Content uploaded by Elizabeth Murnane
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elizabeth Murnane on Jul 22, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
115
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in
Manual Self-Tracking
PARASTOO ABTAHI, Stanford University, USA
VICTORIA DING, Stanford University, USA
ANNA C. YANG, Stanford University, USA
TOMMY BRUZZESE, Stanford University, USA
ALYSSA B. ROMANOS, Stanford University, USA
ELIZABETH L. MURNANE, Dartmouth College, USA
SEAN FOLLMER, Stanford University, USA
JAMES A. LANDAY, Stanford University, USA
Fig. 1. Examples of our participants’ mood and habit trackers, showing diverse styles, ranging from artistic to analytical.
Self-tracking practices enable users to record and analyze their personal data. In recent years, non-digital forms of manual
self-tracking, such as bullet journaling, have gained popularity. We conduct a survey (N = 404) and follow-up interviews (N =
18) to better understand users’ motivations for physical tracking, the challenges they face with their current practices, and
their perceptions of both digital and physical tracking tools. We nd that for some users, physical practices are a structured
and constructive creative outlet and a form of artistic expression. While the resulting physical artifacts may not easily enable
retrospective reection over long-term data, they preserve personal traces in a unique and tangible form that is meaningful to
users. Moreover, the reective power of physical tracking stems from the interaction with the physical materiality, the slow
pace of these practices, the creative exploration they facilitate, and the associated digital disconnect. We conclude with design
implications for future technologies, including ways digital tools might extend current physical practices and support richly
reective self-tracking.
Authors’ addresses: Parastoo Abtahi, Stanford University, Stanford, USA, parastoo@stanford.edu; Victoria Ding, Stanford University, Stanford,
USA, vding1@stanford.edu; Anna C. Yang, Stanford University, Stanford, USA, ayang7@stanford.edu; Tommy Bruzzese, Stanford University,
Stanford, USA, tbru@stanford.edu; Alyssa B. Romanos, Stanford University, Stanford, USA, aromanos@stanford.edu; Elizabeth L. Murnane,
Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA, emurnane@dartmouth.edu; Sean Follmer, Stanford University, Stanford, USA, sfollmer@stanford.edu;
James A. Landay, Stanford University, Stanford, USA, landay@stanford.edu.
Permission 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 prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the rst page.
Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specic permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
permissions@acm.org.
©2020 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
2474-9567/2020/12-ART115 $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3432236
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:2 •Abtahi et al.
CCS Concepts: •Human-centered computing →Empirical studies in ubiquitous and mobile computing.
Additional Key Words and Phrases: Self-tracking, quantied self, mood tracking, bullet journaling, self-reection, mindfulness
ACM Reference Format:
Parastoo Abtahi, Victoria Ding, Anna C. Yang, Tommy Bruzzese, Alyssa B. Romanos, Elizabeth L. Murnane, Sean Follmer,
and James A. Landay. 2020. Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking. Proc. ACM
Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 4, 4, Article 115 (December 2020), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432236
1 INTRODUCTION
Self-tracking practices are important ways in which individuals record and draw patterns from personal data
[
69
], often with a focus on health and wellness, for instance to manage mood, symptoms, exercise, or eating
habits. In recent years, there has been a growing interest towards automatically tracking such information
through sensing and digital technologies, for instance through wearable tness devices (e.g., eyewear, rings,
shoes, watches, wristbands) [
47
,
64
], smartphone or ambient sensors to passively monitor health indicators
[
19
,
46
], or through semi-automated approaches that combine manual and automated tracking [
11
,
40
] such as
photo-based food journaling that lowers tracking burdens while maintaining active involvement in data collection
[
18
]. Alongside these advances, there has also been an increase in the popularity of purely non-digital styles of
manual self-tracking, such as journaling with pen and paper [60].
Bullet Journaling (BuJo) is a freeform, analog logging system for organizing tasks, events, and notes, designed to
facilitate a productive and reective lifestyle [
9
]. Mood tracking in particular has become popular as a "low-tech"
bullet journaling practice [
3
]. For example, Year in Pixels is a technique where users color one square in a grid
according to their mood, for every day in a year [
8
]. The practice is designed to help individuals reect on their
emotions, increase emotional self-awareness, and more eectively communicate emotions and needs to others.
These positive outcomes may be attributed to the slow, deliberate nature of the activity [
57
]. At the same time,
various mobile apps are now becoming available to support the simple and predened structure of Year in Pixels,
making it a well-suited case study to better understand users’ practices and preferences in the modern landscape
of analog and digital self-tracking tools.
In this paper, we explore people’s idiosyncratic, non-digital tracking practices to highlight the value found in
these activities, understand what challenges people face, and identify how digital tools might best support such
needs while preserving the simple but rich benets of low-tech tracking. In doing so, we build on recent research
from Ayobi et al. [
3
], who analyzed a corpus of public Instagram posts related to paper bullet journaling as a way
to examine the types of information people track and how they design their journals. They found that "visualising
data by hand can be an end in itself," as the physicality of the process promotes engagement in self-reection.
Moreover, they emphasize how digital tools should focus on extending current practices, rather than replacing
them, and support self-tracking in ways that maintain their reective nature, instead of focusing on automation.
To more deeply understand and unpack people’s attitudes regarding physical and digital tools, we extend prior
work by taking a dierent methodological approach. Specically, we conducted a large-scale survey (N = 404) and
small-scale follow-up interviews (N = 18) with people who engage in self-tracking. Our primary contributions
include 1) novel insights about people’s current practices, motivations, frustrations, and broader perceptions
of dierent tracking approaches, as well as 2) design implications for future technologies that can support and
augment reective self-tracking.
We nd that for some users, the physical self-tracking practice serves as a structured and constructive form
of artistic expression. For these individuals, writing by hand using a physical implement is imperative, and the
creativity and aesthetics of trackers drive engagement. Moreover, we nd that the tangible artifact is integral for
preservation and personal legacy but that long-term retrospective reection is challenging using physical tools.
Accordingly, we propose recommendations for the thoughtful design of future generations of digital self-tracking
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:3
tools. These include opportunities for tools that augment physical practices through duplicate data collection
and post-hoc data manipulation and visualization, as well as tools that support reective self-tracking through
creative freedom, slow and calming designs, and perceived digital disconnect.
2 RELATED WORK
2.1 Personal Data Practices and Digital Tools
With technology that can capture, store, and process personal information increasingly becoming part of our
daily lives, a variety of cultural trends around collecting such data have emerged, such as lifelogging and the
Quantied Self (QS) movement, together with the scientic study of these activities. We broadly refer to such
personal data practices as "self-tracking".
Foundational work in personal informatics (PI)—a term originally introduced by Li et al. [
44
] to refer to the
use of technologies for collecting and reecting on personal information—conceptualized self-tracking as a ve
stage iterative process through which a person will prepare what data to collect and how, perform that collection,
integrate and organize the data, reect upon it, and eventually determine how to translate insights into a plan for
action. Since then, researchers have continued to extend this model and develop further conceptualizations of
personal data practices, including to identify additional styles of tracking (e.g., goal-driven and documentation-
based activities [
62
]), stages of tracking (e.g., a maintenance phase and lapsed tracking [
23
]), and social aspects of
tracking (e.g., the collaborative collection, sharing, and interpretation of personal data as well as the broader
sociocultural backdrop in which self-tracking is embedded [51,56]).
The literature nds that people use personal informatics tools to track various aspects of daily life, including
nances, visited locations, and meals [
23
], though a majority of users are interested in capturing data about
tness, health, and well-being specically [
14
,
69
]. There are now over a quarter of a million health apps available
to smartphone users, with downloads in the billions [
29
,
65
]. Compared to self-trackers in general, the QS
community has been identied as an example of "extreme users" [
13
] who aim to make the body a more knowable
and hence "calculable and administrable object" through self-monitoring activities that represent a variety of
bio-behavioral information via numerical, objective metrics [
68
,
69
]. To capture such data at more accurate,
continuous, and granular levels, technology-based measurement approaches are typically employed, for instance
through on-body or even implantable sensors [50], video records [27], and biofeedback mechanisms [30].
Digital tools are associated with a few main benets when it comes to self-tracking. First, the portability of
personal mobile and wearable devices make them easy to access anytime and anywhere, especially compared to
physical self-tracking artifacts that might be bulky or delicate to transport or that may be more easily forgotten.
Digital tools’ storage capabilities also enable the compact accumulation and indexing of large volumes of personal
data, which can later be referenced. In addition, self-tracking interfaces are generally designed to be quick
and lightweight to use, which can make for an ecient logging session. For example, several researchers have
developed approaches that allow a user to tap icons or perform gestures on a smartphone lock screen in order to
journal health information such as mood [
76
], sleep [
12
], or water intake [
72
], while other work has developed
self-reporting prompts that enable users to record information directly from the notication panel [
54
]. Further,
such notications provide a means of proactively engaging users (e.g., by sending reminders to track). Finally,
digital tools can help synthesize data, compute health statistics, and pull out patterns that a user can then examine
to gain insights.
