Collaboratively Testing inOpen-Source Hardware Communities

Terrance MokUniversity of CalgaryCalgary, Alberta, Canadaterrance.mok2@ucalgary.ca

Andreas BastianBoard MemberEnable Community FoundationBerkeley, CA, USAyo@andreasbastian.com

Lora OehlbergUniversity of CalgaryCalgary, Alberta, Canadalora.oehlberg@ucalgary.ca

Copyright is held by the authors.

AbstractOpen-source hardware communities face unique communi-cation challenges when collaborating around physical pro-totypes. However, these communities use a heterogeneousset of software collaboration tools that were never meantfor remote collaboration around physical objects, particu-larly objects whose designs are actively being re-defined.To better understand open-source hardware collaboration,we are studying email, forum, and video conferencing com-munications in a research and development team within thee-NABLE community, an open-source hardware commu-nity focusing on low-cost 3D printable prosthetic hands. Weidentified a series of real-world physical collaboration tasks,and particularly discuss how the R&D team communicatesresults from functional testing of physical prototypes. Webelieve that HCI research can contribute remote physicalcollaboration tools that support real-world, open-ended pro-cesses and communication goals of open-source hardwaredesign teams.

Author KeywordsRemote Collaboration; Open-Source Hardware; PhysicalTasks; Testing

IntroductionOnline open source hardware (OSHW) communities col-laborate and share design and fabrication files for physical

objects such as microcontrollers (e.g, Arduino [1]), scien-tific lab tools (e.g., Open Source Lab [3]), and prosthetics(e.g., e-NABLE Community [2]). OSHW communities aresimilar to open source software (OSS) communities, andsometimes use tools appropriate for online OSS collab-oration (e.g., Github). However, OSHW presents uniquechallenges that tools from OSS cannot address. We studiedcommunications from an R&D team within e-NABLE — anOSHW community for 3D printable prosthetic hands. Wefound that interactions with fabricated objects (e.g., proto-type demonstration, print testing, functional testing) are notwell-supported by remote collaboration technologies. HCIresearchers have the opportunity to better understand andultimately enhance collaboration practises unique to remotefabrication and physical design.

We particularly highlight the design and use of 3D printedobjects to communicate physical prototype functionality dur-ing testing. In current communications within the e-NABLEresearch and development (R&D) group, members describetesting failures or successes through text, images or videodemonstration. However, these media struggle to captureand communicate the complexity of physical testing of pro-totypes. We intend to explore why communicating physicaltesting is so challenging for OSHW communities, and hownew tools might help collaborators provide better feedbackon physical prototypes at a distance.

Backgrounde-NABLE is an OSHW community with thousands of mem-bers dedicated to the design, creation, and distribution oflow-cost hand prosthetics, particularly for kids and people indeveloping countries. As a group, they match recipients inneed with volunteers who are willing to print, assemble andship hands to those recipients. Through various online com-munity channels (e.g., Facebook, Google+) e-NABLE con-

nects people interested in open-source prosthetics. Whilemany community members are 3D printing enthusiasts whovolunteer to print prosthetic hands, only a small subset ofthe community (40-50) contribute to the research and de-velopment of hand designs. Small teams of R&D designerscreate and update each design and provide printing andassembly instructions; the rest of the community relies onthese resources to create and assemble prosthetic hands.These R&D design teams use a heterogeneous set of soft-ware tools to support collaborative development:

• Various computer-aided design (CAD) and 3D mod-elling tools (e.g., Blender, Fusion 360) along with dif-ferent CAD work styles (e.g., solid and surface mod-eling, parametric and non-parametric geometry)

• Asynchronous communication platforms to discussdesigns as a community (e.g., Google+ posts, fo-rums, Google Hangouts on Air) or within the team(e.g., email)

• Online file sharing or file hosting services to internallyshare design files or documentation (e.g., Fusion360, email, Dropbox, Google Docs), or to publiclypublish printer-ready 3D files, printing instructionsand assembly instructions (e.g., Thingiverse, Github,Google Docs, Instructables).

These teams also validate that new designs are functional,robust, and can be printed on a range of 3D printers beforedesigns are released to the broader community. They oftenask the broader R&D group and hand recipients for help inphysical functionality testing.

We are in the process of analyzing communications fromthis R&D community in e-NABLE to better understandthe unique communication requirements of remote phys-ical collaboration which are currently under addressed inHCI. Fortunately, e-NABLE values transparency within their

OSHW community; design ideas and design processesare shared publically online in forums, Google+ Commu-nity, and recorded video conferences. This offers access todesign communication that would otherwise be difficult toobtain within companies due to intellectual property con-cerns. We are also guided by first-hand experience fromone of our collaborators, who is a board member of the En-able Community Foundation and an active member in theresearch and design community within e-NABLE.

Remote Physical Task CollaborationThe HCI research community has developed technologiesfor remote collaboration around physical tasks such as re-mote gestures [6] and augmented reality (AR) drawing [5].These systems and others focus on one-on-one, real-timeremote collaboration on well-defined physical tasks (e.g.,communicating with a partner to construct a set of Legos [6]or pointing out specific elements in a scene [5].

However, e-NABLE R&D happens in groups around open-ended physical tasks with unpredictable physical objects.Common tasks include: critique (e.g., identifying problem-atic features in a current design iteration); demonstration(e.g., demonstrating how a motion feels stiff); comparison(e.g., grasping of one hand versus previous iterations);ideation (e.g., using a prop to explain alternate designideas). Some of these tasks may be supported throughexisting technologies and we can also create technologiestailored to capturing and communicating embodied interac-tions with physical objects.

We envision future work in HCI to explore these open-ended physical tasks by applying existing technologiessuch as AR drawing [5]. For instance we would like to runa user study where participants are asked to ideate (ie.brainstorm ideas) on possible attachments to the e-NABLEprosthetic hand under current video conferencing condi-

tions or with AR drawing technology. By running studiessuch as these we will learn how well technologies from HCIresearch might support open-ended physical tasks. In ad-dition to studying existing technology we believe there isroom to create new tools or software to support these re-mote collaborative tasks.

Testing Physical FunctionalityOne way that OSHW development differs from OSS devel-opment is functional testing. Software development makesuse of Unit Testing to determine the correct function of in-dividual units of source code or modules. Software testengineers define inputs and expected outputs, which arere-used to ensure that parts of a program function properlywhen changes are made between versions. Meanwhile,professional product design teams create Design Verifica-tion Test prototypes, which are systematically tested andevaluated against design requirements and specificationsby product test engineers.

In both OSS and OSHW communities, functionality test-ing occurs collaboratively and remotely, often without clearguidelines on how to evaluate prototypes, and often by peo-ple who are not experts at communicating design feedbackor critique. Software developers can easily control inputs,measure outputs, and isolate problems to specific lines ofcode. Unfortunately, it is difficult to design and create con-trolled physical inputs and measure physical outputs at adistance. Moreover, multiple functions may be combined inthe same physical feature – making it challenging to identifywhat can or should be changed to improve or fix a design.

In the absence of controlled physical measures, membersof the OSHW community try to find ways to communicatetheir embodied interactions and experiences with the objectto others. They resort to basic communication strategies –

such as object comparison – in order to provide feedbackon physical prototypes. However, even communicating asimple comparison between two physical objects at a dis-tance can be challenging.

For example, current prototype comparison is done throughtext, pictures or video conferencing. In one example Google+Community posting, a hand recipient includes pictures (seeFigure 1), as she tries to outline the differences betweenan early prosthetic hand design, and the recently-releasedTalon 2.0 design. She writes, “[user] had much difficulty try-ing to close the hand” [4]. Unfortunately, this descriptionis too vague to be helpful as feedback for designers. Howmuch force or effort was needed to operate the original de-sign? Is the difficulty in closing the hand due to stiffness inthe joints, rubbing between parts, surface finish from thisparticular print, misalignment in the assembly, overall sizing,improper print settings or something else entirely?

In cases like these the user of the final physical product isnot a designer and thus may be unfamiliar with CAD mod-els, design language or already commonly identified issues.We propose an image/video tagging tool to allow end-usersto present feedback to designers by combining images,simple 3D models and standard terminology to help referto common issues (see Figure 2). This solution focuses onnon-designers being able to provide feedback about designissues and usage concerns in place of formal Design Verifi-cation Tests that would be used by professional designers.

Figure 1: A comparison of CyborgBeast (left) to Talon 2.0 (right)posted to e-NABLE Google+community. Photo: [4]

Figure 2: Mockup of commonissues in dropdown box and anoverlay of the 3D model for theCyborg Beast to indicate where anissue exists in pink. Photo: [4]

ConclusionBy examining communications from the research and devel-opment teams within the e-NABLE community, we identifiedseveral common remote physical collaboration tasks whichare not explored or supported by existing collaboration soft-ware or HCI research. These tasks are open-ended, am-

biguous, and involve multi-party collaboration, and includecommunicating feedback and critique on physical proto-types. These physical tasks present unique challenges incommunicating embodied experiences with physical ob-jects that are not currently supported through general opensource software tools. HCI research has the potential tocreate tools and processes that enhance communicationaround open-ended physical tasks, including communicat-ing critique on fabricated designs.

AcknowledgementsWe thank all members of the e-NABLE community for theiropen and publicly available communication.

REFERENCES1. Arduino. https://arduino.cc (2005).

2. e-NABLE Community.http://enablingthefuture.org/ (2013).

3. Open-source Lab.http://appropedia.org/Open-source_Lab (2014).

4. Talon 2.0 next to Cyborg beast. https://plus.google.com/+NancyKirkpatrickBair/posts/Tgu9SVQ1kvs

(2014). Accessed: 2015-01-09.

5. Steffen Gauglitz, Benjamin Nuernberger, Matthew Turk,and Tobias Höllerer. 2014. In touch with the remoteworld: remote collaboration with augmented realitydrawings and virtual navigation. In Proc. of the 20thACM Symposium on VRST 2014. ACM, 197–205.

6. David Kirk and Danae Stanton Fraser. 2006.Comparing Remote Gesture Technologies forSupporting Collaborative Physical Tasks. In Proc of CHI2006 (CHI ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1191–1200.DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124951