Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Crafting a Personal Journaling Practice: Negotiating Ecosystems of Materials, Personal Context, and Community in Analog Journaling

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim is that analog journaling practice emerges from a dynamic negotiation among materials, personal context, and community.

desk verdict Useful ecosystem framing for analog journaling, but the completeness of that ecosystem rests on a thin interview sample with no demonstrated saturation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19767 v1 pith:JDRYPLDS submitted 2025-04-28 cs.HC

Katherine Lin , Juna Kawai-Yue , Adira Sklar , Lucy Hecht , Sarah Sterman , Tiffany Tseng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords journalingdocumentationanalogecosystemmaterialaffordancespersonalcontextcommunityinfluencedesignopportunities
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

This paper argues that a person's analog journaling practice is not a fixed preference but a living, negotiated outcome of three interacting forces: the materials they use (stationery, notebooks, and digital tools), their personal context (life stage, identity, and mental-health goals), and their communities (close friends and online journaling circles). Based on interviews with 11 journalers and qualitative analysis of 29 YouTube videos and 50 Instagram posts, the paper shows how these forces continually reshape what people write, how they lay out their pages, and whether they sustain the habit. Understanding this ecosystem matters because journaling is linked to mental health and identity development, and the paper uses the framework to suggest design opportunities for future tools, such as adapting templates over time, providing helpful physical constraints, and supporting selective sharing with confidants. The central claim is that the ecosystem model explains both the diversity and the evolution of journaling practice better than individual taste alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'journaling ecosystem' framework, a model that depicts a journaler's practice as the output of ongoing negotiation among three mutually influential components: materials, personal context, and community. The framework functions as the paper's analytical lens, organizing all observed themes into these three categories and explaining changes in practice over time as rebalancing among them. It also directly generates design opportunities by highlighting the ecosystem aspects that current tools overlook, such as evolving templates, helpful physical constraints, and private, selective sharing.

What would settle it

A two-year longitudinal study of journalers that logs material purchases, major life events, and community interactions, and then compares these logs with changes in journal entries and layouts, would test the framework; if many journalers change their practice with no corresponding change in any of the three components, the ecosystem model would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is the identification of a 'journaling ecosystem' in which journaling practice is the product of continuous negotiation among three components: materials (both physical stationery and digital tools like note-taking apps), personal context (the journaler's life circumstances, identity, aspirations, and mental-health goals), and community (immediate social relationships and broader online journaling communities). The paper demonstrates this through examples: page size and pen smoothness shape thought and reduce friction; moving to college alters access to materials and time, shifting routines; and exposure to 'aesthetic journaling' on social media first inspires then is rejected as inauthentic. The framework explains how practices develop over time, and the paper derives design implications from it, including bounded writing spaces, de-emphasized undo functions, and sharing features aimed at small groups of close contacts rather than public audiences.

Load-bearing premise

The ecosystem framework's generalizability rests on a sample of 11 university students in New York City and 79 social media posts selected by hashtags and diversity criteria, so the framework may not capture the experiences of older, non-student, or non-English-speaking journalers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Journaling tools should let users adapt templates and structures over time, since practices evolve as personal context changes, and fixed prompts or rigid layouts can become stale or feel prescriptive.
  • Designers should embrace helpful constraints such as bounded page space and de-emphasized undo, because small spaces reduce fear of the blank page and permanent ink encourages freeform, unedited reflection.
  • Sharing features should support selective sharing with small groups of confidants rather than public audiences, since many journalers share with close friends or use entries to work through interpersonal conflicts.
  • Digital capture tools such as calendars, photo libraries, and note apps already alter journaling routines by replacing planning and serving as staging grounds, so future tools should integrate these streams thoughtfully rather than replace analog practice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ecosystem framework likely extends beyond paper journals to other personal documentation practices, such as scrapbooking, art journals, and digital diaries, since materials, context, and community plausibly operate there too, though the balance among the three may differ.
  • The finding that journalers deliberately filter out negative content to protect their mental health suggests a testable design hypothesis: journaling tools that encourage complete or objective capture may be rejected by users, whereas tools that let users curate a selectively positive record may sustain engagement.
  • Because the interview sample was all university students, the framework's emphasis on personal context may be amplified by a life stage of rapid transition, such as leaving home and starting college, and older or more settled journalers might show a different weighting of the three components, which is an empirical question the paper does not address.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a qualitative study of analog journaling practices, based on thematic analysis of 29 YouTube stationery-focused videos, 50 Instagram journaling-spread posts, and semi-structured interviews with 11 university-student journalers. The authors derive a 'journaling ecosystem' framework in which journaling practice is shaped by materials, personal context, and community, and use the framework to propose design opportunities for future journaling tools, such as accommodating evolving practices, providing helpful constraints, and supporting selective sharing with close confidants rather than public audiences.

