Content uploaded by William Odom
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William Odom
Content may be subject to copyright.
Technology Heirlooms? Considerations for
Passing Down and Inheriting Digital Materials
William Odom
1
, Richard Banks
2
, Richard Harper
2
, David Kirk
3
, Siân Lindley
2
, Abigail Sellen
2
Carnegie Mellon University
1
Human-Computer Interaction Institute
PA 15213 Pittsburgh, USA
wodom@cs.cmu.edu
Microsoft Research Cambridge
2
Cambridge CB3 0FB, UK
{rbanks r.harper, sianl,
asellen}@microsoft.com
Newcastle University
3
Culture Lab
Newcastle, UK, NE1 7RU
david.kirk@ncl.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
Material artifacts are passed down as a way of sustaining
relationships and family history. However, new issues are
emerging as families are increasingly left with the digital
remains of their loved ones. We designed three devices to
investigate how digital materials might be passed down,
lived with and inherited in the future. We conducted in-
home interviews with 8 families using the devices to pro-
voke discussion about how technology might support (or
complicate) their existing practices. Sessions revealed fami-
lies desired to treat their archives in ways not fully support-
ed by technology as well as potential tensions that could
emerge. Findings are interpreted to detail design considera-
tions for future work in this emerging space.
Author Keywords
Technology Heirlooms; Memories; Digital Inheritance;
Design-oriented HCI; Technology Probes; Design
ACM Classification Keywords
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Miscellaneous.
INTRODUCTION
Material artifacts are passed down across generations of
family members as a way of sustaining social relationships
and bolstering ideas of shared heritage, history and values.
These heirloom objects often offer connections to the past
that extend before and potentially beyond the current own-
er’s life. As we live more of our lives “online”, it is interest-
ing to ask how digital content will find its place among the-
se physical collections of things that connect us to the past.
After all, digital technology makes it possible for people to
accumulate vast and diverse digital archives. In the future
will children look back over their grandmother’s digital
photos or Facebook content to explore what her life was
like? Will these digital things be passed down the same way
as physical things are?
Figure 1. The three ‘technology heirloom’ devices: the Timecard
(left), BackupBox (center), and the Digital Slide Viewer (right).
Research in the HCI community has illustrated a diverse
range of ways people are drawing on digital objects to re-
flect on and reminisce about the past [e.g., 14]. Very recent
work has described new complications that are emerging as
loved ones pass away and leave complex assortments of
digital remains for the living to come to terms with [e.g.,
16, 19]. Many of these issues point to the fact that we are
seeing a proliferation of personally meaningful digital arti-
facts. However, little work to date has progressed beyond
explorations of current practice to explore how these sensi-
tive materials might persist over time, across owners and
across generations in the future.
With this in mind, we designed three devices (see Figure 1)
as a way of encouraging people to think more concretely
about how digital materials might be inherited in the future.
The aim was to use these design artifacts to explore how the
processes of passing down digital materials among family
members might be better supported as well as to reveal po-
tential unintended consequences that could emerge. They
are: the Digital Slide Viewer, which packages treasured
family photo albums in the form factor of a traditional slide
viewer; Timecard, a device that enables people to assemble,
present and hide away digital content of multiple family
members along a chronological timeline; and Backup Box,
which locally stores a person’s Twitter archive on a daily
basis in a form that can be handed down. We conducted in-
home interviews with 8 families, using the devices to pro-
voke discussions about how technology might fit within (or
complicate) their practices of inheriting and passing down
digital collections in the future. These sessions opened up
discussions that provided insights into how families desired
to treat their archives in ways not fully supported by tech-
nology. They also revealed emergent tensions as members
critically considered futures embodied by (and beyond) the
devices and reflected on consequences that could emerge.
With these findings in mind, this paper concludes with a
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee.
CHI’12,
May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA.
Copyright 2012 ACM 978
-1-4503-1015-4/12/05...$10.00.
discussion of four design considerations aimed at sensitiz-
ing the design space toward better supporting the work of
inheriting, living with and passing down significant digital
materials: designing technologies to be put away; support-
ing the moral work of safeguarding; enabling multiple
roles; and enabling multiple representations in the archive.
BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
Artifacts play important roles as triggers for personal and
shared memories. Over time these things signify our rela-
tionships with each other and can mediate how people re-
member their loved ones. The roles material artifacts play
in supporting personal and familial memory [2] as well as
ideas of family history and heritage [10] have been central
concerns across several disciplines in the social sciences
and humanities. Currently, there is a growing literature ex-
ploring the process of passing down objects as not merely
reflecting our relationships with loved ones, but in essence
constituting them over time [6]. A special emphasis has
been given to how objects signify human relationships with
the living as well as stand in as proxy for the departed [17].
With the increasing presence of digital artifacts and systems
in everyday life, the nature of human interactions is shift-
ing—people now commonly mediate between material
things and digital technologies. It is not surprising then that
research related to the effects of digital artifacts being left
behind by departed loved ones is starting to emerge in quite
a vital way. Based on an empirical study of bereaved fami-
lies, Massimi and Baecker [16] speculate on future chal-
lenges related to digital inheritance, including: the claiming
problem—digital materials lack clear affordances for inher-
iting, and the afterlifelog problem—reimagining the role of
digital materials representing the lives of departed family
members could provide opportunities for family members
to remember loved ones. In a related study, Odom et al.
[19] describe how relationships with the departed loved one
continues to evolve, often mediated by inherited objects. It
suggests concerns such as supporting the endurance of a
cohesive archive and developing richer tools for contextual-
izing inherited digital content.
More generally, there exists a history of research in the HCI
community exploring the recording and archiving personal
or family memories. Kaye et al. [13] describe how digital
archives could better support the work of self-reflection and
understanding. Kirk & Sellen [14] present a values-oriented
approach to support the archiving of families’ cherished
digital materials. Importantly, they highlight how the
movement and storage of artifacts around the home plays
central roles in preserving them for future generations.
