Smell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping for Olfactory Experiences
Jas Brooks

University of Chicago
jasbrooks@uchicago.edu

Pedro Lopes

University of Chicago
pedrolopes@uchicago.edu

Figure 1: An overview of prototyping with Smell & Paste (lo-fi) versus current practices (hi-fi). Smell & Paste: Our techniqueleverages low-fidelity materials to make low-fidelity prototyping of smell experiences approachable and fast for novices andexperts alike. Here, a designer (a) tests their drafted odor sequence for a virtual reality experience. They decide to tweak thesequence, so they (b) open the cassette with the loaded smell tape. They (c) modify the odor interaction by cutting and pasting
off-the-shelf scratch-and-sniff stickers onto the tape. Within minutes, (d) they test the changes by advancing the cassettewith its driver, and the cassette’s comb scratches the tape to release the stickers’ smells. This allows for a quick and easily
approachable prototyping workflow. In contrast, current practice: Today, experts jump directly to high-fidelity development.
They must often (1) handle fragrance chemicals directly and (2) are required to build and program a delivery system before
they can (3) test their experience. Each step in current practice is time-consuming: a single iteration can take hours, days, or –in some extremes – months.

ABSTRACT
Low-fidelity prototyping is so foundational to Human-Computer
Interaction, appearing in most early design phases. So, how doexperts prototype olfactory experiences? We interviewed eight
experts and found that they do not because no process supports
this. Thus, we engineered Smell & Paste, a low-fidelity prototyping
toolkit. Designers assemble olfactory proofs-of-concept by pasting
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than theauthor(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany© 2023 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-9421-5/23/04. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580680

scratch-and-sniff stickers onto a paper tape. Then, they test theinteraction by advancing the tape in our 3D-printed (or cardboard)cassette, which releases the smells via scratching. Our toolkit uses
commodity materials; keeps iterations quick, approachable, andcheap; and circumvents electronics, programming, and chemicalhandling. We evaluated Smell & Paste in two studies. We found thatthe toolkit was approachable to people of any technical backgroundand that novices and experts appropriated and extended the toolkit,
making it personalized. Novices produced prototypes quickly, andexperts were excited about the kit’s technical affordances and integrating it into their practice.

CCS CONCEPTS• Hardware → Emerging technologies; Emerging interfaces; •Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction(HCI).

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

KEYWORDS
Smell, Olfactory, Olfactory experience, Rapid prototyping, Paper
prototyping, Design
ACM Reference Format:
Jas Brooks and Pedro Lopes. 2023. Smell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping
for Olfactory Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23), April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg,
Germany. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3544548.3580680

1

INTRODUCTION

Low-fidelity prototyping approaches, such as paper and video prototyping, are foundational to Human-Computer Interaction. Many
practitioners, researchers, and students are taught to use these essential techniques because they allow for quick iteration cycles anduse non-technical (low-tech) media when designing screen-baseduser interfaces. However, experience designers have recently moved
beyond the screen [40], noticing the opportunities afforded by many
new modalities, including olfaction [39]. Odors play critical roles
in our lives: from the pleasures of food and its influence on our
metabolism [45] to detecting potential hazards [55] to an essential
role in memories and emotions [21, 48].
Moreover, all societies have their own cultures and practices
around smell, charged with cultural values that also shape how
they interact with the world [8]. For example, in the past, NorthernMāori villages were noted for the pungent notes of fermenting corn(kānga pirau) emanating from steeping pits [9] (a dish that canbe smelled several houses away even today [63]), while Roman
Catholic masses marked symbolic transitions with the smell ofburning balsam [19]. HCI researchers have been leveraging theseopportunities in interactive experiences, such as to increase virtualpresence [3], provide notifications [30], promote wellbeing [1],enhance safety [33], and support funeral rites [57], just to cite afew.
However, while lo-fi techniques support visual UIs, the same
does not hold for experiences leveraging smell. Even with advancements in scent technologies, olfactory experiences remain rare.
We posit that designers need both hi-fi hardware for final development and low-fidelity prototyping techniques to make olfactory
experience design quick, low-cost, and approachable to those ofdiverse backgrounds/regions (including those without technicalexperience).
Following this, we asked, do olfactory experience designers
draft lo-fi prototypes? In short, they do not. In our first study,
we interviewed experts that previously authored smell experiences for the public (games, interactive exhibits, etc.). We foundmost jumped from concept to hi-fi version, taking months before
they integrated or tested actual smells. These difficulties stem fromlacking structures or toolkits to prototype with low-fidelity odor
materials. In turn, experts take an idea and must often compose or
buy fragrances, build, and program a dispensing system, and test
ergonomics before they can test design choices or ideas. Each step
ultimately requires significant time, cost, and expertise.
To tackle this, we designed a low-tech, low-fidelity toolkit thatmakes prototyping olfactory experiences quick, cheap, and easily approachable. As seen in Figure 1, our toolkit comprises (b) aJas Brooks and Pedro Lopes

3D-printed (or cardboard) cassette with which users draft odor sequences and transitions by adding scratch-and-sniff stickers. These
low-cost stickers have a coating of microencapsulated fragrances,which lets one store and later release smells by scratching their surface. The toolkit enables drafting experiences by (c) simply cutting
and pasting stickers onto paper tapes, loading them into a cassette,and (d) hand-operating the cassette. This editing workflow draws
inspiration from film, tape, and reel editing techniques. The kit
exhibits all the fundamental elements of paper prototyping: it (1)leverages commonly available materials (printer paper and scratchand-sniff stickers), (2) does not use hardware or software, (3) ischeap to make, and (4) has low operational costs. Our toolkit frees
users from electronics, liquids, or programming during early prototyping phases. Most importantly, the kit is approachable to peopleof any technical ability to draft expressive olfactory experiences.
We evaluated our device through two additional user studies.
In the second study, our toolkit supported novices to experimentwith the full breadth of key olfactory design features, drafting
sequences that leverage smell’s chemical, emotional, spatial, andtemporal features [29]. The kit also paired well with establishedprototyping strategies (paper, video, Wizard of Oz) and let participants even compose custom smells. In the third study, two experts
incorporated the toolkit into their professional practices. One expert demonstrated its use in a small storytelling workshop with
two young children. Both experts especially highlighted Smell &Paste’s technical and tangible affordances, and both were interested
in incorporating the toolkit into their future professional work.
Ultimately, our toolkit let the participants iterate over and draft lo-fi
smell prototypes, allowing them to focus on design. We found that
novices and experts alike appropriated and extended the toolkit,
making it highly personalized.
We believe our prototyping toolkit will enable new work across
HCI, design, and education. To accelerate the lo-fi prototyping of
smell experiences, we not only provide our device as open-source
but complement it with a dataset of 800 scratch-and-sniff stickers(some as cheap as 0.035 USD per cm2 ) that can be purchased online.
Smell & Paste is not an end product but a process to enable designers to rapidly validate and test design decisions early in prototyping,and could be combined or help users transition to high-fidelity
smell toolkits [24, 26, 31].

2

WALKTHROUGH: PROTOTYPING WITH
SMELL & PASTE

We present an example walkthrough in which a designer uses
Smell & Paste prototyping to draft smell interactions for an existing
virtual reality (VR) experience. As seen in Figure 2, the experienceis a simple game in which the player must find food and shelterin a forest. They stumble across fragrant ingredients to cook with,such as a suspicious mushroom. The player then finds their way
to a cabin by following a smokey scent that grows stronger as
they approach. Once inside, they find a boiling stew to which they
can add foraged ingredients, changing its smell. If they add themushroom, the stew’s smell turns foul to warn that it is poisonous.
First, our designer iterates over the moment the player steps
from the forest into the cabin—their objective is to immerse theplayer in the rich smell emanating from the kitchen. They test thisSmell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping for Olfactory Experiences

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Figure 2: Key moments of this VR experience, for which our designer intends to prototype its olfactory experience.
scene on themselves and, with every run, tweak the smell sequence.
Figure 3 shows the key to prototyping with Smell & Paste: (a) the
designer tries the VR scene while holding and manually advancing
the cassette to release odors; (b) dissatisfied with the current smells,
they modify the sequence by adding a sticker to the exposed tape;and now (c) rewind the tape to (d) try the olfactory transition once
more. This olfactory prototyping is approachable and takes thedesigner a few minutes.

Figure 3: (a) The designer tests a fade-in of a chili scent while
entering the cabin and modifies the sequence. They rewindand (b) cut a square of lavender to (c) add to the start, emphasizing the soup’s fragrant herbs. (d) Sequence presented
outside of the cassette.
Since our technique uses low-tech materials (paper and stickers)
and is approachable, the designer rapidly drafts variations of theinteractions, see Figure 4. Each variation tests their ideas for theforest scents, the transition from woods to cabin, and the aromatic
notes released when entering the kitchen. These three variations
took 3-4 minutes.

Figure 4: Our designer made three different sequences to test
how to transition between the forest and cabin kitchen.
The designer repeats this process for the cooking interaction toexperiment with how the foraged ingredients change the stew’s
scent. The designer wants to warn the player when the stew becomes poisonous, so they try adding a sharp, pungent aroma (Figure5). Smell & Paste lets them draft and test many combinations to
identify which works best.

Figure 5: (a) An odor sequence for the kitchen stew interaction initially uses a transition from savory chili to a meat
medley with hints of onion. (b) The designer decides to warn
their user of the poisonous mushroom by increasing theonion odor’s intensity. (c) The designer then tests the modified sequence while immersed in the scene.
In contrast to Smell & Paste’s rapid prototyping, most olfactory
experience designers take hours to months to produce one draftof a similar olfactory experience, as informed by our Study 1 andprior work [24,26]. Figure 6 illustrates the standard steps when
prototyping an experience using electronics. This process often
requires formulating or finding fragrances compatible with thedelivery mechanism and then making or programming electronic
dispensers, which are less approachable in early phases. Theselimitations can hinder the designer’s creativity too early in theprocess [14].

Figure 6: Illustration of typical key steps involved in
hardware-based olfactory prototyping.
While our walkthrough depicts Smell & Paste used to draft smells
for an existing experience, our prototyping toolkit is suited for many
stages of the design process. Designers can pair Smell & Paste withestablished techniques like paper prototyping, video prototyping,and Wizard-of-Oz sessions (as observed from participants in our
Study 2), or even combining our lo-fi smell toolkit with hi-fi smell
toolkits (e.g., Lai and Cao’s kit [24] or O&O [26]).

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany3

Jas Brooks and Pedro Lopes

RELATED WORK

Our work builds on low-fidelity and low-technology prototyping,
especially paper-prototyping. As our toolkit leverages scratch-andsniff stickers, we cover microencapsulation to familiarize the reader
with this little-discussed format in HCI.

3.1

Low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototyping

Low-fidelity prototypes act as stand-ins for an interactive application: these are meant to be produced rapidly and early in thedesign process. They allow designers to validate and test design
decisions as well as test how users might respond to the envisioned
final UI design or experience [49]. In HCI literature, lo-fi prototype implementations are often implemented for visual or auditory
mediums, such as via a series of static UI layouts that represent
scenarios and choices in an application or even acted through theWizard-of-Oz session [34]. The most popular and rapid lo-fi prototypes are typically paper prototypes, usually hand-drawn sketchesof a user interface or experience. As the user then interacts withthe prototype, a human facilitator guides the experience by modeling the prototype responses such as changes in the layout [44].
This methodology is widespread in HCI and taught in virtually all
introductory HCI or design courses.
Lo-fi prototypes introduce a wide range of advantages [47]. They
require little development cost (e.g., pen and paper), which enables
designers to evaluate multiple design concepts. The prototypes canhelp address issues in the layout or experience and are useful artifacts for communicating the concept to others. Unfortunately, theyalso have disadvantages as they represent rough approximations of
the eventual design or experience. For example, they need a facilitator, have limited utility after requirements are established, andhave issues with navigation or flow in an interface or experience.
Inspired by traditional paper prototypes, our toolkit can be facilitated but it can alternatively be experienced by a user independently.
The latter resembles the experience prototyping attitude, which focuses on the experiential aspect of prototyping [6]. In other words,
where traditional ways of prototyping often focus on a passive
audience witnessing a demo or someone else’s experience, the experience prototyping attitude focuses on methods that allow an active
audience to “experience it themselves” via low-fidelity prototypes.

In contrast to lo-fi prototypes, hi-fi prototypes are more functional and interactive versions of a design that can be experienced
by the user alone. These prototypes often have the look and feel ofthe final version. However, hi-fi prototyping has its disadvantages
too, namely: these are more expensive to develop, require a lot oftime to create (at times weeks or even months), and are inefficientfor proof-of-concept designs.

3.2

Olfactory interfaces

HCI researchers and artists have long explored ways to incorporate
our senses into digital experiences, including olfaction [16,18,36,59].
Olfactory interfaces typically deliver smells by diffusing vapors[43, 60], heating solids [11, 22] or liquids [10, 23] to produce vapors, or aerosolizing [2, 5] fragrant liquids. The resulting vapor
or aerosol is commonly delivered near the nostrils or guided byfans, air vortices [60], bubbles [51], or ultrasound arrays [17]. HCI
researchers have largely explored olfaction for immersion [23, 42]
and communication [30, 58]. While researchers are refining delivery technologies, little attention has focused on how designers
prototype olfactory experiences.

3.3

High-fidelity toolkits for olfactory
experiences

While toolkits with fragrances—such as the Smell Memory Kit [27]—exist to evoke and share autobiographical stories using smells asprobes, little work has investigated lo-fi or low-tech toolkits for
prototyping olfactory experiences.
In fact, the existing toolkits explicitly designed for olfactory
experiences are on the high-fidelity and high-tech end of the spectrum. For instance, Lai and Cao created an electronic-based toolkit
to facilitate high-fidelity prototypes of olfactory interactions aspart of their TEI 2019 studio [24]. The kit includes electronicallycontrolled smell diffusers with a control module connected to an
Arduino microcontroller and a set of liquid containers. This typeof smell hardware can only emit smells from very low viscosity
fragrances and needs circuit modifications to allow more than four
smells at a time. To prototype with this toolkit, a designer fills thecontainers with fragrances to be aerosolized via a transducer anda wick. Designers then combine the kit with sensors, props, andTable 1: Contrast between high-fidelity toolkits and our low-fidelity toolkit.
low-fidelity attributes
fidelity

toolkit

low-cost

no hardware

no software

many odors

fast

remix

OWidgets [31]∼N/A (a)
✓
× (b)
✓
× (c)
Lai & Cao’s kit [24]
∼
×
×
✓
×
✓
O&O [26]
∼
×
×
✓
×
✓
Low
Smell & Paste
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
table footnotes: (a) software only, but still requires access to and some knowledge of smell delivery hardware.
(b) odors extendable but requires database (valence, arousal, associations); initial database has 9 odors; number ofodors dependent on hardware.
(c) modification and remixing require an understanding of programming.
Blue tildes (∼) are used when the kit’s cost is unclear, as it depends on the price of electronics, Arduinos, transducers,
insulation, etc.
High

Smell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping for Olfactory Experiences

everyday items to produce their experience. Similarly, O&O [26] isa DIY toolkit for high-tech prototyping of olfactory interfaces thatprovides odor-delivery modules using a combination of electronics(fans, transducers, etc.), cardboard, and plastics or waterproofing
materials. While both kits are useful, the components are high-tech(based on transducers and electronics often found in final devices[2, 5]) and, consequently, require engineering and programming
knowledge as well as fragrance handling. These researchers acknowledged this limitation in the workshops (and workflows) they
conducted using their toolkits. (1) In Lai and Cao’s TEI studio, participants did not present scent-enabled prototypes, but presented
visual or tangible prototypes that considered the toolkit’s formfactor. (2) In O&O’s first workshop, participants reported relying
on team members with engineering/software experience to prototype, and the one team without such expertise received guidancefrom the organizers [26]. Additionally, some participants reported
that the prototyping phase was insufficient to complete a hi-fi prototype; thus, in their follow-up workshop, each individual participant
received programming and hardware mentors to complete a single
hi-fi prototype over the course of 5 days.
In contrast to hardware solutions, OWidgets is a software solution that provides a GUI for olfactory design [31], but is notdesigned to support lo-fi prototyping. The software coordinatesscheduling and delivery across arbitrary olfactory interfaces (hightech), which can also be used for high-fidelity prototyping, but has
yet to be tested with designers.
To summarize in Table 1, we contrast existing toolkits and the
key attributes expected of a lo-fi toolkit: i.e., low-cost, approachable
to users without hardware or software expertise, supporting manyodors, fast to use, and easy to appropriate or remix. As shown in
Table 1, because prior work focused exclusively on hi-tech prototyping or final products, there is no work that has investigated lo-fi
prototyping of olfactory experiences.

3.4

Scratch-and-sniff stickers(microencapsulated fragrances)“Scratch-and-sniff” media is paper, or plastic, covered in fragrances
sealed in microscopic capsules. Pressure from scratching the surface
breaks these small capsules and releases the odor. The earliest usesof microencapsulated fragrances included perfume advertisements
in magazines [61], and later postage stamps with odors congruent
to their illustrations [12, 50]. Moreover, another application liesin the food industry as scratch-and-sniff finishes allow consumers
to preview a product’s smell before purchase (e.g., jam packaging
with scratch-and-sniff [20]).
Many took note of scratch-and-sniff stickers’ ability to produce
olfactory experiences for printed media and leveraged them tocreate more engaging and accessible products. For instance, scented
books and stickers were proposed as methods to engage blind andvisually impaired children (or parents) in readings [4, 15, 56].
While scratch-and-sniff was only paired with static print media
in its earliest decades, the 80s explored its use in film, notably
through John Waters’ iconic Polyester [62]. These explorations
continue to the present date, with games [28, 35] and contemporary
movies at premier festivals leveraging the format (e.g., The Beach
Bum at SXSW 2019 [64]).

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

The only proposed use of scratch-and-sniff in a device appearedin 2001 as a patent that described the concept of an electricallyactuated odor bank, which would move to the target odor and heatit to release the microencapsulated scent [37]. To our knowledge,
this proposed device was never produced or studied.

4

CONTRIBUTION, BENEFITS, AND
LIMITATIONS

Our key contribution is a toolkit that enables low-fidelity, low-techprototyping of olfactory experiences informed by expert interviews
and user studies.
The Smell & Paste toolkit has the following benefits. (1) The
toolkit enables very fast drafting of an odor sequence. Inturn, designers can iterate on an interaction or experience to test
ideas much faster and earlier than with high-fidelity or high-techapproaches. Like any lo-fi and low-tech prototyping method, Smell& Paste is only a stand-in for an experience meant to validate andtest design decisions early on. (2) The toolkit’s materials keep
iteration costs low when compared to iterating via fragrances anddelivery hardware. Like paper prototypes, Smell & Paste prototypes
use readily available paper and scratch-and-sniff stickers, which canbe acquired and operated for lower cost than delivering fragranceswith pumps, atomizers, etc. Due to this, there is also a low costto creating, remixing, or discarding drafts. Additionally, the costof our cassettes can be lowered by using cardboard and paper
towel tubes. Finally, the cost of our approach depends on the costand accessibility of scratch-and-sniff stickers themselves, whichmight vary over time or by region. (3) The cassette form factor
overcomes the limitations of the low-fidelity odor productand is intuitive to use. As seen in Study 1, designers are excitedabout using low-fidelity materials like scratch-and-sniff stickers but
do not have the infrastructure to address their limitations (e.g., needfor manual scratching, insufficient surface area for long sequences,
unclear how to produce fades). Unlike books or cards, our cassette
design allows for an arbitrarily long sequence stored in a small
space. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that the design is also robust
for odor delivery. Our cassette also leaves the eyes unobstructed(unlike scented books). (4) Designers can combine our toolkit
with existing prototyping techniques. As seen in Study 2, Smell& Paste is flexible enough to allow participants to combine their
prototypes with video prototypes of interactive experiences, paper
prototypes of UI designs, or even Wizard-of-Oz prototypes. (5)Smell & Paste is simple and expressive. Designers only need to
cut & paste stickers and advance or rewind the tape to draft odor
sequences rapidly. By building off these simple actions, a designer
can fade and crossfade a variety of scents or even compose newfragrances.
Our approach is not without its limitations. (1) Our toolkit
inherits navigational, flow, and facilitation limitations typical to lo-fi prototyping techniques. Designers must find ways
to map branching experiences onto a linear form factor, which
is typical of these techniques [47]. Additionally, designers know
the pace to advance their cassette but must provide facilitation forothers (e.g., metronome for pacing), which is also common to lo-fi
prototyping techniques (see Section 4.1). Finally, (2) while ourtoolkit enables lo-fi prototyping, more research will need toCHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Jas Brooks and Pedro Lopes

follow to measure how it impacts translating low to highfidelity prototypes. Unlike other modalities, olfaction can vary
based on the delivery method, and, as is for all prototyping methods,
materialities (the material artefacts used during prototyping) may
influence the design process [32]. So, while Smell & Paste may be
helpful for low-fidelity prototyping, future work needs to investigate how it translates to high-fidelity and final experiences that
do not use low-fidelity materials like scratch-and-sniff. Still, ourtoolkit provides the groundwork to explore this question.

We discussed what influenced their prototyping, project iterations,and challenges.
Qualitative data analysis steps were then followed to identify
major themes from an a-priori list of categories. We used Burnard’s
stage by stage method [7] as follows: (1) close reading of the transcripts; (2) open coding of the responses; (3-4) developing broader
categories based on the open coding; and (5) reducing the interviews
to words and phrases.

5

We summarize and report the three most relevant major categories.
1. Most experts skip lo-fi prototyping. Six of eight experts(E1, E2, E3, E4, E7, E8) did not introduce smells in their early design
process. They typically delayed integrating actual smells until theyfinished producing the underlying hardware. When reflecting on
their hardware choices, experts that developed custom hardware for
their experiences (E4, E7, E8) mentioned spending most of their timeon this portion of their projects, to the detriment of the experience
design (E8). As E8 explained, they were “not [. . .] able to focus
exclusively on the olfactory experience design due to the timespent on developing hardware and learning electrical engineering.”
Experts often emphasized the overhead associated with acquiringdomain expertise and tacit knowledge early in their work. Experts
stated difficulties or time spent learning how to (1) program orengineer (E4, E7, E8); (2) produce their own fragrances (E2, E3,E7); (3) use existing delivery technologies (E2, E4, E7, E8); and (4)determine best practices for safety (E7).
2. Reusing low-tech & low-fidelity smell products to makea final experience. Five experts explored less conventional methods of odor delivery (E1, E2, E3, E6, E7). For example, E2 designed aninteractive art installation in which visitors could spray post-it notes
with ready-made fragrances and attach them to a zoetrope, which
combined the ease of assembling a sequence with the zoetrope’s
ability to animate the sequence by spinning. E1 similarly recounted
using spices from a store in unlabeled jars to make a small story witha friend’s child, as they prefer thinking about “the sequence of odors

STUDY 1: ARE THERE LOW-FIDELITY
OLFACTORY PROTOTYPING METHODS?

Our first study sought to understand the prototyping processesof artists and researchers working with smell, particularly whatchallenges they faced. We conducted semi-structured interviews(via Zoom) with experts, each lasting approximately one and a half
hours. This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board(IRB-20-2071).

5.1

Participants

Eight participants were directly recruited for their olfactory experience expertise covering a range of interactive applications (narrative, games, art, research) for all ages (children to adults), see
Table 2. Four identified as women and four as men. All participants
reported having produced several olfactory experiences for the
public: four participants were game designers, three worked withfilm or performance, and one was an artist & researcher focusedon olfactory experiences. We compensated each expert with a 25
USD gift card for their time.

5.2

Procedure

We started our semi-structured interviews by gathering professional experience around scent, using their prior work as a probe.
This structure follows the critical incident technique [13], in that we
gave a clear statement to participants of what is being investigated.

5.3

Results

Table 2: Experts on interactive olfactory experiences interviewed for Study 1. These experts covered a range of backgrounds
and media for all ages (from children to adults) and audience scales (individual to theater experiences).
ExpertBackground

Relevant projects or experience

E1

Filmmaker, olfactory artist

E2
E3
E4
E5

Artist, exhibit and experiencedeveloper, playworker
Film programmer
Game designer, researcher
Game designer, programmer

E6

Game designer, programmer

E7

Game designer, researcher

E8

Artist, HCI researcher

Olfactory experience designer for film screenings with scent, scented workshops
and activities with children and people with disabilities, etc.
Olfactory experience designer for film screenings with scent, olfactory
experiences for children, smell experiences for neighborhood communities.
Olfactory experience designer for film screenings with scent.
Academic researcher on scent in games, olfactory game designer.
Lead designer for commercially distributed video game with scratch-and-sniff card(over 750,000 copies sold).
Lead designer for commercially distributed text-adventure with scratch-and-sniff
card (over 130,000 copies sold).
Interactive art installations and games exhibited internationally, sensory design &teaching.
Interactive olfactory installations, research on olfactory HCI.

Smell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping for Olfactory Experiences

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Figure 7: The kit is made from: (1) tape, (2) cassette, (3) scratch plate with comb, (4) driver, and (5) cassette connector.
than to get caught up in [smell] delivery.” Others used low-tech andlow-fidelity products like scent-imbued fabrics, commercial foodproducts and items (e.g., soaps), and even scratch-and-sniff stickers.
Commercial foods and items left experts with little control over theodors and their intensity. All options required manual cueing. Conversely, when asked about their experience with scratch-and-sniff
stickers, the consensus was that it was easy to use and offered avariety of available odors. E3 mentioned scratch-and-sniff saved
production (instead of foods and fabrics) and that stickers addressed“issues of cross-contamination” and “offered a variety of new odors”(E3, E5, E6).
3. Early tests. Only E5 and E6 introduced odors early in thedevelopment of a major project. They iterated on their interactive
games’ scents by changing the layout with scratch-and-sniff sample
cards. They both remarked that testing their games’ smells withscratch-and-sniff was “straightforward” and did not require domain
expertise (it is just paper).

5.4

Discussion

Most experts went from concept to directly spending their timebuilding and iterating over complex high-fidelity or high-tech versions of their experiences. While high-tech solutions provided thebenefit of control, experts did not draft and test their olfactory
design choices early on.
This issue arises because there is no structured toolkit or method
to help experts draft lo-fi prototypes. However, the explorationof low-tech, low-fidelity products to quickly create final experiences provided insights. We identified scratch-and-sniff stickers
as the ideal candidate for enabling olfactory prototyping. Unlike
foods or beverages, they do not spoil, are consistent over time, andcan be stably stored. Unlike ready-made fragrances, even children
can handle them safely. Unlike imbued fabrics, they do not crosscontaminate easily. Scratch-and-sniff stickers are cheap, widely
varied in smell, easy to access, compact, and easy to handle. However, scratch-and-sniff cards require cueing for manual operation(e.g., number flashing in a corner) and – as a form factor – cannot
handle long or complex odor sequences. For example, how does
one draft a crossfade between two smells on a scratch-and-sniff
card? Our toolkit design needed to improve upon the card form
factor for scratch-and-sniff stickers.
Second, olfactory experiences can be thought of and deconstructed into component odor sequences (E1). Following this, ourtoolkit must provide the flexibility to produce many individual odor
sequences and allow designers to compare sequences easily. Thesefindings provided design considerations and inspirations for Smell& Paste.

