Process¶
I didn’t document this live. I came back to it after finishing my final presentation.
Honestly, I spent way too long stuck in my head at the beginning. About six weeks of thinking, researching, and redefining my idea… without actually making much. I’d also never used a real loom before, so I was figuring things out as I went.
Everything clicked once I started prototyping. My project moved faster, made more sense, and I could actually see what was working (and what really wasn’t). Huge thanks to my mentor Louise Massacrier for pushing me to start making.
If I could do it again: I’d start much earlier. Things get clearer once your hands are involved.
Week 1 — Project Planning¶
We came back from winter break and started shaping our project: description, timeline, bill of materials, and references.
I spent a bit too long looking for the “perfect” Gantt chart tool, but in the end, I went with a simple Google template—it was free and easy. My timeline shifted a lot, but it was still helpful to have something to guide me.
[image of comparison before and after Gantt chart and bill of materials]
Week 2 — Defining System Definition & Understanding Weaving¶
This week was a lot of thinking. I worked through the 5 Ws (who, what, when, where, why) and started defining the system behind my project.
My cohort mate Maddie Olsen suggested I try weaving on an actual loom—something simple, but not something I had prioritized. That advice really changed how I approached the project.
I started looking for places in Boston and found A Place to Weave wherePenny Lacroix kindly organized a last-minute crash course for me and my sister on a 4-shaft table loom.
During that session, I noticed how small missteps in weaving show up clearly in the fabric—they reveal the maker’s attention (or lack of it). That observation became the core concept of my project at the time: tracking and highlighting those “mistakes” in the weaving process.
Loom Anatomy — 4 Shaft Table Loom¶
Understanding the anatomy of the loom is essential to designing Gratitude Loom as a human–machine system. Each component—such as the shafts, beater, warp beam, and cloth beam—defines how bodily actions are translated into woven structure. In this project, the loom becomes not only a tool for making textiles but also a physical interface where voice, movement, and algorithmic logic converge.
The diagram below illustrates the basic anatomy of a table loom, which informs both the physical and conceptual design of the Gratitude Loom system.
The anatomy of a table loom. Source: Deborah Chandler, Learning to Weave.
References
Chandler, Deborah. Learning to Weave. Loveland, CO: Interweave Press, 1995.
Dixon, Anne. The Handweaver’s Pattern Directory: Over 600 Weaves for Four-Shaft Looms. Loveland, CO: Interweave Press, 1994.
Weaving Terminology¶
- Warp — The vertical threads held under tension on the loom
- Weft — The horizontal thread that is woven through the warp
- Shaft (Harness) — Frames that hold heddles; lifting different shafts creates patterns (a 4-shaft loom has four of these)
- Heddle — A loop or eye that each warp thread passes through, used to control thread movement
- Shed — The opening created between raised and lowered warp threads for the shuttle to pass through
- Shuttle — Tool used to carry the weft thread through the shed
- Reed — Comb-like tool that spaces warp threads evenly and is used to beat the weft into place
- Beater — Frame that holds the reed and swings forward to pack the weft
- Pick — One pass of the weft through the warp
- Beat — The action of pushing the weft into place using the reed
- Threading — The process of passing warp threads through heddles in a specific order
- Tie-up — The connection between shafts and levers/treadles that determines which shafts lift together
- Treadling — The sequence of lifting shafts during weaving (the “pattern” in action)
- Sett (EPI) — Ends per inch; how densely the warp threads are spaced
- Tension — The tightness of the warp threads on the loom
- Selvedge — The finished edge of the fabric along the sides
- Float — A section where a thread passes over multiple threads without interlacing
Weaving Steps¶
One pick (one pass of the weft) typically includes:
- Press shaft(s) to open the shed
- Raise the heddles
- Throw the shed
- Place the shuttle down (personal preference)
- Adjust the weft diagonally (personal preference)
- Release or lift shafts (personal preference) Beat
Some of these steps—like when to place the shuttle back or when to lift the shafts before beating—depend on the weaver. But I noticed that these small choices really affect the final fabric.
For example, the weave becomes tighter and more even when I lift the shafts before beating and set the weft at a slight diagonal.
Thanks to Penny for pointing this out. It shaped how I approached consistency in my weaving.
According to Deborah Chandler’s Learning to Weave, the fundamental sequence of actions in weaving consists of three recurring steps: changing the shed, throwing the shuttle, and beating the weft into place (Chandler, 1995). These actions form a rhythmic loop that structures both the physical making of cloth and the embodied experience of weaving.
While these steps remain consistent, their order can vary depending on technique and personal preference. Some weavers beat the weft while the shed is still open, which reduces draw-in and creates a softer structure. Others close the shed before beating, which locks the threads more firmly into place and produces a tighter fabric. Each sequence has practical and aesthetic consequences, and no single method is universally correct.
What is essential is not the specific order chosen, but the consistency of the sequence. Repetition establishes rhythm, stability, and coherence in the woven structure. This highlights weaving as a temporal and procedural system in which meaning and form emerge through ordered bodily action rather than isolated gestures.
In the context of Gratitude Loom, the weaving sequence becomes part of the ritual logic of the system. The act of changing the shed, throwing the shuttle, and beating the weft is not only a technical process but a performative structure that supports presence, attention, and embodied interaction. By framing weaving as a sequence-based practice, the project emphasizes how pattern and memory arise from repeated, intentional movement over time.
References
Chandler, Deborah. Learning to Weave. Loveland, CO: Interweave Press, 1995.
What to avoid¶
Week 3 — Designing¶
03 System Defintition¶
System Overview¶
Gratitude Loom reimagines AI as a listener to human rhythm. Instead of speeding things up or optimizing output, the system creates space for slower, continuous making. Within a chosen pattern family, structure deepens through steady repetition over time. Slowness is not forced — it becomes possible. The woven cloth becomes a quiet record of how time was experienced during the weaving process.
System Components¶
1. Human (Weaver)¶
Definition:
The person who performs the weaving ritual through repeated hand movements.
Role:
- Begins with a brief spoken expression of gratitude, marking the start of intentional time.
- Repeats weaving gestures — pressing shafts, throwing the shuttle, and beating the weft.
- Maintains continuity of movement at their own pace.
- Adjusts tension when needed and continues weaving.
Contribution:
The weaver’s attention and rhythm influence how the structure develops. The textile becomes a subtle trace of this lived rhythm.
2. AI-Guided Loom¶
Definition:
A 4-shaft loom enhanced with sensors and simple AI that listens to the rhythm of weaving.
Role:
- Detects repeated weaving gestures.
- Listens to steadiness of movement.
- Allows structure to deepen within a selected pattern family when continuity is sustained.
- Keeps structure lighter when movement becomes fragmented.
- Never takes control of the weaving process.
Contribution:
The loom does not judge, score, or reward. It responds gently to continuity, shaping how depth builds within the pattern.
3. Woven Material (Textile)¶
Definition:
The woven fabric created through repeated gestures within a chosen pattern family.
Role:
- Shows variation in density and repetition.
- Subtly reflects sustained or fragmented continuity.
- Makes time visible through structure and texture.
Contribution:
The textile holds a quiet record of how the weaving unfolded — denser where continuity settled, lighter where it did not. All outcomes remain coherent and beautiful.
4. Sensors¶
Definition:
Small electronic components attached to the loom that translate physical gestures into digital signals.
Role:
- Detect repeated weaving movements.
- Register the spoken gratitude as the beginning of a session.
- Provide timing information to the AI system without analyzing emotional content.
Contribution:
Sensors allow the loom to respond to rhythm rather than measure performance. They support responsiveness without surveillance.
5. Pattern Library (Structural-Temporal Fields)¶
Definition:
A set of fixed weaving pattern families (such as tabby, twill, or block-based structures). Each family represents a different mode of repetition.
Role:
- Provides structural constraint and coherence.
- Remains fixed during each session.
- Allows depth to accumulate within one selected field.
Contribution:
Pattern families act as landscapes for repetition. They are not rewards, but spaces where continuity can take root.
6. Feedback Interface¶
Definition:
Minimal visual or sound cues that support awareness without interrupting flow.
Role:
- Marks the beginning of a session.
- Supports continuity without correction.
- Avoids gamified signals or rewards.
Contribution:
The interface maintains presence without pressure, helping the loom feel like a temporal environment rather than a performance system.
System Relationships¶
Gratitude Loom functions as a quiet loop between human, loom, and material.
