### Table bot

Table bot is a Pan-tilt camera mounted on a small robot. Either the maker or the robot can decide the best position and orientation for this camera unit. In particular, the robot can track pieces (e.g. circuit board) or tools (solder) and move around on a table to maintain the distance between the objects of interest and the camera constant.

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

### Meta-data

The concept of Capush includes a local repository where all captured content (pictures and videos) can be associated with tags. These tags can either be added by makers, for example, by entering a project name, the project owners' names or any annotation that makers may find useful. As these manual tag entries can require some effort from the maker, the concept includes the generation of automated metadata as tags, including the location of the captured content (e. g., "woodworking area", "electronic work-bench"), machines or tools identified in the stream (e. g., "screwdriver", "3D printer",...), and timestamps.

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

## 5.2. Study design

We designed an online survey study to better understand current capturing practices in fabrication workshops, and to explore in how far the dimensions exemplified in the five unit types correspond to the capturing needs of makers. The goal of this study was also to identify challenges and to provide directions for which prototypes of the design concept should be developed further. The study received research ethics approval from the Research and Ethics Committee of our institution.

### 5.2.1. Research Questions

We designed our study with three guiding research questions in mind:
1. What are makers' current capturing practices across diverse activities?

2. How do makers envision the impact of the different dimensions of a shared capturing equipment's properties on their capturing practices?

3. What are the potential issues that need to be considered for different types of equipment?

### 5.2.2. Survey Design and Approach

We implemented the survey on a personal server running LimeSurvey 3.25.21 and structured it in four parts:

1. **Introduction**. The first page was dedicated to inform potential respondents about the purpose of the study and ask for their informed consent.

2. **Background and demographics**. The second page asked general questions concerning basic demographics (age group, country of residence, profession) as well as background information on how long they have been using shared fabrication workshops, what roles they have had in these spaces (maker, manager, teacher or instructor, other), what kind of activities they tend to do (such as electronics, 3D printing, woodworking, etc), and what their collaboration habits are.

3. **Current capturing practices** contained two pages. The first one focused on current capturing habits and asked what kind of tools respondents currently use, how they find their captured content again, how satisfied they are with their current habits, and if and where they share any captured content online.

The following page focused on two of the activities respondents indicated on page 2 (background and demographics). These two activities were dynamically selected according to the frequency at which the respondent had indicated capturing content about. Respondents were then asked for each what kind of record they generate when doing that activity, whether they are more interested in capturing the process or the result, and what kind of problems they encounter when capturing content from these activities.
4. **Exploration of the design concept.** The last page explores the different aspects of our design concept and the compatibility with different types of activities. Respondents are first asked to watch a 3:23 min video<sup>1</sup> explaining the concept and unit types. In the video, the different concepts were presented one-by-one as low-fidelity animated drawings like those in subsection 5.1.3. We provide an example of the visual style of the video in Figure 5.3. Accompanying the visuals, a voice-over and subtitles describe how the units are supposed to work, including the different degrees of freedom of the actuated and mobile units, as well as the automated and manual tag entries with location of each unit and object detection and tracking. Mock-ups of the units (Figure 5.2) were also included to illustrate more concretely how the units could look like. Finally, the video introduced the idea of a local repository and the use of tags to retrieve the captured content. Respondents were then asked to express how much they like each property with the option to provide details for each. Then respondents indicated for one of the two activities used on the previous page, how having access to this envisioned system may or may not change how and what they would capture. The survey concluded with a few questions inquiring if they would want such a system to be installed in the workshop they frequent, if they would use it if it was installed there, and how they would personally improve it. Finally, we asked if they can think of situations where they would *not* want such a system, and offered space to leave further comments if they desired. The supplemental material includes the raw responses to the questions from this page.

Based on piloting, we estimated that it would take between
10 and 20 minutes to fill the survey. However, we also noted
that providing more details in the many optional free-text
response fields could considerably increase response time.
We therefore added a warning on the information sheet page
to make potential respondents aware of this. Nonetheless,
we observed that respondents spend considerably more time
than we expected (mean time 25 minutes [22, 29 minutes, 95%

1: The video is included in the supplemental material of the publication: 'Exploring Capturing Approaches in Shared Fabrication Workshops' [108] which is accessible on the ACM Digital Library
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.3.:** Stills from the video shown to respondents. (A) shows the different units located in the workshop to illustrate multiplicity and variety. (B) illustrates the pan/tilt unit with manual control and (C) introduces automated position with tool tracking. (D) shows (conceptually) how the content captured from the units ends up in a local repository enriched with contextual meta-data (location, tool,...).</figcaption></figure>

CI]).

### 5.2.3. Participant Recruitment

We aimed to reach a broad range of respondents and thus gathered emails from the fablabs.io² website which includes people from all around the world. We sent out a total of 1,635 invitation emails, which resulted in 1,033 visits and 66 complete responses. The survey was available during 3 weeks. Figure 5.4 provides an overview of basic demographic information about the 66 respondents.

2: https://www.fablabs.io

### 5.2.4. Analysis and Report

The survey included a combination of questions where response options were either in the form of Likert items, multiple choice answers, or free text entry. We report responses to Likert items and multiple choice questions visually, in the form of bar charts for multiple choice questions and in the form of stacked, aligned bar charts for Likert items. Note that
<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.4.** Overview of demographics and background of our respondents.</figcaption></figure>

the sum of responses to multiple choice questions sums up to more than the number of respondents. For Likert items, bars indicate percentages where all percentages are on the basis of the total number of respondents (66). Consequently, the sum of the stacked bars for one Likert item do not necessarily sum up to 100%. This is particularly the case for all questions broken down by activities, since any one participant was only asked in more detail about two activities for current practices and one in the context of Capush to keep the length of the survey manageable.

Free text responses were first categorised and classified by assigning codes in a spreadsheet. For each question, we extracted keywords or tendencies such as “positive/negative”, “management”, “quality”, “privacy”. We then used these keywords to group the corresponding answers and refine the keywords.
For those text answers referring to two or more keyword groups, we simply copied them to the corresponding groups.

## 5.3. Findings

We report our findings in the same order as we formulated our research questions: (1) we describe participants' current practices and the tools they use to capture across diverse activities; (2) we detail how participants perceived and reported on the different properties of the design concept through the lens of our framework; (3) we compile issues and concerns reported by respondents. Underlined words refer to the dimensions of the framework presented in section 4.1.

### 5.3.1. RQ1: Current Capturing Practices

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.5.** Current practices in capturing content from fabrication activities
$n(3dprinting)=28, n(lasercutting)=25, n(CNC)=19, n(electronics)=19, n(woodworking)=13</figcaption></figure>

Our data confirm that almost all respondents use their *personal devices* such as smartphones or digital cameras, sometimes with tripods, to capture content as shown on Figure 5.5a
(How). They also confirm that *pictures* and *videos* play an
important role when capturing content (What): Figure 5.5b
shows that pictures are the most common capture format,
followed by video across most activities. Respondents fre-
quently save *files* as well and rather homogeneously across
activities. For some activities, like woodworking or electron-
ics, *sketches* are also somewhat frequent to keep, for instance,
components and connections of electronic circuits ("*another
easy and simple way to record and showcase the kinds of circuits
I'm building*" - p8).

Only few respondents indicate that they are not used to cap-
ture anything to show the result (**after** the activity) Figure 5.5d.
When asked if they are used to capture the process (**during** the
activity), opinions diverge and depend much more on the ac-
tual activity. Those doing woodworking and CNC mostly are
for capturing the process whereas respondents disagree on
this for electronics, laser cutting and 3D printing. For instance,
P15 takes pictures during 3D printing “*For documentation and
communication and to keep track of the print's quality*”, p62
takes pictures of all details involved in the woodworking pro-
cess: “*pieces, cut pieces, pre-assembly, during glue up, clamp
down, any mistakes made throughout the process, assembled
piece before and after sanding and sealing*”.

In general, capturing images (pictures) appears more appro-
priate **after** the activity, for instance to “record good samples
or defect” - p27 or to remember the montage in the case of
electronics “easiest means to record constructed circuits using
physical components and breadboards” - p8. In contrast, video
capture appears more appropriate **during** the activity to re-
cord the process of e.g., 3D printing, laser-cutting or CNC (10
of 16 respondents). For instance, “this is to show what happens
in real time to others who want to know what 3D printing is like
in real time (not static)” - p8. When taking pictures during
the activity, the purpose is then to keep track, record the iter-
ations, and the methods as well as a mean for remembering
the settings used.

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.6.:** Frequency of help solicited by respondents to capture images and videos.</figcaption></figure>
Most respondents do not ask for help when they need to take
a picture or record a video as shown in (Figure 5.6), however
23 of them gave examples of situations when capturing might
be difficult. For instance, they may want to change the per-
spective to appear on the camera but cannot because their
hands are busy and/or dirty. They also complained about the
resolution of their devices or issues of the workshop environ-
ment such as bad lighting (e.g., protective glass reflecting the
light on the machines), heat and wood chips, machines noises,
vibrations and the need to protect the cameras against dirt.
Some of them regretted that they did not have enough skills
to capture nice content with nice angles. Finally, they men-
tioned forgetting to capture because of the switch between
capturing and fabrication.

5.3.2. RQ2: Exploration of Framework Dimensions Through Capush

We now present the results relating to the ways in which
respondents would imagine using Capush to capture images
and videos, and how it could influence their current practices.
The results are organised according to the dimensions of our
framework.

Why to capture

The survey did not contain a question asking explicitly about
the reasons and motivations to create knowledge resources
and if those would change with a system based on Capush.
However, some respondents spontaneously commented about
them, sometimes raising emerging opportunities. For instance,
at the organisational level, 9 respondents (including 3 man-
agers), mentioned that Capush could be used for safety and
management purposes, providing “Emergency Stop in case
of fabrication problems. Give an advice when the part is fully
processed. Send a message when the process is done” - p19.
P52 mentioned that it “could be useful for safety purposes. For
example showing machines unattended, safety guards not in op-
eration”. 4 respondents would use it to keep track of the visits,
automatically identifying visitors, “or presenting analytic data
on the use of the machines or the occupation level of the space" - p33. P11 also envisioned to locally showcase the captured content from different projects "[...] to teach others using the space and to inspire artists working at our lab" - p11.

Five respondents suggested potential benefits at the individual and community levels. Benefits include: automating content creation for diffusion to generate newsletters; making short summaries or accelerated video compilations (p19, p33 & p49); automatically send content to a wiki; "to enable keeping track" - p9 or to "automatically save pictures with machine setups in the wiki where we can add a comment" - p14.

## What is captured

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>(a) Reported likelihoods of taking pictures for different types of activities.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>(b) Reported likelihoods of recording video for different types of activities.</figcaption></figure>

**Figure 5.7.:** Reported likelihoods of taking pictures and recording videos with Capush depending on type of activity
$n(3D \ printing)=16, n(laser \ cutting)=11, n(electronics)=12, n(CNC)=6, n(woodworking)=10$

Most respondents would take pictures with Capush for different kinds of activities as summarized in Figure 5.7a. Video capture (Figure 5.7b) is "more suitable for some steps of the
*projects"* - p43, "*all of our actions would be recorded*" - p6. Interestingly, 11 of the 12 respondents who considered Capush for the activity "electronic" would record videos with Capush, which was not the case when asked about their current practices (Figure 5.5b). Some respondents anticipate extending the kind of content they usually capture thanks to Capush (p21 & p24): "*I think I would take *timelapse* videos of all my builds, if that would be very easy to do (only little time needed for setup etc)*" - p21. Finally, respondents appreciated the possibility to associate *meta-data* (contextual information, tags) as illustrated in Figure 5.8 to simplify the organisation, the retrieval and the reuse of the content: "*By typing the tag it would be easy to retrieve other projects using the same techniques, and eventually to find other strategies, also this would allow to retrieve one's own work and to fill the wiki without searching/transferring all programs and pictures*" - p9. "*Having tags autoformatted would be terrific. It would also help me prove who created what*" - p20.

Because respondents perceived Capush as undemanding and readily available, they envisioned capturing content more frequently: "*If the system was set up and I used it, it would be much easier to capture [...] and I would probably take more photos*" - p36. Capush also offers "more flexibility" - p16 to capture enabling better quality and richer content: "*[It's] a maker's dream, it enables several angles and cameras attached at strategic places to create a beautiful montage of the creative process!*" - p3. Two respondents also imagined to extend capture to non-physical activities by recording the computer's screens with OBS³.

The survey software selected the two activities for which participants indicated capturing most frequently pictures or videos. Questions on current practices were asked for both activities, whereas exploration of Capush was focused on the first main activity. Consequently, out of the 49 people who indicated doing electronics (as shown in Figure 5.4), 19 were queried on their current habits regarding electronics (as shown in Figure 5.5) and only 12 were queried how Capush could be used to capture an electronics activity.

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>3: Open Broadcaster Software
https://obsproject.com/fr</figcaption></figure>

**Figure 5.8.:** Reported usefulness for the 4 types of tags suggested: customs, tool/machine, location in the workshop, and date. n=66
<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.9.:** Capture and retrieval better than current.
*n=66*</figcaption></figure>

## How to capture

A clear majority of respondents appreciated the concept of Capush to capture content (see Figure 5.9) and rated it as better than what they are currently using both concerning capturing itself and retrieving content from a shared repository. In particular, they appreciated not to have to use their own device and risk to break them: *“I don't have space on me to carry a phone all the time; I don't want to damage my own camera; it might be a good reminder to take process pictures”* - p62. However, other respondents also wished for openness, to be able to continue to use their personal devices and software tools together with Capush. P42 wanted to be able to connect the system they currently use in their workshop.

