, prototype, and actually fabricate new technologies. In combining the critical methods of the humanities and social sciences with innovative engineering/design methods such as rapid prototyping and user-centered design, these collaborators will create innovative methodologies. Thus, the research output includes not simply new technology-based projects and demonstrations, but also insights into the nature of interdisciplinary collaboration and the creation of new methodologies for collaboration. Instead of a single PI, the business of the collaboratory would be coordinated by a representative group of researchers whose interests span the disciplinary spectrum: humanities, social and cognitive sciences, arts, engineering and sciences. As participants in this collaboratory, researchers from various disciplines each bring something important to the collaborations: Special role of the humanist: Contributes expertise in the assessment and critique of the ethical, social, and practical affordances of new technologies; provides expertise on the 5. http://www.hastac.org Taking Culture Seriously

1/21/08

Balsamo, 7

process of meaning-making which is central to the development of successful new technologies; provides appropriate historical contextualization. Special role of the social and cognitive scientist: Contributes expertise in the assessment of social impact and in the analysis of institutional, policy, and global effects of the development and deployment of new technologies; addresses the cognitive impact of new technologies; provides methods for analyzing social uses. Special role of the technologist: Contributes expertise in the innovation of new devices and applications; provides analytical skills in the assessment of problem formation and solution design; demonstrates methods of design, creation, and prototyping; recommends specific tools, processes, and materials. Special role of the scientist: Contributes expertise in the development of new theoretical possibilities; provides methodologies for assessing and evaluating implementation efforts, and for formulating possible (theoretical) outcomes; develops experiments with new materials; contributes understanding about environmental impacts and waste management. Special role of the artist: Contributes expertise in the performance, expression, and demonstration of technological insights; provides skills in different modes of engagement: the tactile, the visual, the kinesthetic, and the aural. The goal is to create space for the constitution of a research community that collaborates on technology-based projects that take culture seriously. While it is tempting to offer a list of suggested projects, this would undermine one of the critical components of the collaborative effort. While any participant can suggest a project, the project must be, in effect adopted by the community. This is to say that there needs to be consensus that a project is important to pursue. This, of course, is the basis of all good research; but it is rare that humanists, artists, and social scientists have a voice in this kind of evaluation of technology-based research projects. It is even rarer still that they have peer-status as researchers who will design, build, and fabricate new technologies. This is one of the important innovations of such a collaboratory. The output of these research projects might include typical research monographs, but also possibly public demonstrations, new pedagogical technologies, and new technologies of literacy. All the collaborators will serve as important “technology-translators” who can help make the meaning of new technologies more accessible to a wider public, both within and outside of the academy. The social engineering of this endeavor is a crucial element of its success. The price of admission to this collaboratory is an individual’s commitment to embrace collaborative work. A key requirement of the research participants is that they work against the facile division of labor that would have the humanists doing the “critique,” the technologists doing the building, and the artists offering art direction. While there is a special role to be played by each participant, they must all be willing -- indeed, eager-- to learn new skills, new analytical frameworks, new methods, and new practices. A personal commitment to life-long learning is the foundation for these collaborations. Each participant must be Taking Culture Seriously

1/21/08

Balsamo, 8

willing to uphold the ethical foundation of multidisciplinary work: intellectual flexibility, intellectual generosity, intellectual confidence, and intellectual humility. Only by doing so will the collaborations result in the kind of work where the sum is greater than the parts, and where the technological imagination can be freely exercised and employed to create futures that are desirable for all people around the world, not just for those alreadyprivileged and technological-empowered. Excerpted from Chapter 1: The Technological Imagination Revisited, Designing Culture: A Work of the Technological Imagination, Anne Balsamo, Duke University Press, forthcoming.

Taking Culture Seriously

1/21/08

Balsamo, 9

Circuit Bending Videogame Consoles as a Form of Applied Media Studies - nanocrit.com

HOME

ISSUES

REVIEWS + INTERVIEWS

2015-03-30 12:11 PM

MISSION

CFP + SUBMISSIONS

EDITORIAL BOARD

Home > Issues > Issue 5: Digital Humanities, Public Humanities > Circuit Bending Videogame Consoles as a Form of Applied Media Studies

Circuit Bending Videogame Consoles as a Form of Applied Media Studies

Nina Belojevic is Assistant Director

by Nina Belojevic

Victoria.