Significance. If the framework holds, it contributes a useful holistic account of how analog journaling practices develop over time, complementing prior HCI work on bullet journaling and quantified-self documentation. The paper's strengths include the triangulation of three data sources, a full appendix listing all analyzed videos and posts, and rich grounding of claims in participant quotes and visual examples. The qualitative methods are standard and described in detail, and the design opportunities follow directly from the empirical themes. The main risk is the completeness and generalizability of the ecosystem framework, given the small, homogeneous interview sample and the absence of explicit saturation or negative-case analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1 / Section 3.4] The paper states in Section 4.1 that 'the bulk of our results stemmed from our interviews rather than our initial social media analysis,' yet Section 3.4 reports no saturation analysis, no stopping criterion, and no negative-case analysis for the interview coding. Without such evidence, the three-component ecosystem cannot be distinguished from an artifact of a small, homogeneous interview sample. Please add a codebook-stability analysis (e.g., plotting new themes against interview order) or explicitly reframe the contribution as a first-order framework whose completeness remains open.
  2. [Section 3.5 / Section 6] The generalizability of the ecosystem claim is constrained by the interview sample: all 11 participants are students at one New York City research university, aged 18-25, and nine are female. Section 6 acknowledges that students may differ from journalers more broadly, but it does not identify which specific ecosystem components might be missing or misweighted in non-student populations (e.g., working adults, older journalers, non-English-speaking communities). Please either broaden the recruitment strategy or qualify the scope of the framework to the studied populations, and discuss the implications of the sample for each of the three ecosystem components.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The in-text citation 'Shouzhang et al.' does not correspond to reference [54], which is Yan Yuan. Please correct the attribution or the reference list.
  2. [Section 2.2] The system 'list.it' is described without an explicit citation; if it refers to Van Kleek et al. [50], please insert the citation at that point, otherwise add the missing reference.
  3. [Figure 4] The ecosystem diagram omits labels on the arrows connecting the components, so the causal directions (e.g., personal context influencing both materials and practice) are not legible from the figure alone; consider adding arrow labels or a more detailed caption.
  4. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2] The selection criteria for YouTube videos and Instagram posts ('diversity of content', 'diversity of visual styles') are not operationalized; please state the specific dimensions considered (e.g., format, materials, aesthetic style, geography, creator demographics) and any inclusion thresholds used.
  5. [Section 3.3] The manuscript would benefit from a brief positionality statement; since the coding is qualitative and interpretive, information about the researchers' disciplinary backgrounds and prior assumptions about journaling would help readers interpret the coding choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the journaling ecosystem framework is derived from open thematic coding of multiple independent data sources, not from a fitting procedure or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that journaling practices are shaped by materials, personal context, and communities—is an interpretive qualitative finding, not a mathematically derived prediction. The methodology describes open coding, affinity diagramming, and consolidation across three independent data sources (YouTube videos, Instagram posts, and semi-structured interviews), with a second coding pass on interviews using the consolidated codebook. Although the interview protocol was informed by the social media codebook, the paper explicitly states that open coding was used for interviews rather than applying existing codes, and the bulk of the results came from interviews rather than the initial social media analysis. There is no equation, fitted parameter, or formal model in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction. The only author self-citation is to Sterman et al. 2022 in the Related Work section, used as background on artists' preferences for digital tools such as copy-paste and version control; it is not load-bearing for the ecosystem framework or for any uniqueness or predictive claim. The limitations concerning student-only participants, the lack of a saturation check, and possible incompleteness of the three-component model are validity and generalizability concerns, not circularity. Therefore, no circular reasoning is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study rests on qualitative assumptions rather than mathematical axioms. There are no free parameters or invented entities. The key premises are the validity of thematic analysis, the reliability of self-report, the representativeness of the sampled content, and the adequacy of the sample size.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis [9] is a valid method for coding and interpreting journaling videos, posts, and interviews.
    The ecosystem framework is an output of the researchers' coding and affinity diagramming, so its validity depends on this methodological premise.
  • domain assumption Interviewees' retrospective descriptions of how their journaling practice changed over time are accurate.
    Section 4 relies heavily on participants' memories of past practices; memory and narrative bias could distort the reported trajectories.
  • domain assumption Publicly shared YouTube and Instagram content is a meaningful lens on journaling practices and preferences.
    Social media content may be aspirational or performative; the authors acknowledge this in Section 6, but the content analysis still assumes it reveals something about practice.
  • ad hoc to paper A sample of 11 university students plus 79 public posts is sufficient to characterize the journaling ecosystem.
    This is a load-bearing sampling assumption specific to this study; broader populations could alter the framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crafting a Personal Journaling Practice: Negotiating Ecosystems of Materials, Personal Context, and Community in Analog Journaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDRYPLDS

@misc{pith2026250419767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crafting a Personal Journaling Practice: Negotiating Ecosystems of Materials, Personal Context, and Community in Analog Journaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDRYPLDS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19767}
}
read the original abstract

Analog journaling has grown in popularity, with journaling on paper encompassing a range of motivations, styles, and practices including planning, habit-tracking, and reflecting. Journalers develop strong personal preferences around the tools they use, the ideas they capture, and the layout in which they represent their ideas and memories. Understanding how analog journaling practices are individually shaped and crafted over time is critical to supporting the varied benefits associated with journaling, including improved mental health and positive support for identity development. To understand this development, we qualitatively analyzed publicly-shared journaling content from YouTube and Instagram and interviewed 11 journalers. We report on our identification of the journaling ecosystem in which journaling practices are shaped by materials, personal context, and communities, sharing how this ecosystem plays a role in the practices and identities of journalers as they customize their journaling routine to best suit their personal goals. Using these insights, we discuss design opportunities for how future tools can better align with and reflect the rich affordances and practices of journaling on paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19767 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Screenshots of YouTube videos analyzed for writing tools and accessories (clockwise from top left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Images from Instagram journaling spread posts analyzed for layouts (clockwise from top left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. • Materials: The stationery (paper, journals, writing instru￾ments, and accessories) that make up what journalers put down on the page, along with digital tools that support or shape analog journaling practices. These tools can be used exclusively, or in tandem with one another. • Personal Context: Personal circumstances in a journaler’s life that influence the content they journal about and their journaling routine… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples from our interview participants’ physical journals (from left to right: Aaron, Beth, Alaina) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Journaling Ecosystem consisting of materials, personal context, and community. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example spreads of space constraints within physical journals (left: Sophie, right: Beth) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of analog notebook style from Aaron (left), where he does not edit, and iPad Procreate drawings with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A highly-decorated journaling spread shared on Instagram by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Parastoo Abtahi, Victoria Ding, Anna C Yang, Tommy Bruzzese, Alyssa B Ro- manos, Elizabeth L Murnane, Sean Follmer, and James A Landay. 2020. Under- standing physical practices and the role of technology in manual self-tracking. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technolo- gies 4, 4 (2020), 1–24

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Roland Allen. 2024. The Notebook: A History of Thinking on Paper . Biblioasis

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Jacob Anhøj, Claus Møldrup, et al . 2004. Feasibility of collecting diary data from asthma patients through mobile phones and SMS (short message service): response rate analysis and focus group evaluation from a pilot study. Journal of medical Internet research 6, 4 (2004), e77

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Amid Ayobi, Tobias Sonne, Paul Marshall, and Anna L Cox. 2018. Flexible and mindful self-tracking: Design implications from paper bullet journals. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Christina Baldwin. 1977. One to one: Self-understanding through journal writing . Rowman & Littlefield

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Alexandre Battut, Kevin Ratovo, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2024. OneTrace: Improving Event Recall and Coordination With Cross-Application Interaction Histories. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2024), 1–18

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Susanne Bødker, Eve Hoggan, and Ida Larsen-Ledet. 2024. Material Mediation in Collaborative Activity. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–24

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Meyran Boniel-Nissim and Azy Barak. 2013. The therapeutic value of adolescents’ blogging about social–emotional difficulties. Psychological services 10, 3 (2013), 333

    work page 2013

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psy- chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa

    2006

  2. [10]

    Kylie Cardell. 2017. Modern Memory-Making: Marie Kondo, Online Journal- ing, and the Excavation, Curation, and Control of Personal Digital Data. a/b: Auto/Biography Studies 32, 3 (2017), 499–517

    2017

  3. [11]

    Simon M Ceh, Janet Rafner, and Mathias Benedek. 2024. Creativity in digitally mediated times: How digital tools support creativity across domains. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Montserrat Celdrán, Rodrigo Serrat, and Feliciano Villar. 2019. Older adults as internet content producers: Motivations for blogging in later life. Perspectives on human-computer interaction research with older people (2019), 169–182

    2019

  5. [13]

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Nicole B Lee, Bongshin Lee, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A Kientz

  6. [14]

    Felicia Cordeiro, Daniel A Epstein, Edison Thomaz, Elizabeth Bales, Arvind K Jagannathan, Gregory D Abowd, and James Fogarty. 2015. Barriers and negative nudges: Exploring challenges in food journaling. InProceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in comput...

