Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Chandan Mahapatra

dblp:239/7984 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Personal fabrication and tangible interfaces · 44% Design research and methods · 44% User interface design and tools · 13%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Personal fabrication and tangible interfaces › digital fabrication
augmented fabrication
0.412019
Barriers to End-User Designers of Augmented Fabrication · CHI 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user study · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Barriers to End-User Designers of Augmented Fabrication
abstract
Augmented fabrication is the practice of designing and fabricating an artifact to work with existing objects. Although common both in the wild and as an area for research tools, little is known about how novices approach the task of designing under the constraints of interfacing with real-world objects. In this paper, we report the results of a study of fifteen novice end users in an augmented fabrication design task. We discuss obstacles encountered in four contexts: capturing information about physical objects, transferring information to 3D~modeling software, digitally modeling a new object, and evaluating whether the new object will work when fabricated. Based on our findings, we suggest how future tools can better support augmented fabrication in each of these contexts.
Chandan Mahapatra, Jonas Kjeldmand Jensen, Michael McQuaid, Daniel Ashbrook
CHI1