Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 133 references

CRAFT: Exploring Wearable Creative AI on Smart Glasses for Fiction Writing in Real-World Contexts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wearable AI on smart glasses can help fiction writers turn real-world observations into fictional material in the moment, and brief 'micro-creation' episodes can accumulate into complete stories.

desk verdict A competent, honest design exploration of smart glasses for in-situ fiction writing, but the central 'micro-creation' claim overstates what the data can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21394 v1 pith:I7BM3SKM submitted 2026-07-23 cs.HC

Runze Cai , Yuxuan Huang , Lin-Ping Yuan , Kexin Xiang , David Hsu , Collier Nogues , Jussi Holopainen , Shengdong Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords smartglasseswearablecreativeAIfictionwritingin-situcreativityhuman-AIcollaborationmultimodalLLMreality-fictiontransformationtechnologyprobe
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 sets out to establish Context-aware Reality-Fiction Transformation (CRAFT): an approach in which AI-enabled smart glasses act as a writing companion that sees what a writer sees, proactively suggests links between the environment and an evolving story, and transforms real scenes into fictional ones on the spot. Across interviews, co-design workshops, and 24 supported field trials with eight writers, the authors argue that this approach is desirable, feasible, and potentially viable. Their central evidence is that lowering the cognitive and time barriers to in-situ writing turns 'micro-writing'—brief capture of inspiration—into 'micro-creation,' where writers actively construct fictional worlds in short everyday moments. If true, this matters because it points to a way of using AI for fiction that counters the genericness of desktop LLM assistance by grounding outputs in specific, lived details while keeping the writer in control.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the mixed-initiative observe→suggest→express→transform→re-observe loop, implemented as a technology probe: smart glasses with a first-person camera, ring-mouse input, and a multimodal large-language-model pipeline that fuses four contexts (user preferences, environmental stream, evolving fiction context, interaction history). The proactive pipeline uses similarity relations—identical, iconic, symbolic—to prioritize which real-world entities to transform, and the user-initiative pipeline routes input into authoring, plot ideation, Q&A, or role-play. Half-real/half-fiction image overlays scaffold dual-world awareness; a desktop plot-node graph carries narrative consist

What would settle it

Have independent readers, blind to condition, rate stories produced with the glasses probe against stories written from the same locations using a smartphone voice-memo plus desktop LLM; if the glasses-based stories are not rated higher on grounding, originality, or authorial voice, the claim that in-situ wearable transformation adds creative value over existing capture-and-compose workflows fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: in-situ context is a composable creative surface, not just raw material. By sensing first-person video, location, speech, and an evolving fiction context, smart-glasses AI can proactively propose identical, iconic, or symbolic mappings from reality to fiction; a mixed-initiative loop turns observations into scenes, plots, characters, and dialogue with half-real/half-fiction overlays and role-play. In 24 supported field sessions, eight writers produced eight complete stories integrating 215 real-world elements, reporting enhanced noticing, serendipitous plot development, and contextual knowledge. The authors conclude that reality acts as an 'authenticating constraint' against g

