Alexander Berman
Jeeeun Kim
ABSTRACT
Broader participation in 3D printing may be facilitated through printing services that insulate clients from the costs and detailed technical knowledge necessary to operate and maintain printers. However, newcomers to 3D printing encounter barriers and challenges even before gaining access to printing facilities. This paper explores the challenges and barriers newcomers encounter when identifying printing opportunities and when learning how to specify 3D printing ideas through observations of stakeholders (n=20) in two university 3D printing shops, and through a focused lab study investigating how to introduce newcomers individually to 3D printing (n=21). We adopt Olsons and Olson’s framework for remote collaborations, proposed in “Distance Matters”, to analyze the sociotechnical requirements for initiating collaborations with 3D printing services. We found that newcomers often require prior guidance towards 3D printing procedures and websites before establishing what to print in collaboration with 3D printing services. Finally, we discuss how future printing processes and computational systems may empower a future where Anyone Can Print.
- 2020. COVID-19 Supply Chain Response. https://3dprint.nih.gov/collections/covid-19-responseGoogle Scholar
- C Alcock, N Hudson, PK Chilana Proceedings of the 19th International, and undefined 2016. [n.d.]. Barriers to using, customizing, and Printing 3D designs on thingiverse. dl.acm.org ([n. d.]). https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2957301Google Scholar
- Michelle Annett, Tovi Grossman, Daniel Wigdor, and George Fitzmaurice. 2019. Exploring and understanding the role of workshop environments in personal fabrication processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 26, 2(2019), 1–43.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Albert Bandura. 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents 5, 1 (2006), 307–337.Google Scholar
- Patrick Baudisch and Stefanie Mueller. 2017. Personal Fabrication. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction 10, 3-4(2017), 165–293. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000055Google Scholar
- Alexander Berman and Francis Quek. 2020. ThingiPano: A Large-Scale Dataset of 3D Printing Metadata, Images, and Panoramic Renderings for Exploring Design Reuse. The Sixth IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Big Data (2020).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors 4 (2013), 1–21.Google Scholar
- Erin Buehler, William Easley, Samantha McDonald, Niara Comrie, and Amy Hurst. 2015. Inclusion and education: 3D printing for integrated classrooms. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. 281–290.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kathy Charmaz. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. sage.Google Scholar
- Xiang’Anthony’ Chen, Jeeeun Kim, Jennifer Mankoff, Tovi Grossman, Stelian Coros, and Scott E Hudson. 2016. Reprise: A Design Tool for Specifying, Generating, and Customizing 3D Printable Adaptations on Everyday Objects. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 29–39.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Subramanian Chidambaram, Yunbo Zhang, Venkatraghavan Sundararajan, Niklas Elmqvist, and Karthik Ramani. 2019. Shape Structuralizer: Design, Fabrication, and User-driven Iterative Refinement of 3D Mesh Models. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 663.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parmit K Chilana, Nathaniel Hudson, Srinjita Bhaduri, Prashant Shashikumar, and Shaun Kane. 2018. Supporting Remote Real-Time Expert Help: Opportunities and Challenges for Novice 3D Modelers. In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 157–166.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kristin N Dew, Sophie Landwehr-Sydow, Daniela K Rosner, Alex Thayer, and Martin Jonsson. 2019. Producing Printability: Articulation Work and Alignment in 3D Printing. Human–Computer Interaction(2019), 1–37.Google Scholar
- Georgios Digkas, Nikolaos Nikolaidis, Apostolos Ampatzoglou, and Alexander Chatzigeorgiou. 2019. Reusing Code from StackOverflow: The Effect on Technical Debt. In 2019 45th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA). IEEE, 87–91.Google ScholarCross Ref
- William Easley, Wayne G Lutters, Amy Hurst, and Foad Hamidi. 2018. Shifting Expectations: Understanding Youth Employees’ Handoffs in a 3D Print Shop. 47 (2018), 23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274316Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas K Finley. 2016. The impact of 3D printing services on library stakeholders: A case study. Public Services Quarterly 12, 2 (2016), 152–163.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christoph M. Flath, Sascha Friesike, Marco Wirth, and Frédéric Thiesse. 2017. Copy, transform, combine: Exploring the remix as a form of innovation. Journal of Information Technology 32, 4 (12 2017), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-017-0043-9Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sascha Friesike, Christoph M. Flath, Marco Wirth, and Frédéric Thiesse. 2019. Creativity and productivity in product design for additive manufacturing: Mechanisms and platform outcomes of remixing. Journal of Operations Management (4 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.10.004Google Scholar
