Crafting the Composite Garment: The role of hand weaving in digital creation

There is a growing body of practice-led textile research, focused on how digital technologies can inform new design and production strategies that challenge and extend the field. To date, this research has emphasized a traditional linear transition between hand and digital production; with hand production preceding digital as a means of acquiring the material and process knowledge required to negotiate technologies and conceptualize designs. This paper focuses on current Doctoral research into the design and prototyping of 3D woven or 'composite' garments and how the re-learning, or reinterpreting, of hand weaving techniques in a digital Jacquard format relies heavily on experiential knowledge of craft weaving skills. Drawing parallels between hand weaving and computer programming, that extend beyond their shared binary (pixel-based) language, the paper discusses how the machine-mediated experience of hand weaving can prime the weaver to ‘think digitally’ and make the transition to digital production. In a process where the weaver acts simultaneously as designer, constructor and programmer, the research explores the inspiring, but often indefinable space between craft and digital technology by challenging the notion that 'the relationship between hand, eye and material’ naturally precedes the use of computing (Harris 2012: 93). This is achieved through the development of an iterative working methodology that encompasses a cycle of transitional development, where hand weaving and digital processes take place in tandem, and techniques and skills are reinterpreted to exploit the advantages and constraints of each construction method. It is argued that the approach challenges the codes and conventions of computer programming, weaving and fashion design to offer a more sustainable clothing solution

Fabric based frequency selective surfaces using weaving and screen printing

This paper is a postprint of a paper submitted to and accepted for publication in Electronics Letters and is subject to Institution of Engineering and Technology Copyright. The copy of record is available at IET Digital Library at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/el.2013.2314Two examples of fabric based frequency selective surfaces (FSSs) are presented. The FSSs are produced by using screen printing and weaving. Both measured and simulated data are presented showing excellent agreement and performance for the FSSs when compared with the simulated data. The performance of these samples points towards a useful screening technique using fabric hangings and wall coverings in a range of applications where temporary electromagnetic wave ingress or egress needs to be controlled

Leather as a material for crafting interactive and physical artifacts

Leather is a material used for the making of artifacts ever since early human history, and which can be used also in contemporary design for various types of interactive and electronic products. In this paper, we present a series of small scale explorations of leather, first as skin close interfaces for physical engagement, and secondly in terms of crafting using hand tools and a laser cutter. We reflect on our experiences along these two strands and discuss future possibilities of leather as a rich material for providing new types of interactive experiences. By discussing emerging topics related to traditional crafting processes and contemporary rapid fabrication with this material, we find a great potential of merging such processes and tools for future interaction design settings.</p

The Anna Karenina Model of β-Cell Maturation in Development and Their Dedifferentiation in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Loss of mature β-cell function and identity, or β-cell dedifferentiation, is seen in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Two competing models explain β-cell dedifferentiation in diabetes. In the first model, β-cells dedifferentiate in the reverse order of their developmental ontogeny. This model predicts that dedifferentiated β-cells resemble β-cell progenitors. In the second model, β-cell dedifferentiation depends on the type of diabetogenic stress. This model, which we call the “Anna Karenina” model, predicts that in each type of diabetes, β-cells dedifferentiate in their own way, depending on how their mature identity is disrupted by any particular diabetogenic stress. We directly tested the two models using a β-cell–specific lineage-tracing system coupled with RNA sequencing in mice. We constructed a multidimensional map of β-cell transcriptional trajectories during the normal course of β-cell postnatal development and during their dedifferentiation in models of both type 1 diabetes (NOD) and type 2 diabetes (BTBR-Lepob/ob). Using this unbiased approach, we show here that despite some similarities between immature and dedifferentiated β-cells, β-cell dedifferentiation in the two mouse models is not a reversal of developmental ontogeny and is different between different types of diabetes.</jats:p

The Anna Karenina Model of β Cell Maturation in Development and their Dedifferentiation in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Loss of mature β cell function and identity, or β cell dedifferentiation, is seen in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Two competing models explain β cell dedifferentiation in diabetes. In the first model, β cells dedifferentiate in the reverse order of their developmental ontogeny. This model predicts that dedifferentiated β cells resemble β cell progenitors. In the second model, β cell dedifferentiation depends on the type of diabetogenic stress. This model, which we call the “Anna Karenina” model, predicts that in each type of diabetes, β cells dedifferentiate in their own way, depending on how their mature identity is disrupted by any particular diabetogenic stress. We directly tested the two models using a β cell-specific lineage-tracing system coupled with RNA-sequencing in mice. We constructed a multidimensional map of β cell transcriptional trajectories during the normal course of β cell postnatal development and during their dedifferentiation in models of both type 1 diabetes (NOD) and type 2 diabetes (BTBR-&lt;i&gt;Lep&lt;sup&gt;ob/ob&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/i&gt;). Using this unbiased approach, we show here that despite some similarities between immature and dedifferentiated β cells, &lt;a&gt;β cells dedifferentiation in the two mouse models is not a reversal of developmental ontogeny and is different between &lt;/a&gt;different types of diabetes.</jats:p

The Anna Karenina Model of β Cell Maturation in Development and their Dedifferentiation in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Loss of mature β cell function and identity, or β cell dedifferentiation, is seen in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Two competing models explain β cell dedifferentiation in diabetes. In the first model, β cells dedifferentiate in the reverse order of their developmental ontogeny. This model predicts that dedifferentiated β cells resemble β cell progenitors. In the second model, β cell dedifferentiation depends on the type of diabetogenic stress. This model, which we call the “Anna Karenina” model, predicts that in each type of diabetes, β cells dedifferentiate in their own way, depending on how their mature identity is disrupted by any particular diabetogenic stress. We directly tested the two models using a β cell-specific lineage-tracing system coupled with RNA-sequencing in mice. We constructed a multidimensional map of β cell transcriptional trajectories during the normal course of β cell postnatal development and during their dedifferentiation in models of both type 1 diabetes (NOD) and type 2 diabetes (BTBR-&lt;i&gt;Lep&lt;sup&gt;ob/ob&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/i&gt;). Using this unbiased approach, we show here that despite some similarities between immature and dedifferentiated β cells, &lt;a&gt;β cells dedifferentiation in the two mouse models is not a reversal of developmental ontogeny and is different between &lt;/a&gt;different types of diabetes.</jats:p

The Plastic Bakery: A Case of Material Driven Design

A growing number of scholars argue that understanding how people experience materials in products, i.e. Materials Experience, is essential indesigning meaningful material applications. Material Driven Design (MDD) has been developed as the method to understand these experiential traitsof materials and embed them in the design process. However, the MDD method is yet to find its way as a mainstream design practice acrossdiverse projects. This paper presents one of these projects, in which a designer followed the MDD method to design (1) a service system forcollection and recycling of plastic wastes, and (2) a product that brings forward the unique qualities of recycled plastics and make people cherishre-cycled plastics as personal Do-It-Yourself souvenirs