6

SMELL & PASTE TOOLKITIMPLEMENTATIONWith these findings, we implemented the Smell & Paste toolkit
around a 3D-printed cassette (no electronics). This design builds
upon the scratch-and-sniff card form factor. With Smell & Paste, designers draft odor sequences by adding stickers along the cassette’s
paper tape and can animate the sequence, allowing complex effects
like crossfades. The cassette form factor also supports arbitrarily
long odor sequences as it is compact (rolled up), like a Compact
Cassette for music. As demonstrated in Study 3, our toolkit reliably
delivers odors. Figure 7 presents the key components of Smell &Paste. We open-sourced all assembly and design files for replication,
modification, and dissemination1 . We also provide a hyper-low-costversion that uses commonly available corrugated cardboard andpaper towel tubes (craft tubes).

6.1

Toolkit components

Smell & Paste components were optimized to be printed with small,entry-level FDM printers. We designed the 3D models to requirealmost no support materials or overhangs. Alternatively, we implemented a hyper-low-cost version of the cassette with corrugatedcardboard and craft tubes. We made our designs parametric to support size modifications. For example, users can change the tapewidth, and the 3D or cardboard cutting files will adjust accordingly.
1. Paper tape. We use inkjet or copy paper for the tape material
as it is commonly available and flexible. Most scratch-and-sniff
stickers adhere to it well since the paper is uncoated (or they can beglued on easily). To produce a paper tape, a user must tape together
paper cut to the intended tape width. We recommend washi tape toconnect paper strips (for its flexibility and thinness) and a stickier
tape (e.g., gaffe tape) to connect the paper tape to two spools. The
user then authors sequences by pasting stickers and can play asequence by placing the tape (with spools) in a cassette.
2. Cassette. To assemble a cassette, the user prints and assembles
the top, bottom, idle rollers, and hinges. The cassette’s two slits let
the user monitor the tape’s progress. The idle rollers align the tapewith the comb and decrease tape friction. After inserting a tape, theuser closes the cassette and attaches the scratch plate.
1 https://github.com/humancomputerintegration/smell-and-paste (includes all files to

produce both versions of the toolkit and a dataset of 800 commercial scent stickers).

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

3. Comb and scratch plate. The scratch plate is a modular
attachment that clips onto the cassette and aligns the comb with thetape at the cassette’s opening. The comb slots around a loaded tapeand scratches its stickers. We designed the comb to print separatelyfrom the plate so future designers could make new designs andintegrate them quickly into the kit. We initially made the comb
entirely 3D-printed; however, three out of five participants from
Study 2 mentioned the 3D-printed teeth would sometimes jam thetape. In turn, we redesigned the comb to use Velcro-like hook andloop fasteners, and Study 3 showed this new version worked reliably.
We additionally ran a small pilot that further demonstrated thisfinal comb’s reliability. Over the course of scratching a five-smell
sequence 105 times, the tape never got jammed and two participants
had a detection rate of 100±0% and identification rate of 85±14%(getting better over time instead of worse) for the smells.
4. Driver. We designed a simple driver to mechanically advancethe tape: a gear with a solid cantilever inserted through one cassettehole. The cantilever slides into one of the cassette holes and clicks
in place, securing the driver to the spool. The user then rotates thedriver to advance the tape.
5. Cassette connector. We designed an optional component
that allows users to stack multiple cassettes, as in Figure 8. This
component attaches to a cassette’s bottom and exposes two cantilevers that can couple with another connector. Both the scratch
plate and connector have clearance for the driver of another cassette. Connecting two cassettes can help a designer – for example –evaluate the legibility of odor interactions (sequences) happening
at the same time.

Jas Brooks and Pedro Lopesfrom one tape to another. These editing techniques build upon existing film, tape, and reel-based editing techniques (e.g., for film or
audio) [25, 54], which are widely used and versatile.
1. Cut and paste. Our toolkit’s underlying technique is cutting
and pasting. Users select scratch-and-sniff stickers and cut theseto fit the paper tape. By pasting several odors, they can prototypea sequence in less than a minute (Figure 9) and even control theodor’s intensity by changing its surface area on the tape.

Figure 9: Designers cut and paste scratch-and-sniff stickers
to form an odor sequence. Here, it would play root beer thensmoothie.
2. Fade. Users can produce fade-ins and fade-outs by controllingthe sticker’s surface area over time. Figure 10 depicts two simple
methods. In the first method (a), the user cuts the sticker so thatit tappers or enlarges as the tape advances. Alternatively, the user
can pulsate an odor (b) by cutting an odor into pieces and spreading
the fragrance over time, which allows for more control over fading
duration. Both techniques translate to crossfades (e.g., fade between
smells).

Figure 10: (a) Fade in of smoothie scent by cutting sticker
into a long triangle. (b) Fade out of root beer scent by pulsing
stickers. Both techniques can be extended to crossfades.
3. Multi-track. To mix odors, users can cut thin slices of stickers
and lay them side-by-side on the same tape or use connectors tosmell two tapes simultaneously (Figure 11). The latter is helpfulwhen testing scent combinations non-destructively, iterating overpreviously authored sequences, etc. However, while smelling two

Figure 8: (a) Two cassettes side-by-side and (b) two cassettes
stacked together using the connectors (for multi-track mode).

6.2

Editing techniques

While we purposefully designed our low-fidelity toolkit for simplicity, its simplicity does not hinder its expressivity. As we now
present, Smell & Paste provides simple modes of operation that,when combined, allow users to test complex odor sequences quickly.
For example, users can try switching odors, fading in or out, mixing
aromas in parallel, or even transferring entire chunks of a sequence

Figure 11: Playing two smells simultaneously: (a) cutting
scratch-and-sniff stickers into thinner tracks and superimposing them, or (b) using the included connector to play two
independent cassettes simultaneously.

Smell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping for Olfactory Experiences

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Figure 12: (a) A user will insert a recent odor sequence into (b) another previously prototyped sequence (c). They cut the basesequence (c) and then use washi tape to insert (also known as splice) the old sequence into the new one (d).
tracks is manageable, anything beyond would require the user tosweep their nose across all tapes.
4. Splice. Finally, a user can cut the paper tape to join two
different areas together or introduce a new sequence. Users thenuse washi tape to reconnect the areas into a single tape. As shown in
Figure 12, this technique enables quick reuse of previously drafted
sections or could even be used to crossfade entire sequences.

6.3

Dataset of commercial scratch-and-sniff
stickers

For our toolkit to be practical, users must acquire scratch-and-sniff
stickers. Commercial scratch-and-sniff stickers for children are
incredibly accessible and cheap, including good and bad scents. We
created a dataset of 800 scratch-and-sniff stickers from 22 brands
to facilitate sticker selection. We manually extracted each sticker’s
scent, dimensions, and price per cm2 . The dataset includes 538
unique scents, depicting a wide variety at costs as low as 0.00035
USD per cm2 .

7

STUDY 2: EXPLORING SMELL & PASTE
WITH NOVICES

While novices can use paper prototyping to design and explore
their first screen-based interfaces in minutes (as used in virtually
all Introductory HCI classes worldwide), the same is not possible
for novices who want to explore olfactory UIs. We realized that
Smell & Paste’s low-fidelity materials might be approachable tonovices with introductory skills.
In turn, we designed our second study to explore Smell & Pastewith a group of novices, recruited from an HCI class. We were interested in whether our kit (1) supported novices to quickly explore
olfactory design [29, 39] and (2) what techniques emerged whenusing the kit. This study was approved by our Institutional Review
Board (IRB 20-2071).

7.1

Participants

We deployed our study as an optional assignment in a universitylevel HCI course. Participating in the study was entirely optional
for the course. We recruited seven students (three women and fourmen), aged 20 to 26. While five had no experience in design orengineering, two had engineering degrees. None had any priorexperience conceiving olfactory applications or experiences. Participants were compensated 50 USD for their participation.

7.2

Procedure

Participants received a toolkit with two cassettes and 41 different
scratch-and-sniff odors. We also provided a short video tutorial. As
the study occurred during social distancing measures, participantsreceived their toolkits by mail.
We assigned design prompts to allow a refined analysis of thedesign and prototyping experience [41, 46, 52, 53]. See Table 3.
The prompts reflected a small variety of previous olfactory applications from HCI (notifications [30] and games [38]) and productdesign [65]. As participants had no experience conceiving olfactory
applications, providing prompts let them focus on the olfactoryinteraction design. In turn, this focus allowed us to observe theirtechniques with our kit and whether the toolkit supported rapid exploration of olfactory design [29]. We randomly assigned prompts
to all participants (P1-5), while, given the engineering backgroundsof P6 & P7, we assigned them a prompt to test the kit’s flexibility
for add-ons. Upon finishing, participants submitted at least three
process photos and a video of their prototype(s) that explained
their work. Participants could also provide written feedback on our
toolkit.

