skip to main content
research-article

Exploring DIY Practices of Complex Home Technologies

Published:11 April 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We are surrounded by increasingly complex networks of smart objects, yet our understanding and attachment to them is rather limited. One way to support stronger end users’ engagement with such complex technologies is by involving them in the design process and, with the advent of Arduino prototyping platform, even in their making. While DIY practice offers the potential for stronger user engagement with physical artifacts, we know little about end users’ DIY practice of making complex electronic technologies and their potential to ensure engagement with such devices. In this article, we report on interviews with 18 participants from two green communities who built and used an open source DIY energy monitor, with the aim to explore the end users DIY practices of making such complex electronic devices. Findings indicate four key qualities of DIY monitors: transparent modularity, open-endedness, heirloom, and disruptiveness, and how they contribute to more meaningful engagement with the DIY monitors, elevating them from the status of unremarkable objects to that of things. We conclude with three implications for design for supporting end user development of complex electronic DIY: designing transparent open hardware technologies, standardizing communication protocols for the current and future DIY of IoT, and deliberately calling for personal investment and labor in the assembling of DIY kits.

References

  1. W. Abrahamse and L. Steg. 2009. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of Economic Psychology 30, 5 (2009), 711--720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. P. Atkinson. 2006. Do it yourself: Democracy and design. Journal of Design History 19, 1 (2006), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. C. Bakker and den M. Hollander. 2013. Six Design Strategies for Longer Lasting Products in Circular Economy. The Guardian.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. E. Blevis and E. Stolterman. 2007. Ensoulment and Sustainable Interaction Design. In Proceedings of IASDR 2007. Hong Kong.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Boden, G. Avram, I. Posch, V. Pipek, and G. Fitzpatrick. 2013. Workshop on EUD for supporting sustainability in maker communities. In End-User Development. Springer, Berlin, 298--303.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. V. Braun and V. Clarke. 2007. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006, 3 (2007), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Breitbach. 2011. The photo-as-thing: Photography and thing theory. European Journal of English Studies 15, 1 (2011), 31--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. B. Brown. 2001. Thing theory. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 28, No. 1, Things (Autumn, 2001), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Brown, T. Coughlan, G. Lawson, R. Mortier, R. Houghton, and M. Goulden. 2012. Intergenerational Interpretation of the IoT. Retrieved May 2016 from http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/2969/1/Brown_et_al_IIIoT.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Burrell. 2012. Invisible Users: Youth in the Internet Cafes of Urban Ghana. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. M. Caillot and A. Nguyen-Xuan. 1995. Adults’ understanding of electricity. Public Understanding of Science 4, 2 (1995), 131--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. T. Cooper. 2004. Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product obsolescence. Journal of Consumer Policy 27, 4 (2004), 421--449.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. D. De Roeck, K. Slegers, J. Criel, M. Godon, L. Claeys, K. Kilpi, and A. Jacobs. 2012. October. I would DiYSE for it!: A manifesto for do-it-yourself internet-of-things creation. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design. ACM, 170--179. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. G. Deleuze and F. Guattari. 1988. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London, The Athlone Press; G. Deleuze and F. Guattari (Eds.), (1994) What is Philosophy? Verso, London, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. L. Devendorf and K. Ryokai. 2015. April. Being the machine: Reconfiguring agency and control in hybrid fabrication. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2477--2486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Dewey. 1916. Democracy and Education. MacMillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. P. Dourish. 2015. August. Not the internet, but this internet: How othernets illuminate our feudal internet. In Proceedings of the Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives. Aarhus University Press, 157--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. P. Dourish, C. Graham, D. Randall, and M. Rouncefield. 2010. Theme issue on social interaction and mundane technologies. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 14, 3 (2010), 171--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. T. Erickson, M. Li, Y. Kim, A. Deshpande, S. Sahu, T. Chao, and M. Naphade. 2013. The Dubuque electricity portal. In Proceedings of CHI. ACM, 1203--1212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Fereday and E. Muir-Cochrane. 2008. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: Journal of qualitative methods 5, 1 (2008), 80--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. C. Fischer. 2008. Feedback on household electricity consumption. Energy efficiency 1, 1 (2008), 79--104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. G. Fischer, E. Giaccardi, Y. Ye, A. G. Sutcliffe, and N. Mehandjiev. 2004. Meta-design: A manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM 47, 9 (2004), 33--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. Fox. 2014. Third wave do-it-yourself (DIY): Potential for prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship by local populations in regions without industrial manufacturing infrastructure. Technology in Society 39 (2014), 18--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. S. M. Gelber. 1999. Hobbies: Leisure and the Culture of Work in America. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. T. Gillespie. 2006. Designed to “effectively frustrate.” New Media 8 Society 8, 4 (2006), 651--669.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. M. Gubbels and J. Froehlich. 2014. Physically computing physical computing: Creative tools for building with physical materials and computation. IDC’14 Extended Abstracts, Demo Track, Aarhus, Denmark, June 17--20, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Heidegger. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought, transl. A Hofstadter. Harper 8 Row, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. G. Hermans. 2014. Investigating the unexplored possibilities of digital--physical toolkits in lay design. International Journal of Design 8, 2 (2014), 15--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. G. Hertz. 2011. Arduino microcontrollers and the Queen's hamlet: Utilitarian and Hedonized DIY practices in contemporary electronic culture. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), 44--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. H. B. Holmer, C. DiSalvo, P. Sengers, and T. Lodato. 2015. Constructing and constraining participation in participatory arts and HCI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74 (2015), 107--123. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. T. Ingold. 2007. Lines: A Brief History. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. T. Ingold. 2010. The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (2010), 91--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. T. Ingold. 2012. Toward an ecology of materials. Annual Review of Anthropology 41 (2012) 427--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. T. Ingold. 2013. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. I. E. Khairuddin, C. Sas, S. Clinch, and N. Davies. 2016. Exploring motivations among Bitcoin user. In Proceedings of the CHI’16 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2872--2878. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. S. Kuznetsov and E. Paulos. 2010. Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In Proceedings of NordiCHI. 295--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. S. Kuznetsov, G. N. Davis, E. Paulos, M. Gross, and J. C. Cheung. 2011. Red balloon, green balloon, sensors in the sky. In Proceedings of Ubicomp. ACM, 237--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. S. Kuznetsov, W. Harrigan-Anderson, H. Faste, S. Hudson, and E. Paulos. 2013. Community engagements with living sensing systems. In Proceedings of CC. 213--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. S. Kuznetsov, S. E. Hudson, and E. Paulos. 2014. February. A low-tech sensing system for particulate pollution. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 259--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. S. Lagerström, I. Soute, Y. Florack, and P. Markopoulos. 2014. June. Metadesigning interactive outdoor games for children: A case study. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 325--328. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. J. LaMarche, K. Cheney, C. Akers, K. Roth, and O. Sachs. 2012. Home Energy Displays: Consumer Adoption and Response. U.S. Department of Energy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. J. Lewis and J. Ritchie. 2003. Generalising from qualitative research. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, 263--286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, M. Klann, and V. Wulf. 2006. End-user Development: An Emerging Paradigm. Springer, Netherlands, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. S. Lindtner, S. Bardzell, and J. Bardzell. 2016. May. Reconstituting the utopian vision of making: HCI after technosolutionism. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1390--1402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. S. Lindtner, G. Hertz, and P. Dourish. 2014. Emerging sites of HCI innovation. In Proceedings of CHI, 439--448. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. J. Löwgren and E. Stolterman. 2004. Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. B. Marenko. 2014a. Material morphogenesis--For an encounter between philosophy and design. Computational Making Workshop--Positioning paper. DCC, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. B. Marenko. 2014b. Neo-animism and design: A new paradigm in object theory. Design and Culture, 6, 2, 219--241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. D. A. Mellis. 2015. Do-it-yourself Devices: Personal Fabrication of Custom Electronic Products. Doctoral Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. D. A. Mellis and L. Buechley. 2014. April. Do-it-yourself cellphones: An investigation into the possibilities and limits of high-tech DIY. In Proceedings of CHI. ACM, 1723--1732. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. C. Neustaedter, L. Bartram, and A. Mah. 2013. Everyday activities and energy consumption. In Proceedings of CHI. 1183--1192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. D. A. Norman. 1983. Some Observations on Mental Models. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. M. I. Norton, D. Mochon, and D. Ariely. 2011. The “IKEA effect”: When labor leads to love. Harvard Business School Marketing Unit Working Paper. 11--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. D. K. Padgett. 1998. Qualitative Methods in Social Work. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. M. Pantzar. 1997. Domestication of everyday life technology: Dynamic views on the social histories of artifacts. Design Issues 13, 3 (1997), 52--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. F. Paternò. 2013. End user development: Survey of an emerging field for empowering people. ISRN Software Engineering 2013, 11 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. J. Pierce, C. Fan, D. Lomas, G. Marcu, and E. Paulos. 2010. Some consideration on the (in) effectiveness of residential energy feedback systems. In Proceedings of DIS. 244--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. J. Pierce and E. Paulos. 2012. Beyond energy monitors. In Proceedings of CHI. ACM, 665--674. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. J. Pierce, Y. Strengers, P. Sengers, and S. Bødker. 2013. Introduction to the special issue on practice-oriented approaches to sustainable HCI. TOCHI 20, 4 (2013), 20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. S. Pink, K. L. Mackley, V. Mitchell, M. Hanratty, C. Escobar-Tello, T. Bhamra, and R. Morosanu. 2013. Applying the lens of sensory ethnography to sustainable HCI. TOCHI 20, 4 (2013), 25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. J. Plotz. 2006. Can the sofa speak? A look at thing theory. Criticism, 47, 1 (2006), 109--118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. A. Reckwitz. 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5, 2 (2002), 243--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Y. Rogers. 2006. Moving on from Weiser's vision of calm computing: Engaging ubicomp experiences. In UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, Berlin, 404--421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. D. K. Rosner and M. Ames. 2014. Designing for repair? Infrastructures and materialities of breakdown. In Proceedings of CSCW. ACM, 319--331. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. D. K. Rosner, M. Ikemiya, D. Kim, and K. Koch. 2013. Designing with traces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2013), CHI’13. ACM, 1649--1658. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. A. Salovaara, K. Hook, K. Cheverst, M. Twidale, M. Chalmers, and C. Sas. 2011. Appropriation and creative use: Linking user studies and design. In Extended Abstracts of CHI 2011. ACM, 37--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. M. Sandelowski. 1995. Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing 8 Health, 18, 2 (1995), 179--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. C. Sas and R. Chopra. 2015. MeditAid: A wearable adaptive neurofeedback-based system for training mindfulness state. Personal Ubiquitous Computing 19, 7 (October 2015), 1169--1182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. C. Sas, T. Fratczak, M. Rees, H. Gellersen, V. Kalnikaite, A. Coman, and K. Höök. 2013. AffectCam: Arousal-augmented sensecam for richer recall of episodic memories. In CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1041--1046. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. C. Sas and I. E. Khairuddin. 2017. Design for Trust: An exploration of the challenges and opportunities of bitcoin users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2017 (in press).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. C. Sas and I. E. Khairuddin. 2015. Exploring trust in Bitcoin technology: A framework for HCI research. In Proceedings of OZCHI Conference 2015. 338--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. C. Sas and S. Whittaker. 2013. Design for forgetting: Disposing of digital possessions after a breakup. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1823--1832. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. C. Sas, A. Whittaker, S. Dow, J. Forlizzi, and J. Zimmerman. 2014. Generating implications for design through design research. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 1971--1980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. C. Sas, S. Whittaker, and J. Zimmerman. 2016. Design for rituals of letting go: An embodiment perspective on disposal practices informed by grief therapy. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 23, 4, Article 21 (August 2016), 37 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. P. Schmitt and S. Seitinger. 2009. Plywood punk: A holistic approach to designing animated artifacts. In Proceedings of TEI 2009. ACM, 123--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Schön Donald A. 1992. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems 5.1 (1992): 3--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. T. Schwartz, S. Denef, G. Stevens, L. Ramirez, and V. Wulf. 2013a. Cultivating energy literacy. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1193--1202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. T. Schwartz, G. Stevens, L. Ramirez, and V. Wulf. 2013b. Uncovering practices of making energy consumption accountable. TOCHI, 20, 12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. E. Shove. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life. Berg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. O. Stickel, D. Hornung, K. Aal, M. Rohde, and V. Wulf. 2015. 3D Printing with marginalized children—an exploration in a Palestinian refugee camp. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’15). Springer International Publishing, 83--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. C. Storni. 2009. The ambivalence of engaging technology: Artifacts as products and processes. Nordes 3 (2009), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Y. Strengers. 2011. Designing eco-feedback systems for everyday life. In Proceedings of CHI. 2135--2144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Y. Strengers. 2013. Smart Energy Technologies in Everyday Life: Smart Utopia? Palgrave Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. I. Tavory and S. Timmermans. 2014. Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. D. Tetteroo, I. Soute, and P. Markopoulos. 2013. December. Five key challenges in end-user development for tangible and embodied interaction. In Proceedings of Conference on Multimodal Interaction. ACM, 247--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. P. Tolmie and A. Crabtree. 2008. Deploying research technology in the home. In Proceedings of CSCW. 639--648. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. P. Tolmie, A. Crabtree, S. Egglestone, J. Humble, C. Greenhalgh, and T. Rodden. 2010. Digital plumbing: The mundane work of deploying UbiComp in the home. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 14, 3 (2008), 181--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. P. Tolmie, A. Crabtree, T. Rodden, C. Greenhalgh, and S. Benford. 2007. Making the home network at home: Digital housekeeping. In ECSCW 2007. Springer, London, 331--350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. M. Vaismoradi, H. Turunen, and T. Bondas. 2013. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing 8 Health Sciences 15, 3 (2013), 398--405.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. A. Vallgårda. 2014. Giving form to computational things: Developing a practice of interaction design. Personal Ubiquitous Computing 18, 3 (2014), 577--592. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. A. Vallgårda and T. Sokoler. 2010. A material strategy: Exploring material properties of computers. International Journal of Design 4, 3 (2010), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. S. van Dam, C. Bakker, J. van Hal. 2010. Home energy monitors. Building Research and Information 38, 5 (2010), 458--469.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  93. R. Wakkary, A. Desjardins, S. Hauser, and L. Maestri. 2013. A sustainable design fiction: Green practices. TOCHI 20, 4 (2013), 23:1--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. A. Woodruff, J. Hasbrouck, and S. Augustin. 2008. A bright green perspective on sustainable choices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 313--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Exploring DIY Practices of Complex Home Technologies
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 24, Issue 2
      Special Issue EUD for IoT
      April 2017
      284 pages
      ISSN:1073-0516
      EISSN:1557-7325
      DOI:10.1145/3077620
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      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 profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first 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 specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 11 April 2017
      • Revised: 1 January 2017
      • Accepted: 1 January 2017
      • Received: 1 April 2016
      Published in tochi Volume 24, Issue 2

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader