Paper deep dive
Reflecting on Creative-Boundaries with an AI Co-Doodler
Samia Menon, Samyukta Jayaram, Chetan Goenka, Shm Garanganao Almeda
Intelligence
Status: not_run | Model: - | Prompt: - | Confidence: 0%
Entities (0)
Relation Signals (0)
No relation signals yet.
Cypher Suggestions (0)
No Cypher suggestions yet.
Abstract
Abstract:In this pictorial, we consider how the negotiation of creative boundaries with a co-creative AI system can create moments for personal creative reflection. We ground this in our experiences with Froggi-Draw, a single-initiative co-doodling system that gives users power to decide when and how much an AI "collaborator" (Froggi) contributes to their drawing. From a 1-week pilot study where (n=8) novice and experienced artists doodled daily with the system, we report on ways participants navigated creative risk and uncertainty, and how their usage and perceptions of Froggi shifted over time. In moments of disruption, participants described the system as encroaching on their creative territory. We consider how the design of a supportive, co-creative AI "collaborator" might look like the design of a supportive power dynamic---and finding ways to offer users control to find, reflect upon, and flexibly negotiate the boundaries of that dynamic.
Tags
Links
- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05482v1
- Canonical: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05482v1
Trouble viewing inline? Open PDF directly ā
Full Text
16,069 characters extracted from source content.
Expand or collapse full text
RICE W1: The First Reflection in Creative Experience (RICE) Workshop, July 13, 2026, London, UK CREATIVITY & COGNITION 2026: JULY 13-16, LONDON, UK Reflecting on Creative-BotAndaries witV1 an AI Co-Doodler Samia Menon Samyukta Jayaram Chetan Goenka Shm Garanganao Almeda UC Berkeley Berkeley, California, USA shm.almeda@berkeley.edu UC Berkeley Berkeley, California, USA samia_menon@berkeley.edu UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Berkeley, California, USA cgoenka@berkeley.edu Berkeley, California, USA samyukta.jayaram@berkeley.edu ABSTRACT In this pictorial, we consider how the negotiation of creative boundaries with a co-creative AI system can create moments for personal creative reflection. We ground this in our experiences with Froggi-Draw, a single-initiative co-doodling system that gives users power to decide when and how much an AI "collaborator" (Froggi) contributes to their drawing. From a I-week pilot study where (n=8) novice and experienced artists doodled daily with the system, we report on ways participants navigated creative risk and uncertainty, and how their usage and perceptions of Froggi shifted over time. In moments of disruption, participants described the system as encroaching on their creative territory. We consider how the design of a supportive, co-creative AI "collaborator" might look like the design of a supportive power dynamic-and finding ways to offer users control to find, reflect upon, and flexibly negotiate the boundaries of that dynamic. Reference: Samia Menon, Samyukta Jayaram, Chetan Goenka, and Shm Garanganao Almeda. 2026. Reflecting on Creative Boundaries with an AI Co-Doodler. In Proceedings of The First Reflection in Creative Experience (RiCE) Workshop (RiCE Wl). ACM Creativity & Cognition 2026, London, UK. IQ (D I This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 111~~-Elo\ ā¢Ill, Attribution 4.0 International License. Many creative domains are seeing the introduction of co-creative Al "collaborator" systems [1]. Given that even well-intentioned co-creative system interventions can be disruptive, or even harmful[2, 3], HCI researchers are increasingly interested in understanding how to design Al systems that meaningfully support creative processes. We are interested in how the negotiation of creative boundaries with a co-creative system can necessitate, and create moments for, personal creative reflection. We ground this position in our experiences developing and studying Froggi-Draw: a single-initiative, co-doodling system that provides users with the power to decide when, and how much, they would like the system to intervene in their drawing. We conducted a pilot user