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that eight writers' self-reported satisfaction and researcher-coded interaction logs from three brief, experimenter-supported sessions are a valid proxy for long-term creative value and viability; the paper itself notes, in its limitations, that no independent third-party evaluation of story quality or baseline comparison was conducted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CRAFT works as claimed, daily environments become active fiction sources rather than places writers merely pass through; observed objects, people, and settings can seed plot, character, and atmosphere.
  • Distributed micro-creation can accumulate into coherent longer stories: across 24 sessions, eight participants produced complete stories with consistent characters, scenes, and plot events.
  • Reality-grounding offers a concrete antidote to generic AI prose: using real-world observations as authenticating constraints gives AI assistance specificity and personal resonance that training-data-only generation lacks.
  • Writers benefit from support that adapts to different workflows (plot-centric vs observation-centric) and to project stage, suggesting future systems should be highly configurable.
  • Preserving agency and boundaries is a first-class design requirement: control over suggestions, distraction, privacy, and 'emotional bleed' determine whether wearable creative AI is sustainable in daily life.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same mechanism—context-aware transformation with similarity relations—may transfer to other time-poor creative practices such as poetry, screenwriting, or journaling; the paper gestures at this but does not test it.
  • Editorial inference: the trial's moderate low-distraction score and the social awkwardness of voice input suggest that the decisive design frontier for long-term adoption is not creative quality but unobtrusiveness and social acceptability.
  • Editorial inference: a within-subject comparison of glasses-based in-situ creation against 'capture with phone notes, compose later at a desk' would isolate which benefits come from the wearable context and which from AI assistance alone.
  • Editorial inference: the author-perceived measures leave open whether readers would judge grounding and originality; third-party blind evaluation of CRAFT stories is the natural next test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CRAFT, a context-aware reality-fiction transformation approach for smart glasses, and explores its desirability, feasibility, and potential viability through three studies: semi-structured interviews with nine experienced writers (Study 1), co-design workshops with sixteen writers and researchers (Study 2), and supported field trials with eight writers across 24 sessions using a refined technology probe (Study 3). The studies yield three design goals (augmenting in-situ perception, promoting the authenticity triad, preserving creative agency and life-art boundaries), concrete interaction mechanisms such as similarity-based prioritization and role-play, and qualitative/quantitative indicators of author-perceived benefits including the notion of 'micro-creation.' The paper is framed as an exploratory design study rather than a controlled evaluation, and its contributions are design goals, implications, and empirical observations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work provides a useful design exploration for wearable AI in creative writing, with a concrete probe implementation and a rich set of qualitative insights. The iterative design process and the emphasis on situating AI assistance in real-world contexts are valuable to the IMWUT community. The strength of the paper lies in its detailed documentation of the probe, the integration of design goals with specific mechanisms, and the honest acknowledgment of many limitations. The notion of 'micro-creation' is intriguing and could inspire future work, though its evidentiary basis currently needs strengthening.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 8.1.2 (and Sec. 9)] The central claim that writers 'actively construct fictional worlds during brief moments rather than merely record inspiration' is not fully supported by the data. The study did not trace whether the creative transformation was initiated by the writer or generated by the AI probe; Sec. 9 explicitly notes that participants were not required to make accept/reject decisions and that 'post-hoc quantification of acceptance rates [is] difficult.' Consequently, the observed 849 interactions and 215 integrated elements are also consistent with a weaker interpretation: writers selected among AI-generated transformations. The phrase 'actively construct' overstates the evidence. Please either soften the claim to reflect author-perceived construction, or add a provenance/attribution analysis of interaction logs to distinguish writer-modified output from verbatim AI suggestions.
  2. [Sec. 7.4.1] The counts of '215 real-world elements integrated into their fictional narratives' and the per-story statistics (8.9 scenes, 11.3 characters, etc.) are presented as evidence of contextually grounded material. However, the method for counting 'integrated' elements is not defined. Without explicit accept/reject tracking or a post-hoc coding scheme, it is ambiguous whether these elements were deliberately adopted by the writer, merely captured by the probe, or automatically incorporated by the LLM. This ambiguity directly affects the 'reality-grounding' claim (DG2) and the recommendation to use reality as 'authenticating constraints.' Please provide a clear definition of 'integration' or acknowledge this ambiguity as a limiting factor in interpreting the interaction-log statistics.
  3. [Sec. 7.3.1 and Sec. 8.1.1] Output Quality and Worth Effort are each measured with a single self-report Likert item, and there is no independent third-party evaluation of the resulting stories or a baseline comparison against alternative tools (e.g., smartphone recording or desktop writing). The paper acknowledges this in Sec. 9, but the Discussion (Sec. 8.1.1) states that the grounding 'has the potential to counter genericness' partly on the basis of these self-reports and the 215-element count. This is acceptable for an exploratory study, but the wording should more consistently emphasize that these are author-perceived outcomes, and the 'potential' should be clearly flagged as not yet validated. A minor rewording of Sec. 8.1.1 to avoid overstatement would suffice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 8.2.2 and Sec. 8.1.3] Typographical errors: 'Spatially A ware Memory' should be 'Spatially Aware Memory' and 'Context-A ware Output' should be 'Context-Aware Output'.
  2. [Sec. 6.1] Formatting: in the participant description, '1.5out of 5' lacks a space; should be '1.5 out of 5'.
  3. [Sec. 8.1.3] Participant numbering is ambiguous across studies. The reference to 'P3' in the uncanny-valley example likely refers to a Study 2 participant, but Study 3 also uses P1–P8. Clarify by specifying the study, e.g., 'P3 (Study 2).'
  4. [Figure 8] The caption says 'interaction count percentage' but the right panel shows per-participant distributions with primary purposes marked. Please clarify the variable represented in each panel.
  5. [Sec. 5.2] The latency comparison cites a 9-second condition from reference [94]; please verify that the cited source matches the described prior work and that the latency measurement is described sufficiently for replication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CRAFT claim is grounded in new field-trial data rather than in its own design goals or self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative design exploration, not a formal derivation, so equation-level circularity does not apply. The design goals from Study 1 informed the probe, and Study 3 then reports author-perceived benefits and interaction logs; this is an iterative technology-probe cycle, not a prediction whose outcome is forced by construction. Study 3 could have produced negative or mixed evidence (and indeed reports some drawbacks, e.g., Low Distraction M=3.9), so the observed benefits are not tautological. The same-group citations (PANDALens, AiGet, ParaGlassMenu) are used for background, measurement inspiration, and terminology, not as a load-bearing proof of the central 'micro-creation' claim. The limitation statement in Sec. 9 openly acknowledges the absence of baseline comparisons and of explicit accept/reject tracing; that is an internal-validity limitation about whether 'active construction' is fully separated from AI-generated transformation, but it is not a case of the paper's conclusion being equivalent to its input by definition. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work to force the result. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claims are qualitative design insights rather than mathematical derivations, so there are no fitted scientific parameters in the traditional sense. The listed free parameters are implementation and study-design choices made by the authors. The paper relies on standard qualitative-research assumptions and introduces conceptual entities that still need external validation.