    2015

  7. [15]

    Peter Dalsgaard, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Jonas Frich. 2023. Capturing and revisiting ideas in the design process: A longitudinal technology probe study. Design Studies 88 (2023), 101200

    2023

  8. [16]

    Hilary Davis, Bjorn Nansen, Frank Vetere, Toni Robertson, Margot Brereton, Jeannette Durick, and Kate Vaisutis. 2014. Homemade cookbooks: a recipe for sharing. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems . 73–82

    2014

  9. [17]

    Katie Davis. 2010. Coming of age online: The developmental underpinnings of girls’ blogs. Journal of Adolescent Research 25, 1 (2010), 145–171

    2010

  10. [18]

    Chloe Mac Donnell. 2022. Pushing the envelope: designer stationery is a hot fash- ion trend. The Guardian (2022). https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/ oct/09/pushing-the-envelope-designer-stationery-is-a-hot-fashion-trend

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chris Elsden, Abigail C Durrant, and David S Kirk. 2016. It’s just my history isn’t it? Understanding smart journaling practices. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2819–2831

    2016

  12. [20]

    Chris Elsden, David S Kirk, and Abigail C Durrant. 2016. A quantified past: Toward design for remembering with personal informatics. Human–Computer Interaction 31, 6 (2016), 518–557

    2016

  13. [21]

    Marina Fernández Camporro and Nicolai Marquardt. 2020. Live sketchnoting across platforms: Exploring the potential and limitations of analogue and digital tools. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2020

  14. [22]

    Jason A Grahame. 2016. Digital note-taking: Discussion of evidence and best practices. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education 27, 1 (2016), 47–50

    2016

  15. [23]

    Rebecca Gulotta, William Odom, Jodi Forlizzi, and Haakon Faste. 2013. Digital artifacts as legacy: exploring the lifespan and value of digital data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1813–1822

    2013

  16. [24]

    Thu-Huong Ha. 2025. American stationery nerds are fueling a Japanese notebook boom. The Japan Times (2025). https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2025/01/10/ style-design/techo-planner-notebook/

    2025

  17. [25]

    William C Hill, James D Hollan, Dave Wroblewski, and Tim McCandless. 1992. Edit wear and read wear. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 3–9

    1992

  18. [26]

    Nanna Inie, Jonas Frich, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2022. How Researchers Manage Ideas. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 83–96

    2022

  19. [27]

    Glory Chimnechetam Innocent. 2024. Optimizing Workflow Efficiency Through Integration of Digital Office Technologies. (2024), 102–111

    2024

  20. [28]

    Ducel Jean-Berluche. 2024. Creative expression and mental health. Journal of Creativity (2024), 100083

    2024

  21. [29]

    Gyeyoung Jung, Soyeon Choi, Yuju Kang, and Jaejeung Kim. 2024. MyListener: An AI-Mediated Journaling Mobile Application for Alleviating Depression and Loneliness Using Contextual Data. In Companion of the 2024 on ACM Interna- tional Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Andrew D Katayama, R Neal Shambaugh, and Tasneem Doctor. 2005. Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching of Psychology 32, 2 (2005), 129–131

    2005

  23. [31]

    Taewan Kim, Seolyeong Bae, Hyun Ah Kim, Su-Woo Lee, Hwajung Hong, Chanmo Yang, and Young-Ho Kim. 2024. MindfulDiary: Harnessing Large Lan- guage Model to Support Psychiatric Patients’ Journaling. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Taewan Kim, Donghoon Shin, Young-Ho Kim, and Hwajung Hong. 2024. Di- aryMate: Understanding User Perceptions and Experience in Human-AI Col- laboration for Personal Journaling. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) ...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Rafal Kocielnik, Daniel Avrahami, Jennifer Marlow, Di Lu, and Gary Hsieh. 2018. Designing for Workplace Reflection: A Chat and Voice-Based Conversational Agent. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Hong Kong, China) (DIS ’18). Association for Co...