Similarly, p27 & p61 would like to use their smartphone or GoPros to take pictures with Capush through an app.

Concerning the variety of unit types, respondents showed a clear preference for both the fixed and the clamp camera over the head-mounted camera and the table bot (see Figure 5.10) suggesting that more complex unit types may not be necessary and that mobility and hands-free operation may be the decisive properties: *“we have several small rooms and a lot of machines, mobile cameras are useful”* - p24 although at least one respondent worried that the multiple mobile cameras such as the clamps would be cumbersome: *“it is annoying and you have to think of as many clamps as there are places where you want to attach it”* - p31. Finally, respondents seemed to appreciate the opportunity for hands-free manipulation given by the units, as P18 commented about the table-bot: *“I can imagine the use of such a device in the case of experiments where the practitioner has both hands busy”* - p18. About the head-mounted camera, P8 commented: *“handy, a bit invasive,*
*but totally useful so I can continue to use my hands and still record all my work*" - p8. Freeing up one's hands might as well help makers to better focus on their work (p47).

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.10.:** Reported appreciation of the camera units of Capush.</figcaption></figure>

n=66

## When to capture

Respondents expressed a similar intent to capture more *during* (process) as well as *after* (result) the activity indicating that they expect the pure *presence* of capturing units to remind them to take pictures and videos and more generally to think about documenting their work. "*It might be a good reminder to take process pictures*" - p62. As Figure 5.11a and Figure 5.11b illustrate, this is especially the case for activities involving the use of tools. In addition, three respondents mentioned the advantage of a community capturing tool across the lifetime of a project.

"*It would help me replicate my initial actions for future builds that need the same process it would be useful to have more information available to create a more effective narrative of what I did, when I did it, and how it would help others trying to replicate what I'm doing (if they are so interested)*" - p8.

## Where to capture

A fixed camera on *machines* was one of the preferred units because it is “useful” or “interesting” (7 respondents). 6 other respondents appreciated that it requires no effort to set up since it is already installed and that it would consequently make it easier and faster to record content from a machine. In particular, they mentioned that they would essentially
<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>(a) Reported likelihood to capture process with Capush</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>(b) Reported likelihood to capture the result with Capush</figcaption></figure>

<caption>**Figure 5.11.:** Reported likelihood to capture the process and the result with Capush for activities where n>5</caption>

n(3dprinting)=16, n(lasercutting)=11, n(CNC)=6, n(electronics)=12, n(woodworking)=10.

capture videos or make timelapses of processes and manipu-
lations: “*it has the advantage of similar images from different*
*stages*” - p39.

Respondents also appreciated the clamp camera to position it
in the environment and to adapt it to the scene: "it's possible
to attach it anywhere, good idea" - p9, giving examples of
the case of "manual activities" - p14 or "activities where a
fixed camera is not suitable" - p10. "It can create a multitude
of angles to create interessant point of views" - p3.

The Table bot received mixed opinions because it seems un-
suitable on cluttered desks and would require to free space,
resulting in less spontaneity when capturing content. Some
respondents also feared that the robot would get in the way
of the primary activity and cause distraction. "I don't want
additional stuff on the work table, only gets in my way" - p21.
P15 was more positive but would prefer an approach using
"a linear frame with a rotating head looking down toward the table".

The head-mounted camera that makers wear (person) also received rather mixed opinions. On the positive side, some respondents appreciated that it offers a first person point of view and the possibility to free both hands while capturing. "This is probably the best way to capture what I am doing right in front my workbench/work surface" - p8. On the flip side, 15 respondents expressed concerns in their comments. A camera carried on the head might cause discomfort and, importantly, be incompatible with head-worn security equipment. Additionally, it would require special care and attention to avoid moving shots and blurry pictures which would result in extra work to remove them afterwards. It would "move too much" - p42, "make [me] seasick" - p9, and "require additional work to remove useless moving shots" - p24.

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.12.:** Appreciation of the manual control vs automated control of the camera orientation.</figcaption></figure>

n=66

## Who captures

Respondents tend to prefer the automated control of the camera orientation to the manual one with a joystick (see Figure 5.12). However, some respondents questioned the technical feasibility and reliability due to lighting, imagining a final result with possible "unstable videos" - p38 or "confusing shots" - p17.

In contrast, the joystick to manually control the camera orientation was perceived as “useless”, “too complicated” or “cumbersome”. Two respondents would rather move the camera with their hand directly: “we are not in a James Bond movie” - p31.

Regarding the automatic control of a camera's position, respondents questioned the feasibility of programming a table bot capable to deal with a cluttered desk (see Where). The
autonomous locomotion might as well contribute to distrac-
tion as noticed by 4 respondents.

The way to _trigger_ video/picture captures was not described
in the concepts' presentation. However, two respondents (p10
& p25) spontaneously commented on the interest of adding
an automatic trigger or offering an alert system to suggest
to capture (p25) or trigger the capture via voice-command:
"start tracking", "take a picture" - p4.

The concept includes to automatically _upload_ the content captured from the different units to a local repository. Respondents indicated that this approach would be useful and save time (p17 & p42) because uploading and managing content is “tedious”: “Getting the content from the phone to a useful place often doesn’t happen” - p56, “Very useful for keeping stuff together and allowing ease of access” - p10. Nonetheless, some respondents did not find this approach essential and questioned how to manage access rights: “This can be useful or misused according to who is working with it. We had problems in one makerspace with the camera’s, that led to a lot of powergaming/headgames” - p35. “It will be useful but I wonder it could be more useful than Google photo” - p27.

The different contextual tags would help to retrieve and easily
reuse the content (see *What*), but tagging all content can
require a very good organisation and be cumbersome. “I’m
too lazy to set them manually on my phone, makes it hard
to find photos again” - p21. Providing automatic capture of
meta-data as tags, including the location in the workshop,
the machine and tools detected in the stream and timestamps,
might solve this issue and was well received by respondents.
“Automatic tags are awesome” - p21. “With the automatic tags,
will save me time of doing it later in the computer and try to
remember the details” - p48

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.13.:** Appreciation of a shared local repository with tags.
*n=66*</figcaption></figure>
### 5.3.3. RQ3: Potential Issues and Concerns

While a large majority of respondents would want a Capush system deployed in their workshop (Figure 5.14 and Figure 5.9), some respondents raised important concerns that any implementation of camera-based capture tools in fabrication workshops should take into account.

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.14.:** Appreciation of the overall system.
*n=66*</figcaption></figure>

#### Privacy

Some respondents suggested that consent from users of the workshop for being filmed should be explicitly gathered because some persons might feel uncomfortable (p13 & p16) or do not want to be filmed without knowing it (p44, p21, p34, p39 & p25): "In case camera would capture other persons in the background, it would be hard to use, as some people strongly dislike the use of cameras at our fablab" - p21. "Maker-spaces know failure, meaning something can go wrong, even badly wrong. Simple mistakes can turn projects into smoke. This is something you don't want to document on a personal record. If there are only friends, fine, but if there are others not friendly, bullying is an issue that should be avoided. A class situation [sic], where the attendance is not strictly voluntarily, could be awful once lesser skilled attendants turn their attention to these devices to tinker with them instead of paying attention." - p39. "Part of the young people who come here are not comfortable with their self-image. I know that it would cause problems for some of them if they happened to be on videos, and maybe that the sole presence of cameras would make them uncomfortable" - p16. Some respondents suggested that some spaces should remain entirely free of cameras (p10, p50 & p56).
## Intellectual property

Respondents recommended to pay attention to intellectual
property in the context of company projects (p20, p23, p62),
artists rights (p52), theft (p11), or industry equipment (p63)
because it might prevent the use of cameras if not strictly
framed. A few mentioned there could be problems in the
cases where makers do secret projects (p27), adult content
(p26), or illegal content (p33). "I'm concern about intellectual
property when all files are shared by others especially when it's
businesses/companies/studios that operate out of a shared space,
to have their property be easily viewed by others." - p62. "Not
everyone want to shared their projects, for example if they are
purposely on the fringes of legality" - p33.

## Safety

Some respondents questioned the safety of the Capush concept
because the workshop is already full of machines (p37): "Most
of the options are based around devices that would get in the
way of performing the activities, so are inherently unsafe, as
any attention paid to the use of a camera is attention that is
not being used indirectly for the activity, which is a bad way
to operate when you are working with dangerous tools/materi-
als.." - p35.

## 5.4. Discussion and Opportunities for Design

We revisit now the two research directions explored through
Capush and the survey study: "Multiplicity and variety of
capture units" and "Degree of automation" before discussing
privacy and ethics, two dimensions that emerged from our
study.
### 5.4.1. Multiplicity and Variety of the Capturing Units

Our study explored how multiple and varied units could support the diverse and distributed nature of capturing activities. Regarding multiplicity, results suggest that this is indeed essential, as fabrication activities are distributed, and more available capture devices increase the opportunities for capturing content in various ways. Concerning variety, results are less straightforward. However, what we see as a new opportunity, is the ability to integrate makers’ personal capture devices (e.g. smartphones) into Capush to leverage the unique aspects they bring.

**Multiplicity Increases Capture Opportunities.** The fact that there are multiple cameras increases capture opportunities, for several reasons. First, because ubiquitous cameras serve the purpose of acting as a reminder. This can mitigate one of the main barriers reported in literature [138, 151] and confirmed by respondents in our study, which is that capturing is difficult and often forgotten, as makers focus on tasks that are physical and often cognitively demanding. Beyond capturing more content during a project, more units support keeping track of the process of fabricating an artefact (P62, P9), reinforce re-usability (P14) and create better narratives (P3). This observation is in line with Gourlet et al. [55] who suggest that modularity is important when collecting traces of different activities at different stages of a process and Keune et al. [72] who encourage the salience of capturing devices meant for documentation. Second, because more capture units means that there are more angles and more locations (even inside machines) that are ready to be recorded without overhead. This facilitates capturing different perspectives simultaneously on the same artefact, which provides richer visual content for knowledge resources [40].

**Limited Variety seems Sufficient.** Many makers were sceptical about the usefulness of more complex unit types, that is, the head-mounted camera and the table bot, and feared they would be distracting or simply get in the way. At the
same time they appreciated for fixed cameras the simplicity
(no setting up) and predictability of footage (always the exact
same viewpoint (P39)) and for clamp cameras their flexibility
(freely adjustable viewpoints (P3)). Thus, given our findings,
these two unit types seem complementary and sufficient.
There may be some need though for temporary contraptions
to attach to units, for example, to protect a unit from dust
or debris spit out by a machine (P62), or to adjust exposure
levels to record special activities like welding.

**Personal Device Integration.** In our framework analysis, we observed that personal devices (e.g., smartphones) are appreciated because they are readily available and familiar to the maker, something our study confirms. While most respondents expressed support for adding a community shared capturing tool to their workshop, some asked explicitly to keep such a system open to use other types of capturing devices, such as their smartphones or Gopro cameras, but such that the captured footage is treated in the same way, that is, added to the repository and enriched with contextual meta-data. This gives makers the ability to combine properties they value from Capush with specific capture requirements they may need (e.g. macro zoom, timelapse or Snapchat filters). Beyond camera-based units, integration can also happen with other forms of content capture, such as screenshots (P33) or sketches, which participants highlighted as relevant (Figure 5.5b). Ideally, makers should be able to include any content type together with the picture and video content captured with Capush.

**Opportunities for Design** Capture tools should be considering multiple cameras distributed in space and enable straightforward integration of makers’ own capturing devices for leveraging their unique capture capabilities. The main challenge is to reduce the required overhead (favour simplicity) and facilitate predictability of the outcome. Makers also produce other content types, besides pictures and videos, and some expressed interest to send everything to the same repository.
5.4.2. Degree of automation: Mixed-Initiative
Content Capture

As expected, opinions and preferences diverged across parti-
cipants when it came to delegating control. Balancing auto-
matic and manual control is indeed challenging, specifically
in maker spaces: Previous work already noted that automatic
capture control generates a lot of data without certainty of
what is being captured [72], while complete manual control
can require too much of the maker's attention distracting
them from the main task of making. We posit that delegat-
ing control in capture tools does not necessarily need to be
all or nothing, but could follow a mixed-initiative approach
aiming to maximise the benefits of both types of control [6].
In mixed-initiative control, the system and user both contrib-
ute to a task (in this case, controlling and parameterise the
capture tool) in a flexible way, as they can delegate and take
control as the task advances in order to contribute what each
does best. Our study elicited considerations for delegating
control to capture tools. We discuss these considerations re-
garding mixed-initiative: task interference and customisation
granularity.

**Task Interference.** Automation can introduce unintended
extraneous interference to the activity and output. We ob-
serve reluctance for automation due to the uncertainty of
resulting behaviour and output. We believe that this can be
mitigated by setting restrictions on automation. For instance,
P15 suggested constraining locomotion of the tablebot to
one dimension (Tₓ) instead of two (Tₓᵧ), while controlling
when capture takes place. This alleviates the maker from
remembering to move the unit, with a mix of control that
mitigates potential interruptions of the activity as the maker
can more easily predict the unit's behaviour (which parts of
the workbench the camera can invade by potentially rolling
over material), as well as output volume (keeping control of
the amount of media generated). Another example is that
automatic orientation was perceived as a potential source for
unsteady shots (p38), but it could be interesting to explore
in more detail if being able to control sub-parameters (e.g.
movement speed) would lead to more certainty of output.
Lastly, interference introduced by automation is likely spe-
cific to a given task, and therefore systems cannot assume that
one type of automation (e.g. unit movement) will necessarily
interfere with work always in a given way.