free parameters (4)
  • Proactive suggestion loop interval = 30 seconds
    Chosen from pilot testing to balance responsiveness and cognitive load (Sec. 5.2); affects interaction frequency but not the qualitative conclusions.
  • Visual pre-filter similarity thresholds = 0.8 frame-level; 0.75 window-level
    Hand-set in Appendix C.3.2 to suppress repetitive proactive suggestions; implementation tuning rather than a fitted scientific parameter.
  • Semantic post-filter embedding threshold = 0.8
    Hand-set in Appendix C.3.2 to suppress similar suggestions; implementation tuning.
  • Study 3 session count and duration = 3 x 60 min per participant
    Chosen for feasibility; limits evidence for sustained use and is acknowledged in Sec. 9.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flower and Hayes' recursive writing model is an appropriate lens for in-situ fiction writing
    Used as a design lens in Sec. 2.1 without empirical validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Peirce's semiotic categories can operationalize reality-to-fiction entity prioritization
    Adopted in Sec. 6.3.1 from workshop cases; not independently validated.
  • domain assumption The authenticity triad is a valid framework for grounding fiction
    Taken from literary scholarship in Sec. 4.3.1; used to interpret field-trial integration.
  • domain assumption Participants' self-report measures reflect actual creative support and benefits
    Study 3 conclusions rely on self-report measures (Sec. 7.3-7.4) without independent expert evaluation of the stories.
  • domain assumption Researcher-conducted thematic analysis reliably represents participant experiences
    Appendix B describes collaborative calibration but one author coded the remaining data; inter-rater reliability and full reflexivity are not reported.
invented entities (3)
  • CRAFT approach / Wearable Creative AI
    purpose: Conceptual framework for context-aware transformation of lived experience into fiction on smart glasses
    Introduced by this paper; evaluated only through the authors' own probe and studies.
  • Micro-creation
    purpose: Construct describing distributed, brief in-situ fiction-construction sessions
    Emergent pattern from Study 3 logs and interviews; not yet independently replicated.
  • Similarity relations (identical, iconic, symbolic)
    purpose: Taxonomy for prioritizing which real-world entities to transform into fiction
    Grounded in Peirce and workshop examples; no outside validation yet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CRAFT: Exploring Wearable Creative AI on Smart Glasses for Fiction Writing in Real-World Contexts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7BM3SKM

@misc{pith2026260721394,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CRAFT: Exploring Wearable Creative AI on Smart Glasses for Fiction Writing in Real-World Contexts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7BM3SKM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21394}
}
read the original abstract

Creative writing increasingly integrates AI assistance, yet current tools miss in-situ moments when writers draw inspiration from real-world experiences. We envision Context-aware Reality-Fiction Transformation (CRAFT), an approach for AI glasses that translates daily experiences into fiction narratives. We explored its desirability, feasibility, and potential viability through three studies. Interviews with nine writers yielded desires and three design goals: 1) augmenting in-situ perception to bridge reality-fiction gaps, 2) promoting authenticity grounded in real-world experiences while maintaining fictionalization, and 3) preserving creative agency, enjoyment, and life-art boundaries. Co-design workshops with 16 writers and researchers operationalized these goals into concrete interaction mechanisms using a technology probe. We then conducted supported field trials with eight writers across 24 sessions using a refined probe, revealing writer-perceived benefits (e.g., enriched fictional ideas from serendipitous encounters), emergent practices (e.g., micro-creation), and design considerations for future sustained use. We contribute design explorations for the CRAFT approach, offering design implications and empirical insights on ubiquitous human-AI creative collaboration in everyday life.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21394 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Novelists often draw inspiration from daily life (e.g., observing a landmark) but face cognitive gaps (e.g., memory fade of immersive details that a phone recording cannot fully capture) when trying to expand these inspiration moments into writing later. Bottom: CRAFT aims to enable a more seamless in-situ transformation of observation into fiction through a Wearable Creative AI on smart glasses. (1) By proacti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relationship Between RQs, Studies, Main Results, and Usage of Technology Probe. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CRAFT probe overview. Smart glasses capture first-person video, speech, time, and location. Using mixed-initiative interaction—user-initiative ((1) comments or (4) photos) and AI-initiative (continuous sensing)—the probe fuses these data with story context to deliver on-glasses (2) plot construction, (3) proactive suggestion, (5) transformed fiction description, (6) Q&A, and (7) role-play. It also supports (8) lapto… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Design workshop procedure: (1) technology probe trial, (2) design ideation with a simulated AR tool where users can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Workshop examples of Reality-Fiction Transformation. Real-world entities (top) map to fictional elements—setting, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Some locations for Study 3, selected based on participants’ preferences and location availability. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of Transformed Half-Real/Half-Fiction Visualizations in Study 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Usage Patterns of CRAFT in Study 3: (a) interaction count percentage for all participants. Note: Global Content refers to global plot editing or checking, and Photo/Voice Local Content refers to individual fictional element authoring or updating. (b) interaction distri…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Quality ratings of the author-perceived creation support and interaction with the probe for all participants across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Design Suggestion Summary from All Studies to Guide Future Implementation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Interaction distribution across three sessions conducted on different days for all participants. A single colored block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022.How to take smart notes: One simple technique to boost writing, learning and thinking

    Sönke Ahrens. 2022.How to take smart notes: One simple technique to boost writing, learning and thinking. Sönke Ahrens

    2022

  2. [2]

    James E Allen, Curry I Guinn, and Eric Horvtz. 1999. Mixed-initiative interaction.IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications14, 5 (1999), 14–23. doi:10.1109/5254.796083

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Barbosa, Gang Wang, Blase Ur, and Yang Wang

    Natã M. Barbosa, Gang Wang, Blase Ur, and Yang Wang. 2021. Who Am I? A Design Probe Exploring Real-Time Transparency about Online and Offline User Profiling Underlying Targeted Ads.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.5, 3, Article 88 (Sept. 2021), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3478122

    doi:10.1145/3478122 2021

  4. [4]

    Anne Becker. 2006. A review of writing model research based on cognitive processes. InRevision: History, Theory, and Practice, Alice Horning and Anne Becker (Eds.). 25–49

    2006

  5. [5]