Additionally, several projects [e.g., 8, 24] have designed
and studied devices in laboratory environments that, in var-
ying ways, enable families to attribute audio annotations to
physical objects and digital photos. These studies speculat-
ed that shifting interaction away from the PC and toward
dedicated devices may be more appropriate for supporting
social practices of storytelling. Outside of the lab environ-
ment, Petrelli et al. [21] present a rare example of how rem-
iniscence could be triggered by encasing audio recordings
of family events in the form of a vintage FM radio.
Collectively, these strands of research have made important
contributions to understanding how interactive technologies
could better support digitally capturing family memories
and revisiting them. They also reveal how new problems
are emerging as members attempt to make sense out of in-
herited digital content, and consider how they themselves
will pass down their digital legacy. Our work attempts to
bring these strands of research together. We want to inves-
tigate how digital technology might fit within (or compli-
cate) families’ existing practices, and how the design space
could be critically developed through and sensitized by
these understandings. Beyond work that has gone before,
we do this by grounding discussion around a set of working
prototype devices that aim to make concrete new ideas for
dealing with families’ growing legacies of data.
METHODOLOGY
We designed three working devices to critically explore
potential future interactions, experiences and practices sur-
rounding the inheritance of digital content. Although these
objects offer some diversity in design we synthesized a
methodological approach that united them. Specifically, we
used them to provoke reflection on the materials themselves
and encourage a dialogue about (and beyond) the stances
and potential futures they embody. Our methodology drew
from a number of approaches, including speculative design
[9], critical design [3], reflective design [23], technology
probes [12], and design-oriented HCI [5].
The process leading to the development of these devices
consisted of the following. We conducted review sessions
of theoretical literature and empirical studies (many are
noted previously). We then ideated many design concepts
and progressively refined and clustered several conceptual-
ly related sets to construct an understanding of the overall
design space. Comparable to Schön’s notion of design as a
reflective conversation with materials [22], we engaged in a
reflective dialogue with theoretical and empirical materials,
and iterative development and critique of the design con-
cepts themselves, to arrive at our final devices.
We intended the form and presentation of each respective
device to be resolved to the extent that, at first glance, they
might appear relatively familiar in comparison to other do-
mestic artifacts. We wanted the devices’ material aesthetics
to, on the surface, evoke a sense of the warm qualities asso-
ciated with antique or heirloom objects (e.g., veneered oak
composing an old chest compared to plastics encasing many
contemporary appliances). The three devices are designed
as a visual family, each encased in a European Oak veneer
with a single surface of color. Further, the digital technolo-
gy of each artifact is integrated into a form characterized by
affordances that enable them to be fluidly opened up and
put away. These design choices were influenced in part by
prior work illustrating how the qualities of certain materi-
als, such as wood, can inspire a perceived sense of durabil-
ity [20]; and how the invocation, experience and putting
away of inherited objects—digital and physical—appears
central in supporting meaningful, self-determined interac-
tions with them [19].
Nonetheless, it is important to point out that the notion of
‘designing an heirloom’ can seem contradictory. The ways
in which an object achieves heirloom status is highly idio-
syncratic and heterogeneous; what one family may regard
as an heirloom will likely not retain the same meaning for
another. Additionally, heirlooms often directly owe to the
people that possessed them previously and the material his-
tories inscribed through their use over time.
Thus, it must be stressed quite crucially that we did not aim
to evaluate our design concepts per se. Indeed, a more tradi-
tional ‘evaluation’ would require a deployment for many
years—if not decades—to understand how the devices
shaped people’s practices and experiences as they accumu-
lated digital content and were (or were not) passed down to
another generation. Rather, we used the devices to provoke
discussion around—and beyond—the potential futures they
might embody and inspire; and to explore issues and in-
sights that emerge through these discussions. Additionally,
we populated the devices with digital content from a re-
search team member’s personal collection, as opposed to
each family’s specific content. This team member’s digital
content captured years of personal and family experiences,
as well as materials left behind after the loss of a close elder
family member. Nonetheless, this clearly has limitations.
The digital materials left behind by, for example, a teenager
or middle-aged person would be different. However, this
approach did appear effective in providing families with
enough context to understand and relate the devices to their
own lives, while remaining open enough to encourage them
to envision new ideas or uses. In what immediately follows,
we describe each of the concepts in turn, and then provide
details on our participants and study.
The Digital Slide Viewer is a device for the local archiving
of different collections of a family’s digital photographs
(see Figure 2). The device is an augmented vintage analog
slide viewer popular in the United Kingdom in the 1970s.
Physical slide tokens, laser cut from acrylic, symbolically
correspond to photo albums previously stored online or
locally by a family. The slides and viewer are stored and
organized in an oak case. Each slide has a unique strip of
color on its back, which is recognized by a color sensor to
determine which album should be made viewable from in-
ternal memory. When a slide is inserted, the photos in the
corresponding album become viewable, which may be se-
quentially explored by tilting the device left, to move
backward, or right, to move forward, in the set. The digital
slide viewer is driven by a Gadgeteer [18] microprocessor
board, which several sensors and devices are plugged into,
including: a 100x100 pixel display; an SD card (in an inter-
nal SD reader) for image storage; an RGB reader for detect-
ing a unique color present on each slide token (to invoke
different photo collections); and a breakout board with two
tilt sensors for supporting navigation. A mini USB connect-
or powers the device. Content for the photo albums was
supplied by a research team member and models their exact
organization. These 20 albums cover a diverse range of
events over several years, including family trips and mo-
ments in a young child’s life as well as mundane experienc-
es (e.g., a family informally creating artwork together).