- Kristian Hildebrand, Bernd Bickel, and Marc Alexa. 2013. Orthogonal slicing for additive manufacturing. Computers & Graphics 37, 6 (2013), 669–675.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Megan Hofmann, Gabriella Hann, Scott E Hudson, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2018. Greater than the sum of its PARTs: expressing and reusing design intent in 3D models. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 301.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathaniel Hudson, Celena Alcock, and Parmit K Chilana. 2016. Understanding newcomers to 3D printing: Motivations, workflows, and barriers of casual makers. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 384–396.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marina Jirotka, Charlotte P Lee, and Gary M Olson. 2013. Supporting scientific collaboration: Methods, tools and concepts. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 22, 4-6 (2013), 667–715.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeeeun Kim. 2017. Shall We Fabricate?: Collaborative, Bidirectional, Incremental Fabrication. In Adjunct Publication of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 83–86.Google Scholar
- Jeeeun Kim, Anhong Guo, Tom Yeh, Scott E Hudson, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2017. Understanding uncertainty in measurement and accommodating its impact in 3D modeling and printing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 1067–1078.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeeeun Kim, Clement Zheng, Haruki Takahashi, Mark D Gross, Daniel Ashbrook, and Tom Yeh. 2018. Compositional 3D printing: expanding & supporting workflows towards continuous fabrication. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Computational Fabrication. ACM, 5.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J Lave and E Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CAVIOrW3vYAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=lave+and+wenger+situated+learning&ots=OCqFpm3FHh&sig=cWi1ALOj7FwN-q05KgnyAYFGSjoGoogle Scholar
- Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia, Amanda M. Durik, AnneMarie M. Conley, Kenneth E. Barron, John M. Tauer, Stuart A. Karabenick, and Judith M. Harackiewicz. 2010. Measuring Situational Interest in Academic Domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement 70, 4 (8 2010), 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355699Google Scholar
- Linjie Luo, Ilya Baran, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and Wojciech Matusik. 2012. Chopper: partitioning models into 3D-printable parts. (2012).Google Scholar
- Yaoli Mao, Dakuo Wang, Michael Muller, Kush R Varshney, Ioana Baldini, Casey Dugan, and Aleksandra Mojsilović. 2019. How Data Scientists Work Together With Domain Experts in Scientific Collaborations: To Find The Right Answer Or To Ask The Right Question?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, GROUP(2019), 1–23.Google Scholar
- Catarina Mota. 2011. The rise of personal fabrication. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. ACM, 279–288.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beth Nam, Alex Berman, Brittany Garcia, and Sharon Chu. 2019. Towards the Meaningful 3D-Printed Object: Understanding the Materiality of 3D Prints. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 533–552.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Susana Nascimento and Alexandre Pólvora. 2018. Maker Cultures and the Prospects for Technological Action. Science and Engineering Ethics 24, 3 (6 2018), 927–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9796-8Google Scholar
- Lora Oehlberg, Wesley Willett, Wendy E Mackay, and Wendy E Mackay Patterns. 2015. Patterns of Physical Design Remixing in Online Maker Communities. (2015), 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702175Google Scholar
- GARY M Olson and J Olson. 2016. Converging on theory from four sides. Theory development in the information sciences (2016), 87–100.Google Scholar
- Gary M Olson and Judith S Olson. 2000. Distance matters. Human–computer interaction 15, 2-3 (2000), 139–178.Google Scholar
- Gary M Olson, Ann Zimmerman, and Nathan Bos. 2008. Scientific collaboration on the Internet. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Judith S Olson and Gary M Olson. 2013. Working together apart: Collaboration over the internet. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 6, 5(2013), 1–151.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Judith S Olson, Dakuo Wang, Gary M Olson, and Jingwen Zhang. 2017. How people write together now: Beginning the investigation with advanced undergraduates in a project course. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 24, 1(2017), 1–40.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steve Oney, Christopher Brooks, and Paul Resnick. 2018. Creating guided code explanations with chat. codes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW(2018), 1–20.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aruquia Peixoto, Carina Soledad González González, Rebecca Strachan, Pedro Plaza, María de los Angeles Martinez, Manuel Blazquez, and Manuel Castro. 2018. Diversity and inclusion in engineering education: Looking through the gender question. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 2071–2075.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huaishu Peng, Jimmy Briggs, Cheng-Yao Wang, Kevin Guo, Joseph Kider, Stefanie Mueller, Patrick Baudisch, and François Guimbretière. 2018. RoMA: Interactive fabrication with augmented reality and a robotic 3D printer. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 579.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steven Pryor. 2014. Implementing a 3D printing service in an academic library. Journal of Library Administration 54, 1 (2014), 1–10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Horst Rittel. 1984. Second-generation design methods. Developments in design methodology(1984), 317–327.Google Scholar
- Thijs Jan Roumen, Willi Mueller, and Patrick Baudisch. 2018. Grafter: Remixing 3D-printed machines. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 63.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rita Shewbridge, Amy Hurst, and Shaun K Kane. 2014. Everyday making: identifying future uses for 3D printing in the home. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems. ACM, 815–824.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marco Antonio Calijorne Soares and Fernando Silva Parreiras. 2020. A literature review on question answering techniques, paradigms and systems. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences 32, 6(2020), 635–646.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peng Song, Bailin Deng, Ziqi Wang, Zhichao Dong, Wei Li, Chi-Wing Fu, and Ligang Liu. 2016. CofiFab: coarse-to-fine fabrication of large 3D objects. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 35, 4 (2016), 45.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ondrej Stava, Juraj Vanek, Bedrich Benes, Nathan Carr, and Radomír Měch. 2012. Stress relief: improving structural strength of 3D printable objects. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 48.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A Strauss and J Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. https://genderopen-develop.cms.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/25595/12/whatsnew7.pdf?sequence=1Google Scholar
- Nobuyuki Umetani and Ryan Schmidt. 2013. Cross-sectional structural analysis for 3D printing optimization.. In SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Briefs. Citeseer, 5–1.Google Scholar
- Rosa Van Der Veen, Jeroen Peeters, Olov Långström, Ronald Helgers, Nigel Papworth, and Ambra Trotto. 2019. Exploring Craft in the Context of Digital Fabrication. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 237–242.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juraj Vanek, Jorge A Garcia Galicia, and Bedrich Benes. 2014. Clever support: Efficient support structure generation for digital fabrication. In Computer graphics forum, Vol. 33. Wiley Online Library, 117–125.Google Scholar
- Juraj Vanek, JA Garcia Galicia, Bedrich Benes, R Měch, N Carr, Ondrej Stava, and GS Miller. 2014. PackMerger: A 3D print volume optimizer. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 33. Wiley Online Library, 322–332.Google Scholar
- Bogdan Vasilescu, Vladimir Filkov, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2013. Stackoverflow and github: Associations between software development and crowdsourced knowledge. In 2013 International Conference on Social Computing. IEEE, 188–195.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian Voigt. 2018. Not every remix is an innovation: a network perspective on the 3D-printing community. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. ACM, 153–161.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Weiming Wang, Haiyuan Chao, Jing Tong, Zhouwang Yang, Xin Tong, Hang Li, Xiuping Liu, and Ligang Liu. 2015. Saliency-preserving slicing optimization for effective 3D printing. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 34. Wiley Online Library, 148–160.Google Scholar
- Christian Weichel, Manfred Lau, David Kim, Nicolas Villar, and Hans W Gellersen. 2014. MixFab: a mixed-reality environment for personal fabrication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3855–3864.Google ScholarDigital Library
- T Yamamoto, Y Yamamoto, S Fujita Proceedings of the 27th ACM, and undefined 2018. 2018. Exploring People’s Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Careful Information Seeking in Web Search. dl.acm.org (2018). https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3271799Google Scholar
- Tom Yeh and Jeeeun Kim. 2018. CraftML: 3D Modeling is Web Programming. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 527.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amanda K Yung, Zhiyuan Li, and Daniel Ashbrook. 2018. Printy3D: in-situ tangible three-dimensional design for augmented fabrication. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 181–194.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiaoyi Zhang, Tracy Tran, Yuqian Sun, Ian Culhane, Shobhit Jain, James Fogarty, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2018. Interactiles: 3D printed tactile interfaces to enhance mobile touchscreen accessibility. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 131–142.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haisen Zhao, Fanglin Gu, Qi-Xing Huang, Jorge Garcia, Yong Chen, Changhe Tu, Bedrich Benes, Hao Zhang, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Baoquan Chen. 2016. Connected fermat spirals for layered fabrication. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 35, 4 (2016), 100.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- “Anyone Can Print”: Supporting Collaborations with 3D Printing Services to Empower Broader Participation in Personal Fabrication
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Understanding Newcomers to 3D Printing: Motivations, Workflows, and Barriers of Casual Makers
CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsInterest in understanding and facilitating 3D digital fabrication is growing in the HCI research community. However, most of our insights about end-user interaction with fabrication are currently based on interactions of professional users, makers, and ...
Fabrication of stamps for microcontact printing by injection molding
Microcontact printing has been shown to be a viable lithographic technique for the fabrication of a variety of microelectronic components, including source/drain and gate electrodes for organic field effect transistors. Future manufacturing efforts may ...
Cost-effective printing of 3D objects with self-supporting property
The fused deposition modeling (FDM) printer is a simple, affordable and widely used device in the 3D printing society. However, the high price of printing materials is one of major restrictive factors for its further application. Based on the self-...
Comments