Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 51 references

Sculptable Mesh Structures for Room-Scale Form-Finding

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Hands-on mesh sculptures become digital CAD models in real time

desk verdict Room-scale shape-aware mesh for tangible form-finding: real engineering, missing accuracy validation read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08736 v1 pith:WTTASHNB submitted 2026-07-09 cs.HC

Jesse T. Gonzalez , Yanzhen Zhang , Dian Zhu , Alice Yu , Sapna Tayal , Nazm Furniturewala , Ziying Qi , Somin Ella Moon
show 3 more authors
Leyi Han Alexandra Ion Scott E. Hudson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords tangibleinterfacedigitaltwinshape-awarematerialsgridshellform-findingresistivesensingparticipatorydesignreconfigurablearchitecture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces a room-scale physical mesh made of adjustable-length, sensor-equipped flexible beams that users sculpt by hand. Each beam carries resistive length sensors on flexible fiberglass strips; the sensors report edge lengths through a neighbor-to-neighbor network to a central computer. An energy-minimization routine then reconstructs the full 3D geometry from those length measurements, resolving curvature direction by comparing inner and outer sensor strips. The authors demonstrate an end-to-end workflow: community participants sculpted a bench form on the physical mesh, the geometry was reconstructed in CAD software, CNC toolpaths were generated, and a permanent plywood bench was fabricated and installed. The core claim is that this combination of tangible manipulation, resistive length sensing, and physics-based reconstruction produces a digital twin faithful enough to feed directly into manufacturing pipelines, bridging the gap between hands-on form-finding and computational design.

What carries the argument

The T-Module: a variable-length beam made of four flexible FR4 fiberglass strips (0.8 mm thick, 60 mm wide) routed through a 3D-printed plastic guide. Two pairs of strips (inner and outer, spaced 50 mm apart) form a prismatic structure whose length differential reveals curvature direction. Each strip carries a resistive ladder of 100-ohm resistors with staggered copper pads read by spring-loaded probes on a scanning head, functioning like a slide potentiometer for absolute positioning. An RP2040 microcontroller on each module reads sensor data and communicates with up to four neighbors via UART. Reconstruction uses the Kangaroo physics engine in Rhino 8, with five energy terms (length, copla

What would settle it

Sculpt a set of mesh forms of known geometry (e.g., sections of standard surfaces like spheres, cylinders, or saddles with measured dimensions), reconstruct them digitally, fabricate physical copies, and measure geometric deviation. If the fabricated objects deviate from the intended forms by more than a few centimeters at room scale — particularly on double-curved surfaces where the bistability and simplified bending model could introduce systematic errors — the claim that the pipeline produces fabrication-ready digital twins without manual correction would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central contribution is a working pipeline that converts hand-sculpted physical mesh geometry into fabrication-ready digital models. The mechanism has three load-bearing parts: (1) T-Modules — adjustable-length beams built from pairs of flexible fiberglass strips patterned with resistive ladders, read by spring-loaded scanning heads to give absolute length measurements with 2 mm resolution over a 200 mm range; (2) a winged-edge mesh topology where modules communicate neighbor-to-neighbor via UART over Cat6 cables, requiring only a single USB connection to an external computer; and (3) a multi-stage reconstruction algorithm that starts with length-constraint-only energy minimiza-

