Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers

Abstract

Technology probes are low-fidelity devices that can be used to understand research participant's lived experiences, but they are not usually subject to iterative design. There are opportunities in human-computer interaction to develop technology probes through co-design, by including diverse perspectives during probe development. To explore this opportunity, five design researchers with different disciplinary and cultural backgrounds engaged with a technology probe to support daily reflections, discussed new directions in a co-design workshop and developed narratives to negotiate possibilities of the probe. This paper presents observations described by each of the researchers using the probe, and insights from the process we followed. We discuss how the the designers' postitionalities are reflected in the processes, and how they brought value by shaping narratives of the different roles a technology probe might take. We also discuss how we may use co-design of technology probes as a generative method, highlight the importance of open-endedness in the process, and reflect on lessons learned.

Full text

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers
PHILLIP GOUGH,
Aective Interactions Lab, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of
Sydney , Australia
A. BAKI KOCABALLI,School of Computer Science, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
KHUSHNOOD NAQSHBANDI,
Aective Interactions Lab, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The
University of Sydney , Australia
KAREN ANNE COCHRANE, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
KRISTINA MAH,
Aective Interactions Lab, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney
, Australia
AJIT G. PILLAI,
Aective Interactions Lab, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney ,
Australia
AINNOUN KORNITA DENY, School of Computer Science, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
YELIZ YORULMAZ, Independent Artist, Australia
NASEEM AHMADPOUR,
Aective Interactions Lab, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University
of Sydney , Australia
Fig. 1. The development of a technology probe for reflection. Starting from initial concepts, probe kits, to workshops presenting
design alterations.
Technology probes are low-delity devices that can be used to understand research participant’s lived experiences, but they are not
usually subject to iterative design. There are opportunities in human-computer interaction to develop technology probes through
co-design, by including diverse perspectives during probe development. To explore this opportunity, ve design researchers with
dierent disciplinary and cultural backgrounds engaged with a technology probe to support daily reections, discussed new directions
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 prot 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 ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to
redistribute to lists, requires prior specic permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
©2021 Association for Computing Machinery.
Manuscript submitted to ACM
1

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
in a co-design workshop and developed narratives to negotiate possibilities of the probe. This paper presents observations described by
each of the researchers using the probe, and insights from the process we followed. We discuss how the the designers’ postitionalities
are reected in the processes, and how they brought value by shaping narratives of the dierent roles a technology probe might take.
We also discuss how we may use co-design of technology probes as a generative method, highlight the importance of open-endedness
in the process, and reect on lessons learned.
CCS Concepts: •Human-centered computing →HCI design and evaluation methods;Participatory design.
Additional Key Words and Phrases: Technology probes, co-design, positionality, reection
ACM Reference Format:
Phillip Gough, A. Baki Kocaballi, Khushnood Naqshbandi, Karen Anne Cochrane, Kristina Mah, Ajit G. Pillai, Ainnoun Kornita Deny,
Yeliz Yorulmaz, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2021. Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers. In OzCHI ’21: ACM
Digital Library. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1122445.1122456
1 INTRODUCTION
Technology probes are a low-delity devices that are useful in generating unique responses in users. These responses
are based on the user’s interactions with the probe and provide novel insights and information about the “unknown”
[
23
], as well as a story of the user’s interaction [
4
,
18
]. The design of a probe is not typically subject to an iterative
process of user-evaluation and redesign. However, the initial design of a probe can be inuenced by the designers
themselves. To understand and leverage this inuence, we wished to create a probe through a co-design method. The
rationale for co-creating the probe is to include more diverse perspectives and identify opportunities for each single
designer’s insights and positionality (background, culture, inuences, beliefs) to inform the design of the probe.
Co-design and participatory approaches have been instrumental in establishing the role of social interactions
and inform the role and content of designed systems through sharing knowledge in democratic ways. In the 1980s,
participatory design gained visible traction in Scandinavia. As an example, the UTOPIA project explored the psycho-
social aspects of using computer-based graphic tools through collaboration between researchers and graphic designers
(users of the tools) in all phases of product development to foster mutual learning [
40
]. With this inuence, the next few
decades saw an increased interest in participatory approaches that viewed design as a social and creative activity [
14
].
Sanders [
34
] further developed the notion of co-design leveraging the use of creativity by using generative tools to
“seed a mindset of collective creativity in group workshops.” Generative tools are low-delity material that encourage
groups of stakeholders to engage and explore issues of concern through ‘say, make, do’ activities [
33
]. Sanders and
Stappers [
35
] describe the future of co-design as ‘design by people’ with a focus on diversity in teams. In the study
presented in this project, we leverage the notions of creativity and collaborative exploration through say, make, do
activities that are unique to co-design methods to shape the direction of our technology probe.
Similar to cultural probes [
16
] or design probes [
47
], technology probes are carefully designed media, which can
evoke emotions and empathic reactions in users through deep engagements, thereby creating opportunities for them to
observe and reect on their experiences. This study looks at the co-design of a technology probe that acts as a tool to
facilitate personal reection. In particular, our study focuses on processes leading up to the creation and development
of the technology probe. As such, we start with low delity material exploration and considering the role that the probe
might play for the users, before nalising the technical aspects of the probe.
It is important and natural for an individual to reect: to review and engage with the memories of past experiences
as an ongoing part of their lives [
5
,
8
,
28
,
43
]. Reection also impacts, improves and forms much of work and education
2