    Nina Beguš. 2024. Experimental narratives: A comparison of human crowdsourced storytelling and AI storytelling.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11, 1 (2024), 1–22

    2024

  6. [6]

    Heidi Biggs. 2025. Fabulating Bog Girl: Queer Entanglements of Body and Land Histories in More-than-Human AutoFiction and Design. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714067

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    2004.The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms

    Margaret A Boden. 2004.The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. Routledge

    2004

  8. [8]

    Federico Bomba, María Menéndez-Blanco, Paolo Grigis, Michele Cremaschi, and Antonella De Angeli. 2024. The Choreographer- Performer Continuum: A Diffraction Tool to Illuminate Authorship in More Than Human Co-Performances.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction31, 6 (2024), 1–23

    2024

Show all 133 references
  1. [9]

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

    2006

  2. [10]

    2021.Thematic analysis: A practical guide

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021.Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE publications Ltd

    2021

  3. [11]

    Tim Brown. 2008. Design thinking.Harvard business review86, 6 (2008), 84

    2008

  4. [12]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  5. [13]

    1986.Actual Minds, Possible Worlds

    Jerome Bruner. 1986.Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press

    1986

  6. [14]

    Runze Cai, Nuwan Janaka, Yang Chen, Lucia Wang, Shengdong Zhao, and Can Liu. 2024. PANDALens: Towards AI-Assisted In-Context Writing on OHMD During Travels. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association ...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Runze Cai, Nuwan Janaka, Hyeongcheol Kim, Yang Chen, Shengdong Zhao, Yun Huang, and David Hsu. 2025. AiGet: Transforming Everyday Moments into Hidden Knowledge Discovery with AI Assistance on Smart Glasses. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Runze Cai, Nuwan Nanayakkarawasam Peru Kandage Janaka, Shengdong Zhao, and Minghui Sun. 2023. ParaGlassMenu: Towards Social-Friendly Subtle Interactions in Conversations. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23)...

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    Carroll and Celine Latulipe

    Erin A. Carroll and Celine Latulipe. 2009. The creativity support index. InCHI ’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Boston, MA, USA)(CHI EA ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4009–4014. doi:10.1145/1520340. 1520609

    2009 doi

  10. [19]

    Janet X Chen, Allison McDonald, Yixin Zou, Emily Tseng, Kevin A Roundy, Acar Tamersoy, Florian Schaub, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2022. Trauma-informed computing: Towards safer technology experiences for all. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors i...

    2022

  11. [20]

    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

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    Neo Christopher Chung. 2021. Human in the loop for machine creativity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03569(2021). Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 10, No. 3, Article 81. Publication date: September 2026. 81:26•Cai et al

    2021 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Randell Cliff. 2005. Wearable Computing: A Review. (2005)

    2005

  14. [23]

    2000.The distinction of fiction

    Dorrit Cohn. 2000.The distinction of fiction. JHU Press

    2000

  15. [24]

    Fernanda M De La Torre, Javier Hernandez, Andrew D Wilson, and Judith Amores. 2025. Sonora: Human-AI Co-Creation of 3D Audio Worlds and its Impact on Anxiety and Cognitive Load. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    2025

  16. [25]

    Marcelo de Paiva Guimarães, James Miranda Martins, Diego Roberto Colombo Dias, Rita de Fátima Rodrigues Guimarães, and Bruno Barberi Gnecco. 2022. An olfactory display for virtual reality glasses.Multimedia Systems28, 5 (2022), 1573–1583

    2022

  17. [26]

    Tamara Denning, Zakariya Dehlawi, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: Perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2377–2386

    2014

  18. [27]

    Lubomír Doležel. 1980. Truth and Authenticity in Narrative.Poetics Today1, 3 (1980), 7–25. doi:10.2307/1772407 Publisher: [Duke University Press, Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics]

    1980 doi

  19. [28]

    Evangelos Dragonas, Costas Lambrinoudakis, and Panagiotis Nakoutis. 2024. Forensic analysis of OpenAI’s ChatGPT mobile application. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation50 (2024), 301801

    2024

  20. [29]

    Denis Dutton. 2004. The Pleasures of Fiction.Philosophy and Literature28, 2 (2004), 453–466. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/175064 Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press

    2004

  21. [30]

    Silvia Elias, Bunder Sebail Alshammari, Khaled Nasser Alfraidi, and Khaled Mostafa Karam. 2025. Rethinking literary creativity in the digital age: a comparative study of human versus AI playwriting.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications12, 1 (May 2025), 689. doi:10.1057...

    2025 doi

  22. [31]

    Min Fan, Xinyue Cui, Jing Hao, Renxuan Ye, Wanqing Ma, Xin Tong, and Meng Li. 2024. StoryPrompt: Exploring the design space of an AI-empowered creative storytelling system for elementary children. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

    2024

  23. [32]

    Xiaoxuan Fang, Kai Guo, and Davy Tsz Kit Ng. 2025. Sudowrite: Co-writing creative stories with artificial intelligence.RELC journal 56, 3 (2025), 794–798

    2025

  24. [33]

    Didier Fassin. 2014. True life, real lives.AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST41, 1 (FEB 2014), 40–55. doi:10.1111/amet.12059

    2014 doi

  25. [34]

    Linda Flower and John R Hayes. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing.College Composition & Communication32, 4 (1981), 365–387

    1981

  26. [35]

    Bill Gaver, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti. 1999. Design: cultural probes.interactions6, 1 (1999), 21–29

