pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26935 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

Artistic Practice Opportunities in CST Evaluations: A Longitudinal Group Deployment of ArtKrit

Asya Vaisberg, Catherine Liu, Chau Vu, Jiaju Ma, Jingyi Li, Tao Long

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 09:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords creativity support toolsCST evaluationlongitudinal deploymentgroup-based studydigital art practiceArtKritcommunities of practicemaster studies
0
0 comments X

The pith

CST evaluations should be designed as longitudinal group artistic practices rather than isolated measurements.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that standard CST evaluations overlook how artists integrate tools over time within social contexts, missing opportunities for genuine creative development. Through a three-week deployment of the ArtKrit drawing tool, nine artists worked in three communities of practice on weekly master studies and showed shifting tool relationships alongside new artistic perceptions. These shifts emerged inside networks that supplied confidence and safety for individual expression. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach reframes evaluation as active participation in artistic work instead of data extraction alone.

Core claim

We present a longitudinal, group-based CST evaluation through a three-week deployment of ArtKrit, a computational drawing tool that supports disciplined drawing. Nine digital artists, organized into three communities of practice, completed weekly master studies alongside a researcher-artist. Our results show users' evolving relationships with ArtKrit over time—from early experimentation to selective incorporation or misuse—alongside changes in their ways of artistic seeing. These changes unfolded within artist support networks that fostered confidence and creative safety, and validated individual expression. Overall, our findings suggest that CST evaluations can—and should—be designed as op

What carries the argument

The longitudinal group-based deployment using communities of practice and weekly master studies, which tracks evolving tool relationships and artistic seeing inside supportive artist networks.

If this is right

  • Tool relationships progress from broad experimentation to selective or adapted use across multiple sessions.
  • Supportive artist networks build confidence and creative safety during tool integration.
  • Changes in artistic seeing accompany sustained tool use within group settings.
  • Evaluations structured as group practices can capture temporal and social dimensions of CST adoption.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Short-term individual lab studies may systematically understate how CSTs become part of ongoing artistic practice.
  • The method could extend to other CSTs to identify which tool features benefit from community validation.
  • Researcher-artist participation in the groups models a collaborative stance that might itself shape creative outcomes.

Load-bearing premise

The observed changes in tool relationships and artistic seeing are caused by the longitudinal group structure and communities of practice rather than by individual differences, the specific features of ArtKrit, or researcher presence alone.

What would settle it

A short-term individual study of ArtKrit use that produces the same progression from experimentation to selective incorporation and shifts in artistic seeing would show the group longitudinal structure is not required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26935 by Asya Vaisberg, Catherine Liu, Chau Vu, Jiaju Ma, Jingyi Li, Tao Long.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A sample of one group’s week during our three-week evaluation. Nine participants were divided into three small view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of our evaluation timeline. throughout the study, though researchers did not complete diary studies, interviews, or submit usage logs. Finally, at the end of Week 3, each researcher conducted indi￾vidual exit interviews with their group members. To see if par￾ticipants’ digital drawing practices, relationships with ArtKrit, or ways of interpreting master studies changed, the exit interviews repeat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Participant 1A’s three-hour Week 1 drawing session in ArtKrit, showing progression from initial grid setup to final view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Drawings produced by the participants of Group 1. view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Drawings produced by the participants of Group 2. view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Drawings produced by the participants of Group 3. view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average number and percentage of user actions by view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average number and percentage of user actions by category (color, value, composition) over three weeks by each view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Completing studies within a group was also grounding for view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Creativity support tools (CSTs) aim to elevate the quality of artists' creative processes and artifacts. Yet most current CST evaluations overlook temporal and social aspects of tool use. To address this gap, we present a longitudinal, group-based CST evaluation through a three-week deployment of ArtKrit, a computational drawing tool that supports disciplined drawing. Nine digital artists, organized into three communities of practice, completed weekly "master studies" alongside a researcher-artist. Our results show users' evolving relationships with ArtKrit over time - from early experimentation to selective incorporation or misuse - alongside changes in their ways of artistic seeing. These changes unfolded within artist support networks that fostered confidence and creative safety, and validated individual expression. Overall, our findings suggest that CST evaluations can - and should - be designed as opportunities for meaningful artistic engagement rather than purely extractive measurement exercises. We contribute this longitudinal, group-based approach as one CST evaluation method.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports on a three-week longitudinal, group-based deployment of the ArtKrit creativity support tool involving nine digital artists in three communities of practice. Through weekly master studies, it observes evolving relationships with the tool and shifts in artistic seeing within supportive networks, arguing that CST evaluations should prioritize meaningful artistic engagement over extractive measurement and contributing this approach as an evaluation method.

Significance. Should the interpretive findings prove robust, the work could meaningfully influence CST evaluation practices in HCI by promoting longitudinal and social dimensions, fostering deeper tool integration and creative safety. It provides a practical example that challenges conventional short-term, individual-focused assessments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Study Description] The central claim that changes in tool relationships and artistic seeing are attributable to the longitudinal group structure rests on qualitative observations without reported details on data collection protocols, coding procedures, or inter-rater reliability. This methodological gap is load-bearing for the interpretive synthesis and the recommendation to redesign evaluations.
  2. [Results] No baseline measures or comparison arms (e.g., solo deployment or alternative CST) are described, leaving the observed evolutions consistent with alternative explanations such as individual differences, researcher presence, or ArtKrit-specific features.
  3. [Discussion] The leap to 'should' in redesigning CST evaluations requires stronger evidence isolating the group-based aspect; without it, the normative suggestion risks overgeneralization from the N=9 case study.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could more explicitly state the number of participants and duration to provide immediate context for the claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us strengthen the methodological transparency and framing of our qualitative case study. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Study Description] The central claim that changes in tool relationships and artistic seeing are attributable to the longitudinal group structure rests on qualitative observations without reported details on data collection protocols, coding procedures, or inter-rater reliability. This methodological gap is load-bearing for the interpretive synthesis and the recommendation to redesign evaluations.

    Authors: We agree that greater detail on data collection and analysis is warranted. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Methods section with a new subsection detailing the protocols (weekly semi-structured interviews, session observation notes, and digital artifact collection), the reflexive thematic analysis process (following Braun and Clarke's six phases with an audit trail), and trustworthiness measures (participant member checking, reflexivity journal, and peer debriefing). As a single-researcher interpretive study, formal inter-rater reliability statistics were not used; we instead prioritized transparency and participant validation. These additions directly address the identified gap. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] No baseline measures or comparison arms (e.g., solo deployment or alternative CST) are described, leaving the observed evolutions consistent with alternative explanations such as individual differences, researcher presence, or ArtKrit-specific features.

    Authors: Our study was designed as a naturalistic, longitudinal case study within existing artist communities rather than a controlled experiment. We have added explicit language in the Results and a new Limitations subsection in the Discussion acknowledging that observed changes cannot be isolated from factors such as individual differences, researcher presence, or tool-specific characteristics. We clarify that the work documents evolutions in this context without claiming sole attribution to the group structure. While we cannot add retrospective baselines or arms, this revision better situates the findings as interpretive rather than causal. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Discussion] The leap to 'should' in redesigning CST evaluations requires stronger evidence isolating the group-based aspect; without it, the normative suggestion risks overgeneralization from the N=9 case study.

    Authors: We have revised the Discussion to moderate the normative language, presenting the longitudinal group-based approach as one valuable evaluation method illustrated by this case rather than a required redesign for all CST evaluations. The contribution is now framed more cautiously as an example that highlights artistic practice opportunities. We have also expanded the limitations discussion to note the small sample size and the difficulty of isolating group effects without comparative data, reducing the risk of overgeneralization while retaining the interpretive value of the findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: qualitative observations with no derivations or self-referential fits

full rationale

The paper reports results from a three-week group deployment study of ArtKrit with N=9 artists, describing observed changes in tool relationships and artistic seeing through user experiences and researcher notes. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions derived from subsets of data, or mathematical derivations appear in the provided text or abstract. Claims about redesigning CST evaluations rest on interpretive synthesis of reported data rather than any reduction to self-citation chains, ansatzes, or definitional equivalences. The central contribution is presented as an empirical method suggestion supported by the deployment outcomes, with no load-bearing steps that collapse back to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative empirical HCI study with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or new postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Qualitative self-reports and researcher observations accurately reflect genuine changes in artists' tool relationships and ways of seeing.
    Findings depend on interpretive synthesis of participant experiences without quantitative triangulation or external validation measures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1243 out tokens · 63197 ms · 2026-05-07T09:08:54.287239+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shm Garanganao Almeda, Joy O Kim, and Bjoern Hartmann. 2025. Creativity Supportive Ecosystems: A Framework for Understanding Function and Disrup- tion in Online Art Worlds. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 267, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/370...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713734 2025

  2. [2]

    Aragon, S

    C. Aragon, S. Poon, A. Monroy-Hernández, and Diana Aragon. 2009. A tale of two online communities: fostering collaboration and creativity in scientists and children. InCreativity & Cognition. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1640239

    2009

  3. [3]

    2023.Art worlds: updated and expanded

    Howard S Becker. 2023.Art worlds: updated and expanded. Univ of California Press

    2023

  4. [4]

    2005.Domestication of media and technology

    Thomas Berker, Maren Hartmann, and Yves Punie. 2005.Domestication of media and technology. McGraw-Hill Education (UK)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Divyanshu Bhardwaj, Alexander Ponticello, Shreya Tomar, Adrian Dabrowski, and Katharina Krombholz. 2024. In Focus, Out of Privacy: The Wearer’s Per- spective on the Privacy Dilemma of Camera Glasses. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642242 2024

  6. [6]

    Kathryn Blair, Miriam Sturdee, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, and Lora Oehlberg. 2022. Art is Not Research. Research is not Art.. InExtended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 9 pages. doi:10.1145/3491101.3516391

    work page doi:10.1145/3491101.3516391 2022

  7. [7]

    Jessica Blaynee, Dr David Kreps, Dr Maria Kutar, and Dr Marie Griffiths. 2016. Collaborative HCI and UX: longitudinal diary studies as a means of uncovering barriers to digital adoption. InProceedings of the 30th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference: Fusion!(Poole, United Kingdom)(HCI ’16). BCS Learning & Development Ltd., Swindon, GBR,...

    2016

  8. [8]

    Susanne Bødker, Christian Dindler, Ole S Iversen, and Rachel C Smith. 2022. What is participatory design? InParticipatory design. Springer, 5–13

    2022

  9. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  10. [10]

    John Brooke. [n. d.]. SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. ([n. d.])

  11. [11]

    Alex Calderwood, John Joon Young Chung, Yuqian Sun, Melissa Roemmele, and Max Kreminski. 2025. Phraselette: A Poet’s Procedural Palette. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2701–2717. doi:10.1145/3715336. 3735832

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336 2025

  12. [12]

    Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the Creativity Support of Digital Tools through the Creativity Support Index.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.21, 4, Article 21 (June 2014), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/2617588

    work page doi:10.1145/2617588 2014

  13. [13]

    John Joon Young Chung, Shiqing He, and Eytan Adar. 2022. Artist Support Networks: Implications for Future Creativity Support Tools. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 232–246. doi:10.1145/3532106.3533505

    work page doi:10.1145/3532106.3533505 2022

  14. [14]

    Tim Coughlan and Peter Johnson. 2009. Understanding productive, structural and longitudinal interactions in the design of tools for creative activities. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. 155–164

    2009

  15. [15]

    Audrey Desjardins and Aubree Ball. 2018. Revealing Tensions in Autobiographical Design in HCI. InProceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Hong Kong, China)(DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 753–764. doi:10.1145/3196709.3196781

    work page doi:10.1145/3196709.3196781 2018

  16. [16]

    Audrey Desjardins and Cayla Key. 2020. Parallels, Tangents, and Loops: Reflec- tions on the ’Through’ Part of RtD. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Eindhoven, Netherlands)(DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2133–2147. doi:10.1145/3357236. 3395586

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236 2020

  17. [17]

    Alan Dix. 2007. Designing for appropriation. InProceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI...but Not as We Know It - Volume 2(University of Lancaster, United Kingdom)(BCS-HCI ’07). BCS Learning & Development Ltd., Swindon, GBR, 27–30

    2007

  18. [18]

    Emerson, Shreyosi Endow, and Cesar Torres

    Adam G. Emerson, Shreyosi Endow, and Cesar Torres. 2024. Shared, Shaped, and Stolen: Tracing Sites of Knowledge Transfer across Creative Communities of Practice. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition(Chicago, IL, USA)(C&C ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 638–650. doi:10.1145/3635636.3656199

    work page doi:10.1145/3635636.3656199 2024

  19. [19]

    Thomas Erickson and Wendy A. Kellogg. 2000. Social translucence: An ap- proach to designing systems that support social processes.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction7, 1 (2000), 59–83. doi:10.1145/344949.345004

    work page doi:10.1145/344949.345004 2000

  20. [20]

    Krita Foundation. 2025. Krita (Version 5.2.9). https://krita.org Released on January 29, 2025. Free and open-source digital painting software

    2025

  21. [21]

    Jonas Frich, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Christian Remy, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2019. Mapping the Landscape of Creativity Support Tools in HCI. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300619

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300619 2019

  22. [22]

    Bill Gaver, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti. 1999. Design: Cultural probes.Inter- actions6, 1 (Jan. 1999), 21–29. doi:10.1145/291224.291235

    work page doi:10.1145/291224.291235 1999

  23. [23]

    William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA)(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 937–946. doi:10.1145/2207676.2208538

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2208538 2012

  24. [24]

    Saul Greenberg and Bill Buxton. 2008. Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time). InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Florence, Italy)(CHI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111–120. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357074

    work page doi:10.1145/1357054.1357074 2008

  25. [25]

    Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. InAdvances in psy- chology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183

    1988

  26. [26]

    Hertzmann

    A. Hertzmann. 2023. The Curse of Performative User Studies.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications43, 06 (nov 2023), 112–116. doi:10.1109/MCG.2023. 3315759

    work page doi:10.1109/mcg.2023 2023

  27. [27]

    Tom Hewett, Mary Czerwinski, Michael Terry, Jay Nunamaker, Linda Candy, Bill Kules, and Elisabeth Sylvan. 2005. Creativity support tool evaluation methods and metrics.Creativity Support Tools(2005), 10–24

    2005

  28. [28]

    Bederson, Al- lison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Björn Eiderbäck

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B. Bederson, Al- lison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Björn Eiderbäck. 2003. Technol- ogy probes: inspiring design for and with families. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System...

    work page doi:10.1145/642611.642616 2003

  29. [29]

    Jennifer Jacobs, Sumit Gogia, Radomír Mundefinedch, and Joel R. Brandt. 2017. Supporting Expressive Procedural Art Creation through Direct Manipulation. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA)(CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6330–6341. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025927

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.3025927 2017

  30. [30]

    Mohit Jain and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2012. User learning and performance with bezel menus. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems. 2221–2230

    2012

  31. [31]

    Jun Kato, Kenta Hara, and Nao Hirasawa. 2024. Griffith: A Storyboarding Tool Designed with Japanese Animation Professionals. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 233, 14 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642121

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642121 2024

  32. [32]

    Bernstein

    Joy Kim, Maneesh Agrawala, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2017. Mosaic: Designing Online Creative Communities for Sharing Works-in-Progress. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Portland, Oregon, USA)(CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 246–258. doi:10.1145/2998181.2998195

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998195 2017

  33. [33]

    Obada Kraishan. 2025. The AI Attribution Paradox: Transparency as Social Strategy in Open-Source Software Development. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.00867 arXiv:2512.00867 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00867 2025

  34. [34]

    Max Kreminski and Michael Mateas. 2021. Reflective Creators. InProceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Computational Creativity. International Conference on Computational Creativity, Online, 309–318. https://mkremins. github.io/publications/ReflectiveCreators_ICCC2021.pdf

    2021

  35. [35]

    Min Kyung Lee, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Paul Rybski, John Antanitis, and Sarun Savetsila. 2012. Personalization in HRI: a longitudinal field experiment. InProceed- ings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction(Boston, Massachusetts, USA)(HRI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 319–326...

    work page doi:10.1145/2157689.2157804 2012

  36. [36]

    Isabel Li, Ace Chen, Eric Rawn, Shm Garanganao Almeda, Bjoern Hartmann, and Jingyi. Li. 2025. Reimagining Misuse as Creative Practice: Impressions and Implications of Usage Norms on Digital Artists. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598 2025

  37. [37]

    Jingyi Li, Eric Rawn, Jacob Ritchie, Jasper Tran O’Leary, and Sean Follmer. 2023. Beyond the Artifact: Power as a Lens for Creativity Support Tools. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (San Francisco, CA, USA)(UIST ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 47, 15 pages. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606831 2023

  38. [38]

    Tao Long, Katy Ilonka Gero, and Lydia B Chilton. 2024. Not Just Novelty: A Lon- gitudinal Study on Utility and Customization of an AI Workflow. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Copenhagen, Denmark) (DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 782–803. doi:10.1145/3643834.3661587

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661587 2024

  39. [39]

    Tao Long, Sitong Wang, Émilie Fabre, Tony Wang, Anup Sathya, Jason Wu, Savvas Dimitrios Petridis, Ding Li, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Yue Jiang, Jingyi Li, Tiffany Tseng, Ken Nakagaki, Qian Yang, Nikolas Martelaro, Jeffrey V Nickerson, and Lydia B Chilton. 2025. Facilitating Longitudinal Interaction Studies of AI Systems. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 38th Annual ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3746058.3758469 2025

  40. [40]

    Tao Long, Dorothy Zhang, Grace Li, Batool Taraif, Samia Menon, Kynnedy Si- mone Smith, Sitong Wang, Katy Ilonka Gero, and Lydia B. Chilton. 2023. Tweetorial Hooks: Generative AI Tools to Motivate Science on Social Media. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.12265 arXiv:2305.12265 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.12265 2023

  41. [41]

    Jiaju Ma, Chau Vu, Asya Lyubavina, Catherine Liu, and Jingyi Li. 2025. Compu- tational Scaffolding of Composition, Value, and Color for Disciplined Drawing. InProceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 161, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3746059.3747605

    work page doi:10.1145/3746059.3747605 2025

  42. [42]

    Mackay and Joanna McGrenere

    Wendy E. Mackay and Joanna McGrenere. 2025. Comparative Structured Obser- vation.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.32, 2, Article 14 (April 2025), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3711838

    work page doi:10.1145/3711838 2025

  43. [43]

    Thomas P Moran. 2002. Everyday adaptive design. InProceedings of the 4th confer- ence on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (London England, 2002-06-25). ACM, 13–14. doi:10.1145/778712.778715

    work page doi:10.1145/778712.778715 2002

  44. [44]

    Michael Muller, Katja Neureiter, Nervo Verdezoto, Alina Krischkowsky, Anna Maria Al Zubaidi-Polli, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2016. Collaborative Appro- priation: How Couples, Teams, Groups and Communities Adapt and Adopt Technologies. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Sup- ported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW ’16 Co...

    work page doi:10.1145/2818052.2855508 2016

  45. [45]

    Peter Axel Nielsen. 2021. Longitudinal Studies in Information Systems. In Advances in Longitudinal HCI Research, Evangelos Karapanos, Jens Gerken, Jesper Kjeldskov, and Mikael B. Skov (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 41–56. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67322-2_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67322-2_3 2021

  46. [46]

    Doenja Oogjes and Audrey Desjardins. 2024. A temporal vocabulary of Design Events for Research through Design. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Artistic Practice Opportunities in CST Evaluations: A Longitudinal Group Deployment of ArtKrit DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’...