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online
[
5
,
20
,
36
,
38
]. Though it is natural, reection itself is not necessarily trivial. Technology can help facilitate reection,
some examples of this include self-tracking technology and personal informatics [
1
,
24
,
28
,
42
,
43
]. Understanding
how technology can support reection, then, is a critical area of research. A number of methods have been explored
to capture the nuances of reection in research, including bullet journaling [
41
], bodymapping [
11
], interviews and
questionnaires [
10
] and technology probes [
2
] among others. Importantly, Ahmadpour and Cochrane [
1
] suggest that
reection is a process, which requires engagement with the object of reection that may then result in production of
self-knowledge.
In this paper, we are considering reection in general, rather than critical reection, which is a useful tool for problem
solving and for making unconscious biases available to conscious decisions [
37
,
38
]. We approach reection in the way
it was modelled by Boud [
5
], who describes reection as a process with an outcome, rather than reection being an
outcome itself. Boud’s model states that outcomes of reection can include new perspectives on one’s own experience,
changes in behaviour, readiness to application and commitment to action. We wished to use the technology probe to
examine how technology can support reection by helping a user come to a state where they are ready to reect: on
their day, themselves, on their experiences, or on their past memories. Learning how to create such technologies can
help us conduct in-depth studies where reection on personal experiences is key to the research.
We rst describe our research questions and design goals and specify links to related work in relation to design and
technology probes. We then outline the study design to include how the technology probe was prepared, shared with
ve participating designers to take home in a probe package and engage with for two days, followed by a co-design
workshop that further explored the aordances of the probe and provided feedback from participants. Next, we elaborate
participant reections separately noting their positionality, experiences and empathic reactions to the probe. Finally, we
share ndings based on our workshop and discuss directions for future work. Our contribution is a generative approach
to co-designing technology probes, speculative examples that emerged and the lessons learned through our process.
1.1 Research estions and Design Goals
In this paper, we examine two central questions:
RQ1 How can we facilitate a probe co-design process with designers?
RQ2 How can we co-create narratives to capture uncertainties in open-ended technology probes?
To develop the probe we created a design, which we will refer to as the object, for designers participants to use. The
object was created with the following design goals:
G1 an open-ended interaction;
G2 a point of focus as the user prepares to reect;
G3 a canvas that participant designers could modify and alter.
In doing so, we aimed to allow designers to develop relationships with the object. Wallace et al. suggested that “probe
sets show a participant that a researcher has thought hard about the nature of the enquiry, has designed a set of
poignant ways to think about dierent aspects of the topic, has invested herself in this process and has created a
unique environment through which to have a dialogue together. The relationship between researcher and participant is
central to the method” [
47
, p. 3448]. They identied values such as trust and communication central to building such
relationship. Our study aims to explore how we may cultivate those relationships.
3

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
2 RELATED WORK
2.1 Design probes as cultural artefacts
In 1999, Gaver and colleagues introduced cultural probes as a design-led method of inquiry to “to provoke inspirational
responses from elderly people in diverse communities” in a project to research interaction techniques to engage older
adults in their local communities [
16
, p.22]. At the time, cultural probes were described as experimental design to learn
about local culture in unfamiliar contexts whereby the researchers or designers are not present; a package containing
objects such as cameras, postcards and maps left with participants to use and return upon completion [
16
]. Since then,
many studies extended the application and use of cultural probes, ranging from the study of memory and cherished
objects [
46
], design of assistive technology [
6
], design peer support system in hospitals [
19
], explore perspective on
technology use in parents [
13
] and more. Probes are then situated in other design methodologies and philosophies such
as user-centered design and ethnography [9].
In the past two decades, cultural probes then evolved to include varied forms and artefacts. New taxonomy emerged
including technology probe [
15
], design ction probe [
31
], and design probe [
47
]. Specically, Wallace and colleagues
described design probes as “tools for design and understanding.” As such, design probes are objects that are usually
small in scale, whose materiality and form are designed to relate specically to a particular question and context, posing
a question through gentle, provocative, creative means oering a participant intriguing ways to consider a question
and form a response through the act of completing the probe creatively" [
47
, p.3441]. In the work presented in this
paper, we use a cultural probe package that allows designers to manipulate an object, with the aim of co-designing a
technology probe for research on daily reections.
The new materials and forms that shape the current range of probes brought about a number of challenges for
designers. One challenge lies in the design choices and decisions made by the designers. Wallace et al. suggest these are
not random but are directed towards phenomenon that is being examined [
47
]. These decisions can be then informed
by research, for example by immersing ourselves in environment and social context of the research site and people
involved [
48
]. A number of qualities characterise design probes including, but not limited to, openness using tasks and
material that can be interpreted in many ways (e.g. writing letters or postcards) [
6
,
47
] and enabling participants to
set their own pace of use (e.g. allowing slowness in engagement to provide time for reection), all through providing
aective experiences (e.g. fun, surprise, uncertainty) [17].
While these are useful guidelines for informing designers eorts, prior research also highlighted the value of co-design
and democratic processes when designing probes, in order to establish an environment where multiple perspectives
can be heard and negotiated [
12
]. A co-design process may capture the voices and experiences of designers, users, or
both, in addition to acknowledging their positionality informed by their backgrounds, culture, expertise and more.
Co-design then supports a more asset-based design, surfacing better understanding of people’s assets rather than needs
and decits [
50
]. The outcome expected from this process will be probe items (objects, technologies) and activities that
are inspiration while also meaningful for participants to use. In the work presented in this paper, we explore how we
can facilitate a probe co-design process with designers. As Gaver et al. [
16
,
17
] suggested, we centre our work around
aective engagement with probes.
2.2 Design probes as mediators of aective experiences
Noting the importance of aective engagement with probes, Gaver and colleagues distinguished between designing
for pleasure and utility to highlight an important aspect of probes: “Probes are collections of evocative tasks meant to
4