    1999

  27. [36]

    Katy Gero, Alex Calderwood, Charlotte Li, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. A design space for writing support tools using a cognitive process model of writing. InProceedings of the first workshop on intelligent and interactive writing assistants (In2Writing 2022). 11–24

    2022

  28. [37]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. Sparks: Inspiration for science writing using language models. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1002–1019

    2022

  29. [38]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Tao Long, and Lydia B Chilton. 2023. Social Dynamics of AI Support in Creative Writing. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580782

    2023

  30. [39]

    Frederica Gonçalves, Diogo Cabral, Pedro Campos, and Johannes Schöning. 2017. I smell creativity: Exploring the effects of olfactory and auditory cues to support creative writing tasks. InIFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 165–183

    2017

  31. [40]

    Alicia Guo, Shreya Sathyanarayanan, Leijie Wang, Jeffrey Heer, and Amy X. Zhang. 2025. From Pen to Prompt: How Creative Writers Integrate AI into their Writing Practice. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’25). Association for Computing Machi...

    2025

  32. [41]

    David Haag, Devender Kumar, Sebastian Gruber, Dominik P Hofer, Mahdi Sareban, Gunnar Treff, Josef Niebauer, Christopher N Bull, Albrecht Schmidt, and Jan David Smeddinck. 2025. The Last JITAI? Exploring Large Language Models for Issuing Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions: Fos...

    2025

  33. [42]

    Markku S. Hannula. 2003. Fictionalising Experiences: Experiencing through Fiction.For the Learning of Mathematics23, 3 (2003), 31–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40248432 Publisher: FLM Publishing Association

    2003

  34. [43]

    Jussi Holopainen, Yuxuan Huang, Joongi Shin, Erkka Nissinen, and Andrés Lucero. 2025. Infinity Book: Speculating Literary Expressions in the Age of Generative AI. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1430–1454

    2025

  35. [44]

    Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA)(CHI ’99). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159–166. doi:10.1145/302979.303030

    1999

  36. [45]

    Andrew Howard, Mark Sandler, Grace Chu, Liang-Chieh Chen, Bo Chen, Mingxing Tan, Weijun Wang, Yukun Zhu, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, et al. 2019. Searching for mobilenetv3. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 1314–1324. Proc. ACM Inter...

    2019

  37. [46]

    Kevin Huang, Patrick J Sparto, Sara Kiesler, Asim Smailagic, Jennifer Mankoff, and Dan Siewiorek. 2014. A technology probe of wearable in-home computer-assisted physical therapy. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2541–2550

    2014

  38. [47]

    Yuxuan Huang, James Shea, Daniel C Howe, and Jussi Holopainen. 2025. Lyric Poetry in the Face of Posthumanism: An Analysis of Generative AI-Assisted Poetry Writing. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 762–773

    2025

  39. [48]

    Kjell Hedgard Hugaas. 2024. Bleed and Identity: A conceptual model of bleed and how bleed-out from role-playing games can affect a player’s sense of self.International Journal of Role-Playing15 (2024), 9–35

    2024

  40. [49]

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. InProceedings of the SIGCHI con...

    2003

  41. [50]

    Vera Liao, Su Lin Blodgett, Alexandra Olteanu, and Adam Trischler

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Q. Vera Liao, Su Lin Blodgett, Alexandra Olteanu, and Adam Trischler. 2025. ’It was 80% me, 20% AI’: Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2 (May 2025), CSCW122:1–CSCW122:41. doi:10.1145/3711020

    2025 doi

  42. [51]

    Tim Ingold. 2010. Ways of mind-walking: reading, writing, painting.Visual Studies25, 1 (2010), 15–23

    2010

  43. [52]

    2021.The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill

    Tim Ingold. 2021.The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. routledge

    2021

  44. [53]

    Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, and Sehmon Burnam. 2022. Creative writing with an ai-powered writing assistant: Perspectives from professional writers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05030(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Wolfgang Iser. 1990. Fictionalizing: The Anthropological dimension of literary fictions.New literary history21, 4 (1990), 939–955

    1990

  46. [55]

    Ferris Jabr. 2014. Why walking helps us think.The New Yorker(2014)

    2014

  47. [56]

    Nuwan Janaka, Chloe Haigh, Hyeongcheol Kim, Shan Zhang, and Shengdong Zhao. 2022. Paracentral and near-peripheral visualizations: Towards attention-maintaining secondary information presentation on OHMDs during in-person social interactions. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Confe...

    2022

  48. [57]

    Smita Jhajharia, SK Pal, and Seema Verma. 2014. Wearable computing and its application.International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies5, 4 (2014), 5700–5704

    2014

  49. [58]

    Mirabelle Jones, Christina Neumayer, and Irina Shklovski. 2023. Embodying the algorithm: exploring relationships with large language models through artistic performance. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–24

    2023

  50. [59]

    Hyeongcheol Kim, Shengdong Zhao, Can Liu, and Kotaro Hara. 2020. Livesnippets: Voice-based live authoring of multimedia articles about experiences. In22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 1–11

    2020

  51. [60]

    Bernstein, and Daniela Steinsapir

    Joy Kim, Mira Dontcheva, Wilmot Li, Michael S. Bernstein, and Daniela Steinsapir. 2015. Motif: Supporting Novice Creativity through Expert Patterns. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machi...