At the same time, whether performed purely "by hand" or through technology-mediated approaches, the
manual capture of data is associated with several benets. Non-automated self-tracking can empower users with
a sense of agency [
55
], and directly engaging with data can foster self-awareness [
13
] and enhance mindfulness
about behavior [
41
,
74
]. A number of designers have suggested a hybrid approach, combining passive sensing
with opportunities for users to manually contribute self-reported information. The UbiFit system [
17
] is an early
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:4 •Abtahi et al.
example of a system that inferred various physical activities automatically, while giving users control to edit or
add data. More recently, researchers have formalized a spectrum from fully manual, to semi-automated, to fully
automated tracking approaches, including the pros and cons of each with respect to dierent contexts, users, and
types of data [
11
]. To instantiate such ideas, the OmniTrack system oers an architecture that enables users to
dene and customize semi-automated tracking setups to meet their needs [40].
2.2 Reflective Self-tracking and Slow Technology
On the other end of the spectrum from quantication-centric tracking that prioritizes accuracy and eciency,
other self-tracking eorts have emphasized more of a qualitative approach to data capture and sensemaking that
focuses on mindfulness and reection rather than an intent to change or optimize oneself. "Slow technology" was
introduced as a design agenda in the early 2000s [
28
] to encourage the creation of systems aimed at promoting
such contemplation and deliberate engagement. A key idea was that slow technologies were not intended to
be immediately impressive, exciting, or computationally innovative but rather combine simplicity in material
with complex, rich forms to create special experiences and opportunities for reection. A broader modern
movement around "slowness" similarly promotes a cultural refocus around balanced and deeply engaged living
that emphasizes quality over quantity [57].
In the context of personal informatics, researchers are similarly exploring more reection-oriented approaches.
Ideas around "reective informatics" provide a conceptual foundation and potential dimensions related to
precipitating breakdowns, intentional inquiry, and transformed understanding along which technologies can be
designed to support reection [
4
]. "Documentary informatics" focuses on documenting and recalling memories
rather than changing behavior, emphasizing self-tracking as a means of self-expression and remembering, rather
than for data-driven monitoring and regulation [
20
]. Such work builds on "lived informatics" models that center
the experiential aspects of tracking, rather than technological or goal-oriented perspectives [62].
Several recent projects have explored the complexities of lived experiences and relationships through data.
In Metadating, researchers invited participants to create personal data proles that were used as a vehicle to
communicate during speed dating sessions, provoking questions about self-representation, identity, and how
data can be a creative conduit for personal expression and socialization [
21
]. Similarly, the Connected Shower
highlighted how "intimate" data is not necessarily intimate or sensitive in and of itself but in its role as a
mechanism for fostering interpersonal interactions [
42
]. As documented in Dear Data [
49
], Lupi and Posavec
sent each other hand-drawn postcards for a year, conceiving of the deliberately analog artifacts as "personal
documentaries" to deeply learn about themselves and each other. Friske et al. also employed rst-person methods,
using yarn and sound as media to encode and exchange personal data narratives between the authors [
25
]. One
common theme in such work has been the exploration of alternative formats, including physical artifacts, as part
of collecting and representing data.
2.3 Physical Formats and Expressive Representations for Personal Data
In parallel with technical advances in data collection and analytics, recent years have also seen the careful critique
of emerging data frontiers, including to promote more intentional technology design as well as consideration of
scenarios where information technology may be inappropriate or even do more harm than good [
5
,
52
,
53
]. A
push by self-trackers can similarly be observed towards deliberate practices that focus on non-digital approaches,
especially through the use of physical artifacts like familiar paper-based formats [
70
]. Indeed, people have used
paper to self-track personal information long before technologies existed to support the activity. Benjamin Rush’s
1790 "Moral Thermometer" [
63
], which aimed to promote the temperance movement, was a paper chart that
catalogued a variety of emotional states and associated behaviors and is considered one of the earliest self-tracking
instruments in modern history. Today, people continue to use paper-based tools as a medium for recording and
visualizing personal data, including mood tracking in particular [3].
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:5
Prior work has identied that preferences for non-digital forms of self-tracking can stem from familiarity with
physical materials, which enhances self-reection by relieving the need to learn and navigate new interface
components [
71
]. Physical forms also activate perceptions beyond the visual and provide pleasurable multi-
sensory experiences, such as the sound of pencil on paper and the tactility of a physical instrument’s texture
or weight [
32
]. Further, the process of crafting and caring for paper journals by hand imparts deeper meaning
and intimacy between people, their information, and their artifact [
70
]. Such artifacts can also be tailor-made,
whereas a commonly cited issue with existing digital tools is a lack of exibility, for instance in supporting
tracking goals that may not be well-dened or that may evolve over time [
45
] or in enabling customization of
how data is recorded or represented [33,34].
Regarding data representation specically, most self-tracking tools use 2D visualizations that are rooted in
scientic conventions that are heavily numerical and oriented around analytic tasks [
48
]. Recently, more "casual"
visual depictions of data geared at non-expert users are being explored [
61
], for instance by using more artistic
themes and personalized metaphors [
39
] that may even be co-designed with users to better convey the underlying
lived experiences they represent [
67
]. The Trackly app allows users to dene custom variables to monitor and
select from a palette of pictorial trackers that can be colored by touching the screen [
2
]. To further give users
creative control over personal data visualizations, authoring tools like DataInk [
75
] support expressive, free-form
sketching combined with data-driven visualization. The term "casual creators" has been oered for such systems
that aim to recreate the creative feeling associated with using physical artistic tools, by providing a freedom that
encourages users to explore within a predened space of creative artifacts [16].
Few digital tools exist, however, that combine both the data collection and visualization aspects of self-tracking
in an expressive, meaningful, and personalized manner. One advantage of physical formats is that they enable
precisely this blending, with the process of data logging actively producing an aesthetic archive. For example, it
has been observed that bullet journalists develop rich textual and visual languages involving customized symbols
and narrative techniques as they track idiosyncratic items of personal interest [
3
]. Recent work has begun to
explore bridges between personal informatics and data physicalization, for instance by designing 3D-printed
physical metaphors to represent a user’s activity data in playful material formats [
36
,
37
] or by guiding users
through processes to creatively envision how to express information being tracked, prepare physical tokens (e.g.,
beads) to realize this vision, and ultimately construct the artifact [
71
]. Such eorts are often aimed at exploring
forms and objects that invite alternative kinds of data engagement and reection and that embrace the complexity
and experiential nature of self-tracking [22,35].
Motivated by the clear value in exploring more expressive, exible self-tracking tools that combine the benets
of digital and physical modalities, our research aims to ll in the current gaps in understanding regarding why
and how people engage in physical self-tracking, the benets and barriers they face, and the design opportunities
these insights can oer for the interactive and pervasive computing community.
3 SURVEY
To better understand people’s tracking motivations and practices, including what information they track and
how they do so, we designed a brief survey to be deployed at-scale. For those engaging in physical self-tracking,
we were interested to learn more about their preferences and perceptions of digital tracking tools. We therefore
asked open-ended questions about the limitations of their current practices, reasons why they prefer physical
self-tracking, and whether they believe a digital tool could replace or improve their current practices.
3.1 Survey estions
Our survey consisted of 9 main questions that asked about users’ current self-tracking practices, including the
tools they use (such as mobile apps, journaling, and wearables), what they like and dislike about their practice,
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:6 •Abtahi et al.
and their perception of digital and physical tracking methods. All survey questions can be found in the Appendix
(section A). Participants were then asked to submit their name and email address if they were willing to take part
in a follow-up interview about their self-tracking experiences. The survey was concluded by a set of optional
demographics questions, asking participants’ age, gender, location, highest level of education, and occupation.
3.2 Recruitment
The survey was online and publicly available for one month. The link to the survey was shared on our research
group’s website and advertised through social media. Considering our snowball sampling approach and the
demographics of our networks, we anticipated most of these respondents would be students and researchers.
Therefore, to reach a broader sample, including people who already engage in non-digital self-tracking practices,
our group created an Instagram account where we included the link to the survey and regularly uploaded
content related to BuJo and Year in Pixels. We then searched for public Instagram accounts using common tags
identied by prior work [
3
], including #bulletjournaling, #moodtracker, and #habittracker. We also used the tag
#yearinpixels, as we were specically interested in reaching people who engage in the Year in Pixels practice
(see Figure 2). We identied 700 public Instagram accounts, with top viewed or recent posts using those tags, and
we shared the survey link with those accounts through direct messages. We acknowledge that our recruitment
strategy has a bias towards individuals who choose to share their self-tracking artifacts publicly on Instagram.
Fig. 2. Year in Pixels technique: each day is represented as a square and colored in according to that day’s mood.
4 SURVEY RESULTS
420 people took the survey, with each session taking an average of 3 minutes. We removed 16 duplicate responses,
based on the IP addresses and identical uploaded images. From the remaining 404 responses, 287 participants fully
completed the survey, taking on average 10 minutes per session. All answers, including incomplete responses,
were included in the analysis. In our reported ndings, numbers in parentheses denote frequencies. On open-
ended responses, we conducted an inductive qualitative analysis with 5 coders to extract and come to consensus
on reported themes. 150 participants uploaded photos of their trackers. We did not analyze these images, given
prior work has done so previously [3], but we present them throughout the paper as contextualizing examples.