Figure 2. From left to right: The viewer in case with the slides;
View of a photo; Families often desired to store the slide viewer in
spaces where other significant artifacts were kept.
Issues framing the rationale for this concept included: How
would the form and presentation of this device be perceived
to support or complicate participants’ existing practices of
viewing family photos, against the backdrop of their own
physical and digital albums? How would integrating digital
photo albums into an artifact that may already be familiar to
some members shape perceptions of these digital materials?
Timecard enables family members to construct and present
a timeline representing the life of a loved one, which is
stored and displayed on a dedicated device (see Figure 3).
Timelines can be created for a departed family member as a
form of memorial, or simply to map the lives of several
family members as a matter of preserving family history.
Family members can add digital content (e.g. text, images)
to the system via a web interface and backend online ser-
vice, which is used to transfer content locally to the device.
During the upload phase, people are able to attribute specif-
ic dates to the content, which dictate where items appear on
the timeline. The Timecard case includes doors that enable
it to easily be opened up or put away; the touch screen sits
behind the doors. It is stand-alone and can sit of a shelf or
on display elsewhere in the home. A fanless mini-PC runs
the Timecard application displayed on the screen.
Figure 3. From left to right: Children from F4 interact with his-
torical metadata; The timeline UI view; Several families placed
Timecard (closed up) on display with other things in the home.
Photos can randomly cycle in full screen mode. Touching a
photo brings up a timeline view of all the images of a per-
son chronologically; the timeline (and collated content) can
then be explored via the touchscreen. In addition to person-
al annotations, family members can attribute metadata of
historical events (scraped from Wikipedia) to the timeline
to help better contextualize the life and times of an ances-
tor. We speculated this design choice might make the life
stages of different ancestors more meaningful for future
generations. A research team member that had recently ex-
perienced the loss of an elder close family member provid-
ed the content Timecard presented in this study. This in-
cluded physical objects and photos that he had been be-
queathed (which were later scanned), as well as photos over
the years that depicted the member in different life stages.
Issues framing the rationale for this concept included: How
might technologies fit within, extend or complicate fami-
lies’ practices of remembering and commemorating the
lives of loved ones? How could these narratives be passed
down and how could chronology affect these practices? We
were also interested in where families perceived they would
keep an artifact like this in their home and how it would be
treated considering its potentially sensitive nature. For ex-
ample, would enabling content to be made public shape
perceptions of its placement in storytelling practices?
BackupBox is a digital store of a lifetime of Tweets posted
to the micro-blogging website Twitter.com (see figure 4).
Through a WIFI connection, it copies messages from the
internet to a self-contained hard drive. There they are pre-
served for a future time when they might be drawn on as a
resource to revisit the mundane and extraordinary moments
of a family member’s life captured by their Twitter account.
We selected Twitter in contrast to other social media ac-
counts (e.g., Facebook) as we speculated the 140 character
limit for each entry would produce more concise and easily
accessible entries. However, during the study participants
speculated on how their own digital materials (e.g., Face-
book content) might relate to—and extend beyond—the
BackupBox concept, which we will discuss in detail later.
Figure 4. From left to right: The removable lid; Mom2 presses a
icon to open a Tweet; UI design for an opened Tweet.
The physical form consists of a box with a removable lid,
intended to conceal the growing archive of digital materials
so as to not attract attention, while still inviting exploration
if a family member chooses to open it up. The user interface
presents Tweets in chronological order along the X axis; the
Y axis indicates the time of day each Tweet was posted.
The interface is navigated via a touch screen and each
Tweet item in the timeline is symbolically represented as a
non-descript flower; touching a specific element will pre-
sent the contents of the message. A fanless mini-PC runs
the BackupBox application displayed on the screen. Con-
sidering the potentially sensitive nature of some messages,
we speculated this design choice could provide an addition-
al layer of comfort by requiring people to physically invoke
the content beyond just removing the lid. The Twitter con-
tent on BackupBox at the time of the study was archived
from nine months of the device routinely backing up one of
our research team members’ Twitter account.
Issues framing the rationale for this concept included:
Would the BackupBox surface tensions around the process-
es of passing down personal digital content that is created
and stored online? Would family members perceive a phys-
ical instantiation of a digital service to be valuable? Would
family members perceive social media content, such as
Twitter data, to be similar or different to existing percep-
tions of materials to be passed down in a family archive?
Participants and Data Analysis
We recruited 8 families (F1-F8) from the southeastern re-
gion of the United Kingdom to participate in our study.
This approach clearly has limitations; for example, it makes
the results hard to generalize to another population of users.
However, we wanted to focus on a specific group to gain a
richer descriptive understanding of the space as a whole to
inform what might be salient issues for future research.
Two parents from each family participated (with the excep-
tion of (F5); only the mother participated). All families had
at least 1 child; F2, F4, F5, F6 and F8 all had young or
teenage children, all of whom participated in the study. F1,
F3 and F7 had children in their early to mid-twenties which
all lived outside of the parents’ home; 4 out of 5 of these
young adults participated. Three families (F1, F6, F7) had
members representing two generations that participated (i.e.
children and parents); the remainder had members repre-
senting three generations that took part in the study (i.e.
children, parents and grandparents). 5 of the 8 families had
experienced the loss of at least one grandparent in the past 5
years; all inherited objects from these experiences. In total
36 people participated in the study—15 children (ages rang-
ing from 9-25), 15 parents (mid 30s-early 50s), and 6
grandparents (late 60s-late 70s). The occupations of parents
ranged from schoolteacher to IT consultant to plumber;
occupations of non-student children included sales at-
tendant, law clerk, and barista; all grandparents were re-
tired. We recruited this participant pool as they could offer
a range of experiences with physical and digital objects.