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online
elicit inspirational responses from people—not comprehensive information about them, but fragmentary clues about
their lives and thoughts. The approach is valuable in inspiring design ideas for technologies that could enrich people’s
lives in new and pleasurable ways” [
16
, p.53]. Additionally, they noted that uncertainty is central to the design of the
probe and the tasks associated with it. Uncertainty or ambiguity is then a catalyst for interpretation and engagement at
various stages, Boehner et al. also suggest that ambiguity is an asset of probes [
4
]. The designer works with uncertainty
through their expression when creating probes, users interact with the probe uncertain of how or what is ‘meant’ to be
create with them, and nally the designer synthesises the nding as they sift through the complex interpretations and
expressions submitted by users [
17
]. To add to the layers of uncertainty in design, use and interpretation of the probes,
Gaver et al. suggest that activities facilitated by probes must be uncontrolled and uncontrollable [
17
]. This presents a
challenge for design, especially in a co-design process. How can we co-create without controlling the outcomes?
Boehner et al. assert that probes are generally used in a participatory way [
4
]. Users of probes participate in shaping
and enriching the outcomes of the research (i.e. outcomes are led by the user rather than experts). A number of studies
have additionally explored participatory approaches in probe design and interpretation. Tsai and colleagues rened
their probe for researching memory of cherished objects through a series of material exploration that paired probes
with values [
46
]. Their eld study also considered collaborative and democratic interpretation of ndings through a
dialogue with participants [
45
] to tackle another challenge in using probes: uncertainty in data interpretation. Even
in initial conception of the method, Gaver et al. [
16
] noted that the stories collected through probes, while extremely
valuable to raise awareness about the unfamiliar aspects of participants lived experiences, did not lead to design ideas
directly. Instead, the ndings were combined with other conceptual interests of researchers, visits to the sites, and
data gathered from other sources [
16
]. Other researchers characterise a probe’s exibility (i.e. uncertainty) in terms of
producing ‘slippery data’ [
32
], cautioning designers to not seek simple answers through deploying probes, and consider
developing interpretive narratives or vignettes to capture the complexity [
6
]. In the work presented in this paper, we
address these challenges and extend previous work to explore ways of co-designing technology probes with designers
and co-creating narratives to capture uncertainties in interpretation of the ndings, and solidify directions that shape
open-ended technology probes.
3 STUDY DESIGN
Our study followed three stages: Preparation of the object, Engagement with the object and a Co-design Workshop to
discuss the opportunities for a probe.
3.1 Preparation
3.1.1 Object Form. We approached the concept of reection as an experience with cognitive (involving processing
of information), aective (involving emotional responses to information), and embodied (involving felt senses and
physiological experiences) dimensions [
1
,
30
], which then informed our iterative approach to design. We wanted the
object to be held in both hands, but not to resemble familiar or everyday hand-held devices. In particular, we wanted to
avoid existing design patterns, such as game controllers, or a device that appears as if should have a screen: we did not
want the user to have strong perceived aordances or to think that it could be replaced by a tablet or phone app. This
decision was based on our desire to fulll the three design goals stated above (open-ended, a point of focus, a canvas
that can be modied).
3.1.2 Fabrication. The process of fabrication was as follows: (Fig. 2, Left)
5

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
Fig. 2. Le: Evolution of the object form from prototype to scanned model. Right: The LED display and pulse sensor used in the
exploration of interactivity are visible.
•Initial sketches were transformed into a rough cardboard prototype.
•This concept was then sculpted in plasticine and 3D scanned to produce a digital model (Fig, 3B).
•
The number of vertices was reduced in the digital model, and the “low-poly” version was 3D printed as both a
hollow and a solid object.
•
An interactive concept was constructed from the hollow object, to explore possibilities for incorporating a
microcontroller to take biometric input and provide feedback.
•
The solid objects were given to the participant designers as a probe package to engage with prior to attending a
co-design workshop
The form includes a large body, with a smaller top. This was initially designed to be able to incorporate concentric
rings of addressable LED lights as a form of feedback that faces the user when it is held the way that we intended (Fig.
2Right).
3.1.3 Open-endedness. We considered two possibilities for the object, one that included interactivity, and one that was
ablank 3D printed object. Through iterative prototyping and design-driven exploration, we examined the usability of
the rst version versions and then made decisions for the concept to be used in the next phase.
Interactive Object. Our rst concept for the object was to provide biofeedback as a point of focus to the user through
the probe. This used an Arduino nano microcontroller and was battery powered (Fig. 2, Right). The lights glowed in
time with the user’s heartbeat, sending beats of colour owing around the LED rings.
An initial concept including user feedback on their pulse was created to explore how the device could be made
interactive. We gave the interactive probe package to ve non-designer participants (aged 24-47, average 34 years) to
collect initial feedback on the usability of the device (Fig. 3A). The interactive probe package included a camera, voice
recorder, with a booklet including a body map, a list of words help the user express themselves, stickers and simple
instructions to help them record their interactions with the device. Participants were instructed to use the package for 5
days. A follow-up interview was conducted focusing on the overall impression of the device, utility with regards to
supporting reective moments during use, and usability issues (Fig. 3C).
6

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online
Fig. 3. A: The interactive probe package sent to test interactive possibilities. B: 3D scanning the object. C: The content of the interactive
probe package
This process highlighted some usability issues, particularly related to ergonomics and t of the device and sensor
positioning into the hands, when the user was attempting to interact using the pulse sensor. Participants were distracted
by the interaction, as the pulse sensor was xed to the device, rather than clipped to the user’s ear or nger, as the
sensor was intended to be used. While it’s possible to use the pulse sensor in the way we designed, the lack of familiarity
with the technology proved to be too great a distraction.
3.1.4 Blank object. The amount of open-endedness from an interactive design varied. In order to give more freedom to
the research participants, we also considered a blank, 3D printed object (Fig 2, Left). We decided that the 3D printed,
solid object would be included in the probe package for the workshop with designers, without any other modications.
This package also included markers for drawing on the probe, textured materials to attach to the probe and plasticine
to modify the shape of the probe.
This approach oered more exibility and open-endedness for the designer participants to interact with the device,
manipulate it using low-delity material and engage with the reective tasks that we would provide in the probe
package. It also reduced the number of assumptions that our participating designers would have, compared to the
assumption that the device itself should be interactive, or could be made out of specic materials.
3.2 Engagement
We recruited ve participants, authors Naqshbandi, Cochrane, Mah, Pillai, and Yorulmaz, to be involved with the
co-design workshop. Each participant we recruited had a dierent area of design expertise with the aim of providing a
broader range of insights.
Each participating designer was given a probe package. This included the object, a qualitative research workbook
and materials to complete activities. The qualitative workbook was informed by somatic design analysis [
11
], and
included several activities to complete each time the participating designer used the device. To allow participants to
fully be present and engage with the device, we included instructions for and access to an audio recording of a guided
mindfulness breathing exercise hosted online, which was produced specically for this study.
The participants spent two consecutive days sensitising themselves to the object’s aordances. On each day, par-
ticipants started with a 10-minute guided breathing exercise facilitated using an audio recording. This exercise used
the object as a point of focus. Immediately after the exercise, they responded to questions in the qualitative workbook
prompting them to contemplate the objects purpose and aesthetics, its aordances and its eect upon their bodily
7