The human speaks gratitude and begins weaving.
The loom listens to the rhythm of repeated gestures.
The material reflects how continuity unfolds over time.
Human gesture → AI listening → Structural change → Material trace
There is no scoring or unlocking — only gradual deepening within constraint.
System Boundaries¶
Gratitude Loom is not:
- A productivity tool
- A gamified system
- A mood detection device
- A performance tracker
- An optimization machine
- An automated weaving device
It does not reward speed or punish variation.
It does not evaluate the meaning of gratitude.
The system focuses on:
- Sustained continuity
- Embodied repetition
- Slower temporal experience
- Structural depth within constraint
- AI as listener rather than controller
Week 3¶
Existing Gratitude Practices¶
Across both modern wellness practices and many traditional and Indigenous cultures, gratitude is expressed through spoken words, songs, gestures, and the making of objects such as textiles, baskets, and offerings. These practices show that gratitude is often embodied through voice, body movement, and material creation, rather than existing only as a private thought. In the Gratitude Loom project, these ideas are brought into an interactive weaving system where spoken gratitude becomes sound input, hand movement becomes pattern, and the woven textile becomes a physical record of the ritual. This research explores how gratitude can be experienced as a shared interaction between voice, body, and material.
Research table of existing gratitude practices across modern and traditional cultures, focusing on voice, bodily action, and material expression. — Pattaraporn (Porpla) Kittisapkajon
Craft as a Knowledge System¶
Craft practices such as weaving operate as knowledge systems that encode cultural memory, skill, and meaning through bodily movement and material process. As Richard Sennett argues in The Craftsman, knowledge in craft emerges through repetition, attention, and the intimate relationship between hand and material, where making becomes a form of thinking rather than mere production (Sennett, 2008).
Similarly, Kristina Höök’s work on somaesthetic interaction design emphasizes that the body itself is a site of knowledge, where understanding arises through sensation, movement, and lived experience rather than abstract instruction alone (Höök, 2018). In weaving, pattern structures function as both visual forms and procedural knowledge, translated through gesture and rhythm into textile structure.
Gratitude Loom draws from these perspectives by treating weaving as a living archive of intention and ritual. Spoken gratitude and mindful movement become inputs into a system that produces material patterns, allowing emotional and temporal experiences to be recorded in textile form. In this way, the loom functions as both a craft tool and a knowledge interface, transforming embodied reflection into a shared material record.
References
Sennett, Richard. The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
Höök, Kristina. Designing with the Body: Somaesthetic Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018.
AI as Co-Regulator / Collaborator¶
Recent work in art and human–computer interaction suggests that artificial intelligence does not need to function as an autonomous creator or an automated tool. Instead, AI can be designed as a collaborative partner that participates in creative processes through interaction, feedback, and adaptation. In this view, intelligence does not exist only inside the machine but emerges through the relationship between human and system.
Artist-researcher Sougwen Chung provides a key example of this approach. In her drawing and robotics projects, Chung creates systems in which machines respond to her gestures in real time. Rather than using AI to generate finished artworks independently, she treats the machine as something that “draws back.” The artwork is created through an ongoing exchange between human movement and machine behavior. Chung frames this process as a new form of intelligence based on flow, adaptation, and shared agency, rather than automation or efficiency.
This perspective challenges the idea that creativity belongs solely to either humans or machines. Instead, authorship becomes distributed across a feedback loop: human action influences machine response, and machine response in turn shapes human action. The result is not a pre-determined output but an emergent pattern formed through interaction. Such systems emphasize responsiveness, rhythm, and negotiation rather than control.
Research in co-creative and embodied interaction design similarly argues that intelligent systems can support reflection and attentiveness instead of replacing human decision-making. When computational systems respond to bodily input — such as voice, movement, or timing — they can function as co-regulators, helping guide the pace and structure of an activity while leaving meaning and intention with the human participant.
Within Gratitude Loom, AI is framed as a co-regulator rather than a pattern generator. The system does not independently design weaving patterns; instead, it modulates existing weave grammars in response to human voice and ritualized movement. Pattern variation emerges through a continuous feedback loop between human intention, machine response, and material execution. In this way, the woven textile becomes a physical trace of collaboration between human, machine, and material.