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction algorithm assumes that energy minimization with five hand-tuned energy terms converges to a configuration faithfully representing the physical mesh geometry. The paper does not provide quantitative accuracy measurements comparing the reconstructed digital geometry against ground-truth 3D scans, so it remains unclear whether the digital twin is accurate enough for fabrication without manual correction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Participatory design processes could become more inclusive: non-expert community members could sculpt full-scale architectural forms by hand and have their contributions directly captured as digital models without needing CAD skills.
  • The resistive-ladder sensing approach on flexible substrates could scale to other form factors beyond architectural meshes — wearable interfaces, furniture design tools, or any application requiring absolute length measurement over curved, flexible surfaces.
  • If actuated length-changing edges were added (the paper notes the existing sensors could support closed-loop control), the system would become bidirectional: a CAD model could physically manifest on the mesh, designers could refine it by hand, and changes would flow back to software — enabling a tight loop between computational optimization and human tactile judgment.
  • Multi-scale meshes combining modules of different sizes could address the resolution trade-off between broad surface coverage and fine detail, extending the approach to objects with mixed feature scales.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The absence of quantitative accuracy validation (no comparison against 3D scans or direct physical measurements) means the fabrication fidelity claim rests on a single demonstrated example rather than systematic measurement. A natural test would be to sculpt multiple forms, reconstruct them digitally, fabricate physical copies, and measure geometric deviation at each stage — establishing error bud
  • The bistability resolution via constant-magnitude bias forces (Section 6.4) is a heuristic that may fail for complex double-curved surfaces where curvature direction varies along a single edge. A more robust approach might use the inner-outer length differential to compute a variable-magnitude bias proportional to the detected curvature, rather than a binary directional nudge.
  • The energy-minimization reconstruction assumes quasi-static equilibrium, but real sculpting is dynamic — a user pushing the mesh creates transient configurations that may not match any stable energy minimum. The system's real-time reconstruction during sculpting may therefore show intermediate forms that differ from the final settled geometry, which could confuse users evaluating intermediate snap
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a room-scale, shape-aware mesh structure for low-fidelity architectural form-finding. The system consists of adjustable-length, flexible fiberglass (FR4) beam modules (called T-Modules) equipped with resistive length sensors. Users physically sculpt the mesh by hand, and the sensed edge lengths are transmitted through a neighbor-to-neighbor UART network to a central computer, where an energy-minimization routine (Kangaroo physics engine in Rhino) reconstructs the geometry into a digital twin. The paper presents the mechanical design, electronics, firmware, reconstruction algorithm, and an end-to-end workflow demonstration in which community participants sculpt a bench that is subsequently fabricated via CNC. The work is positioned at the intersection of tangible interfaces, digital twins, and participatory architectural design.

Significance. The paper makes a genuine engineering contribution to the HCI/tangible interfaces community by scaling shape-aware mesh principles to room-sized surfaces — a non-trivial step that involves solving real challenges in absolute length sensing (the staggered dual-pad resistive ladder in §5.1), mesh networking (winged-edge UART traversal in §5.4), and geometric reconstruction of bending-active structures (§6). The end-to-end bench fabrication workflow (§3.2) demonstrates that the pipeline can produce a physical artifact from a hand-sculpted form, which is a meaningful integration milestone. The system's applicability to participatory design — enabling non-CAD users to sculpt forms that feed directly into fabrication pipelines — is a compelling use case. The authors provide open-source code (footnote 1), which strengthens reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. §6 (entire section): The central claim — that the reconstructed digital twin is accurate enough to drive fabrication — is not supported by any quantitative validation. No comparison against ground-truth 3D scans, no RMS or per-vertex error metrics, and no per-module sensor accuracy report are provided. The energy-minimization routine uses five energy terms (§6.3) whose relative weights are unspecified. The bias force magnitude in §6.4 is described as 'constant' but its value and sensitivity to that choice are not reported. The bending model in §6.6 explicitly simplifies the non-circular cross-section. While the fabricated bench (§3.2) demonstrates that the pipeline produces *a* result, the CAD post-processing steps (slicing, contouring, adding alignment features) could mask reconstruction errors, making it impossible to distinguish 'the reconstruction is sufficiently accurate' from 'the
  2. §5.1: The length sensing resolution is stated as 2 mm across a 200 mm active area, but no accuracy or repeatability data are provided. The resistive ladder uses discrete 100-ohm resistors with 6 mm pads, and the staggered configuration improves resolution to 2 mm — but what is the measured accuracy (not just resolution) of the length readings? Are there systematic errors from contact resistance, probe wear, or temperature drift? Since the entire reconstruction pipeline depends on these length measurements, even small systematic biases could compound across the mesh. A simple calibration curve or comparison against a known reference would substantially strengthen the paper.
  3. §6.4: The bistability resolution via constant-magnitude bias forces is a heuristic that could introduce systematic errors. The paper states that 'the magnitude of this force remains constant regardless of how much curvature is detected — it merely indicates the correct direction.' But in a dynamic relaxation solver, the magnitude of a bias force relative to the other energy terms will affect the equilibrium position. If the bias force is too large, it will distort the reconstructed shape; if too small, it may fail to break the symmetry. The paper does not analyze this sensitivity or report the chosen magnitude. This is load-bearing because bistable configurations are common in the mesh (any curved edge has an inward/outward ambiguity), so the quality of the reconstruction depends on this heuristic working correctly across a range of curvatures.
minor comments (7)
  1. §4.2: The bend radius of 50 mm is described as chosen to 'mitigate plastic deformation' but no data or analysis is provided to justify this specific value. A brief note on the range tested would help.
  2. §5.2: The text mentions using an analog switch (Vishay DG2788A) to de-multiplex ADC inputs, but does not specify the sampling rate or how frequently each module's length is read. For a 'real-time' digital twin, the update latency across the mesh matters.
  3. Figure 13 and Figure 14 appear to have swapped or confusing captions — Figure 13's caption references 'Figure 13a' for dead zones, but the dead zone discussion is in the text accompanying Figure 14. Please verify figure numbering.
  4. §3.1: The library renovation scenario is described as 'fictional.' While it effectively illustrates the workflow, it would strengthen the paper to note whether any elements were tested with real users, even informally.
  5. §7.1: The authors acknowledge plastic deformation of FR4 over time as a 'potential long-term failure point' but do not report any duration testing. Even a brief note on how long test configurations were held would be informative.
  6. The paper uses 'simluation' (§5.2) — typo for 'simulation.'
  7. §4.3: The requirement for users to supply topology and anchor positions via a C# script is a usability barrier that somewhat undercuts the paper's framing of the system as accessible to non-CAD users. The authors note this should be addressed in future versions; a brief discussion of the difficulty would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: reconstruction pipeline derives geometry from sensor inputs without definitional or fitted-input circularity

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a physically sculpted mesh can be digitally reconstructed with sufficient fidelity to drive fabrication. The derivation chain is: (1) resistive length sensors on each FR4 strip measure physical edge lengths (Section 5.1), (2) inner vs. outer strip length differential determines curvature direction (Section 5.2), (3) these sensed lengths serve as input constraints to an energy-minimization solver (Section 6.3), and (4) the solver outputs vertex positions and spline-fitted surfaces (Section 6.7). At no point is the output geometry defined in terms of itself, nor is a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. The five energy terms (length, coplanarity, bending, anchor, bias) each model distinct physical constraints: length energies push particles to match sensed distances, coplanarity enforces rigid-vertex geometry, bending models FR4 stiffness, anchors fix boundary points, and bias forces break bistable symmetry using curvature direction derived from sensor differentials. The bias force direction is determined by comparing inner and outer strip readings (Section 6.4: 'When the outer band is longer than the inner band, we know the module curves away from the outer band'), not from the target geometry. The bending model (Section 6.6) adapts Adriaenssens and Barnes' method (external citation [2]) by projecting onto the physical flex plane — a simplification, but not a circular definition. The paper has self-citations (e.g., [16] Gonzalez et al. 2023 on robotic surfaces), but these are contextual positioning, not load-bearing for the reconstruction algorithm. The absence of quantitative accuracy validation (noted by the skeptic) is a correctness and validation concern, not a circularity issue — the pipeline's outputs are not forced to equal its inputs by construction. The derivation is self-contained and forward-flowing.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The free parameters are engineering choices (dimensions, resistor values, force magnitudes) rather than theoretical constants fitted to data. The axioms are empirical assumptions about material behavior and solver convergence that are reasonable for a prototype system but would need validation for production use. The invented entities are physical hardware components, not theoretical constructs.

free parameters (5)
  • Bend radius of FR4 strips at guide = 50 mm
    Chosen to mitigate plastic deformation (Section 4.2); not derived from first principles but from empirical observation of visible deformation.
  • Bias force magnitude = constant (unspecified)
    Section 6.4 states the bias force has constant magnitude regardless of curvature amount; the specific value is not given but is a tuned parameter to break bistability.
  • Resistor value in resistive ladder = 100 ohm
    Section 5.1: chosen for balance between noise resistance and current draw; empirical selection.
  • Energy term weights in Kangaroo solver = unspecified
    Section 6.3 describes five energy terms (length, coplanarity, bending, anchor, bias) but their relative weights in the weighted sum are not provided.
  • Strip width and thickness = 60 mm wide, 0.8 mm thick
    Section 4.2: FR4 strip dimensions chosen for stiffness and flexibility balance; empirical.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Static friction is sufficient to hold adjusted beam lengths in place without mechanical locking
    Section 4.2: 'We experimented with mechanical locking mechanisms for the beams, but found friction sufficient for furniture-scale modeling.' This is an empirical assumption that limits the load-bearing capacity and long-term stability of sculpted forms.
  • domain assumption Quad mesh topology with anchored boundaries does not suffer problematic shearing
    Section 4.1: 'Though quad meshes are theoretically susceptible to shearing, we did not experience noticeable issues in our prototypes.' This assumes boundary anchoring provides sufficient constraint, which may not generalize to all configurations.
  • domain assumption Energy minimization with the five specified energy terms converges to a physically plausible configuration
    Section 6: The reconstruction algorithm assumes that the weighted sum of length, coplanarity, bending, anchor, and bias energies has a unique or near-unique minimum corresponding to the physical shape. No proof of convergence or uniqueness is provided.
  • domain assumption FR4 strips do not undergo significant plastic deformation during normal use
    Section 7.1 acknowledges 'small amounts of plastic deformation when held in place over time' but states it 'did not noticeably affect the shapes we were able to sculpt.' This is an empirical assumption about material longevity.
invented entities (2)
  • T-Module independent evidence
    purpose: Unit cell of the sculptable mesh; an adjustable-length beam with four flexible FR4 strips, a rigid plastic guide, embedded microcontroller, and resistive length sensors.
    The T-Module is a physical artifact whose design is fully specified and whose function is demonstrated in the end-to-end workflow. It is not a theoretical postulate but an engineered device.
  • Staggered dual-pad resistive ladder sensing scheme independent evidence
    purpose: Absolute length sensing on flexible substrates by using two offset sets of copper pads to eliminate dead zones and increase resolution.
    The sensing scheme is described in detail (Section 5.1, Figure 14) and its resolution (2 mm over 200 mm) is stated. It is a concrete engineering design, not a postulated phenomenon.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sculptable Mesh Structures for Room-Scale Form-Finding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WTTASHNB

@misc{pith2026260708736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sculptable Mesh Structures for Room-Scale Form-Finding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WTTASHNB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08736}
}
read the original abstract

It can be hard to design a physical structure entirely within the confines of a computer monitor. To better capture the interplay between real-world objects and a designer's work-in-progress, practitioners will often go through a sequence of low-fidelity prototypes (paper, clay, foam) before arriving at a form that satisfies both functional and aesthetic concerns. While necessary, this model-making process can be quite time-consuming, particularly at larger scales, and the resulting geometry can be difficult to translate into a CAD environment, where it will be further refined. This paper introduces a user-adjustable, room-scale, "shape-aware" mesh structure for low-fidelity prototyping. A user physically manipulates the mesh by lengthening and shortening the edges, altering the overall curvature and sculpting coarse forms. The edges are equipped with resistive length sensors, and transmit their configuration to a central computer. The structure can later be reproduced in software, connecting this prototyping stage to the larger computational design pipeline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08736 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A large-scale mesh structure (a) composed of user-adjustable, flexible beams. A person can manipulate the structure by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A user can shape our flexible gridshell structure by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A person, inspired by the sunlight from a nearby [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One person approaches the mesh wall and sculpts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In its default state, our sculptable mesh surface is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Using data from the length sensors, the sculpted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Modules can be joined together at the vertices (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The "T-Module" is the unit cell of our sculptable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A user can alter the length and curvature of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: By expanding, contracting, and bending modules, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Interior of T-Module (a), which uses flexible FR4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: We detect module curvature by sensing the length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: On the left (a,b) we show a standard resistive ladder; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Our mesh can be represented by a winged edge data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: In our simulation, each T-Module is be represented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: We can compare the measured lengths of the in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Vertex particles, along with their four immedi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Our modules are capable of starting from geome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Envisioned uses. Top: An exhibit designer working [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robin Abrams. 2003. Byker revisited.Built Environment (1978-)(2003), 117–131

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    SMLa Adriaenssens and Michael R Barnes. 2001. Tensegrity spline beam and grid shell structures.Engineering structures23, 1 (2001), 29–36

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Harshit Agrawal, Udayan Umapathi, Robert Kovacs, Johannes Frohnhofen, Hsiang-Ting Chen, Stefanie Mueller, and Patrick Baudisch. 2015. Protopiper: Physically sketching room-sized objects at actual scale. InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology. 427–436

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Moritz Bächer, Benjamin Hepp, Fabrizio Pece, Paul G Kry, Bernd Bickel, Bernhard Thomaszewski, and Otmar Hilliges. 2016. Defsense: Computational design of customized deformable input devices. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3806–3816

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Ravin Balakrishnan, George Fitzmaurice, Gordon Kurtenbach, and Karan Singh

    work page

  6. [6]

    InProceedings of the 1999 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics

    Exploring interactive curve and surface manipulation using a bend and twist sensitive input strip. InProceedings of the 1999 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics. 111–118

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Bruce G Baumgart. 1975. A polyhedron representation for computer vision. In Proceedings of the May 19-22, 1975, national computer conference and exposition. 589–596

    work page 1975

  8. [8]

    2011.Design things

    Thomas Binder, Giorgio De Michelis, Pelle Ehn, Giulio Jacucci, and Per Linde. 2011.Design things. MIT press

    work page 2011

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Eva Brandt. 2007. How tangible mock-ups support design collaboration.Knowl- edge, Technology & Policy20, 3 (2007), 179–192

    2007

  2. [10]

    Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience prototyping. InPro- ceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. 424–433

    2000

  3. [11]

    2010.Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design

    Bill Buxton. 2010.Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan kaufmann

    2010

  4. [12]

    Chin-yu Chien, Rong-Hao Liang, Long-Fei Lin, Liwei Chan, and Bing-Yu Chen

  5. [13]

    InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology

    Flexibend: Enabling interactivity of multi-part, deformable fabrications us- ing single shape-sensing strip. InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology. 659–663

  6. [14]

    Artem Dementyev, Hsin-Liu Kao, and Joseph A Paradiso. 2015. Sensortape: Mod- ular and programmable 3d-aware dense sensor network on a tape. InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology. 649–658

    2015

  7. [15]

    Mark A Evans. 2005. Rapid prototyping and industrial design practice: can haptic feedback modelling provide the missing tactile link?Rapid Prototyping Journal 11, 3 (2005), 153–159

    2005

  8. [16]

    Martin Feick, Scott Bateman, Anthony Tang, André Miede, and Nicolai Marquardt

  9. [17]

    In2020 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR)

    Tangi: Tangible proxies for embodied object exploration and manipulation in virtual reality. In2020 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 195–206

  10. [18]

    Edward Glaessgen and David Stargel. 2012. The digital twin paradigm for future NASA and US Air Force vehicles. In53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference 20th AIAA/ASME/AHS adaptive structures conference 14th AIAA. 1818

    2012

  11. [19]

    Jesse T Gonzalez, Sonia Prashant, Sapna Tayal, Juhi Kedia, Alexandra Ion, and Scott E Hudson. 2023. Constraint-Driven Robotic Surfaces, At Human-Scale. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–12

    2023

  12. [20]

    Evan Greenberg. 2017. The value of the full-scale prototype in architectural education.Charrette4, 1 (2017), 27–39

    2017

  13. [21]

    Tovi Grossman, Ravin Balakrishnan, and Karan Singh. 2003. An interface for creating and manipulating curves using a high degree-of-freedom curve input device. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 185–192

    2003

  14. [22]

    Emrecan Gulay and Andrés Lucero. 2021. Understanding the Role of Physical and Digital Techniques in the Initial Design Processes of Architecture. InIFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 312–329

    2021

  15. [23]

    Seungwoo Je, Hyunseung Lim, Kongpyung Moon, Shan-Yuan Teng, Jas Brooks, Pedro Lopes, and Andrea Bianchi. 2021. Elevate: A walkable pin-array for large UIST ’25, September 28-October 1, 2025, Busan, Republic of Korea Lin, et al. shape-changing terrains. InProceedings of the 202...

    2021

  16. [24]

    David Jones, Chris Snider, Aydin Nassehi, Jason Yon, and Ben Hicks. 2020. Char- acterising the Digital Twin: A systematic literature review.CIRP journal of manufacturing science and technology29 (2020), 36–52

    2020

  17. [25]

    Siavash H Khajavi, Naser Hossein Motlagh, Alireza Jaribion, Liss C Werner, and Jan Holmström. 2019. Digital twin: vision, benefits, boundaries, and creation for buildings.IEEE access7 (2019), 147406–147419

    2019

  18. [26]

    Jay Lee, Victor Su, Sandia Ren, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2000. HandSCAPE: a vectorizing tape measure for on-site measuring applications. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 137–144

    2000

  19. [27]

    Danny Leen, Raf Ramakers, and Kris Luyten. 2017. StrutModeling: A low-fidelity construction kit to iteratively model, test, and adapt 3D objects. InProceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 471–479

    2017

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    Rachael Luck. 2018. Participatory design in architectural practice: Changing practices in future making in uncertain times.Design Studies59 (2018), 139–157

    2018

  22. [30]

    2012.The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses

    Juhani Pallasmaa. 2012.The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Wiley- Academy ; John Wiley & Sons

    2012

  23. [31]

    Daniel Piker. 2013. Kangaroo: form finding with computational physics.Archi- tectural Design83, 2 (2013), 136–137

    2013

  24. [32]

    Cecil Piya and Karthik Ramani. 2014. Proto-tai: Quick design prototyping using tangible assisted interfaces. InInternational Design Engineering Technical Con- ferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. 46285. American Society of Mechanical Engineers...