4.1 Demographics
To complete the survey, participants had to be 18 years of age or older, which excluded younger users from
our analysis. Of the 404 survey respondents, 249 reported their age (min = 18, max = 60,
𝜇=
24
.
9,
𝜎=
7
.
5). 263
people reported their gender identity. Of those, the overwhelming majority identied as female (93%), followed
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:7
by male (6%) and non-binary (1%). Considering that around half of adult Instagram users are female (51%) and the
majority between the ages of 25 and 34 [
15
], our survey demographics suggests that either physical self-tracking
practices, such as Year in Pixels, are more popular among younger women, or that this population was more
willing to complete our survey. 271 survey respondents reported their country of origin. We received responses
from 44 countries, in North America (126), Europe (95), Asia (31), South America (12), Australia (6), and Africa (1).
40% of respondents were from the United States, which could perhaps be inuenced by our recruitment strategy
and the fact that survey questions were written in English. Of the 278 participants who reported their level of
education, 38% had completed high school, 33% had a bachelor’s degree, and 16% a master’s degree or higher. 246
people reported their occupation; around half (47%) reported being students, followed by educators (7%).
4.2 Tracked Information
300 participants reported the type of information they track using digital and physical tools, with each person
reporting around 4 dierent pieces of information (min = 1, max = 11,
𝜇=
3
.
8,
𝜎=
2
.
0). The most commonly
tracked information was moods and emotions (68%), as expected due our recruitment strategy’s emphasis on
such data, followed by tness activities (58%). See Appendix (section B) for a more detailed breakdown.
4.3 Tracking Practices
300 participants reported what tools they use to track their data. Around half (53%) reported using physical
formats, such as bullet journals (153), other journals (72), manual note taking (57), Year in Pixels (44), and planners
(19). Note that these numbers do not reect the overall popularity of physical practices among the full self-tracking
community, as we had specically recruited individuals who use non-digital tools. Regarding digital tracking,
just over a quarter of survey respondents (26%) reported using mobile apps, including Apple Health (14), Fitbit
(14), and Clue (13). Respondents also reported using a wearable device, such as Fitbit (29) and Apple Watch (20),
as well as spreadsheet applications, such as Google Sheets (7) and Microsoft Excel (3).
4.4 Experienced Limitations of Physical Tracking
207 survey respondents described the perceived limitations of their physical self-tracking practices. 46 indicated
that they do not experience any frustrations, while 161 reported facing various challenges, described next with
representative quotes.
Forgetting and post-hoc recording. Participants reported sometimes struggling to remember to track their data
on a daily basis (44). "There are days that I forget to use it, but I think that’s part of the journaling experience."
This was particularly an issue while users are travelling and cannot easily carry their materials with them (18).
Respondents reported being frustrated with their incomplete journals (33) and having diculty remembering
their data when attempting to later complete their trackers retrospectively (12). "When I skip checking several
days in a row, it is quite a big decision to continue and catch up."
Time and eort. Participants noted that physical tracking consumes a substantial amount of their time (15) and
eort (4) and that they cannot always dedicate this time and eort to their practice. "Finding time to ll out the
tracker can be hard, if I’m busy." Particularly, users reported that the initial set up is laborious and time consuming
(21). "It’s also a hassle to draw the whole lay-out, before being able to track anything."
Fixing errors and imperfections. Users reported frustrations with physical trackers being unalterable (11) and
their inability to correct simple mistakes (9). "I cannot change anything if I make a mistake or no longer want a
category." This issue was exacerbated by the pressure that some users feel to make their trackers artistic and
visually appealing (16). The static nature of physical trackers also makes it more challenging to modify their
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:8 •Abtahi et al.
trackers as their needs and goals evolve over time. "It’s hard to update an existing representation of the state of
something, so I have to redraw it."
Data management and analysis. Survey respondents reported that they track too much information, written
across many notebooks over the years (8). Users are unable to aggregate their data, search for information (2), or
draw meaningful insights over time (5).
Self-criticism and negativity. Participants mentioned that their physical trackers could be a source of negativity
(9), self-criticism (6), and a permanent representation of goals that were not reached (3): "a physical record of my
failure." "It was mostly frustrating how easily I could just not do a simple task like colouring a box." These negative
consequences are consistent with prior research on digital self-monitoring [24].
4.5 Perception of Digital Tools
251 participants who currently use physical tools answered whether or not they believe a digital tool could replace
or improve their current practice. Around half (51%) responded with "No", while 32% said that digital tools could
"Maybe" replace or improve their practice; however, some indicated that they would still prefer non-digital forms.
When asked to elaborate, the main reason respondents chose "No" was that they believed no digital experience
could replace the sensation of writing on paper (53) or support their practice in a way that would maintain its
reective and relaxing nature (20). Participants also believed that digital tools could not grant them the creative
freedom they desire (24). Those who chose "Maybe" indicated that digital tools could only replace or improve
their current practice if they were fully customizable (25).
17% of respondents chose "Yes", highlighting the benets of digital tools, such as their eciency (11) and ways
they could improve one’s current practices. People stated that it is both faster to initially set up and to record
data on their electronic devices. Other reported benets included portability of electronic devices (5), receiving
notications (4), and the sustainability benets of using fewer physical materials (4).
4.6 Reasons for Choosing Non-digital Forms
247 participants rated how strongly they agree or disagree with various statements, describing their preference
for physical tools over digital ones. These options were identied based on our initial ndings and prior literature
(see Figure 3). 173 participants further explained their reasoning, by responding to an open-ended question.
Fig. 3. Participants’ ratings for each statement, according to reasons they choose physical over digital tools.
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:9
Art and creative expression. One of the highly rated reasons for choosing non-digital forms was "It’s a hobby and I
enjoy the process", with 70% of respondents strongly agreeing and 92% indicating that they agree to some extent.
This is perhaps correlated with users mentioning that they enjoy their physical practice as
a creative outlet
(36)
and
an art form
(23). They also mentioned using this practice as a way of improving their skills, such as drawing
(16) and calligraphy (2). One participant said "because without my bujo I wouldn’t paint so much." Another reason
mentioned by participants was the joy of using stationery supplies (10), including pens (10), stickers (6), and
washi tape (3). The importance of visual appeal and the aesthetics (6) of the tracker was another reason some
participants chose not to use existing digital tools.
Tangibility and the physical artifact. Another highly rated statement was "I like the feeling of holding a physical
writing utensil", with 93% of users agreeing to at least some extent with this statement. Moreover, participants
felt that the physical medium, the bullet journal or planner, was a signicant part of their tracking process, with
91% rating "The physical object is unique and important to me" as the reason they choose a physical practice. In
the open-ended question,
tangibility
(15) was mentioned, including the importance of the sense of touch (5)
and holding something (4). People explicitly mentioned "it is more tangible" (2) or "feels more real" (2). Survey
participants also highlighted the importance of the produced artifact (7), saying that the nal item that is created
in the tracking process is novel and unique (5). Moreover, respondents reported engaging in physical practices in
order to share (6) this artifact with their family and friends or through social media.
Slowness and reection. 82% of respondents felt that the slower pace of their process allowed them to self-reect.
Participants described their physical practice as
relaxing
(15) and
reective
(16). They also mentioned looking
back after a period of time, and that the non-digital form makes it easier to
reminisce
(14), for example because
the notebook can be placed on a shelf to be later picked up to ip through the pages.
Flexibility and customization. 61% agreed with "There are no digital tools that do exactly what I want." In the
open-ended responses, this issue was frequently referenced as the
lack of exibility
(35) in existing digital
tools, and an inability to customize and personalize the digital practice to match personal needs. Respondents
said they are better able to organize (7) their data using free-form, physical practices. People less frequently
mentioned the lack of specic existing apps that do what they were looking for (3).
Overuse or mistrust of technology. 62% of respondents agreed that they choose physical forms because they want
to spend less time using digital tools, though this seems secondary to the appeal of the physical instruments
themselves, as described earlier. Wanting to
disconnect from technology
(17) was also frequently referenced
in the open-ended question. People mentioned looking for an escape from their work and other forms of digital
media consumption and that their physical self-tracking practice is a "break from digital tools."
30% of people agreed with the statement "I don’t trust technology with my data", as a reason for not using digital
self-tracking tools. Only 11% of participants rated "I am not tech-savvy" as the reason for preferring physical tools.
Those topics were also mentioned in open-ended responses, including privacy concerns (3), lack of familiarity
with technology (1), and fear of dependence on digital tools (1). It seems that the preference for physical methods
stems from the conscious decision not to use technology, rather than mistrust or unfamiliarity. This may however,
be correlated with bias resulting from our recruiting method, which was done through social media.
We had hypothesized that one of the advantages of digital tools would be sending notications to remind users
to continue their tracking practice and the ability to store data in a more permanent way, in case the physical
artifact is lost. However, these were reported as reasons for why some participants choose to use non-digital
forms. Respondents said seeing the physical artifact, on their desk or shelf, helps them better remember to track
(4) and motivates them to continue journaling; as one person said, "I download an app and a few days later I forget
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:10 •Abtahi et al.
it exists." Participants also reported that storing their information in a physical medium, such as a notebook, feels
more permanent and that they fear losing digital data (5) by accident or when they update or change their device.
Other reasons highlighted by survey respondents included unaordable hardware (5) such as an iPad and
Apple pencil, feeling of accomplishment resulting from their physical practice (4), not needing WiFi or power
(2), better memory retention resulting from handwriting (2), and supporting small businesses such as stationery
companies "which have solid representation of women and minority ownership" (1).
5 SURVEY DISCUSSION
Through our survey results, we found that some users approach non-digital self-tracking as a form of art and
creative expression. These users consider their tracking practice an enjoyable hobby and a means to improve
their skills, such as drawing or calligraphy. It seems that the utility of their practice with regards to personal
informatics is an added benet, and perhaps secondary. Many of these individuals cannot imagine a digital tool
that grants them the creative freedom they seek. Moreover, they like holding a physical writing implement, the
feel of writing on paper, and the use of other stationery. Participants also reported valuing the unique physical
artifact that is created as part of their tracking process and stated that they cannot imagine replacing it with
a digital tool, as it feels more "tangible","personal","real", and "permanent." Others stated that they choose a
physical practice as it is relaxing and allows them to reect. At the same time, many users acknowledged that
their current practice has limitations, many of which could be overcome with the use of technology.
Following the survey, we were left with a few key questions: How do users approach their tracking as a form
of art? Do they look back at their data later on? What features of physical tracking make it feel more permanent
and real? What specic aspects of people’s current physical practices contribute to reection and relaxation? We
were interested to dive deeper into these topics to better understand how digital tools could support or extend
their practices. We therefore conducted follow-up interviews with a subset of our survey participants.
6 FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS
We followed up with survey participants who showed interest in being interviewed about their experiences with
self-tracking. We set up 50 interview slots and scheduled 25 interviews, based on respondents’ availability. We
successfully conducted 18 virtual interviews with those who attended. We did not lter or select interviewees
based on other metrics. Since all participants had previously completed the survey, the interviewer reviewed that
person’s responses prior to the session and asked relevant follow-up questions in a 15-minute semi-structured
interview. In the following analysis, numbers in parentheses denote frequencies or participant ID in the form P#.
6.1 Demographics
We interviewed 18 people, aged 19 to 47 (
𝜇=
26
.
8,
𝜎=
7
.
4). 13 people identied as female, 4 male, and 1 non-binary.
Interviewees were from 5 countries: United States (12), Canada (3), Brazil (1), Mexico (1), and the United Kingdom
(1). Half of the interviewees (9) reported being a student. With regards to the highest level of education, 7 had
high school degrees, 5 bachelor’s degrees, and 5 master’s degrees or higher.
6.2 Background Information
Prior to conducting the interviews, we reviewed each interviewee’s responses to our survey questions. All 18
interviewees engaged in self-tracking practices, each tracking around 4 pieces of information (min = 1, max = 7,
𝜇=
3
.
9,
𝜎=
1
.
4), similar to the mean of our survey population. 13 out of 18 participants engaged in physical
practices, with 6 participants specically using the bullet journaling technique. 3 out of 13 participants used only
physical tools, while others used both physical and mobile apps, with one person also using a wearable device. In
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:11
terms of their perception of digital tools, only one person believed that a digital tool could improve or replace
their current physical practice, while 6 had chosen "Maybe" and 6 had chosen "No".
6.3 Setup and Method
All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. We then took a collaborative Reexive Thematic Analysis
approach, with a combination of inductive and deductive coding [
6
,
7
], using the NVivo 2020 software. Note that
our analysis was inuenced by related prior literature, summarized earlier in the paper, the questions we asked
in our survey, the analysis of our survey responses, and the questions we asked during the interviews.
6.3.1 Assumptions. We had a few pre-existing assumptions that may have inuenced our interview method and
analysis. Our main assumption was that while many respondents reported engaging in physical tracking because
it is an enjoyable process, we also saw that people faced frustrations and limitations that potentially, could be
eliminated with the use of technology. We also assumed that many participants would not share this view and
would think technology has no place in their current practice; we were interested to dig into such attitudes.
6.3.2 Interview estions. We compiled a set of potential questions for the semi-structured interviews. The
interviewer reviewed each person’s survey responses in advance and chose the relevant follow-up questions
accordingly. For example, some participants were prompted to describe how they started self-tracking, elaborate
on frustrations they have with their current practices, and explain how they analyze or use their personal
data. Interviewers also asked participants to elaborate on topics that came up during the interviews and asked
additional follow-up questions that were not scripted. See Appendix (section C) for a list of interview questions.
Fig. 4. Example mood tracking submissions, using (a) repetitive icons, (b) segmented graphics, and (c) decorated wheels.
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:12 •Abtahi et al.
7 INTERVIEW RESULTS
Here we present the ndings of our qualitative analysis. Each section is organized around a high-level topic that
provides context for sub-sections, denoting themes that were developed.
7.1 Art and Creative Expression
Similar to our survey responses, we found that many users engage in physical tracking as a creative outlet, a form
of artistic self-expression, and an eective way to improve their artistic skills. From the 18 participants that we
interviewed, 12 tracked their moods or emotions. From those who engaged in physical mood-tracking, 6 people
used the Year in Pixels technique (see Figure 2), and others (6) mentioned that their practice is a way for them to
be creative and express themselves artistically. We identied two artistic approaches: those who drew as part of
visualizing their information, such as drawing a self-portrait to capture their mood (P1), and those who drew a
template at the beginning of the month and later colored it in on a daily basis. The monthly templates seem to
take on one of three forms. In the rst form (see Figure 4a), people select a theme, such as ice cream (P11) or
abstract art (P14), and draw repetitive patterns for each day of the month that they then color in daily, according
to their mood. The second form (see Figure 4b) involves drawing a graphic, such as a heart (P1), and dividing that
shape into segments for each day. In the nal form of artistic mood-tracking (see Figure 4c), people draw simple
trackers, such as wheels, and decorate them artistically, by "drawing things around them" (P5). As one person said,
"for more simple trackers .. .I usually like to dress them up a little just by drawing or decorating" (P9).
Fig. 5. Habit tracking examples, ranging from creative and artistic to minimalist and analytical approaches.
7.1.1 Self-tracking is a Structured and Productive Creative Outlet. From the survey analysis, we knew that
participants used their physical tracking practices to improve their artistic skills. In interviews, we identied that
tracking instruments, such as mood-trackers, give users more structure in their art practice and act as inspiration.
"I also don’t have any ideas for drawing most of the time, so I feel that decorating my bullet journal is drawing, so
it’s a good way for me to keep drawing" (P9). Specically, the tracker itself and the creative context and cues it
oers, acts as a prompt for the users’ artwork. "Instead of just doing a plain July tracker, I tried to draw some of my
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:13
Fig. 6. Visual aesthetics in dierent styles of tracking, contrasting (a) artistic and (b) minimalist formats.
favorite things about summer around it" (P5). Moreover, this art form feels constructive to users, with the added
benet of personal tracking. "What I enjoy about it is being able to be a little bit artsy, but also be able to track all of
my information" (P5). "Bullet journal is kind of the way that I can still do art, but not waste too much time" (P14).
7.1.2 Self-tracking Approaches Range from Artistic to Pragmatic. Physical self-tracking practices fall on a spectrum,
ranging from creative and artistic to minimalist and pragmatic. As highlighted earlier, we found that users’
mood-trackers ranged from those with creative themes and artistic drawings (see Figure 4) to simple techniques,
such as the Year in Pixels (see Figure 2). We saw a similar pattern in participants’ habit tracking practices (see
Figure 5). Those on the artistic end of the spectrum use self-tracking as a prompt for their creative self-expression,
while those taking a minimalist approach are concerned with eciency and developing a sustainable practice.
As one person mentioned "I keep my track[er]s very simple" by marking cells in a table (P4). For one person, the
data collection and visualization were separate processes; we interviewed an artist who initially pragmatically
performed data collection—simply writing on paper—but later visualized the data in artistic ways (P6).
7.1.3 The Visual Aesthetics of Self-trackers is Imperative. One theme that we identied is that the aesthetics of
trackers is very important to users (9) — in some cases, even more so than the function they serve. "It doesn’t
matter how eective it is, but if it looks nice, and I can look at it and be like that’s really pleasing, that’s really
satisfying . . . " (P12). Participants specically mentioned the importance of color (10) and the use of color schemes
that match their style (7). We found that people with artistic tracking practices as well as those with a minimalist
approach both valued visual appeal (see Figure 6). Those with simple tracking practices reported that neat and
organized trackers are visually satisfying and pleasing to look at. One person mentioned enjoying the simple Year
in Pixels mood-tracking technique because they found the juxtaposition of dierent colors visually beautiful (P4).
7.1.4 Artistic Expression and Visual Aesthetics Drive Engagement. The opportunity trackers provide to be creative
and craft an artistic piece motivates participants to not abandon their tracking practice even if they believe they
are "not very good at drawing";"it motivates me to actually sit down and do it, when I think about touching the papers,
drawing, and making art" (P2). Moreover, the visual appeal seems to be an important factor for engagement;
"I think it also looks good and motivates me to keep lling it out" (P9). This encourages users to continue their
practice, even when the benets are not immediately apparent to them. "The idea was that I could try to gure out
what’s making me sleep late, but that actually hasn’t been helpful, so much as just cool to look at" (P35).