    2015

  52. [61]

    Taewook Kim, Hyomin Han, Eytan Adar, Matthew Kay, and John Joon Young Chung. 2024. Authors’ Values and Attitudes Towards AI-bridged Scalable Personalization of Creative Language Arts. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2024

  53. [62]

    Yewon Kim, Sung-Ju Lee, and Chris Donahue. 2025. Amuse: Human-AI Collaborative Songwriting with Multimodal Inspirations. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–28. doi...

    2025

  54. [63]

    Tom Kortenbach, Yuan Yin, Milene Guerreiro Gonçalves, Rebecca Anne Price, and Pan Wang. 2025. The relation between humans and LLMs in the creative act.Journal of Creativity(2025), 100114

    2025

  55. [64]

    Nigel Krauth. 2006. The domains of the writing process. Post Pressed

    2006

  56. [65]

    Byung Cheol Lee and Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung. 2024. An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity.Nature Human Behaviour8, 10 (Oct. 2024), 1906–1914. doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    Froehlich, Gabriel Brostow, and Jessica Van Brummelen

    Jaewook Lee, Filippo Aleotti, Diego Mazala, Guillermo Garcia-Hernando, Sara Vicente, Oliver James Johnston, Isabel Kraus-Liang, Jakub Powierza, Donghoon Shin, Jon E. Froehlich, Gabriel Brostow, and Jessica Van Brummelen. 2025. ImaginateAR: AI-Assisted In-Situ Authoring in Augm...

    2025

  58. [67]

    Jae Lee and Soyeon Lee. 2023. Relationships between Physical Environments and Creativity: A Scoping Review.Thinking Skills and Creativity48 (March 2023), 101276. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101276

    2023

  59. [68]

    Rodriguez, and Jon E

    Jaewook Lee, Jun Wang, Elizabeth Brown, Liam Chu, Sebastian S. Rodriguez, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2024. GazePointAR: A Context-Aware Multimodal Voice Assistant for Pronoun Disambiguation in Wearable Augmented Reality. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Compu...

    2024

  60. [69]

    Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L.C

    Mina Lee, Katy Ilonka Gero, John Joon Young Chung, Simon Buckingham Shum, Vipul Raheja, Hua Shen, Subhashini Venugopalan, Thiemo Wambsganss, David Zhou, Emad A. Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L.C. Guo, Md Naimul Hoque, Yewon Kim, S...

    2026

  61. [70]

    Holli R Leggette, Tracy Rutherford, Deborah Dunsford, and Lori Costello. 2015. A review and evaluation of prominent theories of writing.Journal of Applied Communications99, 3 (2015)

    2015

  62. [71]

    Ming Li, Yu-Ting Chen, Chang-Qin Huang, Gwo-Jen Hwang, and Mutlu Cukurova. 2023. From motivational experience to creative writing: A motivational AR-based learning approach to promoting Chinese writing performance and positive writing behaviours. Computers & Education202 (Sept...

    2023

  63. [72]

    Zisu Li, Li Feng, Chen Liang, Yuru Huang, and Mingming Fan. 2023. Exploring the Opportunities of AR for Enriching Storytelling with Family Photos between Grandparents and Grandchildren.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.7, 3, Article 108 (Sept. 2023), 26 page...

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    Feiyu Lu, Shakiba Davari, Lee Lisle, Yuan Li, and Doug A Bowman. 2020. Glanceable ar: Evaluating information access methods for head-worn augmented reality. In2020 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). IEEE, 930–939

    2020

  65. [74]

    Arien Mack. 2003. Inattentional blindness: Looking without seeing.Current directions in psychological science12, 5 (2003), 180–184

    2003

  66. [75]

    Guillermo Marco, Julio Gonzalo, and Víctor Fresno. 2025. The reader is the metric: How textual features and reader profiles explain conflicting evaluations of AI creative writing. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025. 25432–25449

    2025

  67. [76]

    Jon McCormack, Patrick Hutchings, Toby Gifford, Matthew Yee-King, Maria Teresa Llano, and Mark D’inverno. 2020. Design considerations for real-time collaboration with creative artificial intelligence.Organised Sound25, 1 (2020), 41–52

    2020

  68. [77]

    Lennart Meincke, Gideon Nave, and Christian Terwiesch. 2025. ChatGPT decreases idea diversity in brainstorming.Nature Human Behaviour9, 6 (June 2025), 1107–1109. doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02173-x Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2025 doi

  69. [78]

    Sepideh Mesbah, Ines Arous, Jie Yang, and Alessandro Bozzon. 2023. HybridEval: A Human-AI Collaborative Approach for Evaluating Design Ideas at Scale(WWW ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3837–3848. doi:10.1145/3543507.3583496

    2023

  70. [79]

    Avital Meshi. 2024. GPT-ME: A Human-AI Cognitive Assemblage.Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques7, 4 (2024), 1–8

    2024

  71. [80]

    Piotr Mirowski, Kory W Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans. 2023. Co-writing screenplays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–34

    2023

  72. [81]

    Michael Nebeling, Alexandra To, Anhong Guo, Adrian A de Freitas, Jaime Teevan, Steven P Dow, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2016. WearWrite: Crowd-assisted writing from smartwatches. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 3834–3846

    2016

  73. [82]

    William Orwig, Emma R Edenbaum, Joshua D Greene, and Daniel L Schacter. 2024. The language of creativity: Evidence from humans and large language models.The Journal of creative behavior58, 1 (2024), 128–136

    2024

  74. [83]

    Pat Pataranutaporn, Chayapatr Archiwaranguprok, Samantha WT Chan, Elizabeth Loftus, and Pattie Maes. 2025. Synthetic human memories: Ai-edited images and videos can implant false memories and distort recollection. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2025

  75. [84]

    Elizabeth Paton. 2016. The Dynamic System of Fiction Writing. InThe Creative System in Action. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 113–124. doi:10.1057/9781137509468_9

    2016 doi

  76. [85]

    Charles S. Peirce. 1985. Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs. InSemiotics: An Introductory Anthology, Robert E. Innis (Ed.). Indiana University Press

    1985

  77. [86]

    Hua Xuan Qin, Shan Jin, Ze Gao, Mingming Fan, and Pan Hui. 2024. CharacterMeet: Supporting creative writers’ entire story character construction processes through conversation with LLM-powered chatbot avatars. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2024

  78. [87]

    Hua Xuan Qin, Guangzhi Zhu, Mingming Fan, and Pan Hui. 2025. Toward Personalizable AI Node Graph Creative Writing Support: Insights on Preferences for Generative AI Features and Information Presentation Across Story Writing Processes. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference o...

    2025

  79. [88]

    Johnson, and Michael Nebeling

    Shwetha Rajaram, Macarena Peralta, Janet G. Johnson, and Michael Nebeling. 2025. Exploring the Design Space of Privacy-Driven Adaptation Techniques for Future Augmented Reality Interfaces. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25)...

    2025

  80. [89]

    Jun Rekimoto. 2023. WESPER: Zero-shot and realtime whisper to normal voice conversion for whisper-based speech interactions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12

    2023

  81. [90]

    Shardul Sapkota, Ashwin Ram, and Shengdong Zhao. 2021. Ubiquitous interactions for heads-up computing: Understanding users’ preferences for subtle interaction techniques in everyday settings. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction. 1–15

    2021

  82. [91]

    Laura Saxton. 2020. A true story: defining accuracy and authenticity in historical fiction.Rethinking History24, 2 (April 2020), 127–144. doi:10.1080/13642529.2020.1727189 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642529.2020.1727189. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wea...

    2020

  83. [92]

    Andreas Schuller, Doris Janssen, Julian Blumenröther, Theresa Maria Probst, Michael Schmidt, and Chandan Kumar. 2024. Generating personas using LLMs and assessing their viability. InExtended abstracts of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–7

    2024

  84. [93]

    Viktor Shklovsky. 2015. Art, as device.Poetics Today36, 3 (2015), 151–174

    2015

  85. [94]

    Felicia Fang-Yi Tan, Moritz Alexander Messerschmidt, Wen Yin, and Oded Nov. 2026. The Impact of Response Latency and Task Type on Human-LLM Interaction and Perception. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Com...

    2026

  86. [95]

    Felicia Fang-Yi Tan, Peisen Xu, Ashwin Ram, Wei Zhen Suen, Shengdong Zhao, Yun Huang, and Christophe Hurter. 2024. AudioXtend: Assisted Reality Visual Accompaniments for Audiobook Storytelling During Everyday Routine Tasks. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Fac...

    2024

  87. [96]

    Yuying Tang, Haotian Li, Minghe Lan, Xiaojuan Ma, and Huamin Qu. 2025. Understanding Screenwriters’ Practices, Attitudes, and Future Expectations in Human-AI Co-Creation. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for ...

    2025

  88. [97]

    Jaime Teevan, Shamsi T Iqbal, and Curtis Von Veh. 2016. Supporting collaborative writing with microtasks. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2657–2668

    2016

  89. [98]

    Wai Tong, Kento Shigyo, Lin-Ping Yuan, Mingming Fan, Ting-Chuen Pong, Huamin Qu, and Meng Xia. 2024. Vistellar: Embedding data visualization to short-form videos using mobile augmented reality.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics31, 3 (2024), 1862–1874

    2024

  90. [99]

    IDEO U. [n. d.]. How to Prototype a New Business. https://www.ideou.com/blogs/inspiration/how-to-prototype-a-new-business. Accessed: November 17, 2025

    2025

  91. [100]

    It Felt Like Having a Second Mind

    Qian Wan, Siying Hu, Yu Zhang, Piaohong Wang, Bo Wen, and Zhicong Lu. 2024. "It Felt Like Having a Second Mind": Investigating Human-AI Co-creativity in Prewriting with Large Language Models.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–26

    2024

  92. [101]

    Shensheng Wang, Scott O Lilienfeld, and Philippe Rochat. 2015. The uncanny valley: Existence and explanations.Review of General Psychology19, 4 (2015), 393–407

    2015

  93. [102]

    Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Minilm: Deep self-attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 5776–5788

    2020

  94. [103]

    Zeyu Wang, Yuanchun Shi, Yuntao Wang, Yuchen Yao, Kun Yan, Yuhan Wang, Lei Ji, Xuhai Xu, and Chun Yu. 2024. G-VOILA: Gaze-Facilitated Information Querying in Daily Scenarios.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.8, 2, Article 78 (may 2024), 33 pages. doi:10.1145/3659623

    2024 doi

  95. [104]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  96. [105]

    Tony Williams. 2013. The Writer Walking the Dog: Creative Writing Practice and Everyday Life.American, British and Canadian Studies20, 1 (Aug. 2013), 224–238. doi:10.2478/abcsj-2013-0016

    2013 doi

  97. [106]

    Xingjiao Wu, Luwei Xiao, Yixuan Sun, Junhang Zhang, Tianlong Ma, and Liang He. 2022. A survey of human-in-the-loop for machine learning.Future Generation Computer Systems135 (2022), 364–381

    2022

  98. [107]

    Chin-Wen Yeh, Shih-Han Hung, and Chun-Yen Chang. 2022. The influence of natural environments on creativity.Frontiers in psychiatry 13 (2022), 895213

    2022

  99. [108]

    Michael Yin and Robert Xiao. 2025. TravelTales: Reflecting on Meaningful Travel through Digital Scrapbooking and Journaling. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies9, 3 (2025), 1–29

    2025

  100. [109]

    Linhao Yu, Qun Liu, and Deyi Xiong. 2024. LFED: A literary fiction evaluation dataset for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10166(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  101. [110]

    Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. 2022. Wordcraft: story writing with large language models. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 841–852

    2022

  102. [111]

    You’ll Be Alice Adventuring in Wonderland!

    Lin-Ping Yuan, Feilin Han, Liwenhan Xie, Junjie Zhang, Jian Zhao, and Huamin Qu. 2025. "You’ll Be Alice Adventuring in Wonderland!" Processes, Challenges, and Opportunities of Creating Animated Virtual Reality Stories. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2025

  103. [112]

    Yu Zhang, Kexue Fu, and Zhicong Lu. 2025. RevTogether: Supporting Science Story Revision with Multiple AI Agents. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7

    2025

  104. [113]

    Ziyang Zhang, Chong Bao, Xiaokun Pan, Chia-Ming Chang, Takeo Igarashi, and Guofeng Zhang. 2025. Through the Lens of Privacy: Exploring Privacy Protection in Vision-Language Model Interactions on Smart Glasses. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Hu...

    2025

  105. [114]

    Shengdong Zhao, Felicia Tan, and Katherine Fennedy. 2023. Heads-Up Computing Moving Beyond the Device-Centered Paradigm. Commun. ACM66, 9 (aug 2023), 56–63. doi:10.1145/3571722

    2023 doi

  106. [115]

    Zixin Zhao, Damien Masson, Young-Ho Kim, Gerald Penn, and Fanny Chevalier. 2025. Making the Write Connections: Linking Writing Support Tools with Writer Needs. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing M...

    2025

  107. [116]

    Chen Zhou, Zihan Yan, Ashwin Ram, Yue Gu, Yan Xiang, Can Liu, Yun Huang, Wei Tsang Ooi, and Shengdong Zhao. 2024. GlassMail: Towards personalised wearable assistant for on-the-go email creation on smart glasses. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Confe...

    2024

  108. [117]

    Chenfei Zhu, Shao-Kang Hsia, Xiyun Hu, Ziyi Liu, Jingyu Shi, and Karthik Ramani. 2025. agentAR: Creating Augmented Reality Applications with Tool-Augmented LLM-based Autonomous Agents. InProceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–...

    2025

  109. [118]

    If no connection is natural, return null

    Priority: Quality over quantity. If no connection is natural, return null

  110. [119]

    Analyze User State and Environment: Infer behaviors and key environmental elements

  111. [120]

    Analyze Interaction History: Identify topics already suggested

  112. [121]

    Similarity Priority Policy: Determine Identical (Indexical), Iconic, or Symbolic opportunities

  113. [122]

    Identify Advanced Suggestion Techniques:Direct Reminder, Gap-Filling, and Metaphorical Enhancement

  114. [123]

    user_behavior

    Maintain Interaction Quality & Rhythm: Analyze user behavior and infer interruptibility. Return null if timing is inappropriate. # Output Schema (JSON) { Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 10, No. 3, Article 81. Publication date: September 2026. 81:32•...

    2026

  115. [124]

    Creative Adaptation: Respect the user's chosen fictional setting; adapt the real-world environmental features into the fiction

  116. [125]

    Narrative Coherence: Continue logically from existing story content; ensure consistency; avoid plot holes

  117. [126]

    Authenticity: Ensure natural dialogue and realistic character behaviors that are logically and emotionally authentic; Ensure factual accuracy for professional/historical/technical content

  118. [127]

    [WRITING_STYLE]

    Grounded Details: Base narratives on specific user observations and sensory details. The user's preferred writing style is: "[WRITING_STYLE]". History of user-created stories:"[STORY_HISTORY]" # Mode Selection Logic Analyze input to determine mode:

  119. [128]

    Authoring: Creating/transforming specific scenes or characters

  120. [129]

    answer":

    Plot Ideation: High-level brainstorming or global plot questions. # Mode: Authoring - User Intent Priority: Always prioritize explicit user ideas, requirements, or preferences. - Check if the user asks direct factual questions first. - If creating a new scene: 1) Summarize & D...

  121. [130]

    plot_summary

    Generate a plot summary with the main theme/characters. 2) Ask elicitation questions to clarify user ideas. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 10, No. 3, Article 81. Publication date: September 2026. CRAFT•81:33 - Output JSON: { "plot_summary": "...", ...

    2026

  122. [131]

    Determine the user's role and AI's role

  123. [132]

    Extract and refine user's in-character dialogue (clean transcription errors, remove out-of-character phrases)

  124. [133]

    Generate an appropriate in-character AI response

  125. [134]

    user_role

    Create an image prompt for the AI character. - Return JSON: {"user_role": "...", "user_dialogue": "Refined in-character speech", "ai_role": "...", "ai_dialogue": "...", "image_prompt": "..."} Image Generation Prompt Guidance:To visualize the transformed fictional world, a gene...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.