study with (n=8) experienced artists and novices who made doodles with the system daily for 1-week. Through analyzing their daily reflections and responses to semi-structured exit interview questions, we identified themes in how their use and perceptions of the system shifted over time. Participants learned to thoughtfully negotiate the risk and uncertainty involved when inviting Froggi to intervene in their drawings. In moments of disruption, participants described the system as encroaching on their creative territory: feeling the system had taken up too much (literal or conceptual) space. Our findings led us to consider how the task of designing a supportive, co-creative 'collaborator' may resemble the process of designing a supportive power dynamic between user and system, and offering the user control to flexibly reflect upon, and negotiate, the boundaries of that dynamic. In this pictorial, we present the Froggi-Draw system and findings from our pilot study, along with relevant themes surfaced by our preliminary data analysis. 1 RICE W1: The First Reflection In Creative Experience (RICE) Workshop, July 13, 2026, London, UK CREATIVITY & COGNITION 2026: JULY 13-16, LONDON, UK ~~ Zhou & Sterman [10] found that generating intermediate text encouraged rewriting facilitating more engagement from human users in a co-creative writing process. Intermediate forms of drawing like sketching and doodling are significant mediums for visual communication [4, 7, 8, 9] and for autotelic [5, 6] creative expression, making it a well-motivated domain for exploring co-creative interaction design. However, few studies of co-creative drawing systems have focused on investigating the impact these systems have on the creative experience. Notably, Lawton et. al develop Reframer [11], which supports context-aware, mixed-initiative, synchronous drawing with an Al-system. Their "Model of Co- Creative Agentive Flow" framework describes how users moved between treating the system as a collaborator and a tool-"as they adapt to and are disrupted by a tool's functions, with different features helping at some points in the process and hindering at others." Lawton et al. also found that the mixed-initiative co-creativity experience can be "unfamiliar" and "confronting. Rather than tackling research questions of mixed-initiative creativity support design (When would a good collaborator intervene into the creative process?), we were interested in what we could learn from a single-initiative interaction where both user and system operated at the same intermediate drawing quality. Inspired by human-human co- creative drawing games like "Pass the Canvas", we designed a drawing interaction where users had the power to decide when to ask for Al intervention while collaborating on a doodle -allowing us to ask ... ā¢ When and how might we relinquish control to an Al "collaborator"? ā¢ What can interactions with an Al "collaborator" teach us about how human creatives perceive and relate to these systems? ā¢ What can interactions with an Al "collaborator" teach creatives about themselves? Drawing wit h Froggi -Draw 0 c_-_______ u_ s_e_r I_n_te_ra_c_tio_n_ L_o_op _____ ~) Shared Canvas 0 User Enters Room Single-Initiative ~-ā¢rĀ·""'.,_.,,....,.. __ ,,, ā¢ .,, I User begins the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ā¢ l drawing in black ro ~ 'Diff,.sion-8ased Generation OR - ~ -+-. Prompt-8ased Interaction User prompts Froggi with drawing request C P'4: "When Froggi contrib1.1ted rwiore, I tho1.1ght it was cool b1.1t even when I add to it, it doesn't really feel like rwiine ... ." Fr 0 ,. ā¢ b .,91-Dra11v e a "'1ore -. was also d, Other c reffectii,eā¢ esi9i-ied to "'1ai,i., . 