of the Maker Lab in the Humanities and a Research Developer and Information Architect with the Electronic Textual Cultures Laboratory at the University of

published July 2014

1. Introduction:

NANO is an interdisciplinary academic journal whose goal is to invigorate humanities discourse by publishing brief, peer-reviewed reports with a fast turnaround enabled by digital technologies.

search

Last summer, I circuit bent a Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) videogame console as a method of a new applied media study. Rather than analyzing videogames solely at the level of software, graphics, and sound, this process allowed me to understand how the material process of electricity flowing through circuits relates to the video and audio components of games and ties them to histories of labour. Circuit bending is a practice that consists of exposing a circuit board and using wires or other conductive instruments to touch different points on the board together in order to create “glitches” or other effects that are not usually intended behaviours for the device. The hands-on prodding of the circuit board leads to a deeper understanding of the material elements that make up the board. For instance, as I worked on this project, the NES's video random access memory (VRAM) chip broke. Having already begun soldering new connections permanently onto the board, I turned to the Internet to find a replacement chip. Although I was able to find the chip's model number and data sheet, and even managed to find a distributor, I was simply unable to purchase a replacement. These parts were only sold to commercial producers, not individual consumers. Instead of replacing the one broken element on the circuit board, I had to replace the entire board. In the end, I went through three circuit boards in order to produce what, throughout this note, I call a “glitch console,” which exposes and experiments with the materiality and labour at work in videogames and the videogame industry.

http://nanocrit.com/issues/5/circuit-bending-videogame-consoles-form-applied-media-studies

Contact: [email protected]

Page 1 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

Figure 1: Three Circuit Boards While building a glitch console, it quickly became apparent to me just how difficult it is to fully trace the material elements of a videogame platform. This difficulty raises a number of questions: Where do the parts on the circuit board come from? Whose hands made them? Under what conditions? What happens to the materials in a device once we discard it? Perhaps predictably, these questions do not commonly come up when videogames are studied diegetically, based solely on what is expressed on the screen (Montfort; Kirschenbaum 27-28). However, the material study of hardware offers an approach that highlights material traces that may otherwise go unnoticed by gamers and scholars alike. Furthermore, it prompts an important question in the context of game studies: What do gamers and scholars tend to ignore when they are at once enthralled and distracted by the experiences afforded by the video, audio, and textual elements of games? As I argue below, circuit bending encourages a deep engagement with hardware that offers a materials-first approach and brings awareness to issues of exploitation not commonly raised and recorded by screen-centric analysis alone. Importantly, the videogame industry relies heavily on the ostensibly “immaterial” labour—practices dependent upon screen-based interactions with their products—of the gaming public for its continued growth and influence in the ludic economy, and thus for individual companies’ profits. Game enthusiasts often spend their free time promoting games and consoles: they discuss them, review them, and produce what is effectively marketing content for game companies, all as part of and in addition to the countless hours these individuals invest in playing the games themselves. As such, the issues of immaterial and affective labour that occur in this sphere have become an important topic in media studies and game studies. The perception of what constitutes play and entertainment, and what constitutes work, have become skewed. As Nick Dyer-Witherford and Greig de Peuter note, the game industry increasingly encourages players to not just play, but also modify their games, thereby increasing engagement, versions of, and


Page 2 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

changes to games from the free labour of fans and enthusiasts (24-27). Such forms of “playbor” (“play” and “labour”), as iterated throughout Trebor Scholz’s Digital Labor, show how the Internet can be described as both “playground and factory” (26). While issues of immaterial labour that publications such as Scholz’s draw attention to are vitally important to critical game studies, I want to draw particular attention to the material realities and effects of the videogame industry. The culture cultivated by this industry tends to be shortsighted when it comes to the physical production, consumption, and disposal of videogames. Material resources, labour conditions, and environmental impacts are the elements in our technological devices that we can never fully grasp or uncover; instead, technology users often rely on a socioeconomic structure that supplies them with representations of what they need to know. Ironically, it seems like the affective and immaterial realm might soon become more visible and prominent than material operations and production processes that still occur, often in remote locations. Thus, issues such as the conditions of production that concern individual labourers and the environment are obscured or disregarded realities. Further, the mountains of waste that are an effect of the game industry’s model of product release cycles, which rely on a black-box mentality on the side of users and planned obsolescence on the side of producers, also get displaced into spheres and spaces that those of us in more affluent parts of the world do not usually have to engage or see. In response to these considerations, this essay proposes hardware hacking, platform modification, and “glitch consoles”—all premised on circuit bending —as practical alternatives to the current industry system of production and disposal. Circuit bending is a practice that is accessible to non-specialists (i.e. hobbyists who do not necessarily have to be engineers to work on hardware hacking projects) and encourages the repurposing of obsolescent materials in a way that facilitates awareness and creative play. Rather than engaging videogames primarily through the screen, hardware hacking also offers a tacit form of interaction often resistant to symbolic or graphical logic. Through circuit bending, the hardware hacker gains a new understanding of material, machinic operations in a particular platform as well as the various materials that comprise a videogame console. Furthermore, by making a glitch console, the hacker potentially complicates the game industry's profit model of exploiting immaterial labour, leisure time, and play—that is, a glitch console can be developed purely for personal enjoyment. Such hacking practices also encourage creative repurposing of ostensibly obsolete technologies, thus offering new uses for devices that may otherwise be discarded.