**Customisation granularity.** Customisation at different degrees of granularity supports a varying level of experience and preferences. As capture tools grow in complexity, more and more elements will be available for control, including movement, orientation and position, as well as the moment of capture. We observe that makers’ needs and preferences play an important role in composing the right mix. Previous work studying how people manage personal media has identified this [142], for example, if a person’s career depends on these media, manual control is desired as the cognitive cost of capturing is outshined by the benefits of making sure the media will not be lost. To lower the complexity, capture tools could provide mixed-initiative customisation assistance (MICA) [19] to help makers navigate through complex customisation highly-granular options. Finally, we believe that reminding the user to exert manual control might be a better strategy than fully exercising control, for example by having the system provide recommendations on when to act (e.g. when to trigger capture).

**Opportunities for Design** Capture tools could let makers set constraints for automation *before* starting the activity, so that makers delegate control *during* the activity to the system in the way they want. Awareness of these parameters is key, *before* starting the task regarding what can be controlled and what will be the effects of setting parameters, helping users set their desired preferences. *During* the activity, systems should give feedback of automated parameters (e.g., blue colour on the wheels that are controlled automatically) and when triggering capturing (e.g., sound), both for the maker that set the parameters so that they do not forget, but also for other makers who might occupy a part of the fablab where the system is running. At the same time, feedforward is also promising to indicate which areas a device can occupy as it moves, and what areas are in its capture reach given
the selected set of automation, increasing predictability of
output.

5.4.3. Social Context: Privacy and Ethics

Fabrication workshops have been already identified as socio-
technical environments [66, 129], as cultures of making “shape
collaboration and the social organisation of work” [111]. We
argue that content capture, and thus knowledge production,
can support and contribute to the construction of social activ-
ities. First, as resources for care practices that reflect makers’
ethics. Toombs, Bardzell and Bardzell [130] discuss the ethics
of makers as a complex negotiation of a neo-libertarian ethos
and care ethos. Captured content supports care practices
both overt-explicit (e.g. helping others become more inde-
pendent through sharing how a process is done correctly) and
overt-implicit (e.g. increasing safety through content capture
to monitor safe machine operation). Content can also help
makers accrue social capital, through proof of activities and
achievements, which contributes to the notion of the “self-
made” ethos in the maker space. Second, for entrepreneurship.
Hui and Gerber [66] discuss how physical, technological and
online resources are leveraged to promote values associated
with this goal, and help makers walk a path towards it. Thus,
content can be used for cognitive apprenticeship—learning
a task by observing expert behaviour [31]—by creating new
opportunities and increasing reach to more apprentices. Also,
it enables apprenticeship to take place offline: content can be
made available on demand increasing the chances of watch-
ing experts work, as doing so by standing next to the expert
is limited by scheduling and the available space in the work-
shop.

Despite contributing to social practices, content capture can
have implications on privacy and ethics, potentially posing a
threat to others’ intellectual property. Our study elicits how
not only a system can unintendedly capture another person
and their work without consent, but that the mere presence of
the camera can put other makers in an awkward position of
avoiding certain areas or avoiding conversations out of fear of
being recorded. This is important as intellectual property is a
major concern for makers, and can be an extra barrier in doc-
umenting [151], and hacker ethics vary widely, from radical
activists [124], to seeking peace through technology demo-
cratisation [81]. Responses indeed showed that the variety of
people occupying the space have unique values and percep-
tions that nuance the concerns. We thus believe that capture
and privacy are a relationship rather than a consequence, as
they relate to factors such as the degree of acquaintance with
the person being captured and the capture, the self-image of
the captured person, or the level of choice a maker has (e.g.
mandatory class attendance).

**Opportunities for Design** By considering privacy and ethics, a capture tool can contribute to social practices in fabrication workshops. We believe that ensuring visibility of on-going capturing activities and giving people control are two key aspects in capture tools that makers can use to tackle privacy. Regarding visibility, simple mechanisms such as a glow aura or line lasers showing the area captured provides others with awareness. In doing so, others can modify their behaviour to satisfy their needs and values regarding privacy for their ongoing activities. Moreover, a maker capturing content could be able to control the depth of a captured area, for example by setting the capture depth to a certain level (e.g., no more than 1 meter) by relying on depth sensor information and blurring all areas considered background, or for cameras capable of setting a very narrow depth focus by simply setting it such that the foreground is in focus while blurring the background. More advanced mechanisms can provide finer control, such as blurring faces automatically if other makers walk into the frame. These measures are not exclusive, as the capture area can be exposed, limited, and still modified ex-post in case of unexpected appearances. Overall, while no one of our participants brought this up, moving from personal devices—which are omnipresent and for which a bystander generally cannot know if they are currently recording—to a shared community camera system could present an opportunity to develop systems which are respectful of privacy and put awareness and limitations in place to respect everybody's personal choices.
## 5.5. Conclusion

In this chapter, we have presented a design concept, Capush, based on the principle of multiple capture units collecting images, videos and contextual information, and varying in their degrees of freedom and automation. We also collected the perception of potential users of this tool design concept, while exploring the diversity of activities that each performs in the fabrication space. This provided us with new data on both the equipment needs of different user profiles and activities performed.

This study results in new opportunities for design, such as encouraging the multiplicity of capture units and their variety according to the activities, as well as automating certain properties of the capture to reduce the physical and cognitive costs. We also highlight the implications of such tools in the workshop setting, in particular, considering privacy and ethics by providing visibility and control of what is captured.

This chapter builds on all the results and new knowledge presented in the previous chapters. Thus, it constitutes the final point of the contributions of this thesis by directly informing the design for knowledge capture in the fabrication workshops. The work presented in this chapter does however have its limitations, and also opens up new research perspectives on capture tools. We discuss these in the next chapter.
# Discussion, Future perspectives, and Conclusion

## 6.

During this thesis, my work was organised according to two main research questions, from which I aimed to address the design of tools to support makers in the creation of knowledge resources:

* What are the objectives of knowledge resources and the challenges faced by makers creating them?

* Which properties of a system matter to support makers in the capture of content from fabrication activities?

In this final chapter, I revisit these research questions. Then, I discuss how this work can be extended as short term perspectives, as well as the long term opportunities for research on knowledge capture and resource creation in fabrication workshops.

### 6.1. What are the objectives of knowledge resources and the challenges faced by makers creating them?

To inform the design of tools to be installed in a workshop, it was important to first understand the different objectives related to these knowledge resources and then to identify more precisely the challenges. My co-authors and I approached this research question from a literature review to considering both the different terminologies used, and the variety of research fields dealing with knowledge resources: education, design, fabrication etc., leading to two main contributions: The first

6.1 What are the objectives of knowledge resources and the challenges faced by makers creating them? . 119

6.2 Which properties of a system matter to support makers in the capture of content from fabrication activities? . . . . 120

6.3 Short term perspectives . . . . . 122

6.4 Long-term perspectives . . . . . 124

6.5 Conclusion . . . 130
contribution is the identification of 4 objectives and 8 chal-
lenges associated with the creation of resources, and to note
that these resources have the same objective: to represent a
fabrication project, which exposes the makers to the same
challenges regardless of other, more specific objectives. This
analysis also shows that challenges specific to certain object-
ives are related to these transversal challenges. In particular,
the level of detail included in the resources, the quality of
the content, and the reflection on the work in progress are
related to the challenges associated to the capture of content.
Thus, supporting makers in this challenge may address other
challenges as well.

The second contribution is a framework generated by this
analysis, which allows to describe and compare different tools
to support makers for the creation of knowledge resources
on given objectives. Using this framework, we highlighted a
set of strategies used by tools which leads us to identify key
moments around which we provide examples of means to
support makers. We conclude with guidance for the design.

We state that tools should:

► Support makers during content *capture*.

► Support makers through the different specific *objectives* and associated challenges while creating knowledge resources.

► Provide *interoperability* with tools specific to given ob-
jectives, in particular to disseminate and enable appro-
priation of the resource.

► Consider *automating* some of the stages of the resource creation.

6.2. Which properties of a system matter to support makers in the capture of content from fabrication activities?

At the very beginning of any knowledge resource is the cap-
turing of material, that is, without capturing material, one
cannot create any kind of knowledge resource. Consequently, I narrowed the problem to the moment of content capture to understand its different aspects. First, by identifying the different dimensions of capture within the workshop, then by seeking to identify the practices of makers according to their activities in the workshop, and finally by studying the impact on the design of tools in fabrication workshops.

**What are the different aspects of content capture in fabrication workshops?**

Through a literature review, my co-authors and I proceeded to an analysis of the different aspects of content capture within the workshop. We find that content capture can be described through 6 dimensions: Why to capture, What to capture, How to capture, When to capture, Where to capture, Who captures, which allows to identify the different aspects of this complex task.

**What are makers’ current capturing practices during fabrication activities?**

We explored this issue through an online questionnaire on capture habits. This confirms and deepens the understanding of some of the practices and challenges identified in the literature. Makers primarily use their phones to capture content, and are exposed to many barriers to capturing good quality content. But our results also nuanced some aspects, as the type of content captured may vary depending on the activity performed, and the time of the activity. Our results also highlighted the importance to consider the right to privacy and the need for agency over being recorded while being in a shared space.

**How do the aspects of capture inform the properties of capture tools in fabrication workshops?**

This questions has been approached in two ways. First, our analysis of the different dimensions of content capture generated a framework to describe and compare systems, and to identify under-explored dimensions. In particular, we have highlighted two research directions:

* Supporting capturing of diverse and distributed activities

* Exploring automation versus user control of content capture
Then, we explored these two research directions by focusing on the capture of visual information and contextual meta-data. For this, we proposed a design concept, Capush, built from the design space generated by these two research directions. We gathered the impression of makers about this design concept through an online questionnaire.

From this work, we provide the following opportunities for
the design of capture tools:

► Consider multiple cameras distributed in the space.

► Provide variety in the capture units, including personal devices.

► Collect contextual-data and centralise the content in a repository to favour retrieval.

► Favour predictability and simplicity of the capture units, and visibility of what is captured.

► Provide control and awareness over the automated properties.

**6.3. Short term perspectives**

This work is subject to certain limitations. I detail here that
the objectives, challenges and strategies identified deserve to
be further explored, and that a field study on content capture
using a version of Capush updated from our results should
be done.

**6.3.1. Refining the objectives, challenges and strategies identified**

The corpus we collected during our literature review on know-
ledge resources contained only 36 articles. While this allowed
the identification of a number of objectives and challenges,
quantifying the emphasis put in the literature on the different
objectives would be relevant. This is of course not an easy
task to do since widening the search results in very large
corpora. Should the currently developing AI tools become
capable of analysing scientific literature (reliably), then a
complete analysis of all work on the topic would become
possible. In addition, the literature-based approach could be
complemented by a survey study to confirm or refine the
objectives and challenges that makers may have in creating
resources. That would need to be a quite large survey study
with a stratified sample to make sure that different types of
workshops and makers and from different continents/cultures
are included.

Regarding the strategies identified to support makers, the
main limitation is that we have discussed these strategies only
from a selection of tools. In this regard, a more systematic
collection of existing tools from the literature but also from
products on the market would be necessary to ensure an
exhaustive list of the different possible strategies to support
makers' challenges.

As a mean to explore more strategies to support makers, it
would also be interesting to consider the objectives, chal-
lenges and solutions brought by other domains, such as what
can be found in industry [153], in art [88] or in research
laboratories [122, 123]. For example, in the industrial context,
resource creation is necessary for product life-cycle manage-
ment (PLM) and traceability to ensure product quality and im-
prove design [43]. The “Industry 4.0” paradigm is partly based
on the creation and use of process data to ensure this trace-
ability, using different tools such as the Internet of Things
(IoT) or Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), computers equipped
with sensors and actuators, embedded in production lines
[73]. Concepts of process representation such as digital twins
in manufacturing, Building Information Modelling (BIM) in
construction, ontologies, [48, 97] are very active research
fields. The industrial domain is also interested in forms of
learning in the organisation and how data capture tools can
support this learning [18, 51]. Thus, the industry domain con-
stitutes a field to be explored by its objectives of which at
least some seem to overlap with those identified in this work,
as well as the challenges and tools developed in the industrial
context.
6.3.2. Studying the properties of Capush in
the field

The findings reported in our study stem from an online sur-
vey evaluation based on a design concept introduced through
a video. This approach has the advantage of facilitating the
exploration of a diverse set of different units with various
properties. An in-person evaluation using prototypes of these
unit types runs the risk of participants focusing on smaller
usability issues (depth first evaluation) instead of the breadth
of unit types and how each of these may or may not be a
suitable approach to capture content [58, 127]. However, our
approach is not suitable to explore how actually using a unit
would feel like and how it may alter the way people make
things. Another limitations is that each respondent likely ima-
gined details not made explicit in the video in a different way
which may have increased noise in our data. In particular, we
did not present explicit choices concerning the interactions
to trigger the capture and control some features, and we did
not consider the potential issues related to the need for light
sources in certain configurations. While the approach enabled
us to collect rich data to inform future research directions,
an in-person study will still be necessary to validate how
people's impressions and expectations compare with their
actual behaviour when they are able to use a real system dur-
ing their fabrication activities, ideally in the form of a field
study and taking into account the insights gained from the
reported study.

**6.4. Long-term perspectives**

Going further, one can imagine rich and diverse avenues for
future work.
### 6.4.1. Further explore how automation of content capture and resource creation might benefit makers and the workshop

The question of automating knowledge resources has come up several times throughout this thesis. Automating can be a way to facilitate knowledge resource creation, and we have explored automation at the level of content capture. However, this aspect deserves to be explored more deeply, building on our exploration of content capture, as well as more broadly, considering automation of other stages of knowledge resource creation. These explorations should be considering the objectives and the role that knowledge resource creation can play in the work of the makers and for the fabrication workshop. I discuss possible explorations that can be made about automating capture, and the entire knowledge resources.

#### Automating visual content capture

Delegating the trigger of the capture of visual content to the system is probably not the most appropriate solution for several reasons: first, it leads to a large amount of—(mostly) useless—data that needs to be stored and curated. Second, this could lead to many problems related to privacy and intellectual property. Finally, automated capture of visual support material does not provide the opportunity for stepping back from the fabrication activity, and thus to *reflect during the work*. That being said, further research could explore how intelligent tools can automate content capture of visual content in certain cases, taking these issues into account.

#### Automating non-visual content capture

Our study showed interesting perspectives for capturing other types of data, in particular contextual data, for which automation seems to have a more direct interest: automated
collection of contextual meta-data about machines and loca-
tion to generate tags and promote retrieval was positively per-
ceived by the participants of our study. It would be interesting
to study what data is of interest to be captured automatically
or not, and how it can be used. Concerning the retrieval and
reuse of the content captured by makers, we could imagine
that these meta-data could be used to search in databases for
related content, to suggest some solutions to one's current
problems during the activity, or provide elements of inspira-
tions to makers performing similar activities. We have also
noticed through our analysis that the collection of contextual
meta-data could be a way to provide an overview of the activ-
ities at the level of the workshop. For example, respondents
from our study mentioned some opportunities for providing
security warnings to the users of the machines currently used.
The automatic capture of non-visual data thus constitutes an
important research direction.

Full automation of the creation of knowledge
resources

Several systems from the literature automate the creation
of complete knowledge resources for very specific tasks by
automatically recording author's events [28, 44, 59, 79] on a
computer based activity, or in the case of fabrication activities
such as assembly tasks [15, 137] for augmented reality tutori-
als. The latter implies to automate tracking of the location
and position of the objects a maker interacts with by using
Optitrack [146], tools recognition [29], or hand-tracking [36].
These techniques are difficult to generalise though, since
they are constrained to a known environment and known
objects, but the advances in computer vision and the avail-
ability of machine learning in object recognition could make
the automated identification of objects, materials and tools
more available in future years. Moreover, advances and demo-
cratisation of machine learning algorithms and generative AI
with recent systems such as ChatGPT¹ suggest that very soon,
it will be possible to easily generate appropriate resources
from the captured visual and contextual content.

Thus, it might be possible to automate the whole knowledge
resource creation process, however, it is important to consider

I provide a few examples of how
I was able to interact with Chat-
GPT to ask information on how
to perform fabrication projects
and activities in Chapter B of the
appendix.

1: https://openai.com/
blog/chatgpt
the different objectives for the creation of these knowledge,
in particular reflection and appropriation of the resources by
the author. By automating the whole creation of knowledge
resource, these benefits would probably be impossible, and
a distant feeling from the final document might even lead
the maker to not even interact with it at all. It could be thus
interesting to investigate how full automation can still fulfill
the needs for makers by studying how interaction with the
automated process can be supported.

Parsimonious automation of the creation of
knowledge resources

Another way to use automation could be not to automate
everything, but instead to automate things that do not mat-
ter for learners and that we consider as obstructions to the
workflow. A parsimonious automation in knowledge resource
creation, can be a way to facilitate the maker’s work while pre-
serving the opportunity for reflection and appropriation.

Some works already go in that direction such as Document-
While-Doing [91] and Protobooth [11] which process images
or pre-create entries in resources that can later-on be en-
riched by the makers. In addition, both our analysis on tools
to create knowledge resources in Chapter 3-section 3.3 and
our study in Chapter 5 indicate that there are advantages
in having a central system covering the capture and storage
of content, as it enables automated upload of the content
captured. Automated upload from the capture device to the
device where the knowledge resource creation is authored,
saves considerable time and effort to the maker [90, 102].

Automation of specific steps of the creation of resources opens
perspectives that deserve further exploration, as it may help
makers on the difficult and time consuming steps of the know-
ledge resource creation so they can focus on what matters at
these moments.
6.4.2. Further explore how to extend capture tools

In this thesis, I have explored different properties of capture
tools through the conceptual design of Capush. However, this
exploration focused on 1) the capture of visual content and
contextual meta-data, 2) the use by a single maker of the
Capush device. This leads to several opportunities for further
research, firstly concerning the types of content to capture,
then concerning the way to control the features of capture
tools.

*Opportunities for the content captured*

The dimension *What* kind of content is captured deserves
further exploration by considering other kinds of content,
including (1) the output of non-physical activities (e.g., pro-
gramming or designing) that are not covered by Capush, such
as code files, CAD files or sketches; and, (2) the parameters of
machines and tools (e.g., Gcode), which could be saved and
associated with the captured content. In addition, as men-
tioned above, content capture for organisational benefits has
received less attention than for individual and community
goals, and thus constitutes a promising research direction.
Respondents in our study spontaneously described the in-
terest of Capush for contributing to workshop management,
for instance, by giving managers access to camera feeds from
machines for security or maintenance purposes. Future re-
search can explore how the design concept of Capush could
be extended to these purposes, and studies will be needed
to explore the acceptability of such organisational use of
captured data, and how transparency about which data is col-
lected and for which purposes could play a role in a system's
acceptability.

Pursuing this idea, one could also explore adding a new “For
Whom to Capture” dimension to our framework (section 4.1),
allowing to describe perhaps more precisely the particular
needs of an expert in comparison with those of a novice
in their capturing practices. This dimension could also be
used to explore the possible accessibility needs of each maker,
for example young children, people with reduced mobility,
visually impaired people, etc.
*Opportunities for the control of the capture tool*

In this thesis, we have explored the actuation of camera posi-
tion and orientation and how it would be perceived by makers.
Taking into account the results of our study, further research
on the field deserves to be made at this level, as mentioned
above.

Our work focused on the context of the fabrication workshop,
but the actuation of the camera units could generate some
opportunities in other contexts. In particular, in the case of
remote learning, where teachers sometimes struggle to fol-
low the activity of learners [78], actuation of the position
and orientation of the camera units could be delegated to the
teacher. This person could also be a manager inside the fab-
rication workshop, or a maker at home to follow the activity
of a peer and collaborate. We can also see some opportunities
due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic which saw most fabrication
workshops closed for extended periods and large parts of the
population constraint to their homes. Instructors who taught
hands-on activities during this period were interviewed by
Labrie et al. [78] and reported having difficulties to verbally
indicate to the students to move the camera such as showing
a part of the physical objects. We can imagine extending our
design concept with connected units that could broadcast the
streams of different students of a class to an instructor, and
provide her with remote control access of the orientation or
position of individual cameras to enable a better vision on the
progress of students in real time. Therefore, there might be
interesting paths to explore on automated camera movements
and displacements to support *Reflection-IN-Action* and help
remote instructors.

6.4.3. Further explore how to extend
knowledge resource creation tools

This thesis has mainly focused on the properties of capture
tools within the workshop. However, Chapter 3 has allowed
us to highlight the need to allow makers to pursue different
specific objectives, and thus a need to allow tools to be more
interoperable with each other and with platforms specific
to makers’ uses. I believe that a generalisation of capture
tools, based on specific grammars for example fabrication
grammars [128] and machine grammars [133], are directions
to explore for building interoperable resource creation tools.
In addition, the scope of our framework and concept is the
context of a fabrication workshop. However it is interesting
to reflect on the possibilities such a concept could generate
outside the workshop as well. Using Capush across different
fabrication workshops, by using similar units, and grammars,
could enable to share and collaborate with different places,
following the idea of Troxler and Zijp [134] with FabML.

**6.5. Conclusion**

In conclusion, this thesis contributes to a better understand-
ing of the aspects of knowledge resource creation in the con-
text of the fabrication workshop in order to inform the design
of tools to assist makers in this task. This work generates
many opportunities for tool design, and informs many re-
search directions, in particular in an era where content shar-
ing is at the centre of daily habits, and where automation and
machine learning algorithms are becoming more and more
powerful. Many opportunities remain to be explored to allow
the learning and the diffusion of the knowledge related to fab-
rication techniques for all, and I am happy that my work by
being part of this quest, can contribute to build more adapted
tools for the makers wishing to participate in it.
Bibliography

[1] A. Agirbas. 'The Use of Digital Fabrication as a Sketching Tool in the Architectural Design Process'. In: *Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe*. Vol. 2. Type: Conference Paper. 2015, pp. 319-324. DOI: 10.52842/conf.ecaade.2015.2.319 (cit. on p. 20).

[2] Maneesh Agrawala et al. 'Designing Effective Step-by-Step Assembly Instructions'. In: *ACM SIGGRAPH 2003 Papers*. SIGGRAPH '03. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, July 2003, pp. 828-837. DOI: 10/fbszp7 (cit. on p. 70).

[3] Shinya Aizu and Koji Tsukada. 'Support System for Creating Manufacturing Manual using Smartwatches'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers*. Singapore: ACM, Oct. 2018, pp. 323-326. DOI: 10.1145/3267305.3267593 (cit. on pp. 76, 77).

[4] Mina Akhavan. 'Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Literature on Coworking Spaces and Maker Spaces'. en. In: *New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories*. Ed. by Ilaria Mariotti, Stefano Di Vita and Mina Akhavan. Series Title: Research for Development. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 13-32. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_2 (cit. on p. 20).

[5] Celena Alcock, Nathaniel Hudson and Parmit K. Chilana. 'Barriers to Using, Customizing, and Printing 3D Designs on Thingiverse'. In: *Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work*. GROUP '16. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Nov. 2016, pp. 195-199. DOI: 10/ghd3mg (cit. on p. 30).

[6] J. E. Allen, C. I. Guinn and E. Horvtz. 'Mixed-initiative interaction'. In: *IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications* 14.5 (Sept. 1999), pp. 14-23. DOI: 10/ch7j9k (cit. on pp. 86, 114).

[7] Gunnar Almevik, Patrik Jarefjäll and Otto Samuelsson. 'augmented documentation methods to access traditional blacksmith skills'. en. In: (), p. 18 (cit. on p. 74).

[8] Michelle Annett et al. 'Exploring and Understanding the Role of Workshop Environments in Personal Fabrication Processes'. en. In: *ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction* 26.2 (Mar. 2019), pp. 1-43. DOI: 10.1145/3301420 (cit. on pp. 3, 17, 19, 26, 27, 75, 85).

[9] Ignacio Avellino et al. 'Multimodal and Mixed Control of Robotic Endoscopes'. In: *Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI '20. Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2020, pp. 1-14. DOI: 10/gn9346 (cit. on pp. 148, 149).
[10] Christopher Baber. *Cognition and tool use: Forms of engagement in human and animal use of tools*. CRC Press, 2003 (cit. on p. 1).

[11] Yazan A. M. Barhoush et al. ‘Capturing Prototype Progress in Digital Fabrication Education’. en. In: *Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design* 1.1 (July 2019). Publisher: Cambridge University Press, pp. 469–478. DOI: 10.1017/dsi.2019.50 (cit. on pp. 37, 42, 49, 51–55, 59, 73, 78, 79, 127).

[12] Thomas Barrett et al. ‘A Review of University Maker Spaces’. en. In: *2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings*. Seattle, Washington: ASEE Conferences, June 2015, pp. 26.101.1–26.101.17. DOI: 10.18260/p.23442 (cit. on pp. 16, 17).

[13] Gökçe Elif Baykal et al. ‘What FabLearn talks about when talking about reflection – A systematic literature review’. en. In: *International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction* 28 (June 2021), p. 100256. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100256 (cit. on pp. 28, 69).

[14] Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. ‘Instrumental Interaction: An Interaction Model for Designing Post-WIMP User Interfaces’. en. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI ’00. event-place: The Hague, The Netherlands. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2000, pp. 446–453. DOI: 10.1145/332040.332473 (cit. on p. 148).

[15] Lawrence Bergman et al. ‘DocWizards: a system for authoring follow-me documentation wizards’. en. In: *Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST ’05*. Seattle, WA, USA: ACM Press, 2005, p. 191. DOI: 10.1145/1095034.1095067 (cit. on p. 126).

[16] Marja Gabrielle Bertrand and Immaculate Kizito Namukasa. ‘Maker Education: Assessment, Documentation, and Sharing With a Wider Community’. en. In: *International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD)* 12.3 (2022). Publisher: IGI Global, pp. 1–12. DOI: 10.4018/IJOPCD.304083 (cit. on pp. 37, 42–44).

[17] François Bottollier-Depois et al. ‘Etat des lieux et typologie des ateliers de fabrication numérique’. fr. In: (2014), p. 107 (cit. on pp. 16, 17, 20).

[18] Jacob Brix. ‘Exploring knowledge creation processes as a source of organizational learning: A longitudinal case study of a public innovation project’. In: *Scandinavian Journal of Management* 33.2 (2017), pp. 113–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.scaman.2017.05.001 (cit. on p. 123).

[19] Andrea Bunt, Cristina Conati and Joanna McGrenere. ‘Supporting interface customization using a mixed-initiative approach’. In: *Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces*. IUI ’07. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jan. 2007, pp. 92–101. DOI: 10.1145/1216295.1216317 (cit. on p. 115).
[20] Daragh Byrne and Marti Louw. 'Tools with Histories: Exploring NFC-Tagging to Support Hybrid Documentation Practices and Knowledge Discovery in Makerspaces'. en. In: *HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Papers: Interaction, Knowledge and Social Media* 12427 (2020). Ed. by Constantine Stephanidis et al., pp. 51–67. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-60152-2_4 (cit. on pp. 37, 42, 44, 61, 71, 72).

[21] Bradley A. Camburn et al. 'The Way Makers Prototype: Principles of DIY Design'. en. In: *Volume 7: 27th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology*. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Aug. 2015, V007T06A004. DOI: 10/ghd3p9 (cit. on p. 30).

[22] Tim Campbell et al. *Towards Digital Apprenticeship: Wearable Activity Recognition in the Workshop Setting*. en. Tech. rep. UCB/EECS-2015-172. Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, 2015, p. 7 (cit. on pp. 69, 77).

[23] Scott Carter, Laurent Denoue and Daniel Avrahami. 'Documenting Physical Objects with Live Video and Object Detection'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia*. Nice France: ACM, Oct. 2019, pp. 1032–1034. DOI: 10.1145/3343031.3350581 (cit. on p. 149).

[24] Scott Carter et al. 'Tools to support expository video capture and access'. en. In: *Education and Information Technologies* 19.3 (Sept. 2014), pp. 637–654. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-013-9276-6 (cit. on pp. 29, 37, 39–42, 70).

[25] Scott Carter et al. 'Creating Tutorials with Web-Based Authoring and Heads-Up Capture'. In: *IEEE Pervasive Computing* 14.3 (July 2015), pp. 44–52. DOI: 10.1109/MPRV.2015.59 (cit. on pp. 37, 40, 42, 51–55, 70, 73, 76, 82).

[26] Scott Carter et al. 'Tools for online tutorials: comparing capture devices, tutorial representations, and access devices'. In: *arXiv:1801.08997 [cs]* (Jan. 2018). arXiv: 1801.08997 (cit. on pp. 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 85, 92, 149).

[27] Ricky Chen et al. 'Probing Documentation Practices: Reflecting on Students' Conceptions, Values, and Experiences with Documentation in Creative Inquiry'. en. In: *Creativity and Cognition*. CC '21. event-place: Virtual Event, Italy. Virtual Event Italy: ACM, June 2021, pp. 1–1. DOI: 10.1145/3450741.3465391* (cit. on pp. 28, 37, 40–44).

[28] Pei-Yu Chi et al. 'MixT: automatic generation of step-by-step mixed media tutorials'. en. In: (Oct. 2012), p. 10 (cit. on p. 126).

[29] Subramanian Chidambaram et al. 'ProcessAR: An augmented reality-based tool to create in-situ procedural 2D/3D AR Instructions'. en. In: *Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021*. Virtual Event USA: ACM, June 2021, pp. 234–249. DOI: 10.1145/3461778.3462126 (cit. on pp. 72, 126).
[30] Konstantinos Chorianopoulos, Letizia Jaccheri and Alexander Salveson Nossum. 'Creative and open software engineering practices and tools in maker community projects'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems - EICS '12*. Copenhagen, Denmark: ACM Press, 2012, p. 333. DOI: 10.1145/2305484.2305545 (cit. on p. 17).

[31] Allan Collins and Manu Kapur. 'Cognitive apprenticeship'. In: *The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences*. Ed. by R. Keith Sawyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 109–127. DOI: 10.1017/CB09781139519526.008 (cit. on p. 116).

[32] Peter Dalsgaard and Kim Halskov. 'Reflective design documentation'. en. In: *Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference on - DIS '12*. Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom: ACM Press, 2012, p. 428. DOI: 10.1145/2317956.2318020 (cit. on pp. 37, 39, 41–43, 47, 52–55, 59, 74).

[33] *DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media*. en. Feb. 2014 (cit. on p. 13).

[34] Dale Dougherty. 'The Maker Movement'. en. In: *Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization* 7.3 (July 2012), pp. 11–14. DOI: 10.1162/INOV_a_00135 (cit. on pp. 2, 15).

[35] Katrien Dreessen, Selina Schepers and Danny Leen. 'From Hacking Things to Making Things. Rethinking making by supporting non-expert users in a FabLab.' en. In: (2016), p. 18 (cit. on p. 26).

[36] Daniel Eckhoff et al. 'TutAR: augmented reality tutorials for hands-only procedures'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry*. Tokyo Japan: ACM, Dec. 2018, pp. 1–3. DOI: 10.1145/3284398.3284399 (cit. on p. 126).

[37] Árni Már Einarsson. 'Crafting, connecting, and commoning in everyday maker projects'. en. In: *International Journal of Human-Computer Studies* 156 (Dec. 2021), p. 102715. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102715 (cit. on p. 26).

[38] Árni Már Einarsson. 'Sustaining Library Makerspaces: Perspectives on Participation, Expertise, and Embeddedness'. en. In: *The Library Quarterly* 91.2 (Apr. 2021). Type: Article, pp. 172–189. DOI: 10.1086/713050 (cit. on pp. 37, 41, 44).

[39] Árni Már Einarsson and Morten Hertzum. 'Me-to-We Design: How Can a Makerspace Nurture the Building of a Collaborative Community?' en. In: *Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2021*. Ed. by Carmelo Ardito et al. Vol. 12932. Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 702–711. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-85623-6_39 (cit. on pp. 26, 27, 37, 40, 42, 44).
[40] Jorgen F. Erichsen et al. 'Protobooth: gathering and analyzing data on prototyping in early-stage engineering design projects by digitally capturing physical prototypes'. en. In: *Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing* 35.1 (Feb. 2021), pp. 65–80. DOI: 10.1017/S0890060420000414 (cit. on pp. 73, 77–79, 112).

[41] Omid Ettehadi et al. 'Documented: Embedding Information onto and Retrieving Information from 3D Printed Objects'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. New York, NY, USA: ACM, May 2021, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1145/3411764.3445551 (cit. on pp. 37, 41, 42, 71, 72, 74).

[42] Hannah Fehringer, Claudia Kaar and Christian Stary. 'Makerspaces in Academic Education: An Exploratory Analysis and Design Framework'. en. In: *2019 18th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET)*. Magdeburg, Germany: IEEE, Sept. 2019, pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.1109/ITHET46829.2019.8937350 (cit. on p. 21).

[43] Yixiong Feng et al. 'Data-driven product design toward intelligent manufacturing: A review'. en. In: *International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems* 17.2 (Mar. 2020). Publisher: SAGE Publications, p. 1729881420911257. DOI: 10.1177/1729881420911257 (cit. on p. 123).

[44] Jennifer Fernquist, Tovi Grossman and George Fitzmaurice. 'Sketch-sketch revolution: an engaging tutorial system for guided sketching and application learning'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST '11*. Santa Barbara, California, USA: ACM Press, 2011, p. 373. DOI: 10.1145/2047196.2047245 (cit. on p. 126).

[45] D. Fields. 'Communicating about computational thinking: understanding affordances of portfolios for assessing high school students' computational thinking and participation practices'. In: *Computer Science Education* 31.2 (2021), pp. 224–258. DOI: 10.1080/08993408.2020.1866933 (cit. on pp. 20, 37, 39–42, 60).

[46] K. Fleischmann. 'Making things in Fab Labs: a case study on sustainability and co-creation'. In: *Digital Creativity* 27.2 (2016). Type: Article, pp. 113–131. DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2015.1135809 (cit. on pp. 17, 20).

[47] Sarah Fox, Rachel Rose Ulgado and Daniela Rosner. 'Hacking Culture, Not Devices: Access and Recognition in Feminist Hackerspaces'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW '15*. Vancouver, BC, Canada: ACM Press, 2015, pp. 56–68. DOI: 10/ghg78v (cit. on p. 20).

[48] Alvaro Luis Fraga, Marcela Vegetti and Horacio Pascual Leone. 'Ontology-based solutions for interoperability among product lifecycle management systems: A systematic literature review'. In: *Journal of Industrial Information Integration* 20 (2020), p. 100176. DOI: 10.1016/j.jii.2020.100176 (cit. on p. 123).
[49] Michelle Gantt and Bonnie A. Nardi. 'Gardeners and gurus: patterns of cooperation among CAD users'. en. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '92*. Monterey, California, United States: ACM Press, 1992, pp. 107–117. DOI: 10.1145/142750.142767 (cit. on p. 27).

[50] Neil Gershenfeld. 'How to Make Almost Anything'. en. In: (2012), p. 16 (cit. on pp. 10, 15, 28).

[51] Michail N. Giannakos, Patrick Mikalef and Ilias O. Pappas. 'Systematic Literature Review of E-Learning Capabilities to Enhance Organizational Learning'. en. In: *Information Systems Frontiers* 24.2 (Apr. 2022). Company: Springer Distributor: Springer Institution: Springer Label: Springer Number: 2 Publisher: Springer US, pp. 619–635. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-020-10097-2 (cit. on p. 123).

[52] Michael Gleicher and Andrew Witkin. 'Through-the-lens camera control'. In: *Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques*. SIGGRAPH '92. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, July 1992, pp. 331–340. DOI: 10.1145/133994.134088 (cit. on p. 148).

[53] Jun Gong et al. 'Instrumenting and Analyzing Fabrication Activities, Users, and Expertise'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '19*. Glasgow, Scotland Uk: ACM Press, 2019, pp. 1–14. DOI: 10.1145/3290605.3300554 (cit. on pp. 69, 71, 75, 76).

[54] Pauline Gourlet, Louis Eveillard and Ferdinand Dervieux. 'The Research Diary, Supporting Pupils' Reflective Thinking during Design Activities'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC '16*. Manchester, United Kingdom: ACM Press, 2016, pp. 206–217. DOI: 10.1145/2930674.2930702 (cit. on pp. 37, 42, 58, 68, 69, 74).

[55] Pauline Gourlet et al. 'DoDoc: a Composite Interface that Supports Reflection-in-Action'. en. In: *Proceedings of the TEI '16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction - TEI '16*. Eindhoven, Netherlands: ACM Press, 2016, pp. 316–323. DOI: 10.1145/2839462.2839506 (cit. on pp. 49, 52–55, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, 85, 112).

[56] Bruna Goveia da Rocha, Janne Spork and Kristina Andersen. 'Making Matters: Samples and Documentation in Digital Craftsmanship'. In: *Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction*. TEI '22. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Feb. 2022, pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.1145/3490149.3502261 (cit. on pp. 37, 39, 40, 43).

[57] David Green and David Kirk. 'Open Design, Inclusivity and the Intersections of Making'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference*. Hong Kong China: ACM, June 2018, pp. 173–186. DOI: 10/gh4qqr (cit. on p. 20).
[58] Saul Greenberg and Bill Buxton. 'Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful (Some of the Time)'. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI '08. event-place: Florence, Italy. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2008, pp. 111–120. DOI: 10.1145/1357054.1357074 (cit. on pp. 90, 124).

[59] Tovi Grossman, Justin Matejka and George Fitzmaurice. 'Chronicle: capture, exploration, and playback of document workflow histories'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST '10*. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, 2010, p. 143. DOI: 10/c643b2 (cit. on p. 126).

[60] Ankit Gupta et al. 'DuploTrack: a real-time system for authoring and guiding duplo block assembly'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST '12*. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: ACM Press, 2012, p. 389. DOI: 10.1145/2380116.2380167 (cit. on p. 74).

[61] Michael Haldrup, Mads Hobye and Nicolas Padfield. 'The bizarre bazaar: FabLabs as hybrid hubs'. en. In: *CoDesign 14.4* (Oct. 2018), pp. 329–344. DOI: 10.1080/15710882.2017.1378684 (cit. on pp. 26, 27).

[62] Susan M. Harrison. 'A Comparison of Still, Animated, or Nonillustrated on-Line Help with Written or Spoken Instructions in a Graphical User Interface'. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI '95. event-place: Denver, Colorado, USA. USA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1995, pp. 82–89. DOI: 10/c33p5n (cit. on p. 70).

[63] Sabine Hielscher and Adrian Smith. *Community-Based Digital Fabrication Workshops: A Review of the Research Literature*. en. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2742121. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, May 2014. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2742121 (cit. on pp. 15, 16, 20, 21).

[64] Gaoping Huang et al. 'AdapTutAR: An Adaptive Tutoring System for Machine Tasks in Augmented Reality'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. Yokohama Japan: ACM, May 2021, pp. 1–15. DOI: 10/gkskzr (cit. on p. 71).

[65] Nathaniel Hudson et al. 'Investigating How Online Help and Learning Resources Support Children's Use of 3D Design Software'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. Montreal QC Canada: ACM, Apr. 2018, pp. 1–14. DOI: 10.1145/3173574.3173831 (cit. on p. 37).

[66] Julie S. Hui and Elizabeth M. Gerber. 'Developing Makerspaces as Sites of Entrepreneurship'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing*. Portland Oregon USA: ACM, Feb. 2017, pp. 2023–2038. DOI: 10.1145/2998181.2998264 (cit. on p. 116).

[67] Derek Van Ittersum. 'Craft and Narrative in DIY Instructions'. en. In: *Technical Communication Quarterly* 23.3 (July 2014), pp. 227–246. DOI: 10.1080/10572252.2013.798466 (cit. on pp. 28, 37, 74).
[68] Tomasz Jaskiewicz et al. ‘LEVERAGING PROTOTYPES TO SUPPORT SELF-DIRECTED SOCIAL LEARNING IN MAKERSPACES’. en. In: *DS 93: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2018), Dyson School of Engineering, Imperial College, London. 6th - 7th September 2018.* London: the Design Society, 2018, pp. 430–435 (cit. on pp. 37, 42–44).

[69] Ton de Jong and Monica G. M. Ferguson-Hessler. ‘Types and qualities of knowledge’. en. In: *Educational Psychologist* (June 2010). Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2 (cit. on pp. 21–24, 70).

[70] Anna Keune and Kylie Peppler. ‘Maker Portfolios as Learning and Community-Building Tools Inside and Outside Makerspaces’. en. In: *Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL. Vol. 2*. CSCL. Publisher: Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US: Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences., July 2017, pp. 545–548 (cit. on pp. 30, 37, 40, 43, 44, 74).

[71] Anna Keune, Kylie Peppler and Maggie Dahn. ‘Connected portfolios: open assessment practices for maker communities’. In: *Information and Learning Sciences* 123.7/8 (Jan. 2022). Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 462–481. DOI: 10.1108/ILS-03-2022-0029 (cit. on pp. 37, 42–44, 59, 61).

[72] Anna Keune et al. *DIY Documentation Tools for Makers*. en. Pages: 6. 2015 (cit. on pp. 47, 48, 73, 75–77, 84, 91, 112, 114).

[73] Cristina Orsolin Klingenberg, Marco Antônio Viana Borges and José Antônio Valle Antunes Jr. ‘Industry 4.0 as a data-driven paradigm: a systematic literature review on technologies’. en. In: *Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management* 32.3 (June 2019). Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 570–592. DOI: 10.1108/JMTM-09-2018-0325 (cit. on p. 123).

[74] Jarrod Knibbe, Tovi Grossman and George Fitzmaurice. ‘Smart Makerspace: An Immersive Instructional Space for Physical Tasks’. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Interactive Tabletops & Surfaces - ITS '15*. Madeira, Portugal: ACM Press, 2015, pp. 83–92. DOI: 10.1145/2817721.2817741 (cit. on pp. 69, 71).

[75] Sampsa M I Kohtala et al. ‘Augmenting Physical Prototype Activities in Early-Stage Product Development’. en. In: *Proceedings of NordDesign 2018*. Linköping, Sweden: the Design Society, 2018, p. 15 (cit. on pp. 71, 77–80).

[76] Robert E. Kraut, Susan R. Fussell and Jane Siegel. ‘Visual Information as a Conversational Resource in Collaborative Physical Tasks’. en. In: *Human-Computer Interaction* 18.1-2 (June 2003), pp. 13–49. DOI: 10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_2 (cit. on p. 76).
[77] Stacey Kuznetsov and Eric Paulos. 'Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Extending Boundaries - NordiCHI '10*. Reykjavik, Iceland: ACM Press, 2010, p. 295. DOI: 10.1145/1868914.1868950 (cit. on pp. 29, 30, 37, 40, 43, 44, 68, 70).

[78] Audrey Labrie et al. 'Toward Video-Conferencing Tools for Hands-On Activities in Online Teaching'. en. In: *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6.GROUP* (Jan. 2022), pp. 1-22. DOI: 10/gpbhgs (cit. on p. 129).

[79] Benjamin Lafreniere, Tovi Grossman and George Fitzmaurice. 'Community enhanced tutorials: improving tutorials with multiple demonstrations'. en. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. Paris France: ACM, Apr. 2013, pp. 1779-1788. DOI: 10/gh2ggh (cit. on p. 126).

[80] Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. *Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation*. Cambridge university press, 1991 (cit. on p. 1).

[81] Steven Levy. *Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution*. Vol. 14. New York, USA: Anchor Press/Doubleday Garden City, NY, 1984 (cit. on pp. 10-12, 117).

[82] Lindsay Lindberg, Deborah Ann Fields and Yasmin B. Kafai. 'STEAM Maker Education: Conceal/Reveal of Personal, Artistic and Computational Dimensions in High School Student Projects'. In: *Frontiers in Education* 5 (2020). DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00051 (cit. on pp. 37, 42-44).

[83] Anne-Li Lindgren. 'Ethical Issues in Pedagogical Documentation: Representations of Children Through Digital Technology'. en. In: *International Journal of Early Childhood* 44.3 (Nov. 2012), pp. 327-340. DOI: 10.1007/s13158-012-0074-x (cit. on pp. 73, 76).

[84] Thomas Ludwig et al. 'Appropriating Digital Fabrication Technologies – A comparative study of two 3D Printing Communities'. en. In: *iConference 2015 Proceedings*. Newport Beach, California, USA: iSchools, 2015, p. 13 (cit. on pp. 37, 41, 43, 74).

[85] Debora Lui, Deborah Fields and Yasmin Kafai. 'Student Maker Portfolios: Promoting Computational Communication and Reflection in Crafting E-Textiles'. en. In: *Proceedings of FabLearn 2019*. FL2019. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Mar. 2019, pp. 10-17. DOI: 10.1145/3311890.3311892 (cit. on pp. 20, 37, 39-41, 60).

[86] Debora Lui et al. 'Design Considerations for Capturing Computational Thinking Practices in High School Students' Electronic Textile Portfolios'. en. In: (2018), p. 8 (cit. on p. 20).
[87] Anu Maatta and Peter Troxler. 'Developing open & distributed tools for Fablab project documentation'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowledge Conference, OKCon 2011, Berlin, Germany, June 30 & July 1, 2011*. Ed. by Sebastian Hellmann et al. Vol. 739. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Berlin, Germany: CEUR-WS.org, Jan. 2011, p. 5 (cit. on p. 69).

[88] Anna Maarit Mäkelä and Nithikul Nimkulrat. 'Reflection and Documentation in Practice-led Design Research'. en-US. In: *Nordes 0.4 (Mar. 2011). Number: 4 (cit. on p. 123).*

[89] J Marsh et al. *Makerspaces in the Early Years: A Literature Review*. University of Sheffield. A MakEY Project, 2017. 2021 (cit. on pp. 20, 21).

[90] Christian McKay et al. *A Networked Vision For Sharing And Documenting*. en. Pages: 4 Publication Title: MakerED: Open Portfolio Project Research Brief Series (Phase 1) Type: Research Brief. 2015 (cit. on p. 127).

[91] Iván Sánchez Milara et al. ""Document-while-doing": a documentation tool for Fab Lab environments'. en. In: *The Design Journal* 22.sup1 (Apr. 2019), pp. 2019-2030. DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2019.1594926 (cit. on pp. 28, 37, 39-43, 51-55, 59, 68, 70, 73, 74, 76-78, 82, 85, 92, 127).

[92] Brian O'Connell. 'Design and Analysis of an IoT Usage Tracking and Equipment Management System Within a University Makerspace'. en. PhD Thesis. Medford, Massachusetts, 2017 (cit. on pp. 69, 83).

[93] Kenneth Page Oakley. *Man the tool-maker*. University of Chicago Press, 1964 (cit. on p. 1).

[94] Lora Oehlberg, Wesley Willett and Wendy E. Mackay. 'Patterns of Physical Design Remixing in Online Maker Communities'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI '15. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2015, pp. 639-648. DOI: 10.1145/2702123.2702175 (cit. on pp. 37, 41, 44, 67).

[95] Ramon Oldenburg and Dennis Brissett. 'The third place'. en. In: *Qualitative Sociology* 5.4 (1982), pp. 265-284. DOI: 10.1007/BF00986754 (cit. on p. 20).

[96] Kevin M. Oliver et al. 'Informing Makerspace Outcomes Through a Linguistic Analysis of Written and Video-Recorded Project Assessments'. en. In: *International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education* 19.2 (Feb. 2021), pp. 333-354. DOI: 10.1007/s10763-020-10060-2 (cit. on pp. 37, 60).

[97] J. Neil Otte et al. 'An ontological approach to representing the product life cycle'. en. In: *Applied Ontology* 14.2 (Jan. 2019). Publisher: IOS Press, pp. 179-197. DOI: 10.3233/AO-190210 (cit. on p. 123).
[98] Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Michail N. Giannakos and Letizia Jaccheri. 'Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review'. en. In: *Entertainment Computing* 18 (Jan. 2017), pp. 57–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002 (cit. on pp. 17, 20).

[99] Esben W. Pedersen, Sriram Subramanian and Kasper Hornbæk. 'Is my phone alive? a large-scale study of shape change in handheld devices using videos'. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI '14. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2014, pp. 2579–2588. DOI: 10.1145/2556288.2557018 (cit. on p. 91).

[100] Kylie Peppler and Sophia Bender. 'Maker Movement Spreads Innovation One Project at a Time'. en. In: *Phi Delta Kappan* 95.3 (Nov. 2013), pp. 22–27. DOI: 10.1177/003172171309500306 (cit. on pp. 15–17, 20, 26, 29, 30).

[101] Kylie Peppler and Anna Keune. "It helps create and enhance a community": Youth motivations for making portfolios'. en. In: *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 26.3 (July 2019). Type: Article, pp. 234–248. DOI: 10.1080/10749039.2019.1647546 (cit. on pp. 37, 43, 44, 61, 68, 73).

[102] Kylie Peppler et al. *SURVEY OF MAKERSPACES, PART III*. en. 2015 (cit. on pp. 27, 29, 45, 127).

[103] Kylie Peppler et al. *SURVEY OF ASSESSMENT IN MAKERSPACES*. en. 2018 (cit. on pp. 17, 68).

[104] Thorsten Prante et al. 'Exploiting Context Histories: A Cross-Tool and Cross-Device Approach to Reduce Compartmentalization when Going Back'. en. In: *Informatik 2004 – Informatik verbindet – Band 1, Beiträge der 34. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI)*. Ed. by Peter Dadam and Manfred Reichert. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Jan. 2004, pp. 314–318 (cit. on p. 71).

[105] Clara Rigaud. 'From the Makerspace to the Web: Creating Knowledge Resources from Fabrication Activities'. In: *Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction*. TEI '22. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Feb. 2022, pp. 1–5. DOI: 10.1145/3490149.3503584 (cit. on p. vii).

[106] Clara Rigaud, Gilles Bailly and Yvonne Jansen. 'Ressources de connaissances dans les ateliers de fabrication : objectifs et défis'. fr. In: *IHM '23: Proceedings of the 34th Conference on l'Interaction Humain-Machine*. Troyes: ACM, Apr. 2023. DOI: 10.1145/3583961.3583974 (cit. on pp. vii, 33).

[107] Clara Rigaud, Yvonne Jansen and Gilles Bailly. *Automating Documentation Considered Harmful (Some of the Time)*. en. Apr. 2022 (cit. on p. vii).

[108] Clara Rigaud et al. 'Exploring Capturing Approaches in Shared Fabrication Workshops: Current Practice and Opportunities'. In: *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction* 6.CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 391:1–391:33. DOI: 10.1145/3555116 (cit. on pp. vii, 65, 88, 97).
[109] David Roedl, Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 'Sustainable Making? Balancing Optimism and Criticism in HCI Discourse'. en. In: *ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction* 22.3 (June 2015), pp. 1-27. DOI: 10.1145/2699742 (cit. on p. 20).

[110] Daniela Rosner and Jonathan Bean. 'Learning from IKEA Hacking: I'm Not One to Decoupage a Tabletop and Call It a Day.' en. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI '09. event-place: Boston, MA, USA. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2009, pp. 419-422. DOI: 10.1145/1518701.1518768 (cit. on p. 68).

[111] Daniela K. Rosner et al. 'Making cultures: building things & building communities'. In: *Proceedings of the companion publication of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing*. CSCW Companion '14. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Feb. 2014, pp. 113-116. DOI: 10.1145/2556420.2556852 (cit. on p. 116).

[112] Jessica Schoffelen and Liesbeth Huybrechts. 'Sharing is caring. Sharing and documenting complex participatory projects to enable generative participation'. en. In: *IxD&A* 18.18 (2013), pp. 9-22 (cit. on pp. 28, 67).

[113] Donald A Schon. *The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action*. Vol. 5126. Basic books, 1984 (cit. on pp. 68, 69).

[114] Eldon Schoop et al. 'Drill Sergeant: Supporting Physical Construction Projects through an Ecosystem of Augmented Tools'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '16*. San Jose, California, USA: ACM Press, 2016, pp. 1607-1614. DOI: 10.1145/2851581.2892429 (cit. on p. 71).

[115] JunHao Shan and Wei Wang. 'Making and sharing in asynchronous discussion: exploring the collaboration process in online maker community'. en. In: *Interactive Learning Environments* 0.0 (Apr. 2021). Type: Article, pp. 1-15. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1916764 (cit. on pp. 29, 30, 37, 42-44).

[116] Gautam Sharma. 'The Makerspace Phenomenon: A Bibliometric Review of Literature (2012-2020)'. en. In: *International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management* 18.03 (May 2021), p. 2150006. DOI: 10.1142/S0219877021500061 (cit. on p. 20).

[117] Kimberly Sheridan et al. 'Learning in the Making: A Comparative Case Study of Three Makerspaces'. en. In: *Harvard Educational Review* 84.4 (Dec. 2014), pp. 505-531. DOI: 10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u (cit. on p. 20).