7.2 Tangibility and the Physical Artifact
Interviewees mentioned the importance of physically holding a writing instrument (P30), holding their notebook
(P12), and the texture of writing on paper (P21). People also highlighted that their notebooks are an invaluable
possession — a tangible artifact that is the culmination of their self-tracking practice over a period of time (P6).
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:14 •Abtahi et al.
Fig. 7. Use of dierent stationery and materials, including (a) stickers, textured paper, stamps, (b) paerned adhesive tape,
markers, highlighters, and (c) printed images and calligraphy quotes.
7.2.1 Writing is Preferred to Typing for Processing and Retention. Several people engaging in physical self-tracking
believed that no digital tool could replace the experience of writing with pen on paper, as it helps them process
and remember the information (6). "The act of writing out my thoughts helps me process them . . .almost makes it
sink in more" (P12). "The motion of actually writing things down, it . . .ingrains it more" (P14). These observations
are consistent with prior research studying memory retention when writing by hand, compared to typing [66].
7.2.2 Use of Stationery and Materials is an Integral Component of the Practice. Interviewees were skeptical that a
digital tool could replace their practice because they enjoy incorporating stationery items, such as notebooks
(P1), markers (P3), and stickers (P2) (see Figure 7). "Using colors, using washi tape, dierent materials, helped
me meditate" (P3). One person mentioned that the materials are an integral part of their self-tracking practice
and inform the creation of the nal artifact, a phenomenon described by Ingold’s model of creation [
31
]. "I like
knowing that I could just use my materials for whatever that may be, because I often don’t have a complete idea of
what I’m doing when I start" (P12).
7.2.3 Tangible Artifacts Feel More Permanent. People perceive tangible artifacts as more permanent compared
to digital forms of data storage (4), despite acknowledging that physical items "can be lost in real life too" (P6).
"There’s something about having that object and knowing that it will persist and it’s sort of archival in a way that a
digital le isn’t" (P6); "having it on my phone or on my computer is less real" (P12). Moreover, similar to survey
respondents, interviewees were concerned about losing their data if they were stored digitally (P6).
7.2.4 Tangible Artifacts Hold More Sentimental Value. The self-tracking artifact was important for some people to
look back on, as a way of storytelling for their future self (P35), or to share with others. "When you have an item
in your hand, something that you touched or something that someone else touched, it connects you to that person.
Maybe someday my . . .grandchild will nd this bullet journal and have something that their ancestor touched and
they will feel connected to me, even if I am no longer there" (P1).
7.3 Reflection and Relaxation
We knew from prior work [
3
] and our survey responses that users perceive their physical self-tracking as a
mindful practice. We were interested in nding out more about what aspects of tracking facilitate self-reection.
7.3.1 Physical Tracking Enables Reflection When Personal Data is Unquantifiable. Interviewees mentioned that
digital tools are eective for quantiable data (5), such as weight or sleep, as well as binary information, including
whether or not they meditated, took their vitamins, or had a specic symptom that day. Participants highlighted
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:15
that their physical practice helps them reect on data that is harder to quantify (5), such as their emotions, what
they are grateful for, ideas, observations, energy level, how distracted they feel, pain level, and the state of their
relationships. "Tracking tness .. . is not like an emotional thing .. .and it’s a lot easier to track with an app" (P9).
"Emotion is . . . a deeper thing, and for me an emotion can’t really be summed up with a bunch of ones and zero" (P1).
7.3.2 The Slower Pace of Physical Tracking Facilitates Self-reflection. Interviewees referred to tracking as a
mindful practice (12) and used it to tackle their mental health challenges (8). They attributed reection to the
slow pace of the process, such as the slowness of writing by hand (see section 7.2.1), drawing (see section 8.5),
and creation using physical materials (see section 7.2.2). "I do write slower than I type, and so you really have to
stay with each thought a little bit longer, as you write things out" (P12). "It’s really meditative for me to sit and draw"
(P2).
7.3.3 Calming Rituals Accompany Physical Tracking Practices. People mentioned that they approach their self-
tracking practice as a form of self-care and a way to disconnect from work. "It’s a nice transition into the evening,
so that I can leave work brain and focus on something for myself for a little bit" (P5). People mentioned engaging in
rituals that set the mood and "make the environment more relaxing" (P3). "It’s a time to turn on music and light
some candles and just be alone with myself" (P2). People considered disconnecting from technology an important
component of their ritual. "being . . .on my phone . .. stresses me out .. .so I think that’s part of what’s so relaxing is
it’s time away from my phone and away from electronics and it’s just me in the book" (P5).
7.4 Making Sense of and Using Tracked Data
14 interviewees mentioned how long they have been self-tracking, ranging from 3 months to 24 years (
𝜇=
4
.
4,
𝜎=
6
.
6years). People had dierent motivations for self-tracking and used their data in various ways. Similar to
prior work [
3
], we found that users draw insights primarily by comparing multiple pieces of data and looking for
correlations (see Figure 8); "I’m feeling tired .. . oh I’m not getting enough sleep this week" (P15).
Fig. 8. Users analyze their information to find paerns, by visualizing and comparing dierent pieces of self-tracking data.
7.4.1 People Consult Tracked Data from the Recent Past. While interviewees mentioned retrospectively reecting
on their long-term physical trackers (P2), they noted that often, they refer to their more recent data. For example,
they look back a few days to nd out how much time has passed since they last took their vitamins (P2) or to
identify what habits may have led to a are-up (P13).
7.4.2 Physical Trackers Are Not Commonly Used for Long-term Retrospective Reflection. Searching for insights and
patterns was frequently mentioned by interviewees. Some noted that they look back through their digital data to
view their progress, such as frequency of exercise (P20) or spending habits (P30), or to search for a specic event
in the past (P17). However, only one participant referred to such form of retrospective reection in the context
of their physical tracker (P2). Rather than referencing the physical tracker to search for insights, interviewees
highlighted the sentimental value that their notebook has (P9), mentioning that they sometimes casually ip
through for fun (P21) or to reminisce (P11). While the utility of physical tracking appears to be reection while
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:16 •Abtahi et al.
in the act of data collection, it is unclear whether or not people’s lack of interest in retrospective reection stems
from limitations of the physical medium, in terms of its inability to synthesize and highlight insights. One user
wished to "be able to take that data and manipulate it, because that’s something that I can’t do in my book" (P5).
"When it’s analog it’s a lot harder to nd the patterns .. .it’s more useful in the moment and less useful later" (P24).
7.4.3 Data is Duplicated and Transferred between Digital and Physical Mediums. Ayobi et al. found that users
transition data between digital and physical forms by sharing digital representations of their practice online
and printing digital content, such as quotes, and attaching them to their physical notebooks [
3
]. We found that
users also transition between digital and physical forms by tracking the same information in both mediums; "I’m
always going to be one of those people that does both, even if . . .I’ve written something down on my computer, I like
to write it down on paper too - like a lot of duplication." (P12). Users mentioned they might initially track their
data in a digital form, because they receive notication reminders on their phone that help them remember to
track their information more consistently (P4) and because they can do so on the move (P14). Memory retention
(P13) and the unique, physical artifact appeared to be the main reasons users transfer their information to their
notebooks afterwards (see section 7.2); "I still write it down on paper afterwards . . .there’s something nice about
having a physical artifact of the recording process" (P6). Others reported tracking their information physically rst,
and transferring it to an app later to nd patterns and correlations using their digital data (P15).
7.5 Sharing and Social Engagement
Similar to results from prior research [
3
], we found that users consider public, online sharing as an integral part
of their practice (8). Participants mentioned having social media accounts specically used for sharing their
trackers, as well as consuming content from "the bullet journaling community" (P14) on social media platforms
such as YouTube and Instagram. However, this may be a bias resulting from our recruiting strategy. In addition
to online sharing, users mentioned sharing their practice in-person with friends (P30), family members (P3),
and co-workers (P2). Users also mentioned gifting their self-tracking artifacts; "I like to . . .knit, crochet, or make
miniatures out of clay and give that to other people" (P12). We found that people had dierent motivations for
sharing their practice, including sharing their artwork (P12), competing with friends (P30), or communicating
with professionals; "to my doctor, I don’t even have to talk to him. I can just hand him the notebook" (P13).
7.5.1 People Share Trackers to Publicize Their Practice. We found that one of the main reasons people share
their trackers is to inspire others to engage in similar practices (P14). People mentioned that they have found
self-tracking practices benecial and would like to promote these practices so others can also benet from them.
"I hope . . .someday everyone makes this kind of stu " (P3). "I think a lot of people can benet from it" (P1). "I really
recommend this kind of practice for everybody. I think .. . it really helps a lot" (P4).
7.5.2 Private Information is Filtered When Sharing. People mentioned ltering private information, when sharing
their trackers, both on-line and in-person. One person mentioned that they choose not to share their emotion
trackers and only share the data that is not personal; "I feel like emotion is something . . .pretty private" (P20). "I
really put .. .every part of my life there, so I don’t share it . . . [even] with my partner or with my family" (P3).
7.6 Global Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic was brought up by 8 people as a phenomenon that has changed their self-tracking
practice in dierent ways. The majority of those interviewees (7) indicated that they have been tracking more
information and more often. 4 people highlighted that they use tracking as a coping mechanism and as a way of
dealing with the mental health consequences of stress and isolation during this period. "I’ve been bullet journaling
. . . to calm myself " (P2). 3 people mentioned spending more time and eort on their physical tracking practice as
a result of having more free time; "I have more of the time to sit down and do it" (P14). One person mentioned that
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:17
not using digital tracking tools is even more important now, as they work remotely and spend most of their day
consuming digital content and feel the need to take a break from their devices more than ever before (P5). One
person highlighted that they have stopped their practice because they are less motivated and not as active (P20).
8 DISCUSSION AND DESIGN IMPLICATIONS
We found that users who engage in physical self-tracking practices range from those who use it primarily as a
form of artistic expression, to those who are searching for ecient approaches to track their data. It appears that
for those on the artistic end of the spectrum, physical practices and tools are paramount. For these individuals,
digital tools cannot act as a replacement but may improve and extend their current practices, through reminder
notications, complementary data input, back-up storage, and post-hoc analysis. For individuals on the other end
of the spectrum with a focus on eciency, digital tools can be an important tool if they are exible, customizable,
privacy-sensitive, and aesthetically pleasing. Most people we interviewed, however, fall somewhere in between;
for them, physical self-tracking is a form of engaging with quantied-self data, but creative freedom and the
physical artifact are also important (see section 7.1.2). Here we describe such design implications in more detail.
8.1 Augmenting Physical Practices
Participants described ways in which they use mobile apps to augment their physical tracking, noting that
they have multiple copies of their data across digital and physical mediums (see section 7.4.3). There may be
opportunities for designing tools to support preliminary data collection, by reminding users to track their data
on the go and facilitating transfer from digital to physical mediums. Digital tools can also be used at a later stage
in the physical self-tracking process as a secondary means of storage and a way for users to share their trackers
online (see section 7.5). This could be done through smart-pens that transfer handwriting to digital devices, such
as the Anoto Digital Pen [1], or via image capture, similar to the Bullet Journaling companion app [10].
8.2 Enabling Post-hoc Analysis
Participants who track their data using physical tools mentioned that they cannot easily nd patterns or draw
meaningful insights from their long-term data (see section 7.4.2). This suggests that there may be opportunities
for digital tools to extend current physical practices by extracting data from existing physical artifacts, potentially
through computer vision, and facilitating post-hoc analysis through visualization and manipulation of the data.
Digital tools may also combine and correlate this data with existing digital data on the user’s device, such as
their images and videos, or with quantiable data that can be automatically measured, such as their heart rate, to
enable more comprehensive and rich analyses (see section 7.4).
8.3 Prioritizing Persistence and Privacy
While digital data is often associated with permanence and resistance to decay [
26
], both survey respondents and
interview participants were concerned about the fragility of digital information and the possibility of losing their
data over time (see sections 4.6 and 7.2.3). Digital tools not only need to ensure that data is reliably stored and is
recoverable, but also need to explore strategies for preserving these highly personal data for future generations
[
73
]. Users also mentioned tracking two types of information: data they consider very personal and would not
even share with friends and family, and data they often choose to share with others on online public platforms
(see section 7.5.2). Given this tension between the need to maintain privacy and the desire to share artifacts
publicly, there may be opportunities for tools to mediate digital sharing of physical self-tracking data by enabling
ltering or masking of the private aspects of information.
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:18 •Abtahi et al.
8.4 Valuing Visual Aesthetics
A common theme that we discovered through our study is that the visual appeal of trackers is very important to
users, even for those with minimalist trackers (see section 7.1.3). Particularly, the color choices and the ability to
customize the aesthetics of the platform is important to many people. Digital tools that wish to support or extend
current physical self-tracking practices should carefully design the visual aesthetics of their platform.
8.5 Granting Creative Freedom
Prior work has highlighted the importance of exibility and customizability in digital self-tracking tools, to
enable non-standard visual encodings [
67
], support users’ evolving tracking goals [
45
], and create a sense of
control and agency [
2
]. We found that personalization is also important in the context of granting users a form of
self-expression and creative freedom. Digital tools can draw from prior research on casual creators [
16
] to enable
users to express themselves creatively and compose something they feel proud of. This sense of accomplishment
and the resulting artifact will also motivate users to continue with their self-tracking practice, even when the
benets are not immediately apparent to them (see section 7.1.4).
8.6 Generating Physical Artifacts
We found that the unique physical artifact is an important component of people’s self-tracking practices. Partici-
pants perceive these artifacts as a way of capturing their data in a more "real" way and consider them as part of
their personal legacy (see sections 7.2.3 and 7.2.4). One potential design idea is that digital tools could benet
from periodically generating physical artifacts to maintain this archival value. Generating artifacts from personal
tracking data, similar to prior work on activity tracking [
38
,
43
], will enable users to store physical copies of their
information and to share them with others, in a format that has a higher perceived durability [
59
]. However,
such physical extensions should be carefully designed to inspire a similar sense of value and attachment. While
the personal history of the data embedded in the artifact may create the symbolism needed to engender a strong
attachment, users may not perceive the generated artifact as authentic or unique [
26
]. To imbue these values,
it may be important to enable users to personalize their data representation and express themselves creatively
through this encoding. Moreover, digital tools should consider ways in which a user can engage with the physical
artifact, specically considering the materiality of the object and the "motor-tactile nature of using an object" [
59
].
8.7 Facilitating Mindful Reflection
The slowness of physical practices such as writing, drawing, and crafting with materials leads to reection-in-
action. Designing for slowness, by consulting prior literature on slow technologies, may enable digital tools to
facilitate similar forms of mindful reection [
58
] and identity work [
70
]. Moreover, digital tools may encourage
users to modify their space to create a calming atmosphere or set the mood through background music and
lighting adjustments. Disconnecting from technology appears to be another important factor contributing to
reection and relaxation, especially in the midst of the digitally-saturated pandemic (see section 7.6). To help
people "unplug", digital tools could perhaps disconnect the device from the internet or temporarily turn o
notications—or, the best design strategy may sometimes be to avoid foisting a technological experience onto
tracking altogether, if that would ultimately not serve an individual’s needs, practices, and preferences [5].
9 CONCLUSION
In this work, we conducted a large-scale survey and small-scale follow-up interviews to understand the role of
technology in non-digital and manual self-tracking. We studied people’s physical tracking practices to better
understand their motivations for tracking, the challenges they face in their current practice, and more broadly, their
attitudes towards both digital and physical tracking tools. We found that users’ motivations for physical tracking
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:19
range from artistic self-expression to ecient recording and analysis of personal data. While we highlighted ways
in which future digital tracking tools may support aspects of these practices, such as granting creative freedom
and facilitating reection through slow designs, we found that for some people, the richness of the experience is
tied to the physicality of their self-tracking practice. For example, people nd the feeling of holding a pen and
writing on paper satisfying, and they value the regular time spent disconnected from technology during their
practice. For these individuals, digital tools may be able to augment tracking by addressing other unmet needs,
such as helping users draw insights from their physically-recorded data over time, through post-hoc visualizations
or other sensemaking activities that complement and preserve the deep meaning inherent to physical tracking.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank our volunteers and the BuJo community more generally for participating in our study.
We thank Lauren Zhu, Tristan Gosakti, Jean Costa, Jingyi Li, and members of Shape Lab for their feedback.
REFERENCES
[1] Anoto Group AB. (accessed August 1, 2020). Anoto Digital Pen. https://www.anoto.com/
[2]
Amid Ayobi, Paul Marshall, and Anna L Cox. 2020. Trackly: A Customisable and Pictorial Self-Tracking App to Support Agency in
Multiple Sclerosis Self-Care. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15.
[3]
Amid Ayobi, Tobias Sonne, Paul Marshall, and Anna L Cox. 2018. Flexible and Mindful Self-Tracking: Design Implications from Paper
Bullet Journals. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[4]
Eric PS Baumer. 2015. Reective informatics: conceptual dimensions for designing technologies of reection. In Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 585–594.
[5]
Eric PS Baumer and M Six Silberman. 2011. When the implication is not to design (technology). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2271–2274.
[6]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[7]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reecting on reexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11,
4 (2019), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
[8] Passion Carnets. (accessed August 1, 2020). Year in Pixel. https://bulletjournal.com/blogs/bulletjournalist/deep-dive-year-in-pixels
[9] Ryder Carrol. (accessed August 1, 2020). Bullet Journal: The Analog Method for the Digital Age. https://bulletjournal.com/
[10] Ryder Carrol. (accessed August 1, 2020). Bullet Journal: The Companion App. https://bulletjournal.com/pages/app
[11]
Eun Kyoung Choe, Saeed Abdullah, Mashqui Rabbi, Edison Thomaz, Daniel A Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, Matthew Kay, Gregory D
Abowd, Tanzeem Choudhury, James Fogarty, et al
.
2017. Semi-automated tracking: a balanced approach for self-monitoring applications.
IEEE Pervasive Computing 16, 1 (2017), 74–84.
