Wearables In Apparel

W
Com ea
r
bin
ab
ing
Fas les
hio
I
na
nd
nA
We
p
p
ar
abl
e Te
chn
are
olo
gy
l|#
T
to T hrea
dca
rig
ger
Suc sting
ces
sfu
lS
oci
al I
Modern Edge, Inc. I 2114 SE 9th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214 I www.modernedge.com
nte
rac
tion
s
2
3
4
Authors
contents
Abstract
History of Wearables
6. Wearables Arise from Mobile Computing
7. Wearables Develop into Accessories
8. Wearables Accessories Continue to Evolve as Jewelry
8. Tracking Accessories will Fall Short in Capturing Robust Behavior Change
10. Rise of Medical, Apparel and IoT Wearables as Technology
11. The Competitive Landscape for Wearables in Apparel
13. Momentum Shifts from Technology Industry to Apparel Industry
14
Social Wearables
17
THREADCASTING: Example Use Cases to Establish Paradigm
17. Apparel as Catalyst for Interactions
18. USE CASE 1: Push, Provoke Conversations
19. USE CASE 2: Gestural, Haptic Elements in Augmented Expression
19. USE CASE 3: Visually Connect in Proximity
20. USE CASE 4: Connect with Communities Based on Interest
22
23
24
26
Conclusions
Recommendations and Implementation
Works Cited
Author Bios
1 | Modern Edge, Inc.
authors
Charles Austen Angell, CEO and Creative Director, Modern Edge
Stephanie Battista, Senior Design Program Manager, Wearables, Modern Edge
Karl-Heinz Mertins, CTO, Modern Edge
Patrick Chiang, Associate Professor, School of Electrical Engineering and Com-
puter Sciences, Oregon State University
Shih-Hung Chen, Serial Entrepreneur, China Representative for MIT Sloan School
of Management
2 | Modern Edge, Inc.
W
abstract
earable technologies were originally envisioned as embedded electronics in consumer apparel, but instead developed into standalone accessories for health and fitness
tracking, communication, and productivity. Based on secondary and primary research conducted by Oregon State University and Modern Edge, we see wearables going back into apparel
at significant consumer scale. Catalysts for the shift include improved battery chemistries;
smaller, lighter, less expensive components; a shared ecosystem with other internet-of-things
nodes; improved wireless networking protocols; as well as strategic business cases driven by
the apparel industry. Apparel and textiles are moving from the early adoption model to one
that’s more mature, scalable, and invisible to the user. In this next stage, wearable technology
will be designed into garments such that their function and experience is in line with the consumer experience typical of clothing makers. We have highlighted four preliminary use cases
illustrating our initial efforts into integrating social interaction and apparel. Our efforts are to
provide a strategic framework into this space
showing the possibilities for future developers
in industries such as health care, apparel, and
social interaction, but they are not conclusive.
The proof of concept shown is intended to
demonstrate the paradigm shift to enhanced
social communication.
3 | Modern Edge, Inc.
history of wearables
After more than a decade, wearable technology is shifting back to apparel. Everyone from
startups to large vertical organizations is seeking profitable applications in healthcare, fitness,
social media, and professional and government
sectors. There are now socks with advanced diagnostic health capability. In the athletic sphere,
compression tops and bottoms are available
that monitor muscle activity, heart rate, and respiration. Clothing makers for law enforcement
are exploring workplace shirts and jackets that
constantly monitor air quality and other environmental characteristics to keep the wearer safe.
Our own group and other design firms have
created concepts and prototypes of consumer
apparel that enable social interactions through
integrated capabilities.
For an industry recently fixated on a very different class of form factor – accessories such as
wristwatches, plastic dongles, and arm-mounted computing devices – the emerging wearable apparel model is in many ways a return
to the original wearable technology concept.
Sometime between the advent of the laptop
and the appearance of the first head-mounted
virtual reality display in the mid 1990s, technology companies foresaw an imminent growth
opportunity for embedding electronic components in clothing. Proof-of-concept garments
appeared at trade shows and academic conferences incorporating wearable technology
into shirts, pants, dresses, jackets, and shoes:
the idea being that wearable tech would prove
itself in industrial applications and then drive
consumer markets for everything from health
monitoring to personal productivity.
It didn’t happen for clothing. Due to high production cost, technical barriers, and poorly considered consumer demand models, electronics-integrated apparel did not make significant
inroads in mass-market apparel. Wearables
grew in other directions. Standalone devices
such as sports wrist-tops, activity monitoring
pendants, and smart phones attracted public
awareness for the potential of small, personal applications. In professional and enterprise
markets, wearable technology in clothing consistently advanced in the form of embedded
communication devices, image sensors, and
other utilitarian systems built into uniforms for
law enforcement, fire fighting, and the military,
as well as body-worn systems for inventory
management and logistics applications.
4 | Modern Edge, Inc.