0 -dood/i,i svste,,., t'- ' e1<,st;i,i 9 tool nai,i c stroke Pre ~ toots re/ s. While oi-ist,..,,. dictioi,i y oi,i l'le1<t f, cts ai,i , o,,.r s - r-o,,., ā¢Ā·'-. ei-itire . Yste,,., -n,cJ,, . '"'1ar. ~ ,t sa""Pl .,e "isioi,i. es str; L See f, 0 "es/ IAtlAre IN i"'1pl Ork fo e""ei-itatĀ· r o,,.r (\__ IOi,i/ V Separate 'Drawing Colors Backend stroke generation pipeline ' Shared Fidelity Level ---------- Submit drawing to gallery RICE W1: The First Reflection In Creative Experience (RICE) Workshop, July 13, 2026 froggi-Draw EncoĀ«Araged User Reflection While experir;ienting with froggi-'Draw, 1,1sers q1,1ickly fo1,1nd that the 1,1niq1,1e characteristics of the syster;i 1,1rged ther,i to reflect on their creative bo1mdaries. In other words, 1,1sers had to 1,1nderstand what aspects of a doodle ~ade it their own and what aspects they co1,1ld relinqiAish to the syster;i. We 1,1ncovered ther;ies by analyzing 1,1sers' responses to open-ended daily pro~pts ("Share any notes on what yo1,1 drew today", "'Describe yo1,1r relationship with froggi") and final se~i-str1Act1Ared exit interviews. tvee.d in5f0 1 I Share.cl C.anvas. f C ā¢-Arocteristics tWJt . .,,,. a ew ..... . I Ā·v, 1,4r~1. -:r There were for their ro e 1 . tood 01,4r ā¢ bO wtories partic"41orlv s their creot,vt 1.4 rs t o reflect OV\ 1,4se -. L CREATIVITY & COGNITION 2026: JULY 13-16, LONDON, UK f roggi CAndenwiines hCAtw1an-hCAtw1G1n coUaborative nonwis wviicvi encolA.raged reflection on what boCAndaries were crossed P'I: "Whel'\ froggi is j1Ast addil' so~ethil' i'\ the ~iddle, Cll' I CCll'\'t do Cll' (thil' abo1At it, it felt fn.tstratil' Cll' disrespectfiAI so~eti~esĀ· P3: "[My relatioY'lship with Froggi isl CombativeĀ· f"1abf;,., r 9 Des; 9 ,., S'-eatures: "ared C f roggi facilitated tho1Aghtf1,d articCAlation Snared Fa ~"1vas, ' el,ty Leve/ wviicvi encolA.raged reflection on their 1Altitw1ate creative goal P'I: Ā·r thiY'lk promptiY'lg more ambig1Ao1Asly was more importaY'lt for me thaY'I for the systemĀ· PS: Ā·r thiY'lk I Y'leed to be more specific wheY'I telliY'lg the model what to add" r-' sent ... ( swomf ) froggi generated CAnpredictable oCAtpCAts wviicvi encolA.raged reflection on personal flexibility Pl: Ā·1 had a clear idea b1At chal' becC11Ase of whot froggi added, b1At that felt like a happy accidel' : ~ -frOjJi is thinki?J,.. ā¢ 5 I C~or I 0 thinki~ ... EY'labliY'lg OesigY'I feat1Are: lAY'lpredictability of l)ifflASiOY'I Models P'/: "The fact that frogg, s IAY'lpredictability impacts the compositioY'I aY'ld COY'lteY'lts of a piece make it feel like a bigger or more meaY'liY'lgfiAI co1Arse chaY'lge iY'I the work: P6: Ā·r thiY'lk iY'I creative tasks it is 1Asef1A/, like arts, or tasks where '(OIA doY'l't Y'lecesarrily[sicl have GI high risk workflow. It jiAst makes st1Aff more iY'lterestiY'lg .... I wo1Ald feel the most comfortable IASiY'lg a tool like this for exploratioY'IĀ· 3 RICE W1: The First Reflection In Creative Experience (RICE) Workshop, July 13, 2026 CREATIVITY & COGNITION 2026: JULY 13-16, LONDON, UK - Once c.tsers were able to reflect on their creative boc.tndaries, thev developed interaction strategies to wiaintain thew. l Creative Challenger hf' Creative Challenger We characterize some tAse-strategies as positioY Froggi-Draw as a creative challel'lger: SteeriY the system towards more iY1def,Y1ite aY stAggestive otAtptAts, with the goal that its geY leave ample space for the htAmaY\ tAser to shape the f,Y otAtptAt aY lead its creative directioY\. Pl/ tAsed a low sampliY rate to steer the system to coY a small Y of abstract strokes, allowiY them to shape the sceY arotAY it. IY\ this way, tAsers tAsed the system to prompt their owY\ creativity aY rwiail'ltail'led a strol'lger sel'lse of owl'lership. Tool The most straightforward approach to tASiY Froggi-Draw is tASiY it as a tool: the tAser has a clear iY \ of what they waY the system to add to the drawiY . P5 explicitly reqtAested Froggi to draw leaves growiY from a boot (see Fig. bottom-right) to complete the drawiY . For otAr sttAdy participaY1ts, choosiY aY\ Ā·optimal" iY \ strategy iY balaY leveragiY the expressivity iYlhereY to a geY , opeY\-eY system, with a seY of maiY creative owY aY coY . IAsers expressed col'lstrail'lts that they wal'lted froggi to adhere to. Scaffold/Teacher Several participaY1ts tAsed Froggi-Draw's otAtptAts as creative scaffoldil'lg. P8 prompted the system to draw a bird (see Fig bottom-left), theY\ mimicked the style of the geY otAtptAt with their owY\ additioY to the caY . SiY the system freqtAeY reY OY part of a sceY , participaY1ts were iY1cliY1ed to complete the sketch iY\ a similar vistAal laY . P3 adopted a poiYltillist qtAality to match the style of a partially-geY sketch. IAsers articulated where they wal'lted support il'I achievil'lg their creative goals with systerwi guidal'lce. P3: "Froggi has been more helpful as a jumping off point than a contributor to an already developed drawing for me." PS:.