Personal Fabrication Patrick Baudisch Hasso Plattner Institute, Potsdam, Germany ⃝R Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 United States Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com ⃝R Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction Volume 10, Issue 3–4, 2016 Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief Desney S. Tan Microsoft Research United States Editors Ben Bederson Youn-Kyung Lim University of Maryland Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Sheelagh Carpendale Technology University of Calgary Nuria Oliver Andy Cockburn Telefonica University of Canterbury Orit Shaer Jon Froehlich Wellesley College University of Maryland Kentaro Toyama Juan Pablo Hourcade University of Michigan University of Iowa Karrie Karahalios University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000055 Editorial Scope Topics Foundations and Trends⃝R in Human-Computer Interaction publishes surveys and tutorials on the foundations of human-computer interac- tion. The scope is broad. The list of topics below is meant to illustrate some of the coverage, and is not intended to be an exhaustive list. • History of the research • Computer supported community cooperative work • Design and evaluation • Interdisciplinary influence • Theory • Technology • Advanced topics and trends Information for Librarians Foundations and Trends⃝R in Human-Computer Interaction, 2016, Vol- ume 10, 4 issues. ISSN paper version 1551-3955. ISSN online version 1551-3963. Also available as a combined paper and online subscription. Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000055 Foundations and Trends⃝R in Human-Computer Interaction Vol. 10, No. 3–4 (2016) 165–293 ⃝c 2017 P. Baudisch and S. Mueller DOI: 10.1561/1100000055 Personal Fabrication Patrick Baudisch Hasso Plattner Institute, Potsdam, Germany Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 The promise of fabrication in the hands of consumers . . . 4 1.2 Personal fabrication and its underlying AD/DA pattern . . 6 1.3 Personal fabrication, like other AD/DA technologies before it, will result in disruptive change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.4 How past AD/DA media transitioned to consumers . . . . 10 1.5 Transitioning personal fabrication: the six challenges . . . . 13 2 Hardware and Materials 16 2.1 Personal fabrication technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.2 Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.3 Color and appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.4 Tactile textures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.5 Soft materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.6 Structural properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.7 Pneumatics and hydraulics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.8 Conductive and electrical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.9 Optics and light pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.10 Multi-material printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.11 Infill, microstructures and metamaterials . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.12 Conclusion and open research questions . . . . . . . . . . 36 ii Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000055 iii 3 Domain Knowledge 38 3.1 Objectives: Domain knowledge in personal fabrication . . . 39 3.2 Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.3 Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.4 Statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.5 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.6 Conclusions and open research questions . . . . . . . . . . 51 4 Visual Feedback and Interactivity 55 4.1 Editing objects with the help of visual previews . . . . . . 55 4.2 When the object itself is required as feedback . . . . . . . 57 4.3 Interactive fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.4 Continuous interactive fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.5 Conclusions and open research questions . . . . . . . . . . 69 5 Machine-Specific Knowledge 73 5.1 Fitting a 3D model into a machine-specific build volume . 74 5.2 Optimizing slicing for stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 5.3 Optimizing FDM printing speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.4 Calibrating joint geometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 5.5 Minimizing support material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5.6 Minimizing scrap material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 5.7 Conversion of 3D models to 2D fabrication machines . . . 80 5.8 Machine-independent object specifications . . . . . . . . . 82 5.9 Machine-independent specification of physical controls . . 85 5.10 Conclusion and open research questions . . . . . . . . . . 86 6 Sustainability 89 6.1 Reducing material consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.2 Reducing support and scrap material . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.3 Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.4 Avoiding fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6.5 Conclusion and open research questions . . . . . . . . . . 94 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000055 iv 7 Intellectual Property 97 7.1 A historical perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 7.2 Copyright issues involved in sharing 3D models . . . . . . 98 7.3 Digital rights management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 7.4 Certifying object authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 7.5 Transferring a license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7.6 Conclusion and open research questions . . . . . . . . . . 103 8 Conclusions and Outlook 105 8.1 When will we get there? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 References 111 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000055 Abstract While fabrication technologies have been in use in industry for sev- eral decades, expiring patents have recently allowed the technology to spill over to technology-enthusiastic “makers”. The big question now is whether the technology will further progress towards consumers, which would allow the technology to scale from hundreds of thousands of users to hundreds of millions of users. Such a transition would enable consumers to use computing not just to process data, but for physical matter. This holds the promise of democratizing a whole range of fields preoccupied with physical objects, from product design to interior design, to carpentry, and to some areas of mechanical and structural engineering. It would bring massive, dis- ruptive change to these industries and their users. We analyze similar trends in the history of computing that made the transition from industry to consumers, such as desktop publishing and home video editing, and come to the conclusion that such a transition is likely. Our analysis, however, also reveals that any transition to consumers first requires a hardware + software system that embodies the skills and expert knowledge that consumers lack: (1) hardware and materials that allow fabricating the intended objects, (2) software that embodies domain knowledge, (3) software that embodies the know-how required to operate the machinery, and (4) software that provides immediate feedback and supports interactive exploration. At the same time, sus- tained success will only be possible if we also consider future implica- tions, in particular (5) sustainability and (6) intellectual property. We argue that researchers in HCI and computer graphics are well equipped for tackling these six challenges. We survey the already existing work and derive an actionable research agenda. P. Baudisch and S. Mueller. Personal Fabrication. Foundations and Trends⃝R in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 10, no. 3–4, pp. 165–293, 2016. DOI: 10.1561/1100000055. Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000055 1 Introduction In HCI and computer graphics, research on fabrication technology tends to be perceived as a recent trend. The truth, however, is that the technology itself has been in use for decades. The reason that we as researchers may have missed the beginning of the field is that the field initially took place behind closed doors — as a small, high-margin market in industry that was protected by patents. Starting in the 1960s with computer-controlled laser cutters and milling machines and later on in the 1980s with 3D printing, the relevant tech- nologies were initially conceived as a fast way for creating prototypes for product development. At the time, it was called “rapid prototyping technology.” The first industrial 3D printer, the SLA-1 from 3D Systems, was introduced in 1987 (Figure 1.1). Many other industrial systems fol- lowed with the invention of additional 3D printing techniques. With all patents being filed in the 1980s and 1990s by the future CEOs of large companies, such as 3D Systems and Stratasys, the market was locked down for several decades. In 2009, however, the first major patent expired, thereby initi- ating the transition of the technology from industry to the world 2 Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000055