Navigating Sustainability in Shape-Changing Interfaces: Choices, Challenges, Futures
Human Centered Computing, Tangible Interface, Sustainability, Fabrication
Background
Shape-changing interfaces — interactive systems capable of physically transforming their form — have become a vibrant frontier of design and HCI research. These prototypes often look futuristic and expressive, yet behind each beautiful artifact lies a hidden cost: material waste.
During my junior-year summer research at the University of Notre Dame, I noticed that while labs worldwide were racing to build more dynamic prototypes, few questioned their environmental impact. Most experimental devices were discarded right after testing, turning into piles of e-waste.
This observation became the starting point of my research. I wanted to explore why sustainable materials, though technically available, were rarely used in practice, and what deeper cultural, educational, and infrastructural barriers existed behind this gap.
Formative Studies
To investigate these questions, I led the study independently — from literature review to design and data collection — under my advisor’s guidance.
I first conducted semi-structured expert interviews with ten researchers, makers, and designers in the field of shape-changing interfaces and soft robotics. Using Miro as a collaborative visual platform, I created interactive boards that allowed participants to map their material choices across the lifecycle of past projects — from initial selection to end-of-life.
Through these interviews, several recurring insights emerged:
Sustainability as personal responsibility
“I do it by choice.” – Katherine Song
Many researchers viewed sustainability as a personal ethic rather than an institutional requirement.
Production matters as much as degradation
“It’s not only the end of life, but also how it’s processed and made.” – Ellen Rumley
Education shapes perception
“People’s perception of possibilities depends on the education they received.” – Taylor Tabbs
Lack of exposure to bio-based materials limits adoption.
These reflections reframed sustainability not as a static attribute of materials, but as a dynamic negotiation among technical, ethical, and educational factors.
Preparation
Building on the interviews, I designed a one-day participatory workshop to examine how practitioners make real-world material trade-offs.
Before running the session, I prepared a series of pneumatic interface samples using three representative materials:
Gelatin — biodegradable, sensitive to moisture
Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) — water-soluble and recyclable
Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) — robust but less sustainable
Creating these samples was itself a technical challenge. I modified a CNC machine by replacing its cutter head with a soldering iron, enabling precise heat-sealing of films. After extensive testing, I determined optimal fusing conditions (450 °C for TPU/PVA, 110 °C for gelatin) and produced film samples for participants.
This process taught me that sustainability starts with experimentation — not just in concepts, but in tools and methods of making.
Workshop
The full-day workshop followed three stages: Explore → Build → Reflect.
Explore
Participants from engineering, design, and global affairs backgrounds first familiarized themselves with the materials through tactile exploration and a Material Card Map exercise. They connected materials to potential applications, surfacing their intuitive biases — robust materials were often equated with “better performance,” while biodegradable ones were seen as fragile or “temporary.”Build
Each group created a functional prototype under assigned constraints:Gelatin → Seed-planting actuator
PVA → Soft robotic gripper
TPU → Pneumatic lifting pad
The making process revealed how theoretical sustainability ideals meet practical barriers of fabrication, bonding, and reliability.
Reflect
Groups then assessed their designs using a simplified Lifecycle Mapping and Sustainability Board, comparing performance vs. sustainability.The Gelatin group rated their design most sustainable but least durable.
The TPU group achieved high performance but low sustainability.
The PVA group found a middle ground.
Finally, participants sketched their visions of future sustainable ecosystems — from “factory-to-garden” closed loops to open-source material libraries for DIY makers.
Results
1. Lifecycle and Material Trade-off Framework (LCA Card Map)
I designed a simplified Lifecycle Thinking Framework using a Card Map tool that guided participants to link each material’s attributes to different lifecycle stages — from raw sourcing to processing, use, and end-of-life.
Key findings:
The “production” stage was the most overlooked — about 70% of participants skipped “raw sourcing” during their first mapping.
When revisiting their decisions, most realized that their design processes lacked transparency — they had little awareness of energy use or supply-chain data.
In the second round, over half prioritized “traceable production,” showing how short-term reflection can reshape material awareness.
2. Pre–Post Questionnaire
To evaluate attitude changes, I designed a pre- and post-workshop questionnaire measuring:
Material Familiarity
Perceived Importance of Sustainability
Confidence in Applying Sustainable Materials
Results:
Material familiarity increased by +45% on average.
Perceived importance rose from 3.6 to 4.7 / 5.
Confidence in application jumped from 2.8 to 4.2.
These results suggest that even short, hands-on experiences can effectively break the bias that sustainable materials are impractical.
3. “Scope of Future” Visual Concepts
In the final “Scope of Future” activity, participants illustrated their visions of a sustainable future.
Conclusion & Insights
Through both expert and participatory studies, this project revealed that the barrier to sustainable making is not technological, but systemic and educational.
Key takeaways:
Lifecycle Alignment: The material’s lifespan should match the intended lifespan of the prototype. Not every device needs to be permanent.
Education as Enabler: Early exposure to sustainable materials can reshape designers’ default choices.
Infrastructure Gap: Sustainable design requires accessible supply chains, open material databases, and transparent data on bio-materials.
Beyond Performance: Sustainability should be reframed not as a trade-off against performance, but as a design driver.
This project taught me to navigate the intersection of design, material science, and sustainability, and to value the messy, hands-on negotiation between ideals and realities. It remains one of the most formative experiences in shaping how I understand what “responsible innovation” truly means.
research
other