All interviews were conducted at the parents’ home, where
family members collectively convened prior to the inter-
view. The choice of the parents’ home appeared most ap-
propriate as they typically housed an assortment of artifacts
ranging from heirlooms that had been passed down over at
least one generation, to objects that were anticipated to be
passed down to their children. One home visit was conduct-
ed per family and lasted between 2 to 3 hours. Visits began
with parents (at times together with grandparents and/or
children) giving us a tour of their home, with emphasis on
where they kept heirlooms or objects that might become
heirlooms. They were asked to describe stories associated
with these artifacts, how they were received, who is respon-
sible for them, and reasons for keeping them in particular
spaces. We also explored if members possessed digital col-
lections they desired to hold onto (and potentially pass
down), and where they were kept. We then asked members
to gather a selection of artifacts emerging in the tour and to
arrange them in a central room in the home. This was to
provide a rich backdrop of participants’ possessions that
could serve as a basis for comparison when exploring the
devices.
All participating members then reconvened in the central
room (often living room or kitchen). We conducted a brief
discussion to clarify experiences surrounding the artifacts
arranged in the room. We then began sessions using the
devices. We were careful to make clear that all the devices
are concepts to be used as starting points for discussion
about and beyond them; family members were encouraged
to envision what they would (or would not) want them to
be. One device was introduced at a time, and each had a
specific semi-structured session conducted with it. Howev-
er, members were free to go between devices if desired. For
each device, researchers offered a short narrative providing
background context, illustrating how it could be interacted
with in the process. These introductions were kept brief.
Emphasis was placed on family members exploring the
device and coming to their own interpretations of it; they
were encouraged to imagine what kind of future each de-
vice projects and consider what that would be like.
At appropriate moments during sessions of exploration and
discussion, we posed open-ended questions. Questions were
designed to critically elicit reflections on topics including:
how narratives persist with personal artifacts as they are
passed down; how and when cherished objects are used;
what kind of family ‘image’ they construct; how physical
and digital archives are maintained and how the social roles
of members surrounding their care may change; and where
they will go when they are passed down. Members were
asked to contrast their descriptions with how the device
might or might not fit within their practices. We altered the
order devices were introduced to families across the study.
After all devices had been discussed, we asked members to
take us on another tour of their home, this time considering
where they would keep them in their home and why.
All interviews were audio recorded, which resulted in near-
ly 20 hours of recordings; photographs were additionally
taken to document objects and spaces discussed during the
interview. We listened to recordings and transcribed seg-
ments relevant to heirlooms and interview questions (as
opposed to general chat), which were organized into
themes. Meetings were held with the research team to dis-
cuss and corroborate emergent themes; we coded the textual
documents using these themes. In addition, we created af-
finity diagrams using sticky notes to order findings across
families and reveal unexpected connections.
FINDINGS
In what follows, we present several examples taken from
field observations with families, which we feel capture the
core themes emerging across our interviews. We refer to
participants by their role — GF (Grandfather), GM
(Grandmother) Mom, Dad, S (Son), D (Daughter) — fol-
lowed by a number indicating the family. In the case of
children, the reference includes a second number indicating
the child’s age. For example D4-13 would stand for a 13-
years-old daughter from family 4.
Figure 5. Family members interacting with the Technology
Heirlooms during in home interview sessions.
The storage and safekeeping of family heirlooms
Interviews in families’ homes revealed a diverse range of
material and digital artifacts members kept and desired to
pass down. In what follows, we first describe families’ per-
ceptions of their material heirlooms and their digital collec-
tions. We then detail how families drew on the devices to
envision alternatives to better support their practices.
Despite representing some of their most valued possessions,
families commonly described ‘using’ their heirlooms infre-
quently, at times several years lapsing in between these
instances. It was also common for families to clearly differ-
entiate heirlooms from other domestic objects: “We don’t
use them like you’d use a [television] remote. …Their pur-
pose is something bigger.” (Mom3). Instead, practices sur-
rounding heirlooms were bound up with having them pre-
sent and ensuring their safekeeping. Dad1 describes an al-
bum containing photos and memorabilia of his family’s
ancestors: “we rarely go back to them. …it’s having that
peace of mind that they’re there [motioning to bookshelf]
and we’ll see to it that they’re there until it’s time for my
kids to take them.”
Safekeeping was understood as occurring across genera-
tions and was bound up with the passing on of items. In
some cases, older members preemptively passed down heir-
looms to ensure their transfer to the next generation:
“…making sure [they] make it through time, that feels as
important as the things themselves. …telling my daughter
what they mean, the people they represent, while she has
them, that’s going to help them last” (GM5). Similar to
their material heirlooms, families sought to safeguard treas-
ured digital collections for future generations. These in-
cluded things such as: digital photos, videos, documents,
and to some extent, artworks and music.
Various tensions were bound up with the notion of safe-
guarding digital collections, however, especially relating to
practices surrounding their backing up. For example, it was
a common strategy for families to use external hard drives
to back up their digital collections. However, in some cases
the extra task (and hassle) of updating a secondary storage
location led to the external hard drive being routinely ne-
glected. In others, families described a general distrust over
the longevity of their personal computers, which led them
to create extensive backups on physical media (e.g., CDs or
DVDs). Tensions also emerged with this approach, namely
due to doubts over how long these media would last and the
physical space their storage required. Other concerns in-
cluded the potential to lose the physical media: “the prob-
lem with CDs is if we lose one … we’d lose a whole a chap-
ter of the kids growing up” (Dad8); as well as concerns that
the aesthetics of physical media failed to convey the pre-
ciousness of the content. As Mom7 put it: “they deserve
better than that.”
The use of online services to store digital family collections
is an alternative to creating local backups, and members
from all families reported using photo sharing services (e.g.
Facebook, Flickr) or email to share select family photos
with specific people to varying extents. However, these
services were viewed as supporting sharing rather than the
safekeeping of sentimental content: “We put things online to
share them, not to preserve them. …all our intimate [digi-
tal] memories, we want to know where they are, keep them
in order. …the thought of them being where someone could
get at them. That makes us uneasy” (Dad6). Parents in two
families (F4, F7) maintained accounts through the cloud
storage service dropbox.com, and similar concerns also
emerged: “I’ll put things for my work or my music in drop-
box, but I wouldn’t put anything too valuable to us there.
What if our account was hacked or deleted? …it feels too
risky” (Dad7). When possible, we probed teenagers’ per-
ceptions of storing content online. They typically reported
fewer immediate reservations about hosting personal con-
tent online, but tended to react strongly against integrating
their own digital content into family collections.
Unexpectedly, some families drew on the physical forms of
Timecard and, especially, BackupBox to propose alterna-
tives that might help alleviate some of tensions mentioned
above. While these ideas varied, they were united insofar as
they proposed that a storage system distributed among peo-
ple was an appropriate way to preserve familial content.
Consider Dad4’s reflection: “my brother, my wife’s brother.
…they would be the guardian of our kids if we passed away.
We’d do the same for them. …it makes sense that they could
guard our [digital] things and we could do the same. …So if
one of our homes burned down or our thing [i.e. device]
died, there’d still be one or two copies out there, like at my
brother’s or at Mum’s place. Same would go for them.”
Dad4’s reflection captures how some families drew on the
devices to propose potential uses of technology that might
better support their desires to safely preserve precious digi-
tal archives over time.
Embodied digital forms: settling in and setting the tone
The embodiment of digital content in physical forms con-
veyed through our devices provoked discussions across
home visits. Below we detail how families saw ways in
which physical properties might enable them to treat, relate
to and live with sentimental digital content.
A primary theme across interviews centered on how captur-
ing digital family archives in forms distinct from the com-
puter might both project and engender a deeper sense of
care for these materials: “Putting our family photos and
videos and all in a different folder [on our computer]
doesn’t do them justice. There is so much on [our computer]
that we won’t give a toss about in a year. …our photos,
videos, that’s the bit that matters. ……[The devices] get
away from all the clutter. …they show you care and makes
you want to care for them, tend to them” (Mom3). GM5
similarly noted, “there’s something about being able to say
‘what’s important, it’s all in here’ and pick it up, give it to
someone or keep it in a special place that suits it.” Other
families speculated on potential benefits of storing digital
content in domestic spaces populated by their treasured
material things. For example, when considering where the
Digital Slide Viewer would be stored in their home, F1 se-
lected a small living room cupboard that housed several
sentimental items: “…having it packed up next to the Chi-
nese boards and albums and medals. … seeing it age with
them, the things we’ll always have. It feels right. …we want
to hold onto our [digital] family photos like those things I
suppose. Putting it there makes it feel like it’s findings its
place. ..with our things, in our home” (Mom1).
Four of the eight families (F3, F5, F6, F8) we interviewed
possessed only a single computer, all of which were desk-
tops set up in home office or kitchen locations. These fami-
lies in particular reflected on how moving their sentimental
digital archives to other domestic places could better prime
interactions with them: “we have this chest. …It has little
trinkets and bits and bobs that we’ve saved over the years,
some old stuff from me Mum. …this is where it [Digital
Slide Viewer] should go. Opening [the chest], seeing those
things and bringing out the [digital] slide box, that’d be a
more natural way of coming to them [photos] than booting
up the computer” (Dad6). Mom6 then continued: “We’ve
got this habit about the chest. When we get into it, it sets a
tone. It’s time to take a moment and look through them.
…having it [Digital Slide Viewer] in the chest, it’d blend
right in. …with what we’re already doing and the things
that’ve always been there.” Mom8 contrasts Timecard’s
location in her living room with the home office-based
computer: “I don’t walk by our computer in the office and
think of the memories that’re on it. …This feels somewhere
in between. …it’d remind me of the memories in there, but
if it’s closed up, we could walk past it and leave it at that.
…That makes it feel like a more complete part of our life.”
Additionally, the vintage form factor of the Digital Slide
Viewer itself appeared to help set the tone for reminiscing
about the past. Members of several families recognized its
form, which led to discussions about their lives when they
last used one. After one such discussion with her son and
granddaughter, GM2 noted: “seeing something familiar
from the past, it triggers all these memories and associa-
tions I haven’t thought about in a while. …it feels like a
real way of starting to get back to the past and remember it,
with the photos and all.” Often younger members were ac-
tively included in these discussions as the device was
passed around; in some cases, they initiated discussions
themselves: “D4-13: Mummy you had one of these. Is this
what you used to look at pictures? M4: Yes I did. It was
[grandmother’s], she can tell you where she got it from.”
Collectively, this sample of reflections helps illustrate how
giving digital collections physical properties might better
support the dynamics of living with them over time, from
intentional engagement to simply letting them persist
among other significant domestic possessions and spaces.
Curating, Integrating and Changing Roles
Families adopted several practices to construct a meaning-
ful whole out of collections of heterogeneous artifacts they
desired to pass down. In what follows, we provide an over-
view of these practices, before detailing how Timecard in
particular provoked discussions about potential benefits and
complications technology might present in this context.
A common practice we observed across families was the
use of notes and other materials to explicitly detail the his-
tory of family artifacts to preserve their meanings. These
instances ranged from Dad2’s collection of his great grand-
father’s medals and other artifacts from World War One, to
Mom6’s scrapbook owing to her own life as well as to sev-
eral departed ancestors. Across these examples, family
members included short notes and, at times, materials de-
tailing local and historical events occurring when specific
artifacts were in use to help communicate their significance
to future generations.