2. Dispersed Production of Circuit Boards: As mentioned earlier, an inquiry into the production of videogame console circuit boards shows how the multitude of materials, the dispersed nature of manufacturing, and the lack of public documentation make it nearly impossible to trace back all material elements used in a game console. Console companies such as Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft design their own printed circuit boards (PCBs), yet the actual manufacturing process is often http://nanocrit.com/issues/5/circuit-bending-videogame-consoles-form-applied-media-studies

Page 3 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

outsourced to production companies such as the Taiwanese company Foxconn (where the Nintendo Wii U and the Sony PlayStation 4 are produced). The production of a console moves through several stages. It begins with a very detailed design that structures the circuit board. Conductive traces (usually made out of copper) based on the planned design are etched into the circuit board using mass production processes. In many older circuit boards, such as in the NES, holes are drilled into the board and a variety of electrical components, such as capacitors, resistors, and diodes, as well as the integrated circuits (ICs) that run specific operations (such as the VRAM, the CPU chip, and the PPU chip), are soldered into these holes. While the circuit board for a specific console might be manufactured in a single factory, the different electrical components and the integrated circuits are usually produced somewhere else. This approach means that some of the elements are likely to change throughout the production cycle of a given console. No two physical things are exactly alike, and a close, material study with an awareness of singularity recognizes the significance of physical differences and how they affect our understanding of technologies. In the case of console production, material parts indicate that while users may be able to trace the circuit board back to the manufacturer, it becomes nearly impossible to find out where every element on a particular circuit board comes from. As consumers in middle and high-income economies, most users are typically shocked when confronted with stories about the oppressive practices that underlie the production of common devices. For instance, in late 2012, a news scandal uncovered the exploitative conditions of underaged engineering student interns working at Foxconn to meet the release dates for the Wii U (Moore). A year later, a similar scandal regarding Foxconn’s labour practices reemerged around the production of the PlayStation 4 (Dumitresco). Although these stories work to reveal how the labour conditions at gaming companies can be immensely exploitative, game culture increasingly emphasizes and celebrates the work of artists, designers, and developers. It appears that few gamers are interested to know who soldered the VRAM onto their console’s circuit board, let alone celebrate it as an accomplishment. The widespread lack of interest in the inner workings and production of consoles makes it easy for companies to privilege other elements of games, including narrative and aesthetics. The production process is so dispersed that the material sources and forms of labour that go into the manufacture of consoles have become mere spectres that are impossible to fully trace. This tendency to ignore the materiality of technological devices, encouraged by the socioeconomic structures and the allure of interfaces, has led to a celebration of immaterial labour. While certain members of the production team in a game development company will commonly be recorded (“Credit Guidelines”), and game modders and artists are lauded in game communities (“Top 10 Game Developers”), the people and resources required to materially produce games are rendered almost untrackable. Scholars such as Lisa Nakamura and Tara Rodgers have shown how certain histories of technologies are buried and scarcely recorded, while others are prominent and canonized. In a chance discovery while searching through archives on well-documented male inventors, Nakamura came across an archived box of materials from Fairchild Corporation’s Semiconductor http://nanocrit.com/issues/5/circuit-bending-videogame-consoles-form-applied-media-studies