[12]
Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, Matthew Kay, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A Kientz. 2015. SleepTight: low-burden, self-monitoring
technology for capturing and reecting on sleep behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive
and Ubiquitous Computing. 121–132.
[13]
Eun Kyoung Choe, Nicole B Lee, Bongshin Lee, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A Kientz. 2014. Understanding quantied-selfers’ practices in
collecting and exploring personal data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1143–1152.
[14]
James Clawson, Jessica A Pater, Andrew D Miller, Elizabeth D Mynatt, and Lena Mamykina. 2015. No longer wearing: investigating the
abandonment of personal health-tracking technologies on craigslist. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on
Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 647–658.
[15]
J. Clement. 2020. Instagram: age and gender demographics. https://www.statista.com/statistics/248769/age-distribution-of-worldwide-
instagram-users/
[16]
Kate Compton and Michael Mateas. 2015. Casual Creators. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational
Creativity. 228–235.
[17]
Sunny Consolvo, David W McDonald, Tammy Toscos, Mike Y Chen, Jon Froehlich, Beverly Harrison, Predrag Klasnja, Anthony LaMarca,
Louis LeGrand, Ryan Libby, et al
.
2008. Activity sensing in the wild: a eld trial of ubit garden. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference
on human factors in computing systems. 1797–1806.
[18]
Felicia Cordeiro, Elizabeth Bales, Erin Cherry, and James Fogarty. 2015. Rethinking the mobile food journal: Exploring opportunities for
lightweight photo-based capture. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3207–3216.
[19]
Victor P Cornet and Richard J Holden. 2018. Systematic review of smartphone-based passive sensing for health and wellbeing. Journal
of biomedical informatics 77 (2018), 120–132.
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:20 •Abtahi et al.
[20]
Chris Elsden, Abigail C Durrant, David Chatting, and David S Kirk. 2017. Designing documentary informatics. In Proceedings of the 2017
Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 649–661.
[21]
Chris Elsden, Bettina Nissen, Andrew Garbett, David Chatting, David Kirk, and John Vines. 2016. Metadating: exploring the romance
and future of personal data. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 685–698.
[22]
Chris Elsden, Mark Selby, Abigail Durrant, and David Kirk. 2016. Fitter, happier, more productive: what to ask of a data-driven life.
interactions 23, 5 (2016), 45–45.
[23]
Daniel A Epstein, An Ping, James Fogarty, and Sean A Munson. 2015. A lived informatics model of personal informatics. In Proceedings
of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 731–742.
[24]
Maria Faurholt-Jepsen, Mads Frost, Christian Ritz, Ellen Margrethe Christensen, AS Jacoby, Rie Lambæk Mikkelsen, U Knorr, JE Bardram,
Maj Vinberg, and Lars Vedel Kessing. 2015. Daily electronic self-monitoring in bipolar disorder using smartphones–the MONARCA I
trial: a randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind, parallel group trial. Psychological medicine 45, 13 (2015), 2691–2704.
[25]
Mikhaila Friske, Jordan Wirfs-Brock, and Laura Devendorf. 2020. Entangling the Roles of Maker and Interpreter in Interpersonal Data
Narratives: Explorations in Yarn and Sound. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 297–310.
[26]
Rebecca Gulotta, William Odom, Jodi Forlizzi, and Haakon Faste. 2013. Digital artifacts as legacy: exploring the lifespan and value of
digital data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1813–1822.
[27]
Cathal Gurrin, Alan F Smeaton, and Aiden R Doherty. 2014. Lifelogging: Personal big data. Foundations and trends in information
retrieval 8, 1 (2014), 1–125.
[28]
Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow technology–designing for reection. Personal and ubiquitous computing 5, 3 (2001),
201–212.
[29]
Philip Henson, Gary David, Karen Albright, and John Torous. 2019. Deriving a practical framework for the evaluation of health apps.
The Lancet Digital Health 1, 2 (2019), e52–e54.
[30]
Noura Howell, Laura Devendorf, Tomás Alfonso Vega Gálvez, Rundong Tian, and Kimiko Ryokai. 2018. Tensions of data-driven
reection: A case study of real-time emotional biosensing. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. 1–13.
[31] Tim Ingold. 2010. The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, 1 (2010), 91–102.
[32]
Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic, Petra Isenberg, Jason Alexander, Abhijit Karnik, Johan Kildal, Sriram Subramanian, and Kasper
Hornbæk. 2015. Opportunities and challenges for data physicalization. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. 3227–3236.
[33]
Ravi Karkar, Jessica Schroeder, Daniel A Epstein, Laura R Pina, Jerey Scoeld, James Fogarty, Julie A Kientz, Sean A Munson, Roger
Vilardaga, and Jasmine Zia. 2017. Tummytrials: a feasibility study of using self-experimentation to detect individualized food triggers.
In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 6850–6863.
[34]
Ravi Karkar, Jasmine Zia, Roger Vilardaga, Sonali R Mishra, James Fogarty, Sean A Munson, and Julie A Kientz. 2016. A framework for
self-experimentation in personalized health. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 23, 3 (2016), 440–448.
[35]
Maria Karyda, Merja Ryöppy, Jacob Buur, and Andrés Lucero. 2020. Imagining Data-Objects for Reective Self-Tracking. In Proceedings
of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.
[36]
Rohit Ashok Khot, Deepti Aggarwal, Ryan Pennings, Larissa Hjorth, and Florian’Floyd’ Mueller. 2017. Edipulse: investigating a playful
approach to self-monitoring through 3D printed chocolate treats. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. 6593–6607.
[37]
Rohit Ashok Khot, Larissa Hjorth, and Florian’Floyd’ Mueller. 2014. Understanding physical activity through 3D printed material
artifacts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3835–3844.
[38]
Rohit Ashok Khot, Larissa Hjorth, and Florian Mueller. 2020. Shele: A Framework for Designing Material Representations of Physical
Activity Data. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 27, 3 (2020), 1–52.
[39]
Nam Wook Kim, Hyejin Im, Nathalie Henry Riche, Alicia Wang, Krzysztof Gajos, and Hanspeter Pster. 2019. DataSele: Empowering
People to Design Personalized Visuals to Represent Their Data. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. 1–12.
[40]
Young-Ho Kim, Jae Ho Jeon, Bongshin Lee, Eun Kyoung Choe, and Jinwook Seo. 2017. OmniTrack: A exible self-tracking approach
leveraging semi-automated tracking. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017),
1–28.
[41]
Judy Kopp. 1988. Self-monitoring: A literature review of research and practice. In Social Work Research and Abstracts, Vol. 24. Oxford
University Press, 8–20.
[42]
Hyosun Kwon, Joel E Fischer, Martin Flintham, and James Colley. 2018. The connected shower: Studying intimate data in everyday life.
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 4 (2018), 1–22.
[43]
Moon-Hwan Lee, Seijin Cha, and Tek-Jin Nam. 2015. Patina engraver: Visualizing activity logs as patina in fashionable trackers. In
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1173–1182.
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:21
[44]
Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference
on human factors in computing systems. 557–566.
[45]
Ian Li, Anind K. Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2011. Understanding my data, myself. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous
computing - UbiComp 11 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2030112.2030166
[46]
Lili Liu, Eleni Stroulia, Ioanis Nikolaidis, Antonio Miguel-Cruz, and Adriana Rios Rincon. 2016. Smart homes and home health monitoring
technologies for older adults: A systematic review. International journal of medical informatics 91 (2016), 44–59.
[47]
Tatjana Loncar-Turukalo, Eftim Zdravevski, José Machado da Silva, Ioanna Chouvarda, and Vladimir Trajkovik. 2019. Literature on
wearable technology for connected health: Scoping review of research trends, advances, and barriers. Journal of medical Internet research
21, 9 (2019), e14017.
[48]
Giorgia Lupi. 2017. Data humanism: the revolutionary future of data visualization. Print Magazine 30 (2017). https://www.printmag.
com/post/data-humanism- future-of- data-visualization
[49] Giorgia Lupi and Stefanie Posavec. 2016. Dear data. Chronicle books.
[50]
Deborah Lupton. 2013. Quantifying the body: monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Critical Public
Health 23, 4 (2013), 393–403.
[51]
Deborah Lupton. 2014. Self-tracking cultures: towards a sociology of personal informatics. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian
computer-human interaction conference on designing futures: The future of design. 77–86.
[52]
Deborah Lupton. 2016. The diverse domains of quantied selves: self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Economy and Society 45, 1
(2016), 101–122.
[53] Deborah Lupton. 2017. Digital health: critical and cross-disciplinary perspectives. Routledge.
[54]
Mark Matthews, Saeed Abdullah, Elizabeth Murnane, Stephen Voida, Tanzeem Choudhury, Geri Gay, and Ellen Frank. 2016. Development
and evaluation of a smartphone-based measure of social rhythms for bipolar disorder. Assessment 23, 4 (2016), 472–483.
[55]
Elizabeth L Murnane, Dan Cosley, Pamara Chang, Shion Guha, Ellen Frank, Geri Gay, and Mark Matthews. 2016. Self-monitoring
practices, attitudes, and needs of individuals with bipolar disorder: implications for the design of technologies to manage mental health.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 23, 3 (2016), 477–484.