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Christian Remy, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Jonas Frich, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2020. Evaluating Creativity Support Tools in HCI Research. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Eindhoven, Netherlands)(DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 457–476. doi:10.1145/3357236.3395474

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236.3395474 2020

  48. [48]

    Mitchel Resnick and Brian Silverman. 2005. Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. InProceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children(Boulder, Colorado)(IDC ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 117–122. doi:10.1145/1109540.1109556

    work page doi:10.1145/1109540.1109556 2005

  49. [49]

    Samuel Rhys Cox, Helena Bøjer Djernæs, and Niels van Berkel. 2025. Beyond Productivity: Rethinking the Impact of Creativity Support Tools. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Creativity and Cognition (’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 735–749. doi:10.1145/3698061.3726924

    work page doi:10.1145/3698061.3726924 2025

  50. [50]

    That’s Not Good Science!

    Raquel B Robinson, Anya Osborne, Chen Ji, James Collin Fey, Ella Dagan, and Katherine Isbister. 2024. "That’s Not Good Science!": An Argument for the Thoughtful Use of Formative Situations in Research Through Design. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hon- olulu, HI, USA)(CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3644063 2024

  51. [51]

    Soheil Sadeghi, Somit Gupta, Stefan Gramatovici, Jiannan Lu, Hao Ai, and Ruhan Zhang. 2022. Novelty and Primacy: A Long-Term Estimator for Online Experi- ments.Technometrics64, 4 (2022), 524–534. doi:10.1080/00401706.2022.2124309 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2022.2124309

    work page doi:10.1080/00401706.2022.2124309 2022

  52. [52]

    Christine Satchell and Paul Dourish. 2009. Beyond the user: use and non-use in HCI. InProceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer- Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7(Melbourne, Australia) (OZCHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9–16. doi:10.1145/1738826.1738829

    work page doi:10.1145/1738826.1738829 2009

  53. [53]

    Grace Shin, Yuanyuan Feng, Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, and Nicci Gafinowitz

  54. [54]

    Beyond novelty effect: a mixed-methods exploration into the motiva- tion for long-term activity tracker use.JAMIA Open2, 1 (2018), 62–72. doi:10. 1093/jamiaopen/ooy048 _eprint: https://academic.oup.com/jamiaopen/article- pdf/2/1/62/32298485/ooy048.pdf

    2018

  55. [55]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2000. Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.7, 1 (March 2000), 114–138. doi:10.1145/344949.345077

    work page doi:10.1145/344949.345077 2000

  56. [56]

    Adam J Sporka, Torsten Felzer, Sri H Kurniawan, Ondřej Poláček, Paul Haiduk, and I Scott MacKenzie. 2011. Chanti: Predictive text entry using non-verbal vocal input. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2463–2472

    2011

  57. [57]

    Fiona Ssozi-Mugarura, Thomas Reitmaier, Anja Venter, and Edwin Blake. 2016. Enough with ’In-The-Wild’. InProceedings of the First African Conference on Human Computer Interaction(Nairobi, Kenya)(AfriCHI ’16). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 182–186. doi:10.1145/2998581.2998601

    work page doi:10.1145/2998581.2998601 2016

  58. [58]

    Martin Tricaud and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2023. Revisiting Creative Behaviour as an Epistemic Process: Lessons from 12 Computational Artists and Designers. InProceedings of the 35th Australian Computer -Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 175–190. doi:10.1145/3638380.3638395

    work page doi:10.1145/3638380.3638395 2023

  59. [59]

    1998.Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity

    Etienne Wenger. 1998.Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    1998

  60. [60]

    Haoqi Zhang. 2024. Searching for the Non-Consequential: Dialectical Activities in HCI and the Limits of Computers. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3613904.3641945

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3641945 2024