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
Fig. 4. Images from the workshop, including 6 participants in person and one online.
sensations, thoughts and feelings. The questions included stream of consciousness writing, for example one question
was No rules, no judgement, no grammar, simply write whatever comes to mind. Participants also used bodymapping
template to identify embodied sensations through drawing on bodymaps. These were aimed to prepare the participant
for the next task, rather than collecting specic data from them. On the second day, participants were also instructed to
modify the object after using the workbook, to suggest changes to the form and interactivity of the object in one or
more ways.
3.3 Co-design Workshop
We conducted a one-day face-to-face workshop at our lab to discuss the participants’ experiences at home with the
object after they had the chance to use the probe package over two consecutive days. The workshop was facilitated
by two researchers, authors Gough and Ahmadpour. Participants rst took turns presenting their responses to the
workbook questions, and the modied object. Sometimes they enacted their interaction with the object, engaged other
participants in the workshop to role-play a specic scenario and used the whiteboard in the room to communicate
their thoughts through writing and drawing. This was followed with a group discussion, while a few participants
also considered how their modied object may be even further rened. Sometimes this was done to more explicitly
materialise an idea they had during the workshop.
Finally, the workshop participants engaged in a group exercise to discuss their reections with the aim of identifying
and articulating perceived qualities and aordances of the probe. Participants wrote their ideas on post-it notes and then
discussed features, applications and augmentations to the object. After the workshop each participant was invited to
write a brief reection in form of a narrative, outlining their positionality, a description highlighting various qualities and
aordances of the object (aesthetic, emotional, relational, experiential), and to suggest features, uses and augmentation
to the object. These narratives, were meant to be the extension of the co-design process while also capturing the
outcomes of the workshop from the participants’ perspectives, as opposed to interpretations or analysis that may be
typically performed by facilitators or lead investigators.
8

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online
Fig. 5. Participant 1’s redesign
4 RESULTS
In this section, we present participant reections submitted after the workshop followed by a brief summary of ndings
from the co-design workshop.
4.1 Participant Narrative Reflections
The reections submitted by the ve participants are presented as rst person narratives. Participants identied as
researchers or designers working across dierent topics in HCI. Their personal accounts of aesthetics experiences and
meaning making presented here are informed not only by their expertise but also cultural backgrounds, social and
embodied experiences. The design object therefore became a site of knowledge production inuenced by the uniqueness
of participants lived experience and how they related to the object. Each reection includes a statement of participant
positionality to declare their background and inuences, a reection of perceived aordances of the object and a set of
proposed features, uses and augmentations of the object.
4.1.1 Participant 1.
Participant positionality. I am an HCI researcher and designer. I have been studying Buddhist philosophy since 2014
and consider myself to be a novice meditation practitioner. My research focuses on rst-person approaches in HCI and
integrating contemplative and embodied practices into design theory and practice.
Perceived Aordances of the object. The object ts comfortably in my hands. It has an organic feel despite being 3D
printed plastic. The texture of the object feels scaly like synthetic skin. The surface is not smooth and I was able to
use these points of unevenness to focus my attention on the object more intently. I hold the object loosely, so that the
contours of the shape still feel ‘comfortable’ between my hands. The weight of the object feels light. While I hold it, it
feels like there is a physical void in between my hands and it even feels like the object is closing a circuit in my body,
9

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
Fig. 6. Participant 2’s redesign
between my arms. The curves of the object suggest they can t on dierent parts of my body. When I close my eyes,
the imperfections of the shape are accentuated as I explore it through touch, and I consider the object’s materiality.
I perceive the object as ornamental. It has an uncommon shape unlike everyday objects and does not remind me of
any practical function. However, it does look like some recently developed smart devices, such as Google Home or
Amazon Alexa. I think it could make an interesting light or display, object for communication or IoT device.
Possible features, uses and augmentation. Attaching straps to connect the object to dierent parts of the body could be
an interesting way of experimenting with idea of the object as an extension of the body. Another way of thinking about
it is as another body communicating with my body. What is it saying to me? Lighting or heat could be nice way to
interact with the object and noticing the changing experience as it’s placed on dierent parts of the body. This could
be very soothing. Additionally, there could be patterns of light or heat that could be used trigger various sensations,
feelings or emotions.
4.1.2 Participant 2.
Participant positionality. I am an HCI researcher working on technologies that support prosocial behaviours such as
volunteerism. My personal circumstances – having a baby when the pandemic had just started and communication
with geographically distant family was challenging – inuenced the changes I made to the object. I am interested in
non-verbal expressions of love through touch, hugging, kissing, especially during momentous occasions.
Perceived Aordances of the object. The object felt lighter than it appeared visually. I liked touching its soft edges. I
put it against my cheek, next to my ear and lips to engage in further sensory play, but it felt most natural holding it
in my hands. I held it the way I would usually hold my hands together for praying, or lovingly hold the face of my
baby. When not in my hands, I put it down on the table on what I perceived as the ‘base’, which seemed like its natural
resting position.
10

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online
Fig. 7. Participant 3’s redesign
The soft shine on the surface looked pleasant with a hint of minimalist aesthetic. It also appeared to have a thin,
translucent outer layer which supported a soft glowing eect when subjected to some form pointed light underneath it.
Possible features, uses and augmentation. The act of holding the object sparked the sentiment of expressing love. It made
me think of how that requires certain touch-based gestures that are usually lost in verbal forms of communication
like text, voice, and video chat. The device would thus, embody a loved one and support gestures involving touch,
acting as a form of embodied communication device. ‘Messages’ that act as armations of love towards a loved one
could be personalised and sent as a touch, which exhibits itself as personalized glow, vibration, or sound to the receiver.
The receiver could reciprocate in selected ways. Biometric ID like ngerprint could be used to further personalize the
message.
Further thoughts regarding usage include making it more accessible to diverse range of people e.g. with bigger or
smaller hands, sensory impairments, etc.
4.1.3 Participant 3.
Participant positionality. My research interests are in somatic design specically developing tangibles experiences for
health, well-being, and accessibility. My research often aims at understanding somatic rst-person experiences in HCI.
Perceived Aordances of the object. As my background is in mindfulness meditation, I started to think of ways I could
use the object in my own practice. Often in mindfulness, we use a focus of attention during mindfulness exercises. The
focus of attention can be internal (such as breath) or external (such as using the object).
When I rst touched the object, I felt quite uncomfortable. My ngers are quite long and I also have long nger nails.
When holding it the way I assumed it was supposed to be held, my nger nails dug into the palms of my hands. I ended
up removing my hands from the object and just placed the object on my lap. I started meditating. I focused on my
11

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
Fig. 8. Participant 4’s redesign
breath and completely ignored the object. I put the object away the rst night very frustrated with the experience not
really looking forward to using it again.
However, the next day, I took a new perspective on the object. I imagined the object as an extension of my body and
began to look at other ways that gave me the ability to hold the object comfortable. I turned the object sideways and
felt it was much more comfortable to lightly hold it. I felt the ridges but realised that some kind of softness would be
preferable for a reective object in my practice. I nd it quite easy to stay still and often meditate sitting on the ground
or a pillow. I used the object within a breathing exercise and began to slowly breath through my mouth, into my chest,
down my arms and into the object. I found this as a comfortable way to use the object as a focus of attention.
Possible features, uses and augmentation. The object we used inside of the probe kit was quite hard which could make
it more dicult to t into dierent hands and bodies. Possibly using softer materials on the outside would make it
more exible and a bit more comfortable. Dierent textures could also inform new ways the object could be used in the
reection process. Another opportunity would be to include a multi-modal experience such as using haptics or light to
assist the user in their reection process.
4.1.4 Participant 4.
Participant positionality. I am an HCI researcher and I study ethics in designed systems through participatory methods
and generative tools.
Perceived Aordances of the object. In my initial experience with the object, it felt light and comfortable to hold with
smooth aesthetics, that enables the ngers to slide on to its bulge in the middle with thumbs placed on the wing shaped
sides. The object initially felt weightless without directing attention. The longer the sessions went on, I kept losing focus
and realised I could use the object as a way to bring back focus by clutching it tighter, reminding myself to concentrate
12

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online
Fig. 9. Participant 5’s redesign
on my breathing. During my rst session, I had kept my eyes closed, resulting in the lack of visual connection with the
object. During the second session, I decided to keep my eyes open and use the object as an anchor point.
The texture of the object is not rough, but while holding the object, parts of my ngers tend to grip it tightly and rub
against it, those parts could be smoother and grip better. The position I was holding the device based on its aordance
felt somewhat unnatural and it felt like I was putting eort and focus into holding the object.
Possible features, uses and augmentation. My approach to augmentation were motivated by focus and composure. As
mentioned before, as I was losing focus through the session, modifying the object helped me focus, not only when
the eyes are closed, but also when you are practicing mindfulness with the eyes open. To attain composure, the object
needs to be softer and ductile, so when you are holding it, rather than griping, you’re embracing it.
A star on the top of the object, is something I modied that grabs your attention back from distraction and allows
you to focus, latching on to 2 dierent focal points was easier to regain focus, so that you can alternate between the
two focal points.
Clay added to the side and bottom of the object also are placed in such a way that it allows gripping of ngers
without adding too much pressure, soft cotton ball providing a smooth texture for placement of the thumb. Though any
other placement of object or dierent size of hands, the modication could act as a discomfort.
4.1.5 Participant 5.
Participant positionality. I am an artist and designer. I have a background in in psychology, ne arts, and graphic design.
Perceived Aordances of the object. I preferred to hold the object with two hands as the two ears on the right and left
side of the object suggest one can grasp it with both hands. The size of the object also supports this aordance because
it feels a bit big for carrying it with a single hand. The object appeared to have a front and back due to the placement
and the shape of the ears creating an impression of a face. The suggested holding position is facing inside of the ears
13