[56]
Elizabeth L Murnane, Tara G Walker, Beck Tench, Stephen Voida, and Jaime Snyder. 2018. Personal informatics in interpersonal contexts:
towards the design of technology that supports the social ecologies of long-term mental health management. Proceedings of the ACM on
Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–27.
[57] Janna V Nikolaeva. 2016. Slow Life. The New Philosophy of Slowness. Observatory of Culture 1, 1 (2016), 24–30.
[58]
William Odom, Richard Banks, Abigail Durrant, David Kirk, and James Pierce. 2012. Slow technology: critical reection and future
directions. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 816–817.
[59]
William Odom, James Pierce, Erik Stolterman, and Eli Blevis. 2009. Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in
the context of interaction design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1053–1062.
[60]
Victoria Park. 2019. BulletJournal: Seven million beautiful ways to save money. BBC News (Aug 2019). https://www.bbc.com/news/
business-48840358
[61]
Zachary Pousman, John Stasko, and Michael Mateas. 2007. Casual information visualization: Depictions of data in everyday life. IEEE
transactions on visualization and computer graphics 13, 6 (2007), 1145–1152.
[62]
John Rooksby, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison, and Matthew Chalmers. 2014. Personal tracking as lived informatics. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1163–1172.
[63]
Benjamin Rush, Isaiah Thomas, and Ebenezer Turrell Andrews. 1790. An Inquiry Into the Eects of Spirituous Liquors on the Human Body:
To which is Added, a Moral and Physical Thermometer. By Benjamin Rush, MD Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medicine in the
University of Philadelphia. by Thomas and Andrews. At Faust’s Statue, no. 45, Newbury Street.
[64]
Grace Shin, Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, Yu Fei, Amir Karami, Nicci Ganowitz, Ahjung Byun, and Xiaopeng Lu. 2019. Wearable
activity trackers, accuracy, adoption, acceptance and health impact: A systematic literature review. Journal of biomedical informatics 93
(2019), 103153.
[65] Karandeep Singh and Adam B Landman. 2017. Mobile health. In Key Advances in Clinical Informatics. Elsevier, 183–196.
[66]
Timothy J Smoker, Carrie E Murphy, and Alison K Rockwell. 2009. Comparing memory for handwriting versus typing. In Proceedings of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 53. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1744–1747.
[67]
Jaime Snyder, Elizabeth Murnane, Caitie Lustig, and Stephen Voida. 2019. Visually Encoding the Lived Experience of Bipolar Disorder.
Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300363
[68]
Melanie Swan. 2012. Sensor mania! the internet of things, wearable computing, objective metrics, and the quantied self 2.0. Journal of
Sensor and Actuator networks 1, 3 (2012), 217–253.
[69]
Melanie Swan. 2013. The quantied self: Fundamental disruption in big data science and biological discovery. Big data 1, 2 (2013), 85–99.
[70]
Jakob Tholander and Maria Normark. 2020. Crafting Personal Information-Resistance, Imperfection, and Self-Creation in Bullet
Journaling. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:22 •Abtahi et al.
[71]
Alice Thudt, Uta Hinrichs, Samuel Huron, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2018. Self-Reection and Personal Physicalization Construction.
In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173728
[72]
Khai N Truong, Thariq Shihipar, and Daniel J Wigdor. 2014. Slide to X: unlocking the potential of smartphone unlocking. In Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3635–3644.
[73]
Andrew Waugh, Ross Wilkinson, Brendan Hills, and Jon Dell’Oro. 2000. Preserving digital information forever. In Proceedings of the
fth ACM conference on Digital libraries. 175–184.
[74] Mary H Wilde and Suzanne Garvin. 2007. A concept analysis of self-monitoring. Journal of Advanced Nursing 57, 3 (2007), 339–350.
[75]
Haijun Xia, Nathalie Henry Riche, Fanny Chevalier, Bruno De Araujo, and Daniel Wigdor. 2018. DataInk: Direct and creative data-oriented
drawing. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
[76]
Xiaoyi Zhang, Laura R Pina, and James Fogarty. 2016. Examining unlock journaling with diaries and reminders for in situ self-report in
health and wellness. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5658–5664.
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking •115:23
A SURVEY QUESTIONS
Q1.
Do you currently use any self-tracking tools to regularly record an aspect of your life? This includes, but is
not limited to, physical tools (such as bullet journaling or Year in Pixels) or digital tools (such as a Fitbit or
a smartphone health app). Yes or no?
If self-tracking:
Q2. What aspects of your life do you track (such as emotion, exercise, or nances)?
Q3.
What tools do you use to self-track? Select all that apply. Mobile applications, web applications, Wearable
devices, Physical materials (such as journals, pen and paper, or knitting), Other. Please specify.
If using physical materials to track:
Q4.
What physical self-tracking technique do you use? Select all that apply. Bullet journaling, Year in Pixels,
Note taking, other. If other, please specify.
Q5. If you are willing, please upload a photo of a hand-drawn tracker or physical item you have made.
Q6.
Are there any frustrations you experience or limitations you associate with your physical tracking? Please
describe.
Q7.
Do you think a digital tool could replace or improve your physical tracking activities? In each case, please
elaborate.
a. Yes because. . .
b. mayb e if. . .
c. no b ecause. . .
Q8. Rate the following statements according to how well they match your reasons for using physical, instead
of digital, self-tracking tools, from strongly disagree to strongly agree on a 7-point scale.
a. It’s a hobby and I enjoy the process.
b. The slower pace of the process allows me to reect.
c. The physical object is unique and important to me.
d. I like the feeling of holding a physical writing utensil.
e. There are no digital tools (such as mobile apps) that do exactly what I want.
f. I want to spend less time using digital tools.
g. I don’t trust technology with my data.
h. I am not tech-savvy.
Q9.
Please elaborate or describe any other reasons you prefer physical self-tracking over digital self-tracking.
B TRACKED INFORMATION
We grouped responses based on categories identied by prior work: tness activities, food and nutrition, bedtime
routines, hygiene, social activities, hobbies, health, medication intake, mood, resolutions, and personal develop-
ment [
3
]. Based on the responses we received, we added the following 6 categories: productivity, unspecied
habits, nances, work and school, digital interactions, and external observations. We tallied the frequencies for
each category (see Table 1) and marked the new categories with an asterisk. Note that the result, particularly the
high frequency of the mood and emotion category, is aected by the bias in our recruitment strategy.
C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Each interview session began with the interviewers introducing themselves: "My name is [insert name] and I’m
a researcher at Stanford University and we are interested in learning about people’s self-tracking practices." The
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
115:24 •Abtahi et al.
Table 1. Frequency and examples for each category of reported tracked information, using both digital and physical tools.
Category Frequency Examples
Mood & Emotion 68% mood, emotion, year in pixels
Fitness Activities 58% steps, exercise, meditation, yoga
Finances* 35% budgeting, spending, money, income, expenses
Health 26% period, weight, mental health, heart rate, pain, stress
Unspecied Habits* 26% habits, daily habits, habit tracking
Bedtime Routines 23% hours of sleep, waking up at 7am, dreams
Food & Nutrition 23% carb intake, eating healthy, calorie decit, vegetarian diet, water intake
Productivity* 23% daily tasks, planning, calendar, scheduling, chores, cleaning
Personal Development 19% self-care, personal goals, prayer, memories, gratitude
Hobbies 16% reading, learning language, drawing, TV, books, movies
Work and School* 11% work, studying, schoolwork, homeschool, courses
Digital Interactions* 5% screen time, app usage, social media posts
Hygiene 5% ossing, skincare, shower
Medicine 4% taking my meds, medication, supplements, vitamins
Social Activities 4% phone calls, social contact with friends and family
External Observations* 3% indoor air quality, carbon dioxide in air, weather, sunlight
Resolutions 2% no sugar, no credit card usage, not smoking
following list of interview questions was based on participants’ responses to the initial survey, with the number
in parentheses denoting the frequency of usage:
•
I can see from your survey responses that you track [insert Q3 response] and that you use [insert Q4
response]. Can you tell me more about that? (16)
•I saw that you mentioned [insert specic quote from survey responses]. Can you tell me more? (16)
•
Can you imagine a digital tool that could have all the features you like about what you are doing? What
would it look like? (8)
•I would love to hear more about when you started self-tracking? And why did you decide to start? (6)
•Do you ever look back at your data? If so, in what way? (6)
•Have you noticed any changes in your behavior as a result of your tracking practice? (5)
•Have you noticed any changes in your tracking practice over time? (5)
•Is there anything that you dislike or that is frustrating about your practice? (4)
Additional questions were asked as follow-ups to participants’ responses during the interviews. Though these
questions were not scripted, they were repeated due to commonalities in participants’ responses across interviews:
•How do you manage using multiple tools? (7)
•How do you share your data with others? (4)
•What is dierent about writing compared to typing for you? (4)
•Can you tell me more about why you use dierent tools for tracking? (4)
•Anything else you would like to share? (4)
•When do you track information during your day? (3)
•How long does your tracking process take you? (3)
•Do you track the same information in these tools or are they mutually exclusive? (3)
Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 4, No. 4, Article 115. Publication date: December 2020.