-------- PS: "Froggi is my teacher" PB: PS: ā²This time I used froggi first to develop the image and then drew based off of what I was provided. It drew half of it for me and then I filled in the rest" Scaffold P4: "I decided to just use what Froggi outputted more as inspiration" Pl: "I had a clear idea but changed because of what froggi added, but that felt like a happy accident" ---..,.~:l=~ P3: "I decided to allow froggi to draw the part of the doodle that I knew I would struggle with accurately depicting. I think it worked" P4: ā¢1 figured a common use case would be to get help drawing parts that aren't fun to me like a bicycle) but might be part of the artist's vision" Thank voc.t ! Tool (and keep doodling!) 1~--1 4 RICE W1: The First Reflection in Creative Experience (RICE) Workshop, July 13, 2026 CREATIVITY & COGNITION 2026: JULY 13-16, LONDON, UK REFERENCES [1] John Joon Young Chung. 2022. Artistic User Expressions in AI-powered Creativity Support Tools. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '22 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-4. doi:10. l 145/3526114.3558531 [2] Kevin Pu, Daniel Lazaro, Ian Arawjo, Haijun Xia, Ziang Xiao, Tovi Grossman, and Yan Chen. 2025. Assistance or Disruption? Exploring and Evaluating the Design and Trade-offs of Proactive AI Programming Support. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-21. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713357 [3] Shm Garanganao Almeda, Joy O Kim, and Bjoern Hartmann. 2025. Creativity Supportive Ecosystems: A Framework for Understanding Function and Disruption in Online Art Worlds. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-17. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713734 [ 4] Bill Buxton. 2007. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA. [5] M. Kreminski and Michael Mateas. 2021. Reflective Creators. https ://w.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reflective-Creators-Kreminski-Mateas/ a 7 ea 7778337 4 7312666b8d 7 af38b 160535b2e2fa [ 6] Katherine E. Compton. 2019. Casual Creators: Defining a Genre of Autotelic Creativity Support Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. UC Santa Cruz. https :// escholarship.org/uc/item/ 4kg8g9gd [7] Miriam Sturdee and Makayla Lewis. 2020. Sketching in HCI: Research Practice & Publication (Advanced). In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-4. doi:10. l 145/3334480.3375047 [8] Miriam Sturdee and Joseph Lindley. 2019. Sketching & Drawing as Future Inquiry in HCI. In Proceedings of the Halfway to the Future Symposium 2019 (HttF '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-10. doi:10.1145/3363384.3363402 [9] Makayla Lewis, Miriam Sturdee, Denise Lengyel, Mauro Toselli, John Miers, Violet Owen, Josh Urban Davis, Swen E Gaudl, Lanxi Xiao, Ernesto Priego, Kim Snooks, Laia Turmo Vidal, Eli Blevis, Nicola Privato, Patricia Piedade, Corey Ford, Nick Bryan-Kinns, Beatriz Severes, Kirsikka Kaipainen, Caroline Claisse, Raksanda Mehnaz Huq, Mirjam Palosaari Eladhari, Anna Troisi, Ana O Henriques, Ar Grek, Gareth Mcmurchy, Ray Le, Sara Nabil, Jacinta Jardine, Robert Collins, Andrey Vlasov, Yana Knight, Michele Cremaschi, Silvia Carderelli-Gronau, Claudia Nunez-Pacheco, Gisela Reyes-Cruz, and Jean-Philippe Riviere. 2024. Traveling Arts x HCI Sketchbook: Exploring the Intersection Between Artistic Expression and Human-Computer Interaction. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-14. doi:10.l 145/3613905.3644069 [10] David Zhou and Sarah Sterman. 2024. Ai.llude: Investigating Rewriting AI-Generated Text to Support Creative Expression. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (Chicago, IL, USA) (C&C '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 241-254. doi:1 O. l 145/3635636.3656187 [11] Tomas Lawton, Kazjon Grace, and Francisco J Ibarrola. 2023. When is a Tool a Tool? User Perceptions of System Agency in Human-AI Co-Creative Drawing. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1978-1996. doi:10. l 145/3563657.3595977 5