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
(facing the concave surface). The at surface at the puy bottom aords a standing position if you’re not holding the
object.
Possible features, uses and augmentation. I think there is potentially a connection to the idea of caring with such personal
items and technologies that do not provide clear functionalities. I like the idea of an evolving relationship with an object
that I can care for. Exploring such aordances of caring might be an interesting research direction. Potential inspirations
can come from plants, pets, or even virtual robopets like earlier Tamagotchis. Aligned with the idea of caring, the object
can have softer textures at some of its surface areas and produce some non-lexical sounds to communicate.
4.2 Summary
We present a summary of the Participants’ reections in Table 1. The workshop and discussions helped the participants
compare and contrast their backgrounds, which outlines a diversity of responses from the participants. The participants
suggested various forms of feedback (visual, haptic, thermal sonic) and proposed dierent possible applications of the
object, as inuenced by their positionality.
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Positionality and openness in co-designing probes
Design is said to be a product of its time [
39
]. How we approach the design of artefacts and systems is highly inuenced
by the norms, motivations and many other external socio-technical or political factors. In our study, the co-design
process highlighted the designers positionality, as they reect through the lens of their interests and knowledge
practice. This informed the probe concepts they proposed. The important takeaway, however, is not how the designers’
backgrounds inuence the object we used in this workshop, but what that means for the design process. By creating an
environment that represents a diverse group of designers from a range of design philosophies, with dierent abilities,
socio-technical, political and cultural backgrounds, it is possible to increase our chances of producing complex and
multifaceted outcomes, as shown in our study. In addition, previous research advocated for using narratives and
scenarios as a way of interpreting probe study outcomes [
6
]. Our study extended previous research by encouraging each
designer participant to create a narrative situated in their individual reections and inspired by their diverse and complex
positionalities. This answers our second research question (RQ2) presented earlier ”How can we co-create narratives to
capture uncertainties in open-ended technology probes?”. It also reveals an eective approach to asset-based design that
leverages positionality as an asset that can enrich the outcomes [
50
]. We propose that because our participants had
time to engage with one another in the workshop, acknowledge and reect on their own positionality, the outcome
narratives were rich and extremely valuable. We highly recommend this approach for future work in this area.
Diversity has been explored in HCI in terms of creating social sustainability where inclusive practices in design
produce equitable social outcomes [
7
]. Recent studies note a lack of research participant diversity in HCI [
29
], and
more broadly in research [
21
], risking inequitable design and social outcomes [
3
]. To counter such risk, it is suggested
to incorporate diverse perspectives coupled with a focus on social justice [
26
,
27
]. Our ndings extend this proposal
to examine how a diverse group of designers with increased awareness of their positionality can foster dialogue and
co-creation in the context of designing an open-ended technology probe.
Designers are trained to work with uncertainty in practice. They embed their vision and expertise to shape this
uncertainty and generate value through design proposals, prototypes and hypotheses [
44
]. In contrast, design research
often reduces uncertainty through unambiguous questions, protocols and processes to collect, analyse and represent
14

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online
Table 1. A summary of the participant ref lections, their positionality and aordances or improvements they suggest.
Participant Positionality Aordances and Improvements
1
HCI researcher, rst-person approaches
in HCI integrating contemplative and em-
bodied practice.
Has an organic feel, but an uncommon and ornamental
shape, though it reminded her of some smart devices.
Suggested straps to hold against the body, as an ex-
tension, to communicate with the body. Thermal or
visual feedback could be included as an unobtrusive
way of triggering dierent sensations.
2
HCI researcher, focus on technology-
supported prosocial behaviour such as vol-
unteerism.
Lighter than expected. Held in a way that is similar
to holding her baby, suggestive of expressing love.
Accordingly, the device could realign verbal expres-
sions of love with haptic gestures that are missing in
digital communication devices. Biometric integration,
such as ngerprint recognition, could support device
personalisation.
3
HCI researcher, focus on rst-person so-
matic and tangible design.
Familiar with meditation, so wanted to use the object
in a way that t with her practice, and explored dif-
ferent ways to hold the object. Explored materials to
change the texture of the object. Visual and haptic
feedback may be a useful point of focus.
4
HCI researcher, focus on ethics in design.
Used the object as a way of bringing focus back to the
breathing exercise when distracted, which motivated
his approach to augmenting the device. The texture
and material quality of the device was an area for
alteration, allowing dierent ways of gripping the
device.
5
Practicing designer, focus on graphic de-
sign and ne arts.
Perceives an intended way for the object to be held,
and modied the device to alter the aordances, so it
has no upright position. The object could be a focus of
care for the user, with an evolving relationship. The
texture could be updated to be softer to reect this,
and feedback could include sound.
information that is messy and complicated. Probe methods then challenge these notions by creating open and ambiguous
tasks, resulting in exciting and surprising outcomes [
17
]. Our study shows how design researchers responded to
uncertainty when presented with the open-ended object, engaging in meaning-making by sensitising to the object’s
uncertainty. We found that a central concept, reection, enabled discussion, and inspired development of their narratives
and proposed modications during the co-design workshop.
5.2 Lessons from the workshop: co-designing probes as a generative method
By living with the object and forming a material relationship with it, we were prepared for co-creating it through
the workshop. This decision overcomes a challenge highlighted in previous research, which posits that imagining a
15