It was also common for families to consciously prune col-
lections of important physical materials to avoid creating an
archive of undesirable size and scale, and to underpin a
sense of coherence. We found both parents and grandpar-
ents engaged in this practice and while at times difficult, it
was considered an essential part of ensuring cherished
familial artifacts made it to the next generation.
However, the constraints families imposed on their material
archives did not always translate to their digital collections.
Mom5 contrasts her family’s physical photo albums with
their digital collections: “With the [physical] albums we
have to decide what to put in there and what’s not quite
worth it. …On our computer they pile up. We have so many
photos on there now and we keep taking more. …It starts to
feel endless, really.” In two cases (F5, F6), families elected
to print out physical copies of digital photos and integrate
them into physical albums, to make them easier to manage
and pass down. However, when posed with the question of
how (or if) families would wish to cull their digital
collections for the future, most members were ambivalent.
While archives of material things supported heterogeneity
in a way that digital archives did not, they were typically
associated with one branch of a family. Discussions of
Timecard highlighted that having a place to collate content
from multiple sources would also be desirable: “…thinking
about when my Dad passed away. I have some digital pho-
tos of him and my sister does, and we both have some of his
things. …If we were able to put some of them [digital
things] together, when we’re feeling up to it, that would be
meaningful. …We could have something celebrating his
life, and us with him” (Dad7). Mom1 speculated on the
potential benefits of distributed curation of sensitive digital
materials over time: “having a place where my brother
could add an event in one of our parent’s lives and I could
leave it for a while, and then add something. …let things
come out slowly over time, that would be valuable. …it
would create a new record of our family.”
Digital archives were also noted for supporting collabora-
tion within nuclear families. However, this also raised con-
cerns. Some families perceived that this could complicate
meaning: “If everyone is putting in things like moments in
history or notes about a person, it’s going to make things
confusing. There has to be some kind of quality control”
(Dad1). Timecard triggered other families to consider how
social roles of members would be supported: “We [parents]
take most of the responsibility for preserving things about
our parents’ lives and our lives with the kids. …I like how
we could all see it and add to it. That is useful for everyone.
But we [parents] need to be able to make sure it doesn’t
become a mess” (Mom6).
In some cases Timecard triggered intergenerational discus-
sions among living family members in the room about past
experiences and family history. For example, after interact-
ing with a metadata tag relating to the date of India’s inde-
pendence (15 August 1947), D4-13 felt prompted to ask her
Grandmother about her life during this time period. After
describing what her life was like as a young girl then, GM4
reflected on what she remembered of her father immediate-
ly following World War II. At the conclusion of GM4’s
story, Dad4 remarked: “well, that’s a bit of our family his-
tory I haven’t heard. I wish we could’ve recorded [it] in this
box [Timecard], right then and there.” Dad4 highlights the
potential value of capturing emergent conversations about
family members’ own lives; this opens a space to consider
how such records could make interactions with the device
richer in the future.
However, some discussion emerged about how perceptions
of past experiences can shift over time and how technology
could pose challenges: “Even if we remember things from
the past the same, the way we feel about them can change.
…like if a photo or summit later reminds us of a falling out
we had with a relative. We chuck it in the bin to be done
with it. …So if I put something in there [motioning to Time-
card], I should also be able to take it out” (S3-25). His re-
marks represent discussions that emerged with the Time-
card and the Digital Slide Viewer: the need to take things
out of digital archives as fluidly as they are put in.
Tensions over new digital materials in the family archive
Our aim with Backup Box was to provoke family members
to consider the potential role of social networking data,
such as Twitter updates, within family archives. Backup
Box was highly contentious across families. Several related
kinds of criticism emerged, as we describe.
Several families possessed diaries written by ancestors now
considered important parts of the family archive. These
diaries tended to contain mundane information (e.g., a list
of household chores completed on any given day) with a
sprinkling of extraordinary events (e.g., marriage of family
member, birth of child). When asked to speculate on simi-
larities and differences among the diaries and Backup Box,
family members drew strong distinctions. Dad7’s percep-
tion of the difference between his father’s diaries and social
media content is exemplary of members of several families’
sentiments: “when I open one of his diaries and see what
he wrote, I know he sat down and thought for a moment,
and that feels significant. …with stuff like Twitter, people
rattle things off, sometimes without thinking …the intention
is different and I suppose that makes a huge difference.”
Backup Box also raised issues over the potentially vast
amounts of social networking content other family mem-
bers would have to reconcile with. D3-22 prospectively
considered what it would be like to receive her brother’s
social networking archive: “He posts stuff to Twitter and
Facebook literally all of the time. I can’t imagine how many
updates there would be for one or two years, let alone a
decade. How would we deal with that?” Other participants
speculated on how years worth of Twitter data could trap a
small amount of meaningful insights from a person’s life
within a sea of trivial entries, potentially making it difficult
to explore or let go of: “If I got, say, Mum’s Twitter. I’m
sure there’d be some stuff I’d enjoy seeing, but I’d have no
idea how to find it. …I’d probably keep it, but not know
what to do” (D1-21).
When D3-22 concluded reflecting on her brother’s social
media content (mentioned above), she noted: “And it’s so
much about him, but not all that much about us. …or our
family.” This statement captures deeper concerns echoed by
members of several families: that social media content is
often targeted at different audiences, which could make its
place in the family archive controversial. Mom2 describes
how this quality could lead to undesirable experiences:
“online it’s easy to act [in] very different ways to different
people. Even I confess to that, and I wouldn’t exactly want
other people to know about this. …it feels a little scary that
we could learn something about someone that maybe we
weren’t supposed to know, or didn’t want to.” Teenagers in
the families we interviewed typically were frequent users of
social networking services, and also reacted against the
inclusion of their content in the family archive. D6-17 re-
flects on her personal social media content: “I could see
looking back on it myself, but it would be weird if other
people in my family used it to think about me. I’d rather
make myself something that would go in it. …something
that’d show my family something special about me.”