Page 4 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

Division—a company that produced circuits used in calculators, missile guidance systems, and other early computing devices—that revealed how these circuits were almost entirely built by female Navajo workers (Nakamura). Similarly, in Pink Noises, Rodgers refers to the documentary Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, which celebrates male electronic music artists while ignoring the women who “engage in repetitive labor assembling and testing keyboard synthesizers” (14). As such examples suggest, the history and present of electronics manufacturing are filled with selective documentation, rendering some people invisible while others are celebrated. Circuit bending can function as a method that begins to uncover some of the material realities that are so scarcely documented. By actively taking apart, breaking, remaking, and tinkering with these material devices, hobbyists, hackers, artists, and scholars can engage with, study, highlight, and challenge social justice issues. While the companies that develop and sell consoles have created a system that allows them to maintain a certain level of power and control by pre-determining interactions at the level of screens, controllers, and other interfaces that facilitate immaterial labour, circuit bending challenges such boundaries of interaction. In short, ideologies and interfaces become exposed by the glitch. Rather than relying heavily on symbolic or graphical logic, circuit bending requires a “laying on of hands,” as Nicholas Collins puts it (59). The tacit interaction at the level of electric flow presents itself through screens and speakers as a hiccup, error, or miscommunication. The glitch comes to represent the spectres of materiality, of labour, and of raw materials that have been rendered invisible. However, rather than aestheticizing, fetishizing, or mourning glitches and the spectres they represent, playable glitches enable new modes of play that actively seek to reformulate interactions with machines.

3. Making a Glitch Console: The practice of circuit bending engages the game’s hardware and in so doing offers a material study of the exposed circuit board while seeing and hearing the effects via the screen and speakers. The hacker studies the platform at the level of transduction to understand how the electrical currents that flow through a board become graphic and sound output. In the process of circuit bending, the hacker also learns about the material makeup and elements of the circuit board. To bend my NES, I went through several steps to learn about the many different elements and intricate functions of the circuit board. After spending ample time learning about circuit bending, the basics of electricity, and electronics safety, I disassembled the console to gain access to the board.


Page 5 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

Figure 2: Disassembling the NES I spent days studying and prodding all the parts of the board using small alligator clips while running a game in order to identify which connections between parts on the board created glitches. Glitches are usually considered undesirable effects, transient system failures, and bugs in electronics, computers, and other platforms (such as videogame consoles). Circuit bending is the process of deliberately creating glitches in an existing platform.


Page 6 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

Figure 3: Prodding the Circuit Board As I learned how the different components of the board worked, I was able to identify playable audio and graphics glitches. While the process of soft circuit bending is incredibly valuable in itself, I wanted to rebuild the NES into a modified, playable glitch console, so I narrowed the glitches down to eight, onto which I soldered switches and potentiometers. In addition to learning about materials in the process of making the glitch console, the playable glitch console functions as a repurposed technology that creatively redefines gameplay and complicates the sphere of interaction.

Figure 4: Soldering After permanently soldering these connections, I reassembled the console and drilled holes into its plastic casing for the new switches and dials. My personal glitch console was complete.


Page 7 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

Figure 5: A Glitch Console Taking this workflow as an example of how to hack a console, I argue that material engagement with gaming platforms through circuit bending brings awareness to where the parts come from and through what manufacturing techniques consoles are built. Even if we can never fully know the origin of every element in a console, this recognition is itself valuable and encourages a shift in how we interact with technologies.

4. Repurposing Consoles through Creative Play: When paying attention to the material operations of a device, it is difficult to ignore issues related to industry control and planned obsolescence. Companies build game consoles that are generally not supposed to be opened or altered. Even the design of consoles indicates this expectation. For example, the fan in the new PlayStation 4 is inconveniently placed in a relatively inaccessible part of the console, thereby making something as simple as cleaning the fan difficult without the services of a trained technician. Similarly, the original Gameboy and other Nintendo products use proprietary, three-pronged screws in order to discourage users from opening the plastic casing. More generally, if a game console breaks, then it typically needs to be fixed by a technician, replaced by the company, or simply discarded by the user. Further, the planned obsolescence of games revolves http://nanocrit.com/issues/5/circuit-bending-videogame-consoles-form-applied-media-studies

Page 8 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

around the regular and highly publicized releases of the latest and most advanced game consoles and titles. While physical consoles may last a relatively long time, new game titles are often only released for the latest platforms—after a short grace period following a console release, the owner of an older system will not be able to find new games on it. This system of release cycles ensures profitability when gamers buy newer models while generating electronic waste when these consumers dispose of their old consoles. Dyer-Witherford and de Peuter note that just like other technological waste, obsolete consoles eventually end up on the “mountainous dumps around the world, especially in Africa, India, and China” (224). This waste is a very material result of an industry that often appears to be situated in the seemingly immaterial realm of narrative, graphic design, and digital play. Outside the industry-determined framework of play, circuit-bent consoles can be reinvented to assume new forms. Rather than discarding a broken game console or discontinuing use of an obsolete platform, console hacking is a form of creative repurposing that enables customized modes of play. For example, by creating different audio glitches, I am able to play with the sound of videogames and change them in console-specific ways. The device becomes a remixing instrument as well as a game console.