    2014

  25. [33]

    Lukas Rambold, Robert Kovacs, Conrad Lempert, Muhammad Abdullah, Helena Lendowski, Lukas Fritzsche, Martin Taraz, and Patrick Baudisch. 2023. AirTied: Automatic Personal Fabrication of Truss Structures. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2014. Probes, toolkits and pro- totypes: three approaches to making in codesigning.CoDesign10, 1 (2014), 5–14

    2014

  27. [35]

    1999.Community participation methods in design and planning

    Henry Sanoff. 1999.Community participation methods in design and planning. John Wiley & Sons

    1999

  28. [36]

    Henry Sanoff. 2002. Schools Designed with Community Participation. (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Henry Sanoff. 2005. Community participation in riverfront development.CoDe- sign1, 1 (2005), 61–78

    2005

  30. [38]

    Donald A Schon. 1992. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation.Research in engineering design3, 3 (1992), 131–147

    1992

  31. [39]

    Fereshteh Shahmiri and Paul H Dietz. 2020. Sharc: A geometric technique for multi-bend/shape sensing. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2020

  32. [40]

    Jia Sheng, Ravin Balakrishnan, and Karan Singh. 2006. An interface for virtual 3D sculpting via physical proxy.. InGRAPHITE, Vol. 6. 213–220

    2006

  33. [41]

    Karan Singh. 2006. Industrial motivation for interactive shape modeling: a case study in conceptual automotive design. InAcm siggraph 2006 courses. 3–9

    2006

  34. [42]

    Miana Smith, Jack Forman, Amira Abdel-Rahman, Sophia Wang, and Neil Ger- shenfeld. 2025. Voxel Invention Kit: Reconfigurable Building Blocks for Prototyp- ing Interactive Electronic Structures. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2025

  35. [43]

    Pieter Jan Stappers, Helma van Rijn, SC Kistemaker, AE Hennink, and F Sleeswijk Visser. 2009. Designing for other people’s strengths and motivations: Three cases using context, visions, and experiential prototypes.Advanced engineering informatics23, 2 (2009), 174–183

    2009

  36. [44]

    Ryo Suzuki, Hooman Hedayati, Clement Zheng, James L Bohn, Daniel Szafir, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, Mark D Gross, and Daniel Leithinger. 2020. Roomshift: Room- scale dynamic haptics for vr with furniture-moving swarm robots. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in ...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Saiganesh Swaminathan, Michael Rivera, Runchang Kang, Zheng Luo, Kadri Bu- gra Ozutemiz, and Scott E Hudson. 2019. Input, output and construction methods for custom fabrication of room-scale deployable pneumatic structures.Proceed- ings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Weara...

    2019

  38. [46]

    Yasaman Tahouni, Isabel PS Qamar, and Stefanie Mueller. 2020. NURBSforms: a modular shape-changing interface for prototyping curved surfaces. InProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. 403–409

    2020

  39. [47]

    Christian Weichel, Jason Alexander, Abhijit Karnik, and Hans Gellersen. 2015. SPATA: Spatio-tangible tools for fabrication-aware design. InProceedings of the ninth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. 189–196

    2015

  40. [48]

    Michael Philetus Weller, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, and Mark D Gross. 2008. Posey: instrumenting a poseable hub and strut construction toy. InProceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction. 39–46

    2008

  41. [49]

    Michael Wessely, Theophanis Tsandilas, and Wendy E Mackay. 2018. Shape- aware material: Interactive fabrication with shapeme. InProceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 127–139

    2018

  42. [50]

    Karl DD Willis, Cheng Xu, Kuan-Ju Wu, Golan Levin, and Mark D Gross. 2010. Interactive fabrication: new interfaces for digital fabrication. InProceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. 69–72

    2010

  43. [51]

    Jin Yu, Prabodh Sakhardande, Ruchita Parmar, and HyunJoo Oh. 2022. Strawc- tures: A modular electronic construction kit for human-scale interactive struc- tures. InProceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embed- ded, and Embodied Interaction. 1–10

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.