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
relationship between data and object can be powerful as information is often stored in forms that are detached from the
context it belongs to [
25
]. We propose that our approach to creating technology probes can be framed as a generative
method, answering our rst research question (RQ1) ”How can we facilitate a probe co-design process with designers?”.
Similar to typical co-design methods [
33
], this generative method involves creative activities through verbal, visual and
enactment cues to explore a core concept (in our case “reection”). However, our approach is also characterised by
exibility and uidity over an extended period and multiple stages to organically engage designer’s positionality and
facilitating constructive dialogue among them. The generative process continues until a set of narratives are developed
by participating designers who shape and give form to the probe through personal reections.
The combination of a rich personal experience with the object, and our individual domain expertise inspired new
directions in co-creating a reective technology probe. As Windlin et al. [
49
] have done, we aimed to show the potential
of design researchers co-creating with a blank prototype through rst-person felt engagement.
We framed our process around a structured reective activity as a means of uidly investigating the object, rst
through engaging with a technology probe package, then a co-design workshop. We used prerecorded guided breathing
meditation, a qualitative workbook and group discussion interspersed by creative and generative activities. The
reective activity used mindfulness breathing to rst stabilise attention, followed by audio prompts that supported
deeper reection on the tactility of the object, connecting our awareness to mental and physical sensations that resulted.
This enabled participants to build narratives around the provoked shared experience, producing divergent concepts in
the form of ve reective narratives of what the probe should do and be.
The roles we imagined for the technology probe to support research on reection indicate how following an open-
ended process leads to negotiating generative outcomes and identifying new directions and roles for the technology
probe. In this way, we propose our process for the co-design of probes as a way of producing generative intermediate-level
knowledge [22] that others can follow.
In our case, we took our interests and expertise as points of departure informing our reective activity. However, by
sharing our individual experiences with the probe in the workshop, we were able to inuence each other and encourage
further reection upon how various interaction modes could enhance the translation of our narratives. As an example,
we imagine ve potential roles for the technology probe based on proposed participant narratives:
•embodied cultivation relating to the technology probe through body and mind, suggested by P1,
•relational reection using metaphors that evoke inter-personal and relational experiences, suggested by P2,
•meditative reection supporting meditation, suggested by P3,
•
experiential storytelling through elements that engage the user in a coherent narrative with a beginning and end,
suggested by P4, and
•sensory playfulness emphasising sensory engagement to generate moments of joy, proposed by P5.
6 CONCLUSION
Our generative approach shows how diverse positionalities can leverage uncertainty when developing a technology
probe. Though the structured iterative engagement with the object and the co-design workshop we were able to elicit
responses to a blank technology probe that touched upon a broad experiences and themes. Our participating design
researchers drew from a range of experiences and perspectives on the core topic of reection, a process that is important
and natural to everyone, to speculate ways that a single object could create multiple narratives of use. This process
could also be applied across multiple themes for technology probes to examine open-ended possibilities.
16

Co-designing a Technology Probe with Experienced Designers OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online
The core concept of reection served as an eective focus for developing our technology probe, and a guide for
discussion throughout the process. By engaging with and manipulating the object over two days through guided
breath-awareness exercises, attending the co-design workshop and extended reections, the participating designers
were able to express specic opportunities from an open-ended concept. We propose that co-designing probes as a
generative method enables design researchers to develop an understanding of how users engage with a novel device. We
also propose that creating reective narratives that foreground designer positionality provides immense opportunities
to interpret the outcomes from this open-ended process that grapples with uncertainty in many ways.
REFERENCES
[1]
Naseem Ahmadpour and Karen Anne Cochrane. 2017. From information to reection-design strategies for personal informatics. In 2017 IEEE Life
Sciences Conference (LSC). IEEE, Bautahøj, 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSC.2017.8268154
[2]
Armaghan Behzad Behbahani, Wallace S. Lages, and Aisling Kelliher. 2019. A Multisensory Design Probe. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International
Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1145/3294109.3300992
[3] Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity, New York.
[4]
Kirsten Boehner, Janet Vertesi, Phoebe Sengers, and Paul Dourish. 2007. How HCI interprets the probes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’07. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240789
[5]
David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. 1985. Promoting reection in learning: A model. In Reection: Turning Experience into Learning
(1st ed.). Routledge, London & New York, Chapter 1, 18–40.
[6]
Michael Brown, Allen Tsai, Sharon Baurley, Therese Koppe, Glyn Lawson, Jennifer Martin, Tim Coughlan, Meretta Elliott, Stephen Green, and Unna
Arunachalam. 2014. Using cultural probes to inform the design of assistive technologies. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
Springer, 35–46.
[7]
Daniela Busse, Eli Blevis, Richard Beckwith, Shaowen Bardzell, Phoebe Sengers, Bill Tomlinson, Lisa Nathan, and Samuel Mann. 2012. Social
sustainability: an HCI agenda. Chi’12 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (2012), 1151–1154.
[8]
Robert N. Butler. 1963. The Life Review: An Interpretation of Reminiscence in the Aged. Psychiatry 26, 1 (feb 1963), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00332747.1963.11023339
[9]
Ozge Merzali Celikoglu, Sebnem Timur Ogut, and Klaus Krippendor. 2017. How do user stories inspire design? A study of cultural probes. Design
Issues 33, 2 (2017), 84–98.
[10]
Karen Cochrane, Lian Loke, Andrew Campbell, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2020. Mediscape: Preliminary Design Guidelines for Interactive Rhythmic
Soundscapes for Entraining Novice Mindfulness Meditators. In 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, New York, NY,
USA, 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441000.3441052
[11]
Karen Cochrane, Lian Loke, Matthew Leete, Andrew Campbell, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2021. Understanding the First Person Experience of
Walking Mindfulness Meditation Facilitated by EEG Modulated Interactive Soundscape. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on
Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430524.3440637
[12] Ralitsa D Debrah, Retha De la Harpe, and Mugendi K M’Rithaa. 2017. Design probes and toolkits for healthcare: Identifying information needs in
African communities through service design. The Design Journal 20, sup1 (2017), S2120–S2134.
[13]
Eleanor Chin Derix and Tuck Wah Leong. 2020. Probes to explore the individual perspectives on technology use that exist within sets of parents. In
Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 519–531.
[14] Pelle Ehn. 1988. Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Ph.D. Dissertation. Arbetslivscentrum.
[15]
Julie M Funk, Matthew Lakier, Marcel O’Gorman, and Daniel Vogel. 2021. Exploring Smartphone Relationships through Roland Barthes using an
Instrumented Pillow Technology Probe. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
[16] Bill Gaver, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti. 1999. Design: cultural probes. interactions 6, 1 (1999), 21–29.
[17]
William W Gaver, Andrew Boucher, Sarah Pennington, and Brendan Walker. 2004. Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. interactions 11, 5
(2004), 53–56.
[18]
Connor Graham, Mark Rounceeld, Martin Gibbs, Frank Vetere, and Keith Cheverst. 2007. How probes work. In Proceedings of the 2007 conference
of the computer-human interaction special interest group (CHISIG) of Australia on Computer-human interaction: design: activities, artifacts and
environments - OZCHI ’07. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 29. https://doi.org/10.1145/1324892.1324899
[19]
Shefali Haldar, Yoojung Kim, Sonali R Mishra, Andrea L Hartzler, Ari H Pollack, and Wanda Pratt. 2020. The Patient Advice System: A Technology
Probe Study to Enable Peer Support in the Hospital. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–23.
[20]
Richard Hays and Simon Gay. 2011. Reection or ‘pre-reection’: what are we actually measuring in reective practice? Medical Education 45, 2 (feb
2011), 116–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03813.x
[21] Joseph Henrich, Steven J Heine, and Ara Norenzayan. 2010. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466, 7302 (2010), 29–29.
[22]
Kristina Höök and Jonas Löwgren. 2012. Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 19, 3 (2012), 1–18.
17

OzCHI ’21, 30 Nov.–03 Dec., 2021, Online Gough, Kocaballi, et al.
[23]
Hilary Hutchinson, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, Björn Eiderbäck, Wendy Mackay, Bosse Westerlund, Benjamin B. Bederson, Allison Druin,
Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, and Helen Evans. 2003. Technology probes. In Proceedings of the conference on
Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’03. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 17. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642616
[24]
Ellen Isaacs, Artie Konrad, Alan Walendowski, Thomas Lennig, Victoria Hollis, and Steve Whittaker. 2013. Echoes from the past. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466137
[25]
Maria Karyda, Merja Ryöppy, Jacob Buur, and Andrés Lucero. 2020. Imagining Data-Objects for Reective Self-Tracking. In Proceedings of the 2020
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376844
[26]
Deena Khalil and Meredith Kier. 2017. Critical race design: An emerging methodological approach to anti-racist design and implementation research.
International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology (IJAVET) 8, 2 (2017), 54–71.
[27]
Vera Khovanskaya, Lynn Dombrowski, Ellie Harmon, Matthias Korn, Ann Light, Michael Stewart, and Amy Voida. 2018. Designing against the
status quo. Interactions 25, 2 (2018), 64–67.
[28]
Artie Konrad, Simon Tucker, John Crane, and Steve Whittaker. 2016. Technology and Reection: Mood and Memory Mechanisms for Well-Being.
Psychology of Well-Being 6, 1 (dec 2016), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13612-016-0045-3
[29]
Sebastian Linxen, Christian Sturm, Florian Brühlmann, Vincent Cassau, Klaus Opwis, and Katharina Reinecke. 2021. How WEIRD is CHI?. In
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[30]
Lian Loke, Aaron Blishen, Carl Gray, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2021. Safety, Connection and Reection: Designing with Therapists for Children
with Serious Emotional Behaviour Issues. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17.
[31]
Renee Noortman, Britta F Schulte, Paul Marshall, Saskia Bakker, and Anna L Cox. 2019. HawkEye-Deploying a Design Fiction Probe. In Proceedings
of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[32]
Shanthi K Robertson. 2008. Cultural probes in transmigrant research: a case study. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies
4, 2 (2008).
[33] Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2012. Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Bis.
[34] EB-N Sanders. 2000. Generative tools for co-designing. In Collaborative design. Springer, 3–12.
[35]
Liz Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2014. From designing to co-designing to collective dreaming: Three slices in time. Interactions 21, 6 (2014),
24–33.
[36] Donald Schön. 1984. The Reective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York.
[37]
Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph ’Josh’ Kaye. 2005. Reective design. In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on
Critical computing between sense and sensibility - CC ’05. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 49. https://doi.org/10.1145/1094562.1094569
[38]
Elizabeth Smith. 2011. Teaching critical reection. Teaching in Higher Education 16, 2 (apr 2011), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.
515022
[39] Omari Souza. 2020. Racist Motifs in Design. (2020).
[40]
Yngve Sundblad. 2010. UTOPIA: Participatory design from Scandinavia to the world. In IFIP Conference on History of Nordic Computing. Springer,
176–186.
[41]
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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.
3376410
[42]
Lisa Thomas, Pam Briggs, Finola Kerrigan, and Andrew Hart. 2018. Exploring digital remediation in support of personal reection. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 110, October 2016 (feb 2018), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.10.002
[43]
Alice Thudt, Uta Hinrichs, Samuel Huron, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2018. Self-Reection and Personal Physicalization Construction. In Proceedings
of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vol. 2018-April. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3173574.3173728
[44] Monica W Tracey and Alisa Hutchinson. 2016. Uncertainty, reection, and designer identity development. Design Studies 42 (2016), 86–109.
[45]
Wenn-Chieh Tsai, Daniel Orth, and Elise Van Den Hoven. 2017. Designing memory probes to inform dialogue. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference
on Designing Interactive Systems. 889–901.
[46]
Wenn Chieh Tsai and Elise Van Den Hoven. 2018. Memory probes: Exploring retrospective user experience through traces of use on cherished
objects. International Journal of Design 12, 3 (2018), 57–72.
[47]
Jayne Wallace, John McCarthy, Peter C Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Making design probes work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3441–3450.
[48]
Jayne Wallace, Peter C Wright, John McCarthy, David Philip Green, James Thomas, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. A design-led inquiry into personhood
in dementia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2617–2626.
[49]
Charles Windlin, Anna Ståhl, Pedro Sanches, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Pavel Karpashevich, Madeline Balaam, and Kristina Höök. 2019. Soma Bits-mediating
technology to orchestrate bodily experiences. In RTD 2019-Research through Design Conference 2019, the Science Centre, Delft, on 19th to 22nd March
2019.
[50]
Marisol Wong-Villacres, Carl DiSalvo, Neha Kumar, and Betsy DiSalvo. 2020. Culture in Action: Unpacking Capacities to Inform Assets-Based
Design. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
18