7.3

Results

We clustered our findings into nine categories based on the video,
photo, and open feedback analysis. Smell & Paste enabled participants to rapidly draft lo-fi prototypes of their olfactory experiences(see Figure 13). Participants enjoyed prototyping their experienceswith Smell & Paste. P1 stated that it was a “great experience” and“incredibly useful to have a physical form as a starting point forbrainstorming and prototyping.” P2 and P3 appreciated the variety
and realism of the scratch-and-sniff smells and stated that “it wasvery fun using this smell kit” (P2).
1. Smell & Paste allowed novices to draft lo-fi prototypes
exploring all key olfactory design features. Each participant(P1-5) explored chemical, emotional, spatial, and temporal design
features in detail. P4 and P5 conveyed information through established scent-associations to provide information about the visual,spatial, and temporal qualities of their makeup products and iterated on these aspects. We now present focused examples from P1and P2 to further exemplify the design ideas participants were able
to quickly draft and evaluate with Smell & Paste.
P1 began prototyping their “Olfactory Pomodoro timer” by testing whether “certain aromas may perceptually and materially improve concentration, task lag time” (P1). They iterated over two key

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Jas Brooks and Pedro Lopes

Table 3: Participants, their design prompt, and prototyped experience summary from Study 2. As participants had no experience
conceiving olfactory applications, we provided these prompts to inspire participants and encourage using smells.
Participant

PromptDescription

Resulting prototypes from participant

P1

1

Design an olfactory notification system.

P2

2

Design smell interactions for a game.

P3
P4

2
3

P5

3

Design smell interactions for a game.
Design olfactory experiences for a userinteracting with two makeup products.
Design olfactory experiences for a userinteracting with two makeup products.

P6 (engineer)

4

Engineer an add-on for the toolkit’s cassette.

P7 (engineer)

4

Engineer an add-on for the toolkit’s cassette.

Pomodoro-timer with olfactory notifications
conveying timer state and urgency.
Interactive odor cues for Mario Kart & Pokémon Go, as
well as olfactory versions of popular board games, asmell escape room puzzle, a smell maze.
Olfactory Pictionary.
Face mist that conveys its fragrance and functionality(spray) before use.
Eye shadow palette with scents matching shades.
Lipstick, whose odor presents its shade and changes if
it’s fresh or expired.
Add-on to automatically advance and rewind thecassette.
Adapter to turn cassettes into an automated olfactoryinterface for VR headsets.

Figure 13: Participants made lo-fi prototypes by taking their design ideas and repeatedly (1) drafting with stickers, (2) loading
tapes into cassettes, and (3) testing their ideas with their nose. Photos by and reproduced with the permission of participants.
aspects: the chemical and emotional features of selected odors andtheir semantic meanings. They tested if scents felt like (1) “boost
one’s state” and (2) “motivate to work”. For the start-time interaction, they compared and experimented with lemon to reduce stressor peppermint to increase concentration, settling for the latter after trying both options in the prototypes (“my experience withpeppermint smell was poignant stimulation”). For their break-time
notification, they compared lavender for its “known relaxation properties” and menthol as a simpler stimulator (a component of peppermint), settling for menthol. Then, P1 also experimented with “morepungent” and “strong smells to encourage users to resume timer
and work intervals” that conveyed a semantic sense of urgency.
They selected and compared star anise, cinnamon, hay, manure,wet dirt, and campfire from the kit. P1 then arranged and composed
scent notifications according to pungency and semantic meaning
to convey urgency: hay for five idle minutes (slightly unpleasant),a manure and wet dirt combo for ten idle minutes (“funky”), andburning campfire for fifteen idle minutes (strong, pungent, andsemantically urgent).
For P2, who delivered several lo-fi prototypes, we focus on theirmost advanced one: odor interactions for Mario Kart. P2 comparedand combined scents for different effects after drafting and iterating
on individual sequences. For the squid ink penalty (screen blocked
by ink), P2 experimented with translating its visual mechanism
to scent by using strange combinations with abrupt transitions to
confuse and distract the player. They tried many combinations of
smells and eventually settled on three “stranger” composite odors“so that scent changes are distracting” (emphasis by P2): smell one
with bubblegum, rose, and manure; smell two with tomato, cotton
candy, and campfire; and smell three with cake, new car, and corn. In
contrast, P2 designed the invincibility power-up to “do gradual scenttransitions [with] familiar scents [. . .] so that the scent changes
are not distracting,” selecting “pleasant scents” like strawberry,
chocolate, and lilac. The cassette allowed P2 to iterate and refineSmell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping for Olfactory Experiences

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Figure 14: Participants cut stickers to control their intensity. P2 used two methods: (a, b) long triangles for fades followed by aburst (clear stickers) and (c) transitions by staircases between odors. Photos by and reproduced with P2’s permission.
the sequence transitions): “scents for invincibility are tessellated
for smoother scent transitions”; “scents for squid ink have gaps(. . .) for abrupt transitions”; and “speed boost has one segment fora briefer scent experience” whereas “invincibility and squid ink
each have three segments, since these are meant to be experienced
for a longer time.” P2 additionally drafted scent interactions thatconveyed spatial information (competitors approaching), semantic
information (fish for incoming tortoise shell), and more.
2. Participants rapidly drafted and iterated on many lo-fi
prototypes. Not only did all participants complete their prototypes within the assignment timeframe, but they produced iterations. Alongside Mario Kart interactions, P2 initially rapidly prototyped olfactory interactions for a battery of other games: Hideand Seek (imagining scents for each player that would get stronger
when approaching); an interactive maze in which two cassettes
encode the solution (left vs. right turns); an envisioned expansion
to Pokémon Go (including scents for spatial information and monster states); and more. Participants also reported completing many
iterations of odor sequences and composed smells (P2, P4, P5).
3. Smell & Paste paired well with established lo-fi prototyping strategies. Participants combined Smell & Paste with otherprototyping strategies. (1) Paper prototype: P1, P3, and P4 used
our toolkit with the more traditional paper prototyping, especiallyfor interactive applications well suited for this method, such as
P1’s screen-based UI for a Pomodoro timer complemented witholfactory notifications. (2) Wizard-of-Oz: P2 used our toolkit in
combination with Wizard-of-Oz, in which they “played the scenttapes” while a friend played the actual game of Mario Kart. This
combination let P2 quickly prototype by querying the user on how
the smell interactions contribute to the experience. P3 similarly
leveraged this combination to test their olfactory game with a roommate. P5 did this when possible, such as advancing or rewinding
the tape while opening their lipstick. (3) Video prototype: P2 also
employed our toolkit with prerecorded videos of Mario Kart runs,
allowing them to iterate quickly over a sequence until it felt right.
4. Participants iterated on sticker size to control and test
odor intensity. Participants tested and controlled an odor’s intensity over time by cutting the sticker into smaller or larger areas.
As shown in Figure 14, P2 prototyped interactions to convey approaching vehicles (fading natural gas) and collisions (burst of wetdirt). By changing a sticker’s thickness for intensity and length forthe duration, P2 experimented with transitions, such as homing inon noticeable switches between disparate scents for squid ink tofade-ins to convey approaching competitors.
P4 used scent intensity the most in their face mist interaction
prototypes. They prototyped how to encode the product’s delivery
mechanism (spray) before use through scent, settling on a prototype
that delivered a sudden strong watermelon scent that quickly fades
when the user opens the face mist’s cap. They used a second cassetteto precisely control the watermelon scent’s intensity (more surface
area to work with) and add short bursts of vanilla.
5. Stickers can be combined to compose a new scent. Participants prototyped not only sequences but also new scents byrecombining scratch-and-sniff stickers. For example, P4 tried to

Figure 15: An example of how participants prototyped not only an interactive odor release but also mixed new fragrances (P4).

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Jas Brooks and Pedro Lopes

Figure 16: P5 used advancing and rewinding to prototype an interaction that branched based on whether an envisioned
interactive lipstick was fresh or expired. Photos by and reproduced with P5’s permission.

