This article reports an iterative cycle of an ongoing experimental Research through Design (RtD) study exploring color-changing smart printed textiles intended to elicit symbolic and meaningful interactions toward cultural sustainability. Reflecting on the contribution of co-design, it investigates user collaboration during the creative phase and evaluates the user experience (UX) of the resulting artifact. Three migrant mother–child dyads participated as users. Using a workbook as a generative co-creation tool, each dyad visually expressed cultural references that informed an interactive textile set—comprising a printed blanket, thermal textile toys, and a storybook. For the summative UX evaluation, participants used the set at home for five days, documented their experiences through diary studies, and completed standardized UX questionnaires. The results show that collaboration supported the expression of cultural repertoires. Translating these references into surface, artifact, and interaction design required interpretation and abstraction. During evaluation, the set prompted play, storytelling, memory evocation, and conversations, while revealing perceived authorship of printed surface elements. The findings suggest that co-design can provide shared symbolic references that inform design decisions and support recognition beyond the original co-creators. UX ratings were positive, particularly for hedonic qualities, related to emotions. These context-specific findings identify a design pathway linking co-created cultural signs, responsive textile interaction, and intergenerational transmission. The study highlights co-design as an approach to collaboratively develop symbolic value and UX evaluation in real-world contexts for examining how shared cultural representations are interpreted and transmitted through meaningful interactions with potential relevance to cultural sustainability over time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guennes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: