Artefact: Designing a Social Digital Archive for Artists’ Portfolios
Generative Study
The three creatores of this site came into the work broadly interested in art and artistic communities, especially with regards to the relationship between analog art and the digital world. While we did not have any ideas in mind, this domain interest served as a direction in which communities to reach out to begin conducting need finding interviews. These interviews would allow us to understand what artists wanted and how their current use of technology failed to satisfy their needs.
About 32 million Americans consider themselves to be artists [1] and over 143 million Americans use instagram [2], which reflects the abundant market for a social network for artists. However, a platform like Instagram does not cater to artists but rather reaches a broader audience of users who want to share snippets of their life online. Given these statistics, we felt our domain had a sizable potential target market.
-
Jeon, Fiebrink, Edmonds, and Herath explore the interconnection between Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and interactive art practices, highlighting their mutual evolution and potential for deeper collaboration [3]. The authors argue that traditional usability metrics fall short when evaluating experiences driven by emotion, wonder, or artfulness. They call for alternative frameworks that account for aesthetic and affective dimensions of interaction, especially as interfaces become more expressive or performative. Historically, HCI emphasized task completion and efficiency, but interactive art encourages a shift toward emotional, experiential, and embodied modes of interaction. Their work proposes that HCI can learn from artistic practices to create richer, more meaningful user experiences.
-
Zhao and Lindley conducted a qualitative study examining social media as a personal archive [4]. They found that the act of posting on social platforms involves selective curation, crafting a story that is both publicly expressive and privately meaningful. As one participant described: “I’m curating for the public, but I am also curating for the self.” Users perceived photographs as central “keepsakes,” more valuable than comments or captions, especially over time. The researchers emphasize the importance of tools that assist in meaningful curation, similar to analog methods like scrapbooks, and raise design opportunities around narrative construction, temporal reflection, and post visibility settings. However, they also acknowledge tension.
- Lewis et al. introduced the “Travelling Arts x HCI Sketchbook,” a collaborative digital adaptation of a 2016 analog sketchbook art project [5]. The project enlisted artists and HCI researchers to contribute to a shared Miro board as a form of digital sketchbook. Participants reflected on the role of embodiment in creativity, noting a longing for analog processes that evoke touch, movement, and materiality. This tension between the immediacy of digital tools and the sensory depth of analog methods prompts reflection on how digital systems can better support the emotional and social aspects of art-making.
- Silvennoinen proposes an “interactionist” approach to visual aesthetics in HCI, synthesizing objectivist and subjectivist methodologies to explore how visual experience emerges through cognitive-affective processes [6]. She challenges designers to move beyond static aesthetic evaluations and consider visual stimuli as part of an interactive, dynamic user-artifact relationship. Her framework is particularly relevant to platforms like Artefact, where visual presentation, creative expression, and meaning-making are deeply intertwined.
- Kelly et al. examine how social media-based art challenges (e.g., Inktober) can promote wellbeing and community engagement [7]. Their study highlights how digital platforms can scaffold artistic motivation, skill-building, and positive emotional outcomes. However, the authors raise critical questions: How can platforms support meaningful creative engagement without slipping into trend cycles? What kinds of collaboration are most generative—online, offline, or hybrid?
- Lapse: a social photo journaling app designed for friends rather than followers. It encourages candid, low-pressure photo-taking through film camera-inspired features, such as delayed photo development and monthly journals. Users found these features intuitive and delightful, especially the haptic interactions and swipe-to-sort design that allows content to be easily placed in public or private spaces. However, reviews also revealed tension between the app’s values and its functionality. Features like the public "Community" feed were seen as performative and inauthentic, while the invite-only model and excessive notifications created friction. Terminologies such as "snaps," "instants," and "journals" were often described as confusing, and the interface included iconography that was inconsistent with other social apps.
- Vero: distinguishes itself through a privacy-first model and a chronological, ad-free feed. It supports a variety of formats, including books, movies, photos, and links, offering users more nuanced ways to express themselves. Users appreciated the elegant interface, lack of ads, and focus on intentional sharing, especially in contrast to algorithmic feeds. However, the platform has several limitations. Its smaller user base makes it difficult to connect with friends or gain traction, and technical issues like slow loading and photo album integration bugs were commonly reported. Users also expressed concern that Vero’s attempt to incorporate media beyond photography, such as TV and books, diluted its focus and created confusion during posting.
- Instagram: the most widely adopted of the three, offers a high degree of functionality for photo and video sharing. Its features—posts, stories, reels, and messaging—enable a broad range of expression and social interaction. However, its algorithmic feed and ad-driven model introduce challenges around authenticity and user control. While the app is praised for its accessibility, ease of navigation, and joyful visual design, users also report feeling overwhelmed by the volume of features and content. Ads appear frequently in feeds and reels, which can disrupt the user experience and make the platform feel overly commercial. Additionally, content moderation, particularly for younger users, remains an ongoing concern.
Key Questions:
- How do people bridge the worlds of analog art creation with digital platforms?
- What elements of the creative process involve social interaction or community engagement?
- How do artists and creatives shape their online identities and curate their visual portfolios in digital vs. analog spaces?
Domain & Research
Domain: social platforms for visual artists
Research:
-
User Interviews
- Survey of young adults
Themes & Insights
Central Finding: Many artists share their art and connect with other artists on Instagram, but the platform is far from ideal – it is too saturated with other content, too unfocused, and too commoditized to function effectively as an art sharing platform where artists can network, discover, and become discoverable.
Emergent Themes:
- “Us artists share a similar language, whether it's just knowing supplies off the top of our head, that unique connection”
- Survey: 66.6% said the biggest motivating factor for sharing art online was “Building Community”
- “It is very minimal and static so it’s just you and the art [...] rather a serious feeling—a sobriety I try to maintain.”
- “I can quickly pull up [my account] when someone’s like, ‘oh I do fashion’ at a party.”
- “I really like what some museums do nowadays where they create a virtual 3D exhibit [...] Of course, it’s still not the same as seeing a piece in person.”
- “ It's tough because people don't see the amount of work that you do and they don't see the little details like, oh my God, it has this.”
How might we build better digital communities for artists to connect with others and showcase their work?
Product Idea
A minimalist social platform made for and supported by artists, both professional and hobbyists. Artists can message others, share their art, and peruse other artists’ pieces.
-
Open format sharing meant to emulate a museum or gallery space
-
No likes or other forms of ephemeral engagement
-
Artists control the context of their art
-
Focus on art materials and discovery
- Ability to showcase art process
Usability Study with Paper Prototype
We needed to test our ideas out of paper before implementing a digital MVP. We created paper prototypes for our three main work flows below.
Task 1: Creating a post of one’s artwork. The most essential function of our product. The completion of this task must be simple, intuitive, and fast, as the most common use case.
Task 2: Searching for art by material. A key feature: searching by art material to find artists of the same medium, creating social connections through a “similar language”. This task flow will be challenging to design as a novel feature that is not found on any other social platform.
Task 3: Customizing one’s artist profile. Allows artists to control the context in which their art is consumed. Average users may choose to keep the default layout, but extreme users will likely desire more customization. As we are striving for a minimalist interface, the customization options will not be explicitly labeled, so testing this task is crucial to see if it will be intuitive with limited direction or instruction.
Quotes from testing the paper prototype:
-
“Wasn’t clear that posts had annotations, wanted text instruction.”
-
“Materials looked interactive”
- “Wanted clearer onboarding or tooltips, especially for features like holding to view details”
- “Share” is confusing because she expected it to go to a global feed instead of taking her back to her own profile
- “Was confused by the 'materials' section- expected to see some labelling”
- “Profile did not feel fluid/interactable, expected a static grid”
- “When clicking on their profile, it should show a list of their artworks or something of the sort.”
- “I’m imagining explicit categories to filter by, not just many search terms.”
- Should be able to tag when posting, so other people searching for art can find it
| Findings Annotation Tool Confusion Mediums and Materials Not Intuitive Unclear Sharing/User Flows Search and Tagging Issues Profile Customization Too Minimal Legal Copyright/AI Concerns Lack of Visual Feedback |
P1, P2, P3, P4 expressed confusion on how to annotate or what it meant.
P3: “Would adding context be a simple square select, or any shapes?”
P4: “If you have a lot of details, how will it fit on the image?”
P1: Icons looked interactive.
P2: Materials looked clickable.
P4: Needed more scaffolding.
P6: Wanted labeling
P1: “Share” was confusing—expected global feed.
P6: Suggested WIP status option.
P1: Tags unclear—wanted categories.
P4: Asked for filters like style.
P5: Wanted tagging for discoverability.
| P1: Profile not fluid. P3: Wanted pronouns. P5: Wanted list of artworks |
| P3: “Do you retain rights?” P4: Asked how copyright works. |
| P1: Image hold unclear. P2: Expected confirmation after upload. P6: Wanted onboarding/tooltips. |
Add visible annotation toolbar with icons + tooltips. Provide onboarding/tutorial. Make annotation a dot. Limit quantity. Add toggle like an “eye” symbol.
| Reduce icon size, align beside text. Rename “medium” to “materials” for consistency. |
Use terms like “Post your artwork.” Offer options like “Post to canvas” or “Post to feed.” |
| Add filter chips for style, medium, etc. Show example searches/tags to guide users. |
Allow pronoun field. Add preview/resizing. Consider optional bios. |
| Add clear copyright policies. Detect AI-generated content. |
| Add visual feedback (e.g., confirmation animations). Show “Hold to view details” on first load. Use tooltips for feature discovery. |
Our website was built using React for the frontend and Supabase for the backend. We tested Artefact with a 12 day deployment from May 19 to May 30. During this time period, 15 users registered and engaged with hosted content.
Content Analysis
Quantiative:
Search
Accounts
Profile
Posts
Social
Number of searches made
Number of search filter tags clicked
Number of logins and logouts
Number of registered users
Number of times profile was edited
Number of profile pictures uploaded
Length of artist statement
Number of materials added
Length of post description
Number of mediums added
Number of annotations created
Button click events to make post
Time taken to complete post flow
Number of comments made
Number of posts viewed
Time spent viewing a post
Number of other people’s annotations clicked on
Number of chats started and chat messages sent
We analyzed all posts made on the platform and examined trends among features including the image format (the medium); the time the post was created; and the length and format of written content including descriptions, titles, and annotations.
Below are some general stats about Artefact usage:
Total Registered Users
Users who posted
Total Posts
Comments Made
Annotated Posts
Avg Annotations per Annotated post
Max anotations on one post
Avg. session duration
Power user session duration
DAU/MAU
DAU/WAU
14
9
26
7
12 (46%)
2.42
4
6 min, 52 sec
13 min, 20 sec
20.4%
58.7%
User retention and engagement during study period
Possible Funnels for Users:
Creating a post
Viewing other posts and leaving comments
Chatting with other Artists
Editing User Profile
From these quantitative results, the most-used features were (1) performing searches to discover art and (2) creating a post, though both had a drop-off rate of 73% from funnel start to end. This preference was also clear from our findings that though the homepage is the user’s own profile, most users navigated away from it immediately to discover art. In particular, for the search funnel, 100% of registered users completed a search and about 73% subsequently viewed a post, but a much smaller percentage commented or interacted further. For the post creation funnel, onboarding and profile set-up was clear and intuitive, with about 50% of all people who set up a profile creating a post, indicating that though many users preferred to use the platform search or discover art passively, a significant proportion was also using the platform to curate their personal artist portfolio as intended. For those who did contribute, 46% of all posts had annotations, among which the average was 2.42 annotations.
With 6 of our users in the study, we conducted semi-structured user interviews after the 12-day period to gain insights into the user experience, highlighting points of joy and frustration. A few questions that guided our user interviews included:
- Before Artefact, how did you typically share or organize your artwork online (if at all)?
- Were there moments that made you feel especially delighted or frustrated?
- Can you share a favorite moment or post from your time using Artefact?
- What was your experience with adding annotations to your artwork? Did it change how you thought about or presented your work?
- For what purposes do you see a system like Artefact being most useful for you?
Here are some insights:
- ~75% of post descriptions use incomplete sentences, reflecting the platform’s casual and relaxed tone.
- Users are engaging with the platform more like a social media space than an art gallery, despite our intent to blend both.
- Nearly 100% of annotations contain sentence fragments or incorrect capitalization/punctuation, reinforcing the informal vibe.
- The dominance of colloquial, internet-native language, especially among our Gen Z user base, suggests a preference for casual expression over professional tone.
- Many posts lack annotations, which may reflect either user confusion about their purpose or a general disinterest in using them.
Emergent Themes from MVP
[distilled from User Interviews]
1) A personal pressure-free archive: for many users, Artefact felt less like a portfolio, and more like a personal museum, scrapbook, and safe haven for their creative lives.
- “It was like combining my photo album, Procreate, and phone images into one space. That was just fun and kind of emotional.” – P2
- “I finally saw all my work together, not for likes or clients, but just for me. It was surprisingly grounding.” – P3
- “This felt more like a sketchbook I was inviting someone into; quiet, intentional, and meaningful.” – P6
- “I don’t usually post about my art, but this space encouraged that reflection in a way Instagram doesn’t.” – P4
2) Barriers to reuse and discovery: while the first experience felt exciting, users wished for more ways to organize, discover, and reconnect; turning early interest into lasting engagement.
- “I really enjoyed my one day of use... but I haven't really gone back... because I haven't done art in the last seven days...” – P2
- “I uploaded everything and then… nothing. There wasn’t a next step or anything new to discover.” – P5
- “It needs some kind of prompt or gentle reminder to come back. Otherwise, it just disappears from mind.” – P3
- “You can’t easily explore other artists. There’s no discovery feed — it feels isolated.” – P5
3) Structure, visibility, and control: Users appreciated the clean, relaxed design, but asked for more control: grouping posts by project, tracking artistic growth, seeing if their work was viewed, and getting clearer feedback on engagement.
- “Everything ends up in one long feed. I wanted to group things by theme or phase.” – P5
- “It would help to have tags, folders, or even just a way to rearrange the order of posts.” – P6
- “I couldn’t tell if anyone had seen my work. Even simple view counts would make a difference.” – P5
- “Let users choose if their email is public. It’s a small thing, but it makes people feel more in control.” – P4
Design Implications
Value Added:
- Users enjoyed looking back on their creative journeys
-
Annotations promote meaningful reflection
- A rare, low-pressure space for sharing
Improvements:
- Include post-organization tools: Enable users to curate their portfolios around specific themes, projects, time periods, or media types.
- Encourage return use: Mechanisms that gently invite users back without mimicking high-pressure social media loops.
- More commenting and discovery: Discovering others should be more intuitive, responding to posts should be troubleshooted and the way work is seen.