Figure 17: (a, b) P2 separated scent-triggering events across two stacked cassettes. (c) P2 also embedded notes directly on thetape to keep track of prototyped interactions, such as “close” and “hit”. Photos by and reproduced with P2’s permission.
compose a powdery smell. They first investigated what fragrance
notes produced powdery perfumes, identifying rose, vanilla, cake,and lavender. They then tested and combined those odors at various
intensities to create a new identifiable scent. P2 also used a similar
technique for their more complex odor-releasing Mario Kart game
events. P4 took this a step further and prototyped conveying the
makeup’s state (closed, opened, in-use) by subtly changing the component odors’ intensities, see Figure 15. P3’s entire prototype reliedon scent composition, as players craft new scents and sequences toconvey a prompt to others.
6. Participants developed strategies to map branching experiences onto the tape. We observed different approaches tomapping branching experiences onto the cassette’s linear structure.
P5 used advancing and rewinding the cassette to encode and prototype branching states, with the area at the opening representing
the branching point.
For instance, P5 translated the eye shadow palette’s physicallayout by splitting it at the central eye shadow and letting theuser move the tape either left for the shades to the left or rightfor the matching shades. This participant reapplied the techniqueto prototype their lipstick interaction in which its odor changes
to convey whether it is fresh or expired, as shown in Figure 16.
If the lipstick is fresh, the user rewinds to receive a lemon odor
(refreshing) followed by cherry (smell-color association). If the
lipstick is expired, the user advances the tape and gets a corn odor.
For their Pomodoro-timer, P1 prototyped odor sequences for eachmachine state in separate areas. P1 used advancing and rewinding
to different regions to then test certain decisions. In contrast, P2

leveraged two connected cassettes to prototype an olfactory experience accompanying Mario Kart), see Figure 17. P2 used two tapes
for two types of scent interactions: one for spatial interactions (i.e.,a kart approaching and colliding) and another for power-ups (player
state). Using two cassettes allowed them to quickly test how theexperience would smell when interactions of two types occurredconcurrently and then adjust the odors to make them mutually
intelligible.
7. Participants took notes directly on the tape. For example,
P2 prototyped their interactions in separate areas of the tapes withno specific order, so they wrote each sequence’s name on the tape,as seen in Figure 17 (b).
8. Participants redrafted sequences instead of splicing. Participants found it quicker and more convenient to redraft sequencesin blank areas than to splice sequences. This approach enabled themto compare variations.
9. Smell & Paste is modifiable. The two participants with anengineering background (P6-7) found the toolkit customizable. P6
altered the cassette to advance automatically, as seen in Figure 18(a), adding a motor inside the cassette. P7 prototyped an add-on
that adapted their cassette into a VR-ready digital olfactory display,
as seen in Figure 18 (b).
Suggested improvements. While participants found the kit
useful for lo-fi prototyping (P1-5), participants also provided suggestions for improvement. Three participants (P2, P4, P5) noted thatthe 3D-printed comb teeth occasionally jammed if several scratchand-sniff stickers overlapped. P5 wished synchronizing movements
between cassette advancing or rewinding and interacting with another object were easier. P4 suggested adding tactile markers to theSmell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping for Olfactory Experiences

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

E3 decided to test the toolkit to prototype olfactory movie
experiences. This participant requested a single kit. Over the two
weeks, E3 experimented with their kit to uncover its potential use
in their olfactory film practice. For this, they recruited their spouseas a participant to iterate over odor sequences.

8.2

Figure 18: (a) Two iterations of P6’s add-on that automatically advanced their cassette. (b) Progress images from P7’s
adapter to turn cassettes into automatic olfactory interfaces
for VR headsets. Photos by P6 and P7 and reproduced withparticipants’ permission.
tape to allow users to gauge where they are on the tape withoutlooking down.
Fixes. We resolved jamming issues by redesigning the comb
to use hook-and-loop fasteners (Velcro) as teeth instead. Thesefasteners are stiff enough to scratch the stickers’ surface and flexible
enough to let arbitrarily thick tapes pass.

8

STUDY 3: TOOLKIT IN EXPERTS’ACTIVITIES

Finally, we engaged with olfactory experts to understand theirimpression of the kit and determine its potential when integrated
into their practices. This study was approved by our Institutional
Review Board (IRB20-2071).

8.1

Participants

We recruited experts E1 and E3 from Study 1 for their extensive
experience designing olfactory experience for diverse audiences(children, people with disabilities, etc.) and because they had reported having enough time to evaluate the kit in their professional
practices. Both received a 50 USD gift card for their time. As wewere interested in the kit’s applicability in expert work, we did
not provide prompts. Instead, we asked the experts to experimentwith the kit in their olfactory practice for two weeks. Participants
then provided documentation (photos and videos) and feedback via
Zoom. As the study occurred during social distancing measures,
participants received their toolkits by mail.
E1 decided to use the toolkits in a workshop with kids. Thisparticipant requested four full toolkits. E1 prototyped a workshop
for children (aged 7 and 9.) E1 designed a curriculum with the
kits in which children compose scent tracks to train each other’s
noses and then produce interactive smell stories for their parents.
Both children were authorized to participate in the workshop by
their parents. Their parents provided permission to reproduce anduse documentation. E1 was able to conduct the workshop as theircountry allowed small gatherings during quarantine.

Results

Even though the two activities were very different, their results
provided common ground. Following this, we decided to cluster the
separate findings into three combined themes based on the video,
photo, and feedback analysis.
1. Experts would use Smell & Paste in their work. E1 statedthat they would use the toolkit again. Likewise, E3 began imagining
possible ways to extend the toolkit, namely motorizing the cassetteto play in sync with a game.
2. Smell & Paste provides technical and tangible affordances. E3 found that the cassette and comb worked successfully,
similarly echoed by E1’s successful workshop with children. E3stated odors “only lingered for a short period after passing thecomb” and that “odors directly under the nose were stronger thanaccumulated odors from the spooled tape” (E1 mentioned this too).
For subtle smells, E3 recommended spacing out stickers by approximately 4-6 cm to produce bursts that faded quickly, stating “morecomplex odors needed additional space”. E1 and E3 highlighted
Smell & Paste’s ability to rapidly draft sequences: “this [toolkit] isreally useful [. . .] because it gives you a sequence” (E3).
E1 and E3 also praised the cassette’s design, requiring little tono explanations. E1 did not show the children our tutorials andreported “they had no problem using” it, stating “the mechanical design is straightforward and communicates its functionality.”
Moreover, both agreed that toolkit assembly was easy: E1 said it was“incredibly simple” and they did so without watching the tutorial.
3. The cassette form factor provided surprise. E3 mentioned
they entered the study believing the cassettes “could be really fun
as a toy” while being skeptical of the benefits over a typical scratchand-sniff card, which they had previously worked with and designed. However, upon using the toolkit, they “immediately realized a big advantage: the cassette can hide the stickers’ visuals.”Moreover, E3 raised one more added benefit compared to traditional scratch-and-sniff cards: “even with a scratch-and-sniff cardthat doesn’t indicate the smell, one can sniff around at the cardahead of time and have an idea of what’s to come, and who could
resist that. But [. . .] hidden inside the cassette, there’s no way toknow what scent is coming next.” Furthermore, E1 mentioned using
this “surprise effect” to let the children train each other’s noses, as
depicted in Figure 19 (a).
The children created their own odor sequences, which they presented to each other as a smell identification game. They thenindependently explored which odors worked well and could be
integrated into their interactive stories. In just one afternoon, bothchildren drafted and iterated over interactive olfactory stories, sharing their experiences with their mom at the end of the workshop
as seen in Figure 19 (b).
Suggested improvements and considerations. Experts notedthat the driver’s cantilevers could snap if carelessly inserted or
removed (E3). E1 reflected on their experience using our toolkit

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Figure 19: (a) The kids taking turns testing each other’s ability
to identify the odors on a tape. (b) Their mom smelling theinteractive olfactory story they drafted. Photos by E1 andreproduced with participant and parents’ permission.
with the children’s workshop, noting that selecting odors took
more time than necessary. We provided 41 different scratch-andsniff odors with our toolkit, which E1 found overwhelmingly vast
for children to explore in a limited time. Finally, E1 suggested thata thicker and bigger version of a tape (closer to a VHS size) might
help those with less dexterity (including children).
We found E1’s thickness suggestion important and easily actionable. We made our files parametric, allowing designers to choose
their desired tape width and cassette dimensions. All parts will thenadjust accordingly. Additionally, E1 and E3’s experience with thecassettes proves that they work reliably and do not jam with the
new combs.

9

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USING OR
DEPLOYING SMELL & PASTE

Based on insights gained from Studies 2 and 3, we now synthesize eight recommendations for prospective designers interested inusing Smell & Paste to prototype olfactory experiences or disseminating the toolkit for their studies:
1. Use Smell & Paste to draft and evaluate design choices
quickly and frequently. Smell & Paste works well to lo-fi prototype long or short interactive sequences and quickly compare
isolated interactions. For example, a designer can fine-tune whichsmells are released when the player receives a power-up in Mario
Kart. To make the most of Smell & Paste, we recommend using thetoolkit early and frequently in the design phase.
2. Smell & Paste is easy to use for experts and novices. As
evidenced by Study 2 and E1’s workshop with two children in
Study 3, Smell & Paste’s form factor is intuitive. Since Smell &Paste uses scratch-and-sniff stickers instead of liquid fragrances,
there is also little need to train designers on how to smell andhandle fragrances before developing an interactive olfactory experience. Moreover, Smell & Paste may not even need a video tutorial(E1). This ease-of-use contrasts with other kits requiring multipage
brochures or manuals [26, 27] and instructions [24]. Additionally,
unlike handling fragrances, which require safety practices, commercial scratch-and-sniff stickers are safety compliant for evenchildren. Experts and novices can handle them with no worries.