[118] Heikki Sjoman et al. 'Effortless capture of design output a prerequisite for building a design repository with quantified design output'. en-US. In: *2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)*. Funchal: IEEE, June 2017, pp. 564-570. DOI: 10.1109/ICE.2017.8279935 (cit. on p. 77).
[119] Min Jeong Song. 'Craftspeople's new identity: The impact of digital fabrication technologies on craft practices'. en. In: *International Journal of Technology and Design Education* 32.4 (Sept. 2022), pp. 2365-2383. DOI: 10.1007/s10798-021-09687-1 (cit. on p. 21).

[120] Sohail Ahmed Soomro, Hernan Casakin and Georgi V. Georgiev. 'A Systematic Review on FabLab Environments and Creativity: Implications for Design'. en. In: *Buildings* 12.6 (June 2022). Number: 6 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, p. 804. DOI: 10.3390/buildings12060804 (cit. on p. 20).

[121] Sohail Ahmed Soomro et al. 'Tools for recording prototyping activities and quantifying corresponding documentation in the early stages of product development'. en. In: *Proceedings of the Design Society* 1 (Aug. 2021). Publisher: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3159-3168. DOI: 10.1017/pds.2021.577 (cit. on pp. 37, 40-44, 76).

[122] Jacob T. Stanley and H. J. Lewandowski. 'Lab notebooks as scientific communication: Investigating development from undergraduate courses to graduate research'. en. In: *Physical Review Physics Education Research* 12.2 (Sept. 2016). Publisher: American Physical Society, p. 020129. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020129 (cit. on p. 123).

[123] Aurélien Tabard et al. 'The eLabBench: an interactive tabletop system for the biology laboratory'. en. In: *Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces - ITS '11*. Kobe, Japan: ACM Press, 2011, p. 202. DOI: 10.1145/2076354.2076391 (cit. on pp. 71, 123).

[124] Joshua G. Tanenbaum et al. 'Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice'. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI '13. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2013, pp. 2603-2612. DOI: 10.1145/2470654.2481360 (cit. on p. 117).

[125] Nick Taylor, Ursula Hurley and Philip Connolly. 'Making Community: The Wider Role of Makerspaces in Public Life'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '16*. Santa Clara, California, USA: ACM Press, 2016, pp. 1415-1425. DOI: 10/gdtm3r (cit. on pp. 20, 26).

[126] Thomas Thwaites. *The Toaster Project: Or a Heroic Attempt to Build a Simple Electric Appliance from Scratch*. Princeton Architectural Press, 2011 (cit. on p. 1).

[127] Maryam Tohidi et al. 'Getting the Right Design and the Design Right'. In: *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2006, pp. 1243-1252 (cit. on pp. 90, 91, 124).

[128] Iremnur Tokac et al. 'Fabrication grammars: bridging design and robotics to control emergent material expressions'. In: *Construction Robotics* 5.1 (2021). Publisher: Springer, pp. 35-48. DOI: 10.1007/s41693-021-00053-0 (cit. on p. 130).
[129] Austin Toombs, Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 'Becoming Makers: Hacker-space Member Habits, Values, and Identities'. en. In: *Journal Of Peer Production* 5 (2014), p. 24 (cit. on p. 116).

[130] Austin L. Toombs, Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 'The Proper Care and Feeding of Hackerspaces: Care Ethics and Cultures of Making'. In: *Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2015, pp. 629–638 (cit. on pp. 20, 26, 116).

[131] Cristen Torrey, Elizabeth F. Churchill and David W. McDonald. 'Learning how: the search for craft knowledge on the internet'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI 09*. Boston, MA, USA: ACM Press, 2009, p. 1371. DOI: 10.1145/1518701.1518908 (cit. on pp. 29, 30, 37, 43, 44).

[132] Cristen Torrey et al. 'How-To pages: Informal systems of expertise sharing'. en. In: *ECSCW 2007*. Ed. by Liam J. Bannon et al. London: Springer London, 2007, pp. 391–410. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84800-031-5_21 (cit. on pp. 27–29, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 70).

[133] Jasper Tran O'Leary, Khang Lee and Nadya Peek. 'A Grammar of Digital Fabrication Machines'. en. In: *Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. Yokohama Japan: ACM, May 2021, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1145/3411763.3451829 (cit. on p. 130).

[134] Peter Troxler and Harmen Zijp. 'A Next Step Towards FabML: A narrative for knowledge sharing use cases in Fab Labs'. en. In: *International Fab Lab Association, the 9th International Fab Lab Conference, Fab9*. Vol. 9. Yokohama, Japan: Citeseer, 2013, p. 11 (cit. on pp. 71, 130).

[135] Tiffany Tseng. 'Making Make-throughs: Supporting Young Makers Sharing Design Process'. en. In: *Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education - Fablearn '15*. Stanford, CA, USA: MIT, 2015, p. 8 (cit. on pp. 17, 28, 37, 42, 43, 47, 52–55, 74, 92).

[136] Tiffany Tseng. 'Spin: A photography turntable system for creating animated documentation'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC '15*. Boston, Massachusetts: ACM Press, 2015, pp. 422–425. DOI: 10.1145/2771839.2771869 (cit. on pp. 73, 74, 76, 78, 82).

[137] Tiffany Tseng, Robert Hemsley and Mitchel Resnick. 'Replay: a self-documenting construction kit'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children*. IDC '12. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, June 2012, pp. 320–322. DOI: 10.1145/2307096.2307156 (cit. on p. 126).
[138] Tiffany Tseng and Mitchel Resnick. 'Product versus process: representing and appropriating DIY projects online'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems - DIS '14*. Vancouver, BC, Canada: ACM Press, 2014, pp. 425-428. DOI: 10.1145/2598510.2598540 (cit. on pp. 2, 28, 29, 37, 39-43, 45, 53, 59, 70, 74, 84, 112).

[139] Tiffany Tseng and Mitchel Resnick. 'Spin: Examining the Role of Engagement, Integration, and Modularity in Supporting Youth Creating Documentation'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems*. DIS '16. event-place: Brisbane, QLD, Australia. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, June 2016, pp. 996-1007. DOI: 10.1145/2901790.2901868 (cit. on pp. 37, 42, 44, 50, 52-55, 59, 60).

[140] Koji Tsukada et al. 'FabNavi: Support system to assemble physical objects using visual instructions'. en. In: *Paper presented at Fab10 2* (July 2014), p. 10 (cit. on pp. 50, 52-55, 73, 75, 76, 78, 82, 85).

[141] Katja Vilhunen, Sinikka Hannele Pöllänen and Harri Pitkäniemi. 'Reasons for knitting blogging and its importance for crafting'. en. In: *Techné serien - Forskning i slöjdpedagogik och slöjdvetenskap* 21.3 (June 2021), pp. 48-62. DOI: 10.7577/TechnéA.4185 (cit. on p. 29).

[142] Francesco Vitale, William Odom and Joanna McGrenere. 'Keeping and Discarding Personal Data: Exploring a Design Space'. In: *Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference*. DIS '19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, June 2019, pp. 1463-1477. DOI: 10.1145/3322276.3322300 (cit. on pp. 91, 115).

[143] Shirin Vossoughi and Bronwyn Bevan. *Making and Tinkering: A Review of the Literature*. en. 2014 (cit. on p. 20).

[144] Ron Wakkary et al. 'Tutorial Authorship and Hybrid Designers: The Joy (and Frustration) of DIY Tutorials'. en. In: *Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. CHI '15. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Apr. 2015, pp. 609-618. DOI: 10.1145/2702123.2702550 (cit. on pp. 37, 41, 42, 70, 71, 74).

[145] Etienne Wenger. *Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity*. en. ISBN: 9780511803932 Publisher: Cambridge University Press. July 1998. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511803932 (cit. on p. 2).

[146] Matt Whitlock et al. 'AuthAR: Concurrent Authoring of Tutorials for AR Assembly Guidance'. en. In: *Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2020*. GI 2020. University of Toronto: Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society / Société canadienne du dialogue humain-machine, 2020, pp. 431-439. DOI: 10.20380/GI2020.43 (cit. on pp. 74, 75, 126).
[147] Vincent Wilczynski. 'Academic Maker Spaces and Engineering Design'. en. In: *2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings*. Seattle, Washington: ASEE Conferences, June 2015, pp. 26.138.1–26.138.19. DOI: 10.18260/p.23477 (cit. on p. 16).

[148] Michael Björn Winkler et al. 'Automatic Camera Control for Tracking a Presenter during a Talk'. In: *2012 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia*. Irvine, CA, USA: IEEE, 2012, pp. 471–476. DOI: 10/gn934v (cit. on p. 77).

[149] Jacob O. Wobbrock and Julie A. Kientz. 'Research contributions in human-computer interaction'. In: *Interactions* 23.3 (Apr. 2016), pp. 38–44. DOI: 10.1145/2907069 (cit. on p. 5).

[150] Patricia Wolf and Peter Troxler. 'Look Who's Acting!: Applying Actor Network Theory for Studying Knowledge Sharing in a Co-Design Project.' en. In: *International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI)*, 7(3) 7 (2015), pp. 15–33. DOI: 10.4018/IJANTTI.2015070102 (cit. on pp. 37, 40, 44).

[151] Patricia Wolf et al. 'Sharing is Sparing: Open Knowledge Sharing in Fab Labs'. en. In: *Journal of peer production* 5.1 (2014), p. 11 (cit. on pp. 2, 27, 37, 40, 42–44, 74, 112, 117).

[152] M. Yang. 'A study on the comparison and inspiration for operation mode of the maker space brand in China and America'. In: *Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)*. Vol. 9741. Type: Conference Paper. 2016, pp. 316–325. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-40093-8_32 (cit. on p. 16).

[153] D. A. Zakoldaev et al. 'The life cycle of technical documentation in the smart factory of Industry 4.0'. en. In: *IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering* 665.1 (Oct. 2019). Publisher: IOP Publishing, p. 012016. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/665/1/012016 (cit. on p. 123).

[154] Ce Zhang and Jianming Yang. *A History of Mechanical Engineering*. en. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2020 (cit. on pp. 10, 14).
Implementing Capush

A.

There are many different ways to reify the Capush design
concept into functional prototypes. Overall, the specific choices
heavily depend on one's principles and constraints: For ex-
ample, for maker spaces with extremely limited resources it
might be important to find a frugal solution; others might
value ecologically responsible choices most and may want
to upcycle otherwise obsolete materials; other places might
consider capture quality as the most important property.

For our own proof of concept implementations ¹, our guiding
decision criterion was that the used material should be rather
*low cost and easily available* to a large range of different
maker spaces, even if only modest resources are at hand. We
implemented proof-of-concept prototypes for the fixed, pan-
tilt, clamp, and table bot concepts to explore the feasibility of
the desired functionality and of our design concept overall.
All our prototypes are based on Raspberry PI boards as they
have a small form factor and are often readily available in
fabrication workshops.

Table A.1 provides a summary of how we implemented vari-
ous features of Capush and limitations we observed.

In principle, any camera accessible via network could be used
as a fixed camera unit. For example, upcycling otherwise ob-
solete smartphone models or the use of GoPro cameras would
result in higher quality footage than the above approach. The
concrete choice affects, however, the extendability of the unit
type: extensions based on GoPro or smartphones are likely
limited to physical appendages permitting to attach it in vari-
ous places whereas units built on top of a microcontroller
provide more avenues for new features or the automation of
features. A property which can be automated and which we
explored in our study is view point control. Both manual and

1: Bill of material and current
state of implementation are avail-
able on https://af-fab-le.
github.io/capush
<table><caption>**Table A.1.:** Overview of our proof of concept implementations sorted by feature.</caption><thead><tr><th>Feature</th><th>Description</th><th>Implementation</th><th>Limitations of our approach</th><th>Units types</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Networked camera</td><td>Camera accessible via local wifi</td><td>Raspberry Pi3b+ w/ camera module V2</td><td>Size of the Raspberry PI reduces easy manipulation + alternatives exist</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mobility</td><td>Portable power supply</td><td>RPi UPSPack V3</td><td>Limited autonomy</td><td>Clamp camera</td></tr><tr><td>Pan/tilt assembly</td><td>Mechanism to adjust the camera viewpoint</td><td>Pan/tilt frame with 2 servos</td><td>Active servos limit manual manipulation while active</td><td>Pan-tilt camera, clamp camera, table bot, (head-mounted camera)</td></tr><tr><td>Clamp</td><td>Attachment mechanism</td><td>clamps with strong springs and a hole to attach a unit</td><td>Opening and spring strength limit where it can be attached</td><td>Clamp camera</td></tr><tr><td>Locomotion</td><td>Robotic base to enable locomotion</td><td>Alphabot V2</td><td>Low camera viewpoint, limited autonomy</td><td>Table bot</td></tr><tr><td>Tool tracking</td><td>Cameras follows a tool or object around</td><td>Color tracking with OpenCV + frame; requires constant light-colored dot on tool</td><td>Marker needs to remain in all pan/tilt assembly</td><td>with assembly</td></tr><tr><td>Location recognition</td><td>Cameras localise themselves</td><td>Fiducial markers associated to location or machine</td><td>Sufficiently sized fiducials required throughout the space</td><td>Clamp, head-mounted camera, table bot</td></tr></tbody></table>

automatic control require some form of user interface though to indicate where the camera should point or tell an automated control what to keep in the field of view. Depending on the level of indirection [14] and the desired automation, different control interfaces are possible, much of which have already been explored in previous work for both manual [52] and mixed control [9]. With our proof-of-concept prototype, we tested a basic implementation of the automatic tracking mode mentioned in the study and the video shown to respondents. It is based on color detection using OpenCV² which enables tool tracking as long as a colored dot is attached to the tool and visible in the camera image. More advanced tracking, including tool detection based on the appearance of the tool, is beyond the aims of our proof-of-concept but

2: https:// opencv.org/
might be feasible based on results from previous work [23].

A major concern with automatic viewpoint control is that the camera image may move excessively and thus require some mechanism to stabilise the image which can be done programmatically (e.g., [9]) or through a physical stabiliser unit. Unstable footage is also one of the reasons for which we did not realise a prototype for the head-mounted unit type. Previous work already explored capturing using head-worn Google glass and observed that the resulting footage risks being unstable and of low quality [26]. Thus, an image stabiliser unit, such as a gimbal pan/tilt unit, would be necessary to address the issue and achieve smooth footage. A usable prototype combining these features would require a high degree of miniaturisation to be portable on one's head so as to not disturb makers while working on their projects. While this is a promising avenue for future work, realising such a prototype goes beyond the scope of our proof of concept implementations which focused on exploring low cost implementations based on easily available material.
Asking ChatGPT for
fabrication tips

B.

I present here some examples of questions asked to ChatGPT (GPT4) about fabrication techniques. The idea is both to show how a chatbot interface could be used as a one-off resource for makers' work, but more importantly to illustrate the possibilities of the underlying machine learning algorithms. If these algorithms could be trained by the users themselves around their projects, they could generate information both specific to the project, but also general to the practice.

**Show me how to use a soldering iron**

Sure, I can provide you with a step-by-step guide on how to
use a soldering iron:

1. Gather your tools: You'll need a soldering iron, solder, soldering stand, wire cutters, and safety glasses.

2. Set up your workspace: Choose a well-ventilated area, and make sure you have a stable surface to work on. Plug in your soldering iron and let it heat up. The ideal temperature for most soldering jobs is between 350°C to 400°C (662°F to 752°F), but this can vary depending on the type of solder and materials you are using.

3. Clean the soldering iron tip: Use a damp sponge to clean the tip of the soldering iron. This will help remove any dirt or oxidation, and ensure that the solder will adhere properly.

4. Cut the wire: Use wire cutters to trim the wire to the desired length. Strip off about 1/2 inch of insulation from the end of the wire using a wire stripper.

5. Apply flux: Apply a small amount of flux to the exposed wire. Flux is a material that helps the solder flow and bond to the wire.

6. Heat the wire: Hold the soldering iron tip against the wire and apply gentle pressure. The heat will melt the
solder, which will then flow onto the wire.

7. Apply solder: Once the wire is heated up, touch the solder to the wire. The solder should melt and flow onto the wire. Be careful not to use too much solder, as this can cause a "cold joint" that will not bond properly.

8. Let the solder cool: Allow the solder to cool for a few seconds. Do not move the wire while the solder is cooling, as this can cause the joint to weaken.

9. Inspect the joint: Once the solder has cooled, inspect the joint to ensure that it is strong and the wire is securely attached.

10. Clean up: Turn off the soldering iron and allow it to cool. Clean the tip of the soldering iron again with a damp sponge. Store your tools in a safe place.

It's important to note that using a soldering iron can be dangerous if proper safety precautions are not taken. Always wear safety glasses to protect your eyes, and make sure to use the soldering iron in a well-ventilated area. Keep the iron away from flammable materials and never touch the tip of the iron while it is hot.

**Can you now explain how to build a chair?**

Sure, building a chair can be a challenging but rewarding project. Here is a general guide on how to build a chair:

**Materials you will need:**

* Lumber (for the seat, backrest, legs, and support)

* Wood glue

* Screws or nails

* Sandpaper

* Paint or stain (optional)

**Tools you will need:**

* Circular saw or handsaw

* Miter saw or jigsaw

* Drill with bits and screws

* Hammer or nail gun

* Clamps

* Wood chisels

* Wood rasp
**Step 1:** Design the chair Before you start building, you should have a clear idea of what your chair will look like. You can find plans online, or design your own. Consider the size, shape, and style of your chair.

**Step 2:** Cut the lumber Using a circular saw or handsaw, cut the lumber to the appropriate lengths and angles. Use a miter saw or jigsaw to make angled cuts for the legs and backrest. Use a wood chisel or rasp to smooth any rough edges.

**Step 3:** Assemble the seat Using wood glue and screws or nails, assemble the seat by attaching the legs to the seat boards. Use clamps to hold the pieces in place while the glue dries. You may need to add support pieces under the seat boards to make the chair sturdier.

**Step 4:** Build the backrest Attach the backrest to the chair using wood glue and screws or nails. The backrest can be attached directly to the legs or to support pieces that you attach to the legs.

**Step 5:** Sand and finish Sand the entire chair with sandpaper to smooth any rough edges or surfaces. Apply paint or stain to the chair if desired. This will not only add to the chair's aesthetics but will also help protect it from the elements.

**Step 6:** Add cushions (optional) If you want your chair to be more comfortable, you can add cushions to the seat and backrest. You can buy cushions or make your own.

Building a chair requires a lot of attention to detail and can be time-consuming. It's important to have the right tools and materials and take safety precautions while working with power tools. You can modify these steps based on your specific design and needs.

## What are the risks of building a chair?

Building a chair, like any woodworking project, carries some risks. Here are some potential risks to consider:

1. Power tool injuries: Using power tools such as saws, drills, and nail guns can be dangerous if not used properly. It's important to read the user manual, wear appropriate safety gear, and follow safety guidelines to avoid injuries.
2. Sharp objects: Woodworking involves using sharp tools like chisels and hand saws, which can cause cuts or other injuries if not used carefully.

3. Splinters: Handling rough or unfinished wood can result in splinters, which can be painful and cause infections if not properly treated.

4. Chemical exposure: Woodworking often involves the use of chemicals like wood stains, paints, and glues, which can be hazardous if not used in a well-ventilated area or with proper safety gear.

5. Structural integrity: Poorly constructed chairs can collapse or break, potentially causing injury to the user.

6. Fire hazards: Using power tools, paints, and stains can create sparks or flammable vapors, which can cause fires if proper precautions are not taken.

It's important to take necessary precautions to minimize these risks when building a chair or any other woodworking project. Wear appropriate safety gear, work in a well-ventilated area, follow the manufacturer's instructions for all tools and chemicals, and make sure the chair is structurally sound before using it.

## What are the advantages of building a chair?

Building a chair can have many advantages, such as:

1. Customization: When you build a chair, you have complete control over the design, size, and materials used. This means you can create a chair that is unique and tailored to your specific needs and preferences.

2. Quality: When you build a chair, you can use high-quality materials and ensure that it is constructed with care and attention to detail. This can result in a chair that is more durable and longer-lasting than a mass-produced chair.

3. Satisfaction: Building a chair can be a rewarding experience, both in terms of the satisfaction of creating something with your own hands and in using the chair you built in your home.

4. Cost savings: Building a chair can be a cost-effective alternative to purchasing a chair from a store, especially if you have access to low-cost or salvaged materials and tools.
5. Skill development: Building a chair can help you develop your woodworking skills, such as using power tools, reading plans and blueprints, and assembling and finishing furniture. These skills can be useful for future projects and home repairs.

6. Environmentally friendly: Building a chair can be an environmentally friendly option, especially if you use salvaged or reclaimed wood. It can also reduce the environmental impact of shipping and manufacturing associated with mass-produced furniture.

Overall, building a chair can be a satisfying and rewarding experience, with the added benefits of customization, quality, cost savings, and skill development.

**What should I do to document my work?**

Documenting your work is important to keep track of your progress and to share your work with others. Here are some steps you can take to document your work:

1. Take photos: Take photos of your work at different stages of completion. This will help you keep track of your progress and can also be used to create a visual record of your work.

2. Keep a journal: Write down your thoughts, ideas, and progress in a journal or notebook. This can help you remember what you did and what you learned, and can be a helpful reference for future projects.

3. Record videos: If you're working on a project that involves movement, such as a robotics project, record videos to show how it works. This can be especially useful if you're trying to troubleshoot or explain your work to others.

4. Create diagrams and schematics: If you're working on a project that involves electronics or circuitry, create diagrams and schematics to document your work. This can help you remember how the circuit was designed and can be helpful if you need to make changes or repairs in the future.

5. Use version control software: If you're working on a software project, use version control software such as Git to keep track of changes and document your work. This can help you collaborate with others and can be
helpful if you need to roll back changes or troubleshoot issues.

6. Share your work: Once you've documented your work, share it with others. This can be a great way to get feedback, collaborate with others, and inspire others with your work.

Remember, documenting your work is an ongoing process that can help you stay organized and share your work with others. By taking the time to document your work, you can create a record of your progress and inspire others with your creativity and ingenuity.

## How should I create a tutorial about building a chair?

Creating a tutorial about building a chair can be a great way to share your knowledge and help others learn a new skill. Here are some steps you can take to create an effective tutorial:

1. Plan your tutorial: Before you start creating your tutorial, plan out the steps you'll need to take to build the chair. Make a list of the tools and materials you'll need, and create a detailed outline of each step in the process.

2. Write out the steps: Once you've planned out your tutorial, write out each step in detail. Be sure to include any tips or tricks you've learned along the way, and provide clear and concise instructions that are easy to follow.

3. Take photos or videos: To make your tutorial more engaging and easy to follow, take photos or videos of each step in the process. This can help your readers or viewers see exactly what they need to do and how to do it.

4. Edit your tutorial: Once you've written out the steps and taken photos or videos, edit your tutorial to make sure it's clear and easy to understand. Look for any areas where you can simplify the instructions, and make sure all of the steps are in the correct order.

5. Test your tutorial: Before you publish your tutorial, test it out to make sure it works as intended. Build a chair using your tutorial to make sure that all of the steps are accurate and that there are no missing details.
6. Publish your tutorial: Once you're happy with your tutorial, publish it on a platform where others can access it. You can share it on your own website or blog, or post it on a platform like YouTube or Instructables.

Remember, creating a tutorial can take time and effort, but it can be a rewarding way to share your knowledge and help others learn a new skill. By following these steps, you can create a tutorial that is clear, easy to follow, and helpful for others who want to build a chair.

## Describe me how to build a reverb pedal made of metal and wood with FreeCAD and a CNC

Building a reverb pedal with FreeCAD and a CNC involves several steps. Here's a general guide to get started:

1. Design the pedal enclosure: First, create a design for the pedal enclosure in FreeCAD. This can involve creating a 3D model of the enclosure using the software's tools. The enclosure can be made of metal and wood, so you may need to create separate models for each material.

2. Prepare the CNC: Once you've created your design, you'll need to prepare your CNC machine to cut the parts. This involves setting up the machine with the right tools and materials, and programming it to follow the design you created in FreeCAD.

3. Cut the parts: Once your CNC machine is set up, you can start cutting the parts for the pedal enclosure. This involves following the programming you created in FreeCAD and cutting the metal and wood parts to the appropriate size and shape.

4. Assemble the pedal: Once you have all of the parts cut, you can begin assembling the pedal. This involves attaching the metal and wood parts together using screws or other fasteners, and installing the reverb circuitry and other components inside the enclosure.

5. Test the pedal: Once the pedal is assembled, you can test it to make sure it works as intended. This involves connecting it to a guitar amplifier and testing the reverb effect to ensure that it sounds the way you want it to.

6. Finish the pedal: Finally, you can finish the pedal by sanding and painting the enclosure, or applying other finishes to give it a polished look.
Note that this is a general guide, and there may be specific steps involved in building a reverb pedal that are not covered here. Additionally, FreeCAD and CNC machines can be complex tools, so it may be helpful to have some experience using them before attempting this project.

## How can I build a reverb circuitry ?

Building a reverb circuitry can be a fun and rewarding project for electronics enthusiasts. Here's a general guide on how to build a simple reverb circuitry:

1. Gather your materials: To build a reverb circuit, you'll need a few basic components, including a spring reverb tank, an op-amp, resistors, capacitors, and a power source. You may also need a printed circuit board (PCB) or a breadboard to assemble the circuit.

2. Connect the spring reverb tank: Start by connecting the spring reverb tank to the circuit. The tank should have input and output jacks that you can connect to the circuit using wires. Be sure to follow the manufacturer's instructions for wiring the tank correctly.

3. Assemble the op-amp circuit: Next, assemble the op-amp circuit. This involves connecting the op-amp to resistors and capacitors to create a feedback loop that generates the reverb effect. You can find schematics for reverb circuits online, or design your own using software like LTSpice.

4. Connect the op-amp to the reverb tank: Once you've assembled the op-amp circuit, you can connect it to the spring reverb tank. This involves connecting the output of the op-amp to the input of the tank, and vice versa. Again, be sure to follow the manufacturer's instructions for wiring the tank correctly.

5. Connect the power source: Finally, connect the power source to the circuit to power the op-amp and other components. You can use a battery or a DC power supply, depending on the voltage requirements of the circuit.

6. Test the circuit: Once the circuit is assembled and powered, you can test it to make sure it works as intended. Connect an audio source to the input of the circuit, and listen for the reverb effect at the output. You may need
to adjust the settings on the op-amp or reverb tank to
get the desired sound.

Note that this is a general guide, and there may be specific
steps involved in building a reverb circuit that are not covered
here. Additionally, building electronic circuits can be complex
and potentially dangerous, so it's important to take proper
safety precautions and have some experience with electronics
before attempting this project.