By treating AI as a collaborative participant embedded within craft and ritual, the project explores a model of intelligence grounded in relationship and embodiment. This approach shifts AI away from automation toward a form of creative partnership that supports mindfulness, repetition, and shared meaning through making.
References
“Seeing Double — Bridging Dualities with Relational…” YouTube video, April 27, 2025, Sougwen Chung on Human-Machine Collaboration, posted by Singapore Computer Society, 1:09:23, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnjx0X8dJGQ .
Pattern Logic & Computational Systems¶
Woven Pattern Logic¶
Woven patterns operate as structured systems of rules that determine how warp and weft threads intersect to produce visual and material form. In Learning to Weave, Deborah Chandler describes weaving patterns as sequences of ordered actions governed by shaft movements and treadling instructions, where each row of weaving follows a defined logic of repetition and variation (Chandler, 1995). These pattern systems function as procedural knowledge, translating abstract design into physical structure through the weaver’s embodied practice.
Anne Dixon’s The Handweaver’s Pattern Directory further demonstrates how complex woven designs emerge from systematic combinations of shaft lifts and thread arrangements. The book presents over 600 weave structures for four-shaft looms, revealing how a limited set of mechanical parameters can generate extensive pattern diversity (Dixon, 1994). Each pattern operates as a modular rule set that can be altered through changes in sequence, rhythm, and repetition.
Together, these references frame weaving as a form of pattern logic comparable to algorithmic systems. The weaver follows structured instructions while allowing for improvisation and material feedback, producing outcomes that are both rule-based and responsive. This balance between constraint and variation informs Gratitude Loom’s approach to pattern generation, where spoken gratitude and bodily interaction influence how predefined pattern rules are activated through computational guidance.
By treating woven structures as logical systems rather than fixed designs, Gratitude Loom extends traditional weaving knowledge into a responsive human–machine framework. Pattern becomes not only a visual outcome but a record of interaction shaped by timing, attention, and ritual performance.
Basic Weave Structures as Pattern Grammar (Plain Weave & Twill)¶
Fundamental weave structures such as plain weave and twill form the basic grammar of woven pattern logic. These structures define how warp and weft threads interact through ordered sequences of shaft lifts and treadling instructions. Rather than functioning as decorative outcomes alone, weave structures operate as rule-based systems that translate abstract patterns into physical form.
Plain weave follows the simplest alternating logic of over–under repetition, producing a stable and uniform textile surface. Twill introduces variation by shifting this sequence across rows, creating diagonal pattern formations through controlled offset and repetition. These structures demonstrate how complex visual effects can emerge from a limited set of mechanical and logical rules.
On a four-shaft loom, only certain pattern combinations are structurally possible, while others are restricted by shaft count and thread arrangement. These constraints create a defined design space governed by mechanical and logical rules. Gratitude Loom builds upon this grammar by allowing voice and bodily interaction to activate and modulate pattern sequences within established weave structures, transforming traditional pattern logic into a responsive human–machine system.
By treating weave structures as pattern grammar, this project connects textile design with computational thinking, where rules, repetition, and variation form the basis for meaningful pattern generation.
| Weave Structure | Core Logic Rule | Shaft Requirement | Pattern Behavior | Structural Stability | What Works Well | What Does Not Work |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plain Weave | Alternating over–under sequence (1,2,1,2…) | Minimum 2 shafts (4 shafts can replicate) | Uniform, repetitive grid pattern | Very stable and balanced | Clear rhythm, slow repetition, ideal for ritual-based interaction | Limited visual variation, no directional patterning |
| Twill Weave | Offset sequence that shifts each row (e.g., 1-2-3-4 / 2-3-4-1) | Minimum 3–4 shafts | Diagonal or stepped pattern formation | Moderately stable, more flexible than plain weave | Directionality, variation, expressive pattern logic | More complex setup, sensitive to errors in sequence |
Design Constraints for Weavable Pattern Logic¶
For this prototype, Gratitude Loom focuses on basic weave structures—plain weave and twill—to ensure structural stability and conceptual clarity. While computational systems can generate infinite pattern variations, not all patterns are physically weavable or meaningful within textile logic. This project therefore establishes constraints to prevent unweavable, unstable, or aesthetically chaotic outcomes.
