pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04609 · v1 · pith:JZ3XSWFJnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 💻 cs.HC

CapSenseBand: Sustaining Cross-Disciplinary Creativity When Stitches Must Meet Signals

Sark Pangrui Xing , Hongci Hu , Lai Wei , Le Fang , Ziqian Bai , Kinor Shou-xiang Jiang , Stephen Jia Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords paper modelsboundary objectscross-disciplinary designwearable sensingknitted textilescapacitive sensingmaterial-centered HCIresearch-through-design
0
0 comments X

The pith

Paper Models function as boundary objects that let textile and interaction designers negotiate constraints while preserving expertise in a knitted capacitive-sensing wristband.

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

The paper describes developing CapSenseBand, a knitted wristband with capacitive sensing, through a research-through-design process with textile and interaction designers. It shows how paper models served as shared negotiation surfaces to externalize intent, handle spatial and technical limits, and maintain each field's distinct knowledge during Analysis, Synthesis, and Detailing. The work contributes a swatch-to-sleeve pattern for material-centered HCI that keeps early probes discipline-specific before converging on legible artifacts. This pattern is illustrated through an artifact chain from material swatches to a double-layer knitted structure and insulated sensing board.

Core claim

Paper Models functioned as boundary objects in the CapSenseBand project, helping collaborators externalize intent, negotiate spatial and technical constraints, and preserve disciplinary expertise while converging on a shared design. The reusable pattern is to keep discipline-specific probes open early, then converge through artifacts that make material, spatial, and electronic decisions legible before fabrication locks them in.

What carries the argument

Paper Models as boundary objects that externalize intent and make material, spatial, and electronic decisions legible during cross-disciplinary negotiation.

If this is right

  • Early probes can remain open to textile reasoning through stitches and yarn while interaction reasoning addresses electrodes and signals.
  • Artifacts that render decisions legible reduce the risk that fabrication will lock in unresolved conflicts.
  • The swatch-to-sleeve sequence supports convergence without erasing disciplinary knowledge.
  • The double-layer knitted structure with insulated board becomes feasible once spatial and material choices are negotiated visibly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same boundary-object tactic could be adapted to other hybrid domains such as soft robotics or medical textiles where material and electronic constraints must be reconciled.
  • Documenting the exact sequence of swatches, paper models, and prototypes in additional cases would strengthen or refine the claimed pattern.
  • Teams might reduce late-stage rework by adopting the early-open-then-converge rhythm even when the specific artifacts differ.

Load-bearing premise

The single case of CapSenseBand and its paper-model use in Analysis-Synthesis-Detailing generalizes to a reusable pattern for other textile-electronics projects.