In the past, barriers to mass-market wearable
technology in apparel existed in the available
technology as well as in the maturity of strategic and creative vision. Powerful technology features and functions were developed,
with only a passing glance at how to research
and model a positive consumer experience
for them. Little work went into why consumers would want to adopt the technology or
into developing the narrative for how it would
fit into their lives long-term once they did. A
possible reason for this failure is that concepts emerged from the technology industry
and were thought of as features inserted into
consumer garb, in contrast to aspirational gar-
ments driven by the apparel industry. What is
apparent is that these products had modest
connections to the consumer from the experience and aesthetic perspective.
One powerful vision for consumer wearables
was spelled out in the 1980s. Scientists at
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) described a vision for “ubiquitous computing” in
which small electronic devices across physical space would work in concert to provide a
benefit. In such a paradigm, there didn’t need
to be a single all- encompassing device that
would provide central processing horsepower, sensors, and user I/O. Yet many wearables
in the market today still work this way, with
dedicated onboard processors, displays, sensors, and memory. This increases the computing power, feature set, and robustness while
negatively impacting cost, battery power, and
subtlety of the form factor. Most wearables today are powerful and multipurpose – as well as
chunky, heavy, and conspicuous.
Considering recent developments in device-to-device communication, along with the
growth of advanced battery chemistries and
energy harvesting mechanisms, we see wearable tech poised to return into the consumer
apparel industry. Significant investment and
research money will shift from devices which
are standalone accessories to integrated apparel technologies over the next several years,
challenging the market position of the current
trend of wearable accessories.
Modern Edge has developed concepts integrating prosthetics
and mobile technology for enhanced utility and comfort.
5 | Modern Edge, Inc.
To offer some background on the origins of
this project, Oregon State University and Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology partnered
with design firm Modern Edge to instantiate
wearable trends into strategic business cases
and design models. The program began with
four months of research and discussion among
the parties and resulted in this position paper
and a series of 3D-rendered design models.
Based on the research, the partners choose an
example consumer market in wearables that
could arguably take off in the near future.
Our aim in this paper was to present some
likely scenarios for that shift. We have chosen
to focus on the American market as a potential growth region for wearable tech fashion.
As an example of a specific consumer-driven
market for such products, we picked social
interaction where choice and complex market factors demand a nuanced analysis of the
exact use cases for successful products. In
terms of a demographic, we chose male and
female adolescents, aged 13 to 22. We based
our selection on the growth and evolving shifts
occurring in the segment’s social-media habits and its rapid adoption of social-interaction
platforms and services.
Distributed component wrist top
Developed by Modern Edge with Patrick Chaing
Source: Modern Edge
US Navy Seals
Source: DOD image, public domain
Wearables Arise from
Mobile Computing
While wrist watches, pocket watches, and portable compasses could be considered the first
wearable tech devices, the more commonly
understood concept arose from body-worn
sensors that collect and interpret data. In this
sense, University of Toronto professor Steve
Mann is a foremost contributor to the wearable
computing concept when he mounted a heavy,
but self-contained backpack system as an MIT
student in 1981. In 1994, Mann developed a
wireless webcam that he wore constantly to record his daily life.
Industrial applications for wearable computers
began to tease out surprising scenarios in the
1990s. DARPA launched the Smart Modules
Program in 1994 in an effort to equip US soldiers with body worn computer systems in the
battlefield. In 1998, the company Xybernaut
partnered with IBM to create a wallet-sized,
fully functioning Windows computer with a
head-mounted display.
6 | Modern Edge, Inc.
Such developments prompted both university
researchers and fashion-forward tinkerers to try
to place components into apparel. With electronic thread, light-emitting diodes, and small
microcontrollers, the garment itself becomes the
computer. For example, one of the first pieces of
clothing to have fiber optics manufactured into
the fabric came from Harry Wainwright in 1995
(Singh), and the first wearable motherboard shirt
appeared from Sundaresan Jayaraman at Georgia Tech in 1998 (Gopalsamy).
Many wearables pioneers made use of a crucial addition to the idea of wearable technology, contributed in 1988, when Mark Weiser et
al. developed ubiquitous computing at PARC
(Poslad). Computers no longer had to be consolidated into a central package, but could be
small, inexpensive electronic components that
work together in everyday applications. A matrix of sensors might be embedded in a user’s
clothing with the data being transmitted via
conductive polymers. With multiple microprocessing devices working in concert such a system could forgo a bulky computer display worn
on the person; instead, tasks would be accomplished seamlessly based on the user’s location, physical data, and natural movements.
Weiser’s idea spawned notions of how small,
inexpensive chips would coordinate tasks
both in environments as well as directly on
the user’s body. Ambient computing includes
the notion that a user’s environment is populated with sensors, wireless systems, and
processing devices such that a user’s personal applications and data follow them around
from room to room, from home to office. Body
7 | Modern Edge, Inc.
area networks, an idea that arose in the early 2000’s, describe small devices worn on the
person to sense, process, and shuttle data.