Related concerns also emerged around how a device like
BackupBox could cause family members to self-censor the
social networking content they posted, or paralyze these
practices completely. Some families proposed ways to work
around these tensions, such as using a special hash tag or a
specific application to send updates only to Backup Box.
DISCUSSION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
It is clear physical and digital objects hold significant plac-
es in families’ lives, and that these are envisaged as retain-
ing this significance over time and across generations. A
key contribution of our study is to surface insights on how
technology might open up new opportunities for passing
down and inheriting digital materials, as well as new com-
plications that they could introduce. Our findings reveal a
range of ways families desired to treat and live with their
significant digital materials. Several of these cases were
characterized by their desires to treat these archives differ-
ently, integrate them into more appropriate places in the
home, and tend to their care and safety. Other instances
suggested how technology might better support social prac-
tices of creating more cohesive sets of materials to be
passed down, creating archives from multiple branches of
the family, and documenting conversations that emerge
around them. The devices also raise a range of potential
consequences that could emerge if careful consideration is
not given to new technological interventions. In what fol-
lows we present several research and design considerations
for the HCI community that emerged from the study.
Designing technologies to be put away— Similar to mate-
rial heirlooms, participants perceived value in supporting
the dynamics of living with treasured digital collections,
from knowing their location, to tending to their well being,
to actively interacting with them. That the physical forms,
material qualities and affordances of our devices enabled
them to be packaged away, discretely displayed, or actively
explored seemed to resonate with families and some of their
existing rituals, practices and values. Reforming digital
materials in this way allows them to fit into the wider ecol-
ogy of archived materials in the home and situates them
within a familiar context of artifact-mediated reflecting,
remembering and learning about the past. Beyond designing
explicitly for ‘use’, this consideration emphasizes the aes-
thetics of integrating treasured digital materials into envi-
ronments as a whole over time, a notion parallel to ‘slow
technology’ [11]. Collectively, these findings suggest that
to support more sensitive and nuanced engagement with
cherished digital familial content requires the artful design
of technologies that can be put away, drawn on alongside
others, and which evoke rich experiences when interacted
with. This is more complex than it sounds; comments about
the fractious intrusions of waiting for machines to ‘boot up’
are indicative of this.
Supporting the moral work of safeguarding—Notions of
the value of ‘deep storage’ [14], redolent in our interviews,
highlight clear unresolved tensions between digital and
physical materials. For example, the encasing of our devic-
es may last 100 years (or longer), while their technological
components may last for only 5 years. This highlights the
need to design new storage systems that are extremely ro-
bust and can handle sporadic use. There are opportunities to
explore combined advances in solid-state storage and low
power consumption. Although even with hardware innova-
tion it is hard to imagine end users not having to engage
with some degree of archive maintenance, as such advances
will not resolve significant issues of evolving file format
standards and ensuing compatibility issues. We suggest the
ritual work of preservation may accommodate issues of
safeguarding. Several instances from our findings suggest
that tending to material heirlooms is itself a significant act:
rituals of care could therefore be appropriated as opportuni-
ties for the physical maintenance and updating of these
technologies.
While the Cloud offers a technical solution to problems of
storage, our findings reveal that knowing where one’s sen-
sitive digital materials are located is bound to the sense that
one is keeping them safe. ‘Storing’ these kinds of sensitive
materials in online places raised concerns, especially in
terms of ceding the higher-level social and moral work of
safekeeping to a third party service. An approach to safe-
guarding raised by participants themselves, which lends
particularly well to digital technologies (as opposed to
physical possessions), is the distribution of storage devices
and the (redundant) copying of familial archives across
multiple homes and branched families. This would leverage
the value of existing social-familial networks and could
help alleviate immediate concerns over the loss of cherished
content, while supporting the higher-level work of safe-
keeping content in morally and socially appropriate ways.
Enabling multiple roles in the archive—The solution
pointed to above would need to be nuanced, however. One
of the largest issues our devices provoked families to con-
sider was the various roles members play in maintaining
family archives, and how they would be supported in these
roles by future technologies. From contributing new materi-
als, to curating collections (organizing and editing etc.),
family members play important roles in sustaining the fami-
ly archive [15]. So while technologies might open up op-
portunities for mirroring archives across homes, richer
combinations would need to be carefully considered.
Families suggested Timecard’s indirect, distributed nature
could create an opportunity for mapping family history
"slowly over time". In other cases it seemed to open the
opportunity to support storytelling and the recording of
family history. Both of these opportunities potentially illus-
trate how a digital artifact from the past might accrue value
through repeated interaction, and resonate with prior re-
search [8, 24] suggesting the prospect of integrating multi-
ple family perspectives as beneficial.
However, it was clear that family members’ approaches to
archiving were expected to differ, and this raised concerns
over how 'quality control' could be upheld. These issues
raise significant questions for future research. How does the
architecture of new technology reinforce the moral ac-
countability of access to the content? Who has the right to
delete or edit entries? How is this accountability represent-
ed in the system? What is the communicative structure that
envelops the archive and provision of material within it, and
how is this negotiated through technology? Better under-
standing these concerns seems a crucial part of designing
new systems to support the persistence of a family’s digital
legacy across generations. Research proposing implications
for ‘forgetting’ as a feature in system design [e.g., 1] could
be leveraged in future explorations, as could emerging re-
search on multi-lifespan design [7].
Enabling multiple representations in the archive—While
previous research suggested people desired to pass down
their social networking content to other family members
[19], families across our study reacted strongly against hav-
ing a technology like the BackupBox. In particular, these
instances highlighted tensions around integrating social
networking content from members within the collective
family archive. Participants made key distinctions between
the thoughtful recording of one's life believed to be reflect-
ed in their ancestors' diaries, and their own practices of
posting less mindful social networking content targeted at
multiple audiences, often outside of the family. These reac-
tions surfaced clear boundaries members had for how they
wanted to author their presentation of self within the family
archive. Prior work has explored how technology could
productively support members in presenting different repre-
sentations of their selves to each other through novel tools
for curating family photo collections [4]. While there are
clear differences between curated photos and social net-
working data, this work could be leveraged to further ex-
plore how different aspects of unique social bonds between
family members could be preserved, while also leaving
space for authorship of one’s self image in the family ar-
chive as a whole.
CONCLUSION
We designed three devices aimed at provoking families to
consider how technology might fit within their practices of
inheriting, living with and passing down digital collections
in the future. Families’ reactions revealed several ways dig-
ital materials fall short of supporting the values and practic-
es they associated with physical heirlooms, and highlighted
new opportunities for design. While researching in this
space is inherently challenging, our methodology provided
a way to engage family members in confronting potential
benefits and tensions projected by our devices and draw on
their own experiences to make sense of possible futures—
and envision ideas beyond them. These reactions provided
salient points to consider as people increasingly acquire
cherished digital collections that they may desire to pass
down alongside material heirlooms. Based on these findings
we proposed designing technologies to be put away, sup-
porting the moral work of safeguarding, enabling multiple
roles, and enabling multiple representations in the archive
as considerations for future HCI research and practice. Im-
portantly, our devices did not explicitly explore how to ad-
dress the challenges that the sheer size and scale of mean-
ingful digital content pose as families increasingly amass
larger archives. Designing new forms and ways of interact-
ing with massive archives of sentimental materials marks a
clear area for future research. Ultimately, we hope this
study will inspire future research into how technologies can
better support the range of experiences that come with in-
heriting, living with and passing down treasured digital
possessions over time and across generations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Alex Taylor and Mike Massimi for their thoughts
on this paper, as well as Phil Gosset, Tim Regan, and Mark
Selby for their help on this project.
REFERENCES
1. Bannon, L. 2006. Forgetting as a feature, not a bug: the
duality of memory and implications for ubiquitous compu-
ting. CoDesign, Vol. 2, 1, 3-15.
2. Belk, R. 1990. The Role of Possessions in Constructing and
Maintaining a Sense of Past. Advances in Consumer Re-
search, 17, 669-676.
3. Dunne, T., Raby, F. 2001. Design Noir: The Secret Life of
Electronic Objects. Birkhauser.
4. Durrant, A., Taylor, A., Frohlich, D., Sellen, A., Uzzell, D.
2009. Photo Displays and Intergenerational Relationships
in the Family Home. Proc. of BCS HCI ’09, 10-19.
5. Fallman, D. 2003. Design-oriented human-computer inter-
action. In Proc. Of CHI '03, 225-232.
6. Finch, J., Mason, J. 2000. Passing On: Kinship & Inher-
itance in England. Routledge.
7. Friedman, B., Nathan, L. 2010. Multi-lifespan Information
System Design: A Research Initiative for the HCI Commu-
nity. Proc. of CHI ’10, 2243-2246
8. Frohlich, D., Murphy, R. 2000. The Memory Box. Person-
al Ubiquitous Comput. 4, 4, 238-240.
9. Gaver, B., Martin, H. Alternatives: Exploring Information
Appliances through Conceptual Design Proposals. In
Proc.of CHI ’00, 2000, 209-216.
10. Hallam, E., Hockey, J. 2001. Death, Memory and Material
Culture. Oxford: Berg.
11. Hallnas, L., Redstrom, J. 2001. Slow Technology: Design-
ing for Reflection. Personal Ubiquit. Comput. 5, 201-212.
12. Hutchinson, H. et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring
design for and with families. Proc. of CHI ’03, 17-24.
13. Kaye, J. et al. 2006. To have and to hold: exploring the
personal archive. Proc. of CHI '06, 275-284.
14. Kirk, D., Sellen, A. 2010. On human remains: Value and
practice in the home archiving of cherished objects. In
ACM Trans. Comput. –Hum. Interact. 17, 3, 10.
15. Kirk, D. Izadi, S., Sellen, A., et al. 2010. Opening up the
family archive. Proc. of CSCW ’10, 261-270.
16. Massimi, M., Baecker, R. 2010. A Death in the Family:
Opportunities for Designing Technologies for the Be-
reaved. Proc. of CHI ’10, 1821-1830.
17. Miller, D., Parrot, F. 2009. Loss and Material Culture in
South London. J. of R. Anthro. Inst., Vol. 15, 3, 502-519.
18. .Net Gadgeteer. http://research.microsoft.com/en-
us/projects/gadgeteer/
19. Odom, W., Harper, R., Sellen, A., Kirk, D., Banks, R.
2010. Passing on and putting to rest: Understanding be-
reavement in the context of interactive technologies. Proc.
of CHI ’10, 1831-1840.
20. Odom, W., Pierce, J., Stolterman, E., Blevis, E. 2009. Un-
derstanding why we preserve some things and discard oth-
ers in the context of interaction design. Proc. of CHI ’09,
1053-1062.
21. Petrelli, D., Villar, N., Kalnikaite, V., Dib, L., Whittaker,
S. 2010. FM radio: family interplay with sonic mementos.
Proc. Of CHI '10, 2371-2380.
22. Schön, D., Bennet, J. 1996. Reflective Conversation with
Materials. Bringing Design to Software, 171-189.
23. Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., Kaye, J. 2005. Reflec-
tive design. Proc. of CC '05, 49-58.
24. Stevens, M, Abowd, G., Truong, K., Vollmer, F. 2003.
Getting into the Living Memory Box: Family archives and
holistic design. Personal Ubiquitous Comput, 7, 210-216.