What would settle it

A second textile-electronics project in which paper models either fail to support negotiation between disciplines or result in one field losing control over its decisions would falsify the reusable-pattern claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04609 by Hongci Hu, Kinor Shou-xiang Jiang, Lai Wei, Le Fang, Sark Pangrui Xing, Stephen Jia Wang, Ziqian Bai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of CapSenseBand through interdisciplinary work: (A) early functional prototype; (B) computational material explorations (electronics and textiles); (C) paper model; (D-top) refined interim prototype; (D-bottom) double-layer knit with silver-plated conductive yarn (outer) and polyester (inner). Abstract Wearable sensing systems increasingly depend on textiles that are both materially wearable and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The material-centered A-S-D (Analysis-Synthesis-Detailing) design process of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Material exploration for CapSenseBand. Subfig￾ure (a) uses aluminum foil as a conductive layer for SFCS test￾ing; (b) pairs SFCS with an Arduino UNO; (c) shows generic single-side conductive fabric samples. 4 Collaborative Design Process 4.1 Material Explorations (Analysis) Electronics exploration. The interaction designer explored Swept Frequency Capacitive Sensing (SFCS) as the sensing approach [22, 25],… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stockinette stitch knitted with Teflon-coated wires [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The manual fabrication process of CapSenseBand. (A) The flexible circuit board extends its capacitive sensing to the one-side conductive band (white) by exposing a golden electrode for connection, leaving the non-conductive side contacting with human skin. (B) Attaching and affixing the circuit board onto the band. (C) Stitching the circuit board onto the band. (D) Assembled band in plain. (E) Assembled ba… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Communication with paper model. Subfigure (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Characteristics and technical overview of the double-layer textile for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Electronic signal insulation process for the SFCS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Wearable sensing systems increasingly depend on textiles that are both materially wearable and electronically functional. Their design requires collaboration between textile designers, who reason through stitches, yarn behavior, and machine constraints, and interaction designers, who reason through electrodes, signal paths, and insulation. However, these forms of expertise do not easily translate across disciplinary boundaries. This poster presents CapSenseBand, a knitted capacitive-sensing wristband developed through a research-through-design process organized around Analysis, Synthesis, and Detailing. We document an artifact chain spanning material swatches, a rapid wearable prototype, Paper Models as shared negotiation surfaces, a double-layer knitted structure, and an insulated Swept Frequency Capacitive Sensing breakout board. We show how Paper Models functioned as boundary objects, helping collaborators externalize intent, negotiate spatial and technical constraints, and preserve disciplinary expertise while converging on a shared design. We contribute a reusable swatch-to-sleeve pattern for material-centered HCI: keep discipline-specific probes open early, then converge through artifacts that make material, spatial, and electronic decisions legible before fabrication locks them in.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents CapSenseBand, a knitted capacitive-sensing wristband developed through a research-through-design process organized around Analysis, Synthesis, and Detailing phases. It documents an artifact chain from material swatches and rapid prototypes to Paper Models, a double-layer knitted structure, and an insulated Swept Frequency Capacitive Sensing board. The authors claim that Paper Models functioned as boundary objects enabling collaborators to externalize intent, negotiate spatial and technical constraints, and preserve disciplinary expertise. They contribute a reusable 'swatch-to-sleeve' pattern for material-centered HCI: maintain discipline-specific probes early, then converge via artifacts that render material, spatial, and electronic decisions legible before fabrication.

Significance. If the pattern generalizes, the work supplies a concrete, documented example of using intermediate artifacts to bridge textile design and interaction design expertise in wearable sensing. The detailed artifact chain offers a model that could inform other cross-disciplinary textile-electronics projects by emphasizing early openness followed by legible convergence points.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the swatch-to-sleeve pattern constitutes a 'reusable' contribution for material-centered HCI is load-bearing for the paper's central argument yet rests on a single CapSenseBand case without additional projects, transfer tests, or explicit boundary conditions under which the pattern is expected to hold.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the swatch-to-sleeve pattern constitutes a 'reusable' contribution for material-centered HCI is load-bearing for the paper's central argument yet rests on a single CapSenseBand case without additional projects, transfer tests, or explicit boundary conditions under which the pattern is expected to hold.

    Authors: We agree that the 'reusable' framing is load-bearing and rests on a single, detailed case without transfer tests or additional projects. Research-through-design work frequently advances patterns from in-depth single cases via transparent artifact documentation, but we accept that the current wording overstates generalizability. In the revision we will (1) qualify the contribution statement in the abstract and conclusion as a pattern proposed from the CapSenseBand project, (2) add explicit boundary conditions drawn from the documented process (e.g., applicability to double-layer knits with swept-frequency capacitive sensing), and (3) include a dedicated limitations paragraph discussing the single-case scope and the need for future transfer studies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: qualitative case study with independent observational claim

full rationale

The paper is a research-through-design case study documenting an artifact chain and boundary-object use in one project. Its central claim (Paper Models enabling negotiation while preserving expertise) is presented as an observation from the CapSenseBand process rather than a derivation that reduces to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. No equations, parameters, or quantitative predictions exist; the reusable swatch-to-sleeve pattern is offered as a contribution inferred from the single case, which does not constitute circularity under the enumerated patterns. The derivation remains self-contained as narrative evidence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no quantitative elements or new entities introduced. Relies on standard HCI assumptions about boundary objects and research-through-design.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Research-through-design organized around Analysis, Synthesis, and Detailing supports effective cross-disciplinary wearable development.
    Invoked as the organizing structure for the CapSenseBand process.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5737 in / 1160 out tokens · 36180 ms · 2026-06-28T04:30:37.841126+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

43 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lea Albaugh, Scott E Hudson, and Lining Yao. 2023. An Augmented Knitting Machine for Operational Assistance and Guided Improvisation. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581549 [Online; accessed 2024-02-05]

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581549 2023

  2. [2]

    Hudson, and Lining Yao

    Lea Albaugh, James McCann, Scott E. Hudson, and Lining Yao. 2021. Engineering Multifunctional Spacer Fabrics Through Machine Knitting. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445564 [Online; accessed 2024-02-09]

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445564 2021

  3. [3]

    Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2012. Disentangling power and decision-making in participatory design. InProceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 41–50. doi:10.1145/2347635.2347642 [Online; accessed 2023-07-31]

    work page doi:10.1145/2347635.2347642 2012

  4. [4]

    Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience prototyping. InPro- ceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ’00). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 424–433. doi:10.1145/347642.347802 [Online; accessed 2022-03- 23]

    work page doi:10.1145/347642.347802 2000

  5. [5]

    Paul R. Carlile. 2002. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development.Organization Science13, 4 (jul 1 2002), 442–455. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953

    work page doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953 2002

  6. [6]

    Laura Devendorf, Katya Arquilla, Sandra Wirtanen, Allison Anderson, and Steven Frost. 2020. Craftspeople as Technical Collaborators: Lessons Learned through an Experimental Weaving Residency. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing C&C ’26, July 13–16, 2026, London, United Kingdom...

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376820 2020

  7. [7]

    Laura Devendorf, Kathryn Walters, Marianne Fairbanks, Etta Sandry, and Emma R Goodwill. 2023. AdaCAD: Parametric Design as a New Form of Notation for Complex Weaving. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3544548. 3581571 [Online; accessed 2023-10-12]

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548 2023

  8. [8]

    Le Fang, Jiajuan Li, Meichen Liu, Wei Gong, Mingyuan Zhang, Ching Kwan Gor- don Wah, Bo Chai, Yingqing Xu, and Stephen Jia Wang. 2026. EmoFriends: A Modular Toolkit for Prototyping Customizable Emotion-Aware Companions. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7

    2026

  9. [9]

    Le Fang, Sark Pangrui Xing, Yonghao Long, Kun-Pyo Lee, and Stephen Jia Wang

  10. [10]

    EmoSense: Revealing true emotions through microgestures.Advanced Intelligent Systems5, 9 (2023), 2300050

    2023

  11. [11]

    Le Fang, Sark Pangrui Xing, Zhengtao Ma, Zhijie Zhang, Yonghao Long, Kun-Pyo Lee, and Stephen Jia Wang. 2024. Emo-MG framework: LSTM-based multi-modal emotion detection through electroencephalography signals and micro gestures. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction40, 18 (2024), 5056–5072

    2024

  12. [12]

    Le Fang, Yujie Zhu, Jiajuan Li, Cong Fang, Yingqing Xu, and Stephen Jia Wang

  13. [13]

    User Perspectives on AI-Supported Emotion Monitoring and Regulation: A Focus Group Study in Non-Clinical Contexts.International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction(2026), 1–26

    2026

  14. [14]

    Bruna Goveia da Rocha, Janne Spork, and Kristina Andersen. 2022. Making Matters: Samples and Documentation in Digital Craftsmanship. InSixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, Daejeon Republic of Korea, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3490149.3502261 [Online; accessed 2022-10-28]

    work page doi:10.1145/3490149.3502261 2022

  15. [15]

    Anja Hertenberger, Barbro Scholz, Beam Contrechoc, Becky Stewart, Ebru Kur- bak, Hannah Perner-Wilson, Irene Posch, Isabel Cabral, Jie Qi, Katharina Childs, Kristi Kuusk, Lynsey Calder, Marina Toeters, Marta Kisand, Martijn Ten Bhömer, Maurin Donneaud, Meg Grant, Melissa Coleman, Mika Satomi, Mili Tharakan, Pauline Vierne, Sara Robertson, Sarah Taylor, an...

    work page doi:10.1145/2641248.2641276 2014

  16. [16]

    Jianan Hu, Eunsuk Hur, and Briony Thomas. 2023. Value-creating practices and barriers for collaboration between designers and artisans: a systematic literature review.International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education0, 0 (jul 3 2023), 1–12. doi:10.1080/17543266.2023.2228337 publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/17543...

    work page doi:10.1080/17543266.2023.2228337 2023

  17. [17]

    Giovanni Innella and Paul A Rodgers. 2017. Making Sense: Harnessing Commu- nication through Prototyping. 20 (2017), S1154–S1166. Issue sup1

    2017

  18. [18]

    Lee Jones, Sara Nabil, and Audrey Girouard. 2020. Swatch-bits: Prototyping e-textiles with modular swatches. InProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. 893–897

    2020

  19. [19]

    Lee Jones, Sara Nabil, Amanda McLeod, and Audrey Girouard. 2020. Wearable Bits: Scaffolding Creativity with a Prototyping Toolkit for Wearable E-textiles. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 165–177. doi:10.1145/3374920....

    work page doi:10.1145/3374920.3374954 2020

  20. [20]

    Karana, E

    E. Karana, E. Giaccardi, Niels Stamhuis, and J. Goossensen

  21. [21]

    https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ead6c98c7490fe8f0119292e6b8e9e80d8267c6e

    The Tuning of Materials: A Designer’s Journey. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ead6c98c7490fe8f0119292e6b8e9e80d8267c6e. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(2016). doi:10.1145/2901790.2901909

    work page doi:10.1145/2901790.2901909 2016

  22. [22]

    Youn-Kyung Lim, Erik Stolterman, and Josh Tenenberg. 2008. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)15, 2 (2008), 1–27

    2008

  23. [23]

    Youn-Kyung Lim, Erik Stolterman, and Josh Tenenberg. 2008. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction15, 2 (jul 7 2008), 7:1–7:27. doi:10.1145/1375761.1375762

    work page doi:10.1145/1375761.1375762 2008

  24. [24]

    Yiyue Luo, Kui Wu, Tomás Palacios, and Wojciech Matusik. 2021. KnitUI: Fabri- cating interactive and sensing textiles with machine knitting. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2021

  25. [25]

    Yiyue Luo, Kui Wu, Andrew Spielberg, Michael Foshey, Daniela Rus, Tomás Palacios, and Wojciech Matusik. 2022. Digital Fabrication of Pneumatic Actuators with Integrated Sensing by Machine Knitting. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2022-04-29)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517577

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517577 2022

  26. [26]

    Kirk, and Peter Wright

    Sara Nabil, Jan Kučera, Nikoletta Karastathi, David S. Kirk, and Peter Wright

  27. [27]

    InProceedings of the 2019 on designing interactive systems conference (DIS ’19)

    Seamless seams: Crafting techniques for embedding fabrics with interactive actuation. InProceedings of the 2019 on designing interactive systems conference (DIS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 987–999. doi:10.1145/3322276.3322369 Citation Key: 10.1145/3322276.3322369 number-of- pages: 13 publisher-place: San Diego, CA, USA

    work page doi:10.1145/3322276.3322369 2019

  28. [28]

    Irene Posch, Liza Stark, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2019. eTextiles: reviewing a practice through its tool/kits. InProceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 195–205. doi:10.1145/3341163.3347738 [Online; accessed 2022- 10-27]

    work page doi:10.1145/3341163.3347738 2019

  29. [29]

    Munehiko Sato, Ivan Poupyrev, and Chris Harrison. 2012. Touché: En- hancing Touch Interaction on Humans, Screens, Liquids, and Everyday Objects. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems(New York, NY, USA, 2012-05-05)(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, 483–492. doi:10.1145/2207676.2207743

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2207743 2012

  30. [30]

    Teddy Seyed, James Devine, Joe Finney, Michal Moskal, Peli de Halleux, Steve Hodges, Thomas Ball, and Asta Roseway. 2021. Rethinking the runway: Using avant-garde fashion to design a system for wearables. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445643 2021

  31. [31]

    Teddy Seyed and Anthony Tang. 2019. Mannequette: Understanding and En- abling Collaboration and Creativity on Avant-Garde Fashion-Tech Runways. InProceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, San Diego CA USA, 317–329. doi:10.1145/3322276.3322305 [Online; accessed 2023-10-12]

    work page doi:10.1145/3322276.3322305 2019

  32. [32]