NES Audio Glitch

Figure 6: Playing Audio Glitches Other circuit benders, such as Jonathan Olaf Johnson, take such forms of play a step further. Johnson's Super Nintendo “Glitch Controller” is a game controller that is attached to a circuit-bent board in a Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) and allows a player to control the glitches while another person plays the game (Johnson). In this approach, the glitch controller adds a videogame-like mechanism for interaction that creates glitches on the screen that Nintendo designers would likely consider errors or distortions.


Page 9 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

Figure 7: An SNES “Glitch Controller” (Image made by and courtesy of Jonathan Olaf Johnson) If adopted by the broader gaming public, circuit bending practices such as Johnson’s and my own could reformulate videogame consumption and move gameplay beyond the industry framework for immaterial labour while also redefining play and reducing waste through repurposing. If such practices become more common in gamer communities, I argue that new conversations will begin to take place, and the awareness of material operations, sources, and production issues might become more widespread.

5. Glitch Consoles as Countergaming: Hardware hacking can be described as a form of game modding, but should be distinguished from software modding, which Anna Anthropy describes as “changing existing games to create new stories” either as a form of critique, personal preference, or improvement of the game (70). As Anthropy writes, such hacks usually take place at the level of software and are made easier by ROMs, through which console games can either be played (using an emulator) or modded, often without coding skills (71–72). However, while such modding offers interesting ways to personalize or critique existing game experiences, it still falls largely within the sphere of gameplay accounted for by the videogame industry. The trend among gaming companies to encourage software modification indicates how even seemingly resistant practices become implicated as value-productive, immaterial labour. In Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture, Alexander R. Galloway pushes for a more radical hacking in the form of “countergaming” as a way to make “a critique of gameplay itself” (125). He sees hacking as a way to radically change the interactions between player and machine. Although he does not provide examples of such countergaming hacks, glitch consoles offer a route towards exactly that. They intervene through a new critical mode of gameplay that redefines the interfaces and interactions in a manner that foregrounds the physical platform and complicates what is usually considered


Page 10 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

videogame play. For example, a game mechanics glitch shows how gameplay can be reinvented. In the classic NES version of Tetris, geometric square shapes in a variety of arrangements fall from top to bottom in a particular space and need to be placed in a way that allows as many pieces as possible to fit into that space. The player can turn the pieces clockwise or counterclockwise and move them left or right. Once a piece reaches the bottom or lands on top of another piece, it remains there until a complete row is filled, at which point the row disappears. A game mechanics glitch I generated through my circuit-bent console shifts the placement of the static pieces between two states, adding a mechanic complication to the game. One piece could be placed based on a certain arrangement, but a switch can change that arrangement, shifting the location of available spaces. Thus, rather than assuming that the pieces should remain in a static space, the glitch adds another layer of dynamics to the gameplay. By adding a new game mechanic, this glitch fundamentally changes the rules of Tetris and how it is played. As a form of countergaming, this glitch directly links the mechanics as they appear on screen to the material process on the circuit board.

NES Game Mechanics Glitch

Figure 8: Mechanics Glitch As a broader practice, hardware hacking enables a creative form of gameplay that does not necessarily follow the routine interactions intended by game companies. As such, circuit bending sparks a critique of ideology and engages in gameplay at its most operational level, without any false sense of transparency or immediacy. By moving interaction toward a consciously embodied, self-reflexive space, play that resists the alienating effects of immaterial or gamified labour is made possible. Additionally, the reformulation of interfaces (from controller to circuit board) also makes a wider range of devices playable. Rather than consuming the latest videogames through the newest interfaces, a modded console can make a novel use of an ostensibly obsolete console.