Jas Brooks and Pedro Lopes

3. Smell & Paste produces lo-fi olfactory prototypes thatcan be stored and shared. While the kit supports radical anddestructive drafting (e.g., tossing entire sections), the resulting lofi prototypes are long-lasting and keep smelling even after many
scratches. For example, Study 1’s E3 mentioned their 1981 scratchand-sniff cards still smell, and sequences we produced for pilots
smell even two years later. Additionally, both participants in Study 2
and 3 were excited about sharing their prototypes with friends andfamily. The Study 3 experts also highlighted Smell & Paste prototypes’ ability to be shipped without restrictions or special handling.
Several mentioned experiencing issues transporting materials forinteractive exhibits due to restrictions on fragrances. This problem
often prevented them from mailing or bringing early prototypes tomuseums or theaters.
4. Document directly on the paper tape. Designers can annotate tapes by writing on them, e.g., notes for timing cues, labels fora particular interaction, etc. We recommend this practice to keep
track of and draft sequences so that designers can return to theirlo-fi prototypes later with context (just like in programming).
5. Scratch-and-sniff stickers provide a great variety ofsmells but pre-select them for a quick start with children. While adults had no problem smelling and choosing froman extensive library of smells (41 provided in kits), this variety
overwhelmed children and had them spend too much time sniffing scents before prototyping. Per E1’s suggestion, we recommend
designers pre-select relevant odors when working with children.
6. Modify the kit as desired. We encourage prospective users
to adapt the kit to their needs. First, the mechanical design ofSmell & Paste is parametric. Per E1’s expertise with children anddisabled people, we recommend printing a version of the cassettewith wider tape to let those with less dexterity handle it better.
Second, pairing the cassette with braille labels may allow blindand visually impaired designers to use the kit. Finally, designers
can extend the cassette with electronics for new applications, suchas automated playback. For example, we produced a hyper-lowcost version of our cassette from commonly available corrugatedcardboard; Figure 20 shows one made from an Amazon package.
7. Combine or transition to hi-fi smell toolkits. Smell &Paste – and lo-fi methods in general – mark the start of prototyping
an interactive experience, not its end. We encourage prospective
designers to transition from their lo-fi prototypes, created using
Smell & Paste, to hi-fi toolkits or even combine Smell & Paste with
hi-fi techniques. We present examples with existing kits. (1) Combine with physical hi-fi olfactory toolkits: In Lai and Cao’s toolkit
workshop [24], participants used visual sketches as early prototypes prior to engaging with the hi-fi toolkit. By combining a lo-fi
toolkit, such as Smell & Paste, participants can couple their lo-fi
sketches with lo-fi smell prototypes, allowing them to transition
more smoothly to the higher-fidelity hardware. Similarly, combining Smell & Paste in the O&O workflow might provide designers an
opportunity to test and iterate on ideas in the early design phases(e.g., in the “Prototype” and “Test” steps of the manual [26]) before
committing days to a hi-fi O&O prototype. Additionally, O&O’s
design manual could be paired with Smell & Paste to provide a
structured thought process for designing for the smell in all prototyping stages. (2) Combine with software hi-fi olfactory toolkits:
Smell & Paste’s linear structure may translate well to OWidgets’Smell & Paste: Low-Fidelity Prototyping for Olfactory Experiences

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Figure 20: Our variation on the cassette made entirely of commonly available corrugated cardboard, one cardboard craft tube
cut in two, paper, and a strip of Velcro. This variation can be cut by hand using an X-Acto knife and assembled with everyday
glue.
similar linear timeline editor [31], and – vice versa – a prospective
designer might test an OWidgets sequence without hardware todispense smells.

10

CONCLUSIONSThis paper proposed Smell & Paste, the first prototyping toolkit for
olfactory design that enables a structured workflow for lo-fi olfactory prototyping. Our findings suggest that Smell & Paste enables
rapid and cheap prototyping of smell experiences, is approachable
to people of any technical background, and is extensible. Fromthe studies, we improved the toolkit’s design and extracted recommendations for prospective designers interested in using Smell &Paste.
We believe our toolkit might accelerate and make olfactory prototyping more approachable across various fields, including HCI, design, and education. As part of these efforts, we provide our toolkit
as open-source with a dataset of 800 commercial scratch-and-sniff
stickers. Alongside our expert interview insights and toolkit, we
believe these efforts form the groundwork to investigate future
research questions, such as how olfactory experience designers
could transition from low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes to
final experiences. Exploring this area is imperative to support thedevelopment of new, rich olfactory experiences.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We want to thank the experts (including Tammy Burnstock, Megan
Dickerson, Clinton McClung, Simon Niedenthal, Al Lowe, Steve
Meretzky, and Heather Kelley), the participants from Study 2, andthe children and parents in the workshop who graciously contributed their time, expertise, and creativity to this work. Thanks
to our colleagues at the Human-Computer Integration Lab, Alex
Mazursky and Yudai Tanaka, for their help and time putting together toolkits for Study 2 amid quarantine and their feedback on
the paper, and Noor Amin for her input on the paper. This material
is supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowship Program under Grant No. (DGE-1746045). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the National Science Foundation.

REFERENCES[1] Judith Amores, Mae Dotan, and Pattie Maes. 2022. Development and Studyof Ezzence: A Modular Scent Wearable to Improve Wellbeing in Home Sleep
Environments. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 791768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2022.791768[2] Judith Amores and Pattie Maes. 2017. Essence: Olfactory Interfaces for Unconscious Influence of Mood and Cognitive Performance. In Proceedings of the 2017

CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Pages 28-34, 28–34.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026004[3] Oliver Baus and Stéphane Bouchard. 2017. Exposure to an unpleasant odour
increases the sense of Presence in virtual reality. Virtual Reality 21, 2: 59–74.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0299-3[4] Beverly Birns and Dale Hay (eds.). 1988. Mothers Who Are Disabled. In The
Different Faces of Motherhood. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-48992109-3[5] Jas Brooks, Steven Nagels, and Pedro Lopes. 2020. Trigeminal-based Temperature
Illusions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376806[6] Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience prototyping. In Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems processes, practices,
methods, and techniques - DIS ’00, 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347802[7] Philip Burnard. 1991. A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative
research. Nurse Education Today 11, 6: 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/02606917(91)90009-Y[8] Constance Classen, David Howes, and Anthony Synnott. 1994. Aroma: the cultural
history of smell. Routledge, London; New York.
[9] W. Colenso. 1893. Ancient Maori Perfumes. Bay of Plenty Times, 6.
[10] James A. Covington, Samuel O. Agbroko, and Akira Tiele. 2018. Development ofa Portable, Multichannel Olfactory Display Transducer. IEEE Sensors Journal 18,
12: 4969–4974. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2018.2832284[11] David Dobbelstein, Steffen Herrdum, and Enrico Rukzio. 2017. inScent: a wearable
olfactory display as an amplification for mobile notifications. In Proceedings ofthe 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123021.3123035[12] M Falck and D Schaffelaars. 1999. Geur & ontwerp. Zoo Producties, Eindhoven,
Netherlands.
[13] John C. Flanagan. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51,
4: 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470[14] Elizabeth Gerber and Maureen Carroll. 2012. The psychological experience of
prototyping. Design Studies 33, 1: 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.
005[15] Paula Hamilton. 2001. Monthly Themes and Learning Centers for Young Children
with Visual and Multiple Impairments. U.S. Department of Education Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED460561.pdf[16] Sadakichi Hartmann. 1902. A Trip to Japan in Sixteen Minutes. Retrieved fromhttps://believermag.com/a-trip-to-japan-in-sixteen-minutes/[17] Keisuke Hasegawa, Liwei Qiu, and Hiroyuki Shinoda. 2018. Midair UltrasoundFragrance Rendering. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
24, 4: 1477–1485. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794118[18] Morton Heilig. 1962. Sensorama simulator. Retrieved from https://patents.google.
com/patent/US3050870A/en[19] David Howes. 2008. Olfaction and transition: an essay on the ritual uses ofsmell. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 24, 3: 398–416.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1987.tb01103.x[20] Benine Janssen and René Toet. 2004. Top of flop: Fred&Ed, zoet broodbeleg uit een tube. Marketing online. Retrieved February 24, 2009 fromhttp://web.archive.org/web/20090224013640http://www.marketingonline.nl/
topofflop/case01.2004.html[21] J. S. Jellinek. 2004. Proust Remembered: Has Proust’s Account of Odor-cued
Autobiographical Memory Recall Really been Investigated? Chemical Senses 29,
5: 455–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjh043[22] Dong Wook Kim, Kazushi Nishimoto, and Susumu Kunifuji. 2006. An Editing and
Displaying System of Olfactory Information for the Home Video. In KnowledgeBased Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, Bogdan Gabrys, Robert J.
Howlett and Lakhmi C. Jain (eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
859–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/11893011_109[23] Myron Krueger. 1996. Addition of Olfactory Stimuli to Virtual Reality Simulationsfor Medical Training Applications. U.S. Army Medical Research and Material
Command, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland, USA. Retrieved from https://apps.

CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b220530.pdf[24] Mei-Kei Lai and Yan Yan Cao. 2019. Designing Interactive Olfactory Experiencein Real Context and Applications. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International
Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 703–706. https://doi.org/10.1145/3294109.3295659[25] Mark Le Fanu. 1998. On Editing. p.o.v. A Danish Journal of Film Studies, 6. Retrieved
from https://pov.imv.au.dk/pdf/pov6.pdf#page$=$5[26] Yuxuan Lei, Qi Lu, and Yingqing Xu. 2022. O&O: A DIY toolkit for designing andrapid prototyping olfactory interfaces. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502033[27] Susana Cámara Leret and Valentijn Visch. 2017. From Smells to Stories: The
Design and Evaluation of The Smell Memory Kit. International Journal of Design
11, 1: 65–77.
[28] Al Lowe and Steve Conrad. 1996. Leisure Suit Larry: Love for Sail!
[29] Emanuela Maggioni, Robert Cobden, Dmitrijs Dmitrenko, Kasper Hornbæk, andMarianna Obrist. 2020. SMELL SPACE: Mapping out the Olfactory Design Space
for Novel Interactions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 27, 5:
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3402449[30] Emanuela Maggioni, Robert Cobden, Dmitrijs Dmitrenko, and Marianna Obrist.
2018. Smell-O-Message: Integration of Olfactory Notifications into a Messaging Application to Improve Users’ Performance. In Proceedings of the 2018 on
International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI ’18, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242969.3242975[31] Emanuela Maggioni, Robert Cobden, and Marianna Obrist. 2019. OWidgets: A
toolkit to enable smell-based experience design. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies 130: 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.06.014[32] Anijo Punnen Mathew, Tom MacTavish, Jared Donovan, and Laurens Boer. 2010.
Materialities influencing the design process. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’10, 444. https://doi.org/10.1145/
1858171.1858262[33] Haruka Matsukura, Hironori Hashiguchi, and Hiroshi Ishida. 2017. Tracking of a
Gas Plume With the Aid of Olfactory Assist Mask. IEEE Sensors Journal 17, 16:5332–5340. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2017.2721968[34] David Maulsby, Saul Greenberg, and Richard Mander. 1993. Prototyping an
intelligent agent through Wizard of Oz. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conferenceon Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’93, 277–284. https://doi.org/10.
1145/169059.169215[35] Steve Meretzky. 1986. Leather Goddesses of Phobos.
[36] Jacquelyn Morie. 2012. The Scent Collar: a wearable scent delivery device. Institutefor Creative Technologies. Retrieved from http://ict.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/
2012/03/ScentCollarBrochure1.pdf[37] Rachel Murphy and David Frohlich. Apparatus and a method for recording andreproducing scent or taste. Retrieved from https://patents.google.com/patent/
US20040077424A1/en[38] Simon Niedenthal. 2012. Skin Games: Fragrant Play, Scented Media and theStench of Digital Games. Journal for Computer Game Culture 6, 1: 101–103.
[39] Marianna Obrist, Alexandre N. Tuch, and Kasper Hornbaek. 2014. Opportunities
for odor: experiences with smell and implications for technology. In Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2843–2852.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557008[40] Marianna Obrist, Carlos Velasco, Chi Vi, Nimesha Ranasinghe, Ali Israr, Adrian
Cheok, Charles Spence, and Ponnampalam Gopalakrishnakone. 2016. Sensing
the future of HCI: touch, taste, and smell user interfaces. Interactions 23, 5: 40–49.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2973568[41] Harold Ossher, Bonnie John, Michael Desmond, and Rachel Bellamy. 2010.
Are Flexible Modeling Tools Applicable to Software Design Discussions? IBM,
Austin, Texas, USA. Retrieved from https://dominoweb.draco.res.ibm.com/
reports/rc24949.pdf[42] Chomtip Pornpanomchai, Arinchaya Threekhunprapa, Krit Pongrasamiroj, andPhichate Sukklay. 2009. SUBSMELL: Multimedia with a Simple Olfactory Display.
In Advances in Image and Video Technology, Toshikazu Wada, Fay Huang andStephen Lin (eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92957-4_40[43] Nimesha Ranasinghe, Chow Eason Wai Tung, Ching Chiuan Yen, Ellen Yi-Luen
Do, Pravar Jain, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Tram, Koon Chuan Raymond Koh, David Tolley,
Shienny Karwita, Lin Lien-Ya, Yan Liangkun, and Kala Shamaiah. 2018. Season
Traveller: Multisensory Narration for Enhancing the Virtual Reality Experience.
In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174151[44] Marc Rettig. 1994. Prototyping for tiny fingers. Communications of the ACM 37,
4: 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/175276.175288[45] Celine E. Riera, Eva Tsaousidou, Jonathan Halloran, Patricia Follett, Oliver Hahn,
Mafalda M.A. Pereira, Linda Engström Ruud, Jens Alber, Kevin Tharp, Courtney
M. Anderson, Hella Brönneke, Brigitte Hampel, Carlos Daniel de Magalhaes
Filho, Andreas Stahl, Jens C. Brüning, and Andrew Dillin. 2017. The Sense of
Smell Impacts Metabolic Health and Obesity. Cell Metabolism 26, 1: 198-211.e5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2017.06.015

Jas Brooks and Pedro Lopes[46] Emma Rose, Andrew Davidson, Elena Agapie, and Kiley Sobel. 2016. Designing our future students: Introducing User Experience to teens through a UCD
charette. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design ofCommunication, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2987592.2987618[47] Jim Rudd, Ken Stern, and Scott Isensee. 1996. Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping
debate. Interactions 3, 1: 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/223500.223514[48] Rachel S. Herz. 2021. Olfactory Virtual Reality: A New Frontier in the Treatment
and Prevention of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Brain Sciences 11, 8: 1070. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11081070[49] Jürgen Sauer, Katrin Seibel, and Bruno Rüttinger. 2010. The influence of user
expertise and prototype fidelity in usability tests. Applied Ergonomics 41, 1: 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.06.003[50] Mark Saunders. 2018. U.S. Postal Service’s First Scratch-and-Sniff Stamps Evokea Sweet Summer Scent. United States Postal Service. Retrieved from https://about.
usps.com/news/national-releases/2018/pr18_040.htm[51] Sue Ann Seah, Diego Martinez Plasencia, Peter D. Bennett, Abhijit Karnik, Vlad
Stefan Otrocol, Jarrod Knibbe, Andy Cockburn, and Sriram Subramanian. 2014.
SensaBubble: a chrono-sensory mid-air display of sight and smell. In Proceedingsof the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI’14, 2863–2872. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557087[52] Kristen Shinohara, Cynthia L. Bennett, Wanda Pratt, and Jacob O. Wobbrock.
2018. Tenets for Social Accessibility: Towards Humanizing Disabled People in
Design. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 11, 1: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3178855[53] Kristen Shinohara, Nayeri Jacobo, Wanda Pratt, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2020.
Design for Social Accessibility Method Cards: Engaging Users and Reflecting on
Social Scenarios for Accessible Design. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
12, 4: 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3369903[54] Fredrick Y. Smith. 1942. The Cutting and Editing of Motion Pictures: The Physical
Aspect. Journal of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers 39, 11: 284–293. https://doi.org/10.5594/J14295[55] R. J. Stevenson. 2010. An Initial Evaluation of the Functions of Human Olfaction.
Chemical Senses 35, 1: 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjp083[56] Graciela Tiscareño-Sato. 2009. Braille for My Baby: Six Things You Can
Do at Home for Your Young Blind Child. Future Reflections 28. Retrieved
from https://www.nfb.org/sites/www.nfb.org/files/images/nfb/publications/fr/
fr28/fr280113.htm[57] Daisuke Uriu, William Odom, Mei-Kei Lai, Sai Taoka, and Masahiko Inami. 2018.
SenseCenser: an Interactive Device for Sensing Incense Smoke & Supporting
Memorialization Rituals in Japan. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference
Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, 315–318. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3197391.3205394[58] Philipp Wintersberger, Dmitrijs Dmitrenko, Clemens Schartmüller, AnnaKatharina Frison, Emanuela Maggioni, Marianna Obrist, and Andreas Riener.
2019. S(C)ENTINEL: monitoring automated vehicles with olfactory reliability
displays. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User
Interfaces - IUI ’19, 538–546. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302332[59] T. Yamada, S. Yokoyama, T. Tanikawa, K. Hirota, and M. Hirose. 2006. Wearable
Olfactory Display: Using Odor in Outdoor Environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE
conference on Virtual Reality 2006, 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2006.147[60] Yasuyuki Yanagida, Haruo Noma, Nobuji Tetsutani, and Akira Tomono. 2003.
An unencumbering, localized olfactory display. In CHI ’03 extended abstracts on
Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’03, 988. https://doi.org/10.1145/765891.
766109[61] 1967. The fragrance of Imprévu is right here, in this yellow strip. McCall’s 3.
[62] 1981. Polyester. New Line Cinema.
[63] 2016. Kaanga Wai – Cured corn 1.0. horiandhorier. Retrieved December 12, 2022
from https://horiandhorier.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/kaanga-wai-cured-corn1-0/[64] 2019. The Beach Bum. Neon.
[65] 2021. Molly Burke Reviews: Blind Accessibility of Beauty Products. Allure. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v$=$u2Xx_C5X9lM