    Lianne Toussaint and Marina Toeters. 2020. Keeping the Data within the Garment: Balancing Sensing and Actuating in Fashion Technology. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Eindhoven Netherlands, 2229–2238. doi:10.1145/3357236.3395577 [Online; accessed 2021-02-06]

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236.3395577 2020

  33. [33]

    Hoang Truong, Shuo Zhang, Ufuk Muncuk, Phuc Nguyen, Nam Bui, Anh Nguyen, Qin Lv, Kaushik Chowdhury, Thang Dinh, and Tam Vu. 2018. CapBand: Battery- Free Successive Capacitance Sensing Wristband for Hand Gesture Recognition. InSenSys ’18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 54–67. doi:10.1145/3274783.3274854 journalAbbreviation: SenSys ’18

    work page doi:10.1145/3274783.3274854 2018

  34. [34]

    Vasiliki Tsaknaki and Ludvig Elblaus. 2019. A Wearable Nebula Material Inves- tigations of Implicit Interaction. InProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, Tempe Ari- zona USA, 625–633. doi:10.1145/3294109.3295623 [Online; accessed 2022-10-28]

    work page doi:10.1145/3294109.3295623 2019

  35. [35]

    Julia van Zilt, Amy Winters, Hannah Carlotta Kelbel, and Miguel Bruns. 2022. The design process of a multi-disciplinary tool for developing interactive textiles. InSixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied In- teraction (TEI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3490149.3502258 [Online...

    work page doi:10.1145/3490149.3502258 2022

  36. [36]

    Qi Wang, Yuan Zeng, Runhua Zhang, Nianding Ye, Linghao Zhu, Xiaohua Sun, and Teng Han. 2023. EmTex: Prototyping Textile-Based Interfaces through An Embroidered Construction Kit. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, San Francisco CA USA, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3586183.3606815 [Online; accessed 2024-02-08]

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606815 2023

  37. [37]

    Lai Wei, Sark Pangrui Xing, Kenny KN Chow, and Stephen Jia Wang. 2026. Grounding Pedagogical Intents in Embodied AI Teachers: A Human-Centered Framework for Designing and Evaluating Instructional Gestures.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction(2026), 1–34

    2026

  38. [38]

    2018.The materiality of interaction: notes on the materials of interaction design

    Mikael Wiberg. 2018.The materiality of interaction: notes on the materials of interaction design. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    2018

  39. [39]

    Sark Pangrui Xing, Bart Van Dijk, Pengcheng An, Miguel Bruns, Yaliang Chuang, and Stephen Jia Wang. 2023. Puffy: A step-by-step guide to craft bio-inspired ar- tifacts with interactive materiality. InProceedings of the seventeenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (TEI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, 1–14....

    work page doi:10.1145/3569009.3572800 2023

  40. [40]

    Tianhong Catherine Yu, Riku Arakawa, James McCann, and Mayank Goel. 2023. UKnit: A Position-Aware Reconfigurable Machine-Knitted Wearable for Gestural Interaction and Passive Sensing Using Electrical Impedance Tomography. InCHI ’23. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/ 3544548.3580692 journalAbbreviation: CHI ’23

    arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Clint Zeagler, Stephen Audy, Scott Pobiner, Halley Profita, Scott Gilliland, and Thad Starner. 2013. The electronic textile interface workshop: Facili- tating interdisciplinary collaboration. In2013 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS): Social Implications of Wearable Computing and Augmediated Reality in Everyday Life. IEEE, Toro...

    work page doi:10.1109/istas.2013.6613105 2013

  42. [42]

    Mei Zhang, Rebecca Stewart, and Nick Bryan-Kinns. 2022. Integrating Interactive Technology Concepts With Material Expertise in Textile Design Disciplines. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference(New York, NY, USA, 2022-06-13)(DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, 1277–1287. doi:10.1145/3532106. 3533535

    work page doi:10.1145/3532106 2022

  43. [43]

    John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. 493–502. doi:10.1145/ 1240624.1240704

    arXiv 2007