6. Hardware Hacking as an Actionable Practice:


Page 11 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

As Jonathan Sterne explains, “the boundary between durable and obsolete has as much to do with social relations as it does with the decline or decay of the object. Groups of people choose to make an object obsolescent, or they choose to sustain an object long after it would have begun to fall apart on its own” (22). Thus, obsolescence does not necessarily require the device to fall apart, but can be controlled by industry if companies make new devices, applications, and content types incompatible with old ones. In contrast, glitch consoles follow the spirit of what Sterne calls “convivial computing.” The term “convivial” was used by Ivan Illich to refer to characteristics such as “ease of use, flexibility in implementation, harmony with the environment, and ease of integration into truly democratic forms of social life” (Sterne 28). Rather than continuing the current practice of release cycles and planned obsolescence, Sterne imagines “a ‘convivial’ computer, or rather a whole convivial system of digital components, a convivial digital infrastructure” (28). His vision would allow for “digital hardware that is more democratic, slower to change, easier to use, and less damaging to the environment” (29). In line with convivial computing, and skeptical of industry control over interaction and play, hardware hacking prompts democratic engagement with videogames while foregrounding gaming’s socioeconomic and environmental implications. Large-scale initiatives continue to face challenges when it comes to bringing awareness of material resources and disposal to consumers and shifting industry practices. For example, although Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) evaluations encourage the makers of consumer products to take back, recycle, remanufacture, or responsibly dispose of their products once consumers choose to discard them, large amounts of waste still get disposed inappropriately, thus causing a variety of environmental hazards. Demanufacturing processes have not been streamlined, suggesting that waste management occurs at varying degrees of environmental protection or damage. For instance, although British Columbia has several e-waste management companies that follow EPR guidelines, instances of shipments to developing countries containing tons of e-waste still occur. In 2011, the Surrey-based company Electronics Recycling Canada (ERC), was caught unlawfully exporting multiple shipments of hazardous e-waste material to Macau, China (Pynn). The ERC shipments contained materials such as lead and cadmium, which can cause physical illness in humans who are exposed to them. As Lisa Parks argues in “Falling Apart,” “the publicization of technological reuse and repurposing in postindustrial societies” is key to engaging the material realities of waste (39-40). While a first step to effecting change lies in bringing awareness to material processes of production and disposal, it must be followed by creative, actionable practices that do not end with consumer guilt. Hardware hacking can function as an actionable practice in two ways: first, as an applied approach to media studies; second, as an alternative form of play in videogame communities. While scholarship that attends to exploitative labour practices and socioeconomic inequalities is necessary and certainly worthwhile, practical engagement with hardware can afford lines of inquiry and responses beyond strictly theoretical or conceptual paradigms. Furthermore, circuit bending is accessible to public audiences in general and videogame communities in particular. By spreading the practice http://nanocrit.com/issues/5/circuit-bending-videogame-consoles-form-applied-media-studies

Page 12 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

of hardware hacking through collaborative projects, hackathons, tutorials, publications, and videogame message boards, a shift toward a new kind of gameplay could be encouraged—one that uses a purposefully embodied engagement with technology to encourage both a deeper understanding of materials and a creative repurposing of existing devices.

Works Cited: Anthropy, Anna. Rise of the Videogame Zinesters: How Freaks, Normals, Amateurs, Artists, Dreamers, Dropouts, Queers, Housewives, and People Like You Are Taking Back an Art Form. New York: Seven Stories P, 2012. Print. Ashcraft, Brian. “The Result of Nintendo's Investigation into Underage Foxconn Workers.” Kotaku. 24 Oct. 2012. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. Collins, Nicolas. Handmade Electronic Music: The Art of Hardware Hacking. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print. “Credit Guidelines for New Media.” Producers Guild. Code of Credits – New Media. N.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. Dumitresco, Andrei. “PlayStation 4 Manufacturing Process at Foxconn Involves Unpaid Intern Students–Report.” Softpedia. 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Dec. 2013. Dyer-Witherford, Nick, and Greig de Peuter. Games of Empire: Global Capitalism and Video Games. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2009. Print. Galloway, Alexander R. Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2006. Print. ---. The Interface Effect. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2012. Print. Johnson, Jonathan Olaf. “Building an SNES ‘Glitch Controller’.” Maker Lab in the Humanities. Maker Lab in the Humanities–University of Victoria. 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2008. Print.

Kotaku Selects. Kotaku, 1 Mar. 2014. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. Moore, Malcolm. “14-Year-Olds Employed on Foxconn Factory Production Line.” The Telegraph. 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Dec. 2013. Montfort, Nick. “Continuous Paper: The Early Materiality and Workings of Electronic Literature.” MLA Convention. Philadelphia, PA. 28 Dec. 2004. Conference Presentation. Nakamura, Lisa. “Indigenous Circuits.” Computer History Museum. 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. Parks, Lisa. “Falling Apart.” Residual Media. Ed. Charles R. Acland. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. 32-47. Print.