    2018

  26. [34]

    Brittany M Langan and Katherine Keppen. 2022. Reflective Journaling Interven- tion to Impact Self-awareness, Professional Health, and Overall Well-being in Nurses. (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Quinci Legardye. 2020. In a World Gone Mad, Paper Planners Offer Order and Delight. Wired (2020). https://www.wired.com/story/in-a-world-gone-mad- paper-planners-offer-order-and-delight/

    2020

  28. [36]

    Jingyi Li, Sonia Hashim, and Jennifer Jacobs. 2021. What we can learn from visual artists about software development. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2021

  29. [37]

    Yuhan Luo, Young-Ho Kim, Bongshin Lee, Naeemul Hassan, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2021. Foodscrap: Promoting rich data capture and reflective food journal- ing through speech input. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 606–618

    2021

  30. [38]

    E Michael Brady and Harry Z Sky. 2003. Journal writing among older learners. Educational Gerontology 29, 2 (2003), 151–163

    2003

  31. [39]

    Tristine Rainer. 1979. The new diary: How to use a journal for self-guidance and expanded creativity. Penguin

    1979

  32. [40]

    Srividya Ramasubramanian. 2017. Mindfulness, stress coping and everyday re- silience among emerging youth in a university setting: a mixed methods approach. International Journal of adolescence and youth 22, 3 (2017), 308–321

    2017

  33. [41]

    Daniela K Rosner and Kimiko Ryokai. 2010. Spyn: augmenting the creative and communicative potential of craft. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 2407–2416

    2010

  34. [42]

    My ideas come little by little

    Emilia Rosselli Del Turco and Peter Dalsgaard. 2024. “My ideas come little by little”: how graphic professionals manage ideas. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition . 452–463

    2024

  35. [43]

    Liselotte Schulz. 2024. The Impact of Generative AI on User Engagement and Personalisation in Digital Journaling: A Case Study . Technical Report. KTH, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

    2024

  36. [44]

    Yinghui Shi, Huiyun Yang, Zongkai Yang, Wei Liu, and Harrison Hao Yang. 2020. The effects of a collaborative learning approach with digital note-taking on college students’ learning achievement and cognitive load. In Blended Learning. Education in a Smart Learning Environment:...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Joshua M Smyth, Jillian A Johnson, Brandon J Auer, Erik Lehman, Giampaolo Talamo, and Christopher N Sciamanna. 2018. Online positive affect journaling in the improvement of mental distress and well-being in general medical patients with elevated anxiety symptoms: A preliminary...

    2018

  38. [46]

    Jürgen Steimle. 2011. Integrating printed and digital documents: Interaction models and techniques for collaborative knowledge work . Ph. D. Dissertation. Technische Universität

    2011

  39. [47]

    Sarah Sterman, Molly Jane Nicholas, and Eric Paulos. 2022. Towards Creative Version Control. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–25

    2022

  40. [48]

    Bennett, and Jaime Teevan

    Amanda Swearngin, Shamsi Iqbal, Victor Poznanski, Mark Encarnación, Paul N. Bennett, and Jaime Teevan. 2021. Scraps: Enabling Mobile Capture, Contex- tualization, and Use of Document Resources. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yo...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Jakob Tholander and Maria Normark. 2020. Crafting personal information- resistance, imperfection, and self-creation in bullet journaling. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2020

  42. [50]

    Van Kleek, Michael Bernstein, Katrina Panovich, Gregory G

    Max G. Van Kleek, Michael Bernstein, Katrina Panovich, Gregory G. Vargas, David R. Karger, and mc schraefel. 2009. Note to self: examining personal infor- mation keeping in a lightweight note-taking tool. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    2009

  43. [51]

    Pierre Wellner. 1993. Interacting with paper on the DigitalDesk. Commun. ACM 36, 7 (1993), 87–96

    1993

  44. [52]

    Anne Whitney. 2005. Writing the Book: The Emergence of the Journaling Self- Help Book. Issues in Writing 15, 2 (2005), 188

    2005

  45. [53]

    Ron Yeh, Chunyuan Liao, Scott Klemmer, François Guimbretière, Brian Lee, Boyko Kakaradov, Jeannie Stamberger, and Andreas Paepcke. 2006. ButterflyNet: a mobile capture and access system for field biology research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    2006

  46. [54]

    Yan Yuan. 2021. Think on Paper, Share Online. Disentangling: The Geographies of Digital Disconnection (2021), 189. C&C ’25, June 23–25, 2025, Virtual Katherine Lin, Juna Kawai-Yue, Adira Sklar, Lucy Hecht, Sarah Sterman, and Tiffany Tseng A Appendix Table 2: YouTube Videos in ...

    2021

  47. [2014]

    In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring per- sonal data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1143–1152

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.