These constraints ensure that generated patterns remain balanced, structurally sound, and aligned with traditional weaving principles. By limiting pattern generation to valid weave grammars, Gratitude Loom treats weaving as a rule-based system rather than arbitrary visual output. This approach maintains coherence between computational logic and material practice.
| Issue to Avoid | Description | Why It Fails Structurally | Design Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive floats | Long sequences of warp or weft threads without interlacing | Creates loose threads, weak fabric, and distortion | Limit float length to maintain textile stability |
| Unbalanced twill | Patterns that do not repeat evenly across shafts | Produces irregular tension and visual imbalance | Use symmetrical or offset treadling sequences |
| Random shaft combinations | Arbitrary lifting of shafts without rule structure | Results in unweavable or incoherent fabric | Follow defined weave grammars (plain, twill) |
| Aesthetic chaos | Too much variation without repetition | Breaks visual rhythm and ritual consistency | Preserve repetition and pattern continuity |
| Disconnection from textile logic | Patterns that ignore warp/weft interdependence | Produces designs that cannot be translated into physical weaving | Respect structural constraints of the loom |
References
Chandler, Deborah. Learning to Weave. Loveland, CO: Interweave Press, 1995.
Dixon, Anne. The Handweaver’s Pattern Directory: Over 600 Weaves for Four-Shaft Looms. Loveland, CO: Interweave Press, 1994.
Sequences of Weaving Process¶
According to Deborah Chandler’s Learning to Weave, the fundamental sequence of actions in weaving consists of three recurring steps: changing the shed, throwing the shuttle, and beating the weft into place (Chandler, 1995). These actions form a rhythmic loop that structures both the physical making of cloth and the embodied experience of weaving.
While these steps remain consistent, their order can vary depending on technique and personal preference. Some weavers beat the weft while the shed is still open, which reduces draw-in and creates a softer structure. Others close the shed before beating, which locks the threads more firmly into place and produces a tighter fabric. Each sequence has practical and aesthetic consequences, and no single method is universally correct.
What is essential is not the specific order chosen, but the consistency of the sequence. Repetition establishes rhythm, stability, and coherence in the woven structure. This highlights weaving as a temporal and procedural system in which meaning and form emerge through ordered bodily action rather than isolated gestures.
In the context of Gratitude Loom, the weaving sequence becomes part of the ritual logic of the system. The act of changing the shed, throwing the shuttle, and beating the weft is not only a technical process but a performative structure that supports presence, attention, and embodied interaction. By framing weaving as a sequence-based practice, the project emphasizes how pattern and memory arise from repeated, intentional movement over time.
References
Chandler, Deborah. Learning to Weave. Loveland, CO: Interweave Press, 1995.
AI as Rule-Based Pattern Engine¶
Rule-based systems have long been used in computational design to generate structured variation through defined constraints rather than unrestricted form-making. In generative and algorithmic art research, patterns emerge from formal grammars composed of rules, parameters, and iterative processes (Galanter, 2003; McCormack & Dorin, 2001). These systems demonstrate how complexity can arise from limited and well-defined logical structures.
Within textile traditions, weaving itself operates as a rule-based pattern system. As Deborah Chandler describes in Learning to Weave, woven structures are governed by ordered sequences of shaft lifts and treadling instructions that must follow strict structural logic (Chandler, 1995). Anne Dixon’s The Handweaver’s Pattern Directory further illustrates how hundreds of pattern variations can be produced through systematic combinations of a small number of shafts and rule-based sequences (Dixon, 1994). These references position weaving as a material grammar comparable to computational rule systems.
Recent research in human–computer interaction and embodied interaction design has emphasized that intelligent systems need not function as autonomous decision-makers but can instead operate as constrained partners within human-centered processes (Höök, 2018). In such frameworks, computational systems respond to bodily input and support reflective engagement rather than automation or efficiency alone.
Framing AI as a rule-based pattern engine situates Gratitude Loom within this lineage of constrained generative systems. Rather than producing arbitrary outputs, the computational layer operates within established weave grammars such as plain weave and twill, ensuring that pattern generation remains structurally coherent and materially grounded. Human input—through voice and ritualized movement—acts as a parameter that activates and modulates these pattern rules.
This approach aligns computational intelligence with craft knowledge, suggesting a model of human–machine collaboration in which algorithms function as guides within a predefined grammar rather than as independent creators. By embedding AI within textile logic and ritual structure, the project explores how intelligent systems can support attentiveness, repetition, and embodied meaning instead of prioritizing speed or automation.
| Element | Role in System |
|---|---|
| Weave Grammar | Defines valid pattern rules (plain weave, twill) |
| AI Engine | Selects and modulates pattern sequences within rules |
| Human Input | Voice rhythm, timing, and ritual completion |
| Constraints | Prevents unweavable or chaotic patterns |
| Output | Structurally coherent woven textile |
| Feedback | Visual and tactile reflection for the user |
References
Chandler, Deborah. Learning to Weave. Loveland, CO: Interweave Press, 1995.
Dixon, Anne. The Handweaver’s Pattern Directory: Over 600 Weaves for Four-Shaft Looms. Loveland, CO: Interweave Press, 1994.
Galanter, Philip. “What Is Generative Art? Complexity Theory as a Context for Art Theory.” GA2003 – 6th Generative Art Conference, 2003.
McCormack, Jon, and Alan Dorin. “Art, Emergence, and the Computational Sublime.” Proceedings of the 2nd Iteration Conference on Generative Systems in the Electronic Arts, 2001.
Höök, Kristina. Designing with the Body: Somaesthetic Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018.
The Gratitude Loom is designed for beginner and hobby weavers who want to use weaving as a mindful and reflective creative practice. Rather than focusing on speed or productivity, the system encourages a slower relationship with technology through intentional action and spoken gratitude.
The interaction is structured as a short ritual that can be practiced daily or weekly in the home, studio, or shared creative and wellness spaces.
Step 1: Preparing the Ritual (Set Intention)¶
The participant begins by approaching the loom and preparing for a short weaving session.
They are invited to:
- pause
- take a breath
- place their hands on the loom
- set an intention for the session
This step establishes weaving as a ritual instead of just a technical task.
Step 2: Speaking Gratitude¶
The participant speaks a short phrase of gratitude out loud, such as:
- “I am grateful for today.”
- “I am grateful for learning to weave.”
- “I am grateful for my hands.”
The system captures the voice input using a microphone and tracks:
- rhythm
- timing
- pauses
- duration of speech
The meaning of the words is not analyzed. Instead, the system focuses on the quality and pace of the spoken gratitude.
Step 3: System Guidance (AI + Sensors)¶
The Gratitude Loom combines a 4-shaft loom with sensors and simple AI to guide the ritual.
The system:
- listens to the participant’s voice rhythm
- tracks weaving actions
- monitors whether the ritual steps are completed slowly and mindfully
Rather than generating a finished design automatically, the AI introduces gentle guidance and structure to the interaction.
New pattern structures are only unlocked after each ritual cycle is completed with attention and car
Step 4: Weaving Through Mindful Action¶
The participant weaves by hand while the loom responds through pattern and timing.
This creates a feedback loop between: voice → system → hand movement → textile pattern
The woven material reflects:
- the rhythm of the spoken gratitude
- the duration of the ritual
- the consistency of movement
Each textile becomes unique because it is shaped by the participant’s mindful actions during that session.
Step 5: Reflection and Observation¶
After completing the ritual cycle, the participant observes the woven textile.
The cloth becomes a physical record of the session:
- dense areas may reflect longer or steadier speech
- open spaces may reflect pauses
- repeated structures may reflect calm and consistency
Instead of reading words, the participant reads patterns as traces of their attention and intention.
Interaction Flow Summary¶
The full ritual and interaction flow can be summarized as:
- Prepare and set intention
- Speak gratitude
- The system listens and provides gentle guidance
- Weave by hand
- The system checks that the ritual steps are completed slowly and mindfully
- A new pattern structure is unlocked
- Reflect on the woven textile
This loop transforms weaving into a slow and meaningful ritual supported by technology rather than driven by it.
Purpose of the Ritual¶
In a world that moves fast and values efficiency, the Gratitude Loom explores how:
- mindful movement
- conscious spoken gratitude
- and pattern-making
can work together to create a slower and more reflective relationship with technology.
Patterns are unlocked through attention, and the woven material records the traces of the ritual.
The result is not only fabric, but a material memory of the participant’s mindful practice.