Page 13 of 14


2015-03-30 12:11 PM

Pynn, Larry. “B.C. Recycler Faces Charges in Export of Toxic EWaste.” Times Colonist. 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Rodgers, Tara. Pink Noises: Women on Electronic Music and Sound. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 2010. Print. Scholz, Trebor, ed. Digital Labor: The Internet As Playground and Factory. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print. Sterne, Jonathan. “Out With the Trash.” Residual Media. Ed. Charles R. Acland. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. 16-31. Print. “Top 10 Game Developers of 2013.” Gamasutra. 11 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. Van Rossem, Chris, Naoko Tojo, and Thomas Lindhqvist. “Extended Producer Responsibility: An Examination of its Impact on Innovation and Greening Products.” Report commissioned by Greenpeace International, Friends of the Earth and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). Sep. 2006. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.

nano : New American Notes Online copyright © 2015 authors retain copyright over individual works


Page 14 of 14

Appendix C/Arduino Quick Reference Here is a quick explanation of all the standard instructions supported by the Arduino language. For a more detailed reference, see: arduino.cc/en/Reference/HomePage

STRUCTURE An Arduino sketch runs in two parts: void setup()

This is where you place the initialisation code—the instructions that set up the board before the main loop of the sketch starts. void loop()

This contains the main code of your sketch. It contains a set of instructions that get repeated over and over until the board is switched off.

SPECIAL SYMBOLS Arduino includes a number of symbols to delineate lines of code, comments, and blocks of code. ; (semicolon) Every instruction (line of code) is terminated by a semicolon. This syntax lets you format the code freely. You could even put two instructions on the same line, as long as you separate them with a semicolon. (However, this would make the code harder to read.) Example: delay(100);

{} (curly braces) This is used to mark blocks of code. For example, when you write code for the loop() function, you have to use curly braces before and after the code. Example: void loop() { Serial.println("ciao"); } Appendix C

www.it-ebooks.info

95

comments These are portions of text ignored by the Arduino processor, but are extremely useful to remind yourself (or others) of what a piece of code does. There are two styles of comments in Arduino: // single-line: this text is ignored until the end of the line /* multiple-line: you can write a whole poem in here */

CONSTANTS Arduino includes a set of predefined keywords with special values. HIGH and LOW are used, for example, when you want to turn on or off an Arduino pin. INPUT and OUTPUT are used to set a specific pin to be either and input or an output true and false indicate exactly what their names suggest: the truth or falsehood of a condition or expression.

VARIABLES Variables are named areas of the Arduino’s memory where you can store data that you can use and manipulate in your sketch. As the name suggests, they can be changed as many times as you like. Because Arduino is a very simple processor, when you declare a variable you have to specify its type. This means telling the processor the size of the value you want to store. Here are the datatypes that are available: boolean Can have one of two values: true or false. char Holds a single character, such as A. Like any computer, Arduino stores it as a number, even though you see text. When chars are used to store numbers, they can hold values from –128 to 127.

96

Getting Started with Arduino

www.it-ebooks.info

NOTE: There are two major sets of characters available on computer systems: ASCII and UNICODE. ASCII is a set of 127 characters that was used for, among other things, transmitting text between serial terminals and time-shared computer systems such as mainframes and minicomputers. UNICODE is a much larger set of values used by modern computer operating systems to represent characters in a wide range of languages. ASCII is still useful for exchanging short bits of information in languages such as Italian or English that use Latin characters, Arabic numerals, and common typewriter symbols for punctuation and the like. byte Holds a number between 0 and 255. As with chars, bytes use only one byte of memory. int Uses 2 bytes of memory to represent a number between –32,768 and 32,767; it’s the most common data type used in Arduino. unsigned int Like int, uses 2 bytes but the unsigned prefix means that it can’t store negative numbers, so its range goes from 0 to 65,535. long This is twice the size of an int and holds numbers from –2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647. unsigned long Unsigned version of long; it goes from 0 to 4,294,967,295. float This quite big and can hold floating-point values, a fancy way of saying that you can use it to store numbers with a decimal point in it. It will eat up 4 bytes of your precious RAM and the functions that can handle them use up a lot of code memory as well. So use floats sparingly. double Double-precision floating-point number, with a maximum value of 1.7976931348623157 x 10308. Wow, that’s huge! string A set of ASCII characters that are used to store textual information (you might use a string to send a message via a serial port, or to display on Appendix C

www.it-ebooks.info

97

an LCD display). For storage, they use one byte for each character in the string, plus a null character to tell Arduino that it’s the end of the string. The following are equivalent: char string1[]

= "Arduino"; // 7 chars + 1 null char

char string2[8] = "Arduino"; // Same as above

array A list of variables that can be accessed via an index. They are used to build tables of values that can easily be accessed. For example, if you want to store different levels of brightness to be used when fading an LED, you could create six variables called light01, light02, and so on. Better yet, you could use a simple array like: int light[6] = {0, 20, 50, 75, 100};

The word “array” is not actually used in the variable declaration: the symbols [] and {} do the job.

CONTROL STRUCTURES Arduino includes keywords for controlling the logical flow of your sketch. if . . . else This structure makes decisions in your program. if must be followed by a question specified as an expression contained in parentheses. If the expression is true, whatever follows will be executed. If it’s false, the block of code following else will be executed. It’s possible to use just if without providing an else clause. Example: if (val == 1) { digitalWrite(LED,HIGH); }

for Lets you repeat a block of code a specified number of times. Example: for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { Serial.print("ciao"); }

switch case The if statement is like a fork in the road for your program. switch case is like a massive roundabout. It lets your program take a variety of directions 98


www.it-ebooks.info

depending on the value of a variable. It’s quite useful to keep your code tidy as it replaces long lists of if statements. Example: switch (sensorValue) { case 23: digitalWrite(13,HIGH); break; case 46: digitalWrite(12,HIGH); break; default: // if nothing matches this is executed digitalWrite(12,LOW); digitalWrite(13,LOW); }

while Similar to if, this executes a block of code while a certain condition is true. Example: // blink LED while sensor is below 512 sensorValue = analogRead(1); while (sensorValue < 512) { digitalWrite(13,HIGH); delay(100); digitalWrite(13,HIGH); delay(100); sensorValue = analogRead(1); }

do . . . while Just like while, except that the code is run just before the the condition is evaluated. This structure is used when you want the code inside your block to run at least once before you check the condition. Example: do

{ digitalWrite(13,HIGH); delay(100); digitalWrite(13,HIGH); delay(100); sensorValue = analogRead(1);

} while (sensorValue < 512); Appendix C

www.it-ebooks.info

99

break This term lets you leave a loop and continue the execution of the code that appears after the loop. It’s also used to separate the different sections of a switch case statement. Example: // blink LED while sensor is below 512 do

{ // Leaves the loop if a button is pressed if (digitalRead(7) == HIGH) break; digitalWrite(13,HIGH); delay(100); digitalWrite(13,LOW); delay(100); sensorValue = analogRead(1);

} while (sensorValue < 512);

continue When used inside a loop, continue lets you skip the rest of the code inside it and force the condition to be tested again. Example: for (light = 0; light < 255; light++) { // skip intensities between 140 and 200 if ((x > 140) && (x < 200)) continue; analogWrite(PWMpin, light); delay(10); }

return Stops running a function and returns from it. You can also use this to return a value from inside a function. For example, if you have a function called computeTemperature() and you want to return the result to the part of your code that invoked the function you would write something like: int computeTemperature() { int temperature = 0; temperature = (analogRead(0) + 45) / 100; return temperature; } 100


www.it-ebooks.info

ARITHMETIC AND FORMULAS You can use Arduino to make complex calculations using a special syntax. + and – work like you’ve learned in school, and multiplication is represented with an * and division with a /. There is an additional operator called “modulo” (%), which returns the remainder of an integer division. You can use as many levels of parentheses as necessary to group expressions. Contrary to what you might have learned in school, square brackets and curly brackets are reserved for other purposes (array indexes and blocks, respectively). Examples: a =

2 + 2;

light = ((12 * sensorValue) - 5 ) / 2; remainder = 3 % 2; // returns 1

COMPARISON OPERATORS When you specify conditions or tests for if, while, and for statements, these are the operators you can use: == != < > =

equal to not equal to less than greater than less than or equal to greater than or equal to

BOOLEAN OPERATORS These are used when you want to combine multiple conditions. For example, if you want to check whether the value coming from a sensor is between 5 and 10, you would write: if ((sensor => 5) && (sensor