Ubiquitous computing and wired communication launched a new era of wearables investigation, first in embedded apparel as a research
topic, which initially resulted in prototypes in
the service of novelty, art, and entertainment.
The cost of early wearables, however, was
too high for mass consumer adoption and
no strong usage cases for the general public
were identified. Size was still large and battery
technology not advanced enough to enter the
mass apparel market. Wearable tech began
to focus on accessories: badges, pendants,
bracelets, and wrist-tops.
Wearables Develop into
Accessories
Some of the first fitness tracking devices were
considered “wrist-top computers” – they were
bulky, but sophisticated and full of advanced
functions for athletes. Finnish company Polar
developed the category of chest-worn heart rate
straps and wrist-top bands, which would receive
physiological data, interpret it, and display it to
the user in real time. Garmin debuted the first
GPS receiver so that athletes could judge speed,
altitude, and heart rate on the same device.
At the same time, larger trends in consumer
health data changed the way users and companies viewed the personal data generated by the
new wearables. The Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 created
independent of the clothing they are worn on;
they are optional purchases for the sake of
communication, heath, and productivity. Such
devices have powerful processors, use battery
power quickly, and often carry a display big
enough to read.
Wearable Accessories
Continue to Evolve as
Jewelry
Google Glass
new, secure standards for consumer health data
and introduced the basic concept to the general public that secure personal data is something that travels with a person across vendors
and electronic systems. As these ideas were
circulating in the consumer consciousness, the
notion of portable data begat a growing awareness that every consumer generates such data
constantly. If metrics regarding athletic performance, fitness improvement, or potential health
problems could be captured and tracked, then
perhaps the consumer would benefit from the
presentation of such data by seeing improvement, becoming more motivated, or diagnosing
potential problems.
The idea of wearables sprawled with new features and devices, including the early Pebble
smart watch and Google Glass, the first major
usage models in wearable computing since
desktop computers morphed into mobile devices. Many other devices followed. In the current paradigm, such wearable accessories are
Responding to a desire for more fashionable
wearable technology, and especially technology designed for women, various technology
companies have partnered with fashion designers. Launches and product announcements of
new wearable gear are more likely to occur at
New York Fashion Week or the US Open Tennis Championships than at the Consumer Electronics Show. Examples include boutique jeweler Cellini creating Bluetooth communication
devices with tech company CSR; American
fashion designer Tory Burch’s designs for Fitbit;
and American accessories designer Rebecca
Minkoff’s work on call-alert systems and leather wrist bands. On the technology side, Apple
has hired designer Marc Newson, creator of the
award-winning luxury watch Ikepod, and Intel
has partnered with designer collective Opening
Ceremony for a 2015 release of communications devices featuring semi-precious stones
priced from $500 and up. Misfit, known for its
fitness trackers, is collaborating with Swarovski to produce the Swarovski Shine Collection,
which combines activity and sleep tracking
technology with jewelry.
8 | Modern Edge, Inc.
Tracking Accessories
Will Fall Short in
Capturing Robust
Behavior Change
Much of the recent development of wearables
has been in the area of behavior change for
health and safety. Designers have employed the
psychological mechanism of incentivizing users
with data regarding goals and positive feedback
regarding performance. However, a broad spectrum of typical users is not incentivized so much
by long-term planned outcomes, but by immediate emotional rewards. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in January 2015, argues that makers of current activity
trackers have not considered the underlying
mechanisms of behavior change (Patel). Design
strategies employed by many current health
tracking wearables have set up a gulf between
devices that strive to help people achieve what
they “should do” versus what they truly want to
do. For example, users of health technology often know that they should exercise more, eat
less, and get more sleep, but it’s hard to rival the
A gel bodied device which can be embedded in textiles for data
tracking and near field communication.
Design in beta development by Modern Edge
Source: Modern Edge
9 | Modern Edge, Inc.
impulse to enjoy free time as you want, eat what
you want, and sleep when you want.
The emotional response of actual users to
tracking technology sets up a perceptive dichotomy of “oppression” versus “liberation”.
The technology therefore focuses on changing
behaviors rather than changing the perceptions
that lead to those behaviors. This is likely one
factor which led to the drop-off in usage seen
by most health wearables, a parallel to the New
Year’s Resolution Syndrome. Research from
Endeavor Partners observed in July 2014 that
half of US customers no longer use the wearable they bought, and over a third abandoned
devices within 6 months. A 2014 report by investor Rock Health contends that the dropoff
rate (for a small sample size) was much higher.
Currently, greatest adoption rates have been
by users who are already motivated to practice
good health behaviors. Professional athletes,
competitive amateurs, and predisposed individuals find these devices a convenient way
to quantify and increase the efficiency of their
efforts. Users less prone to such health behaviors are less likely to use these technologies
and still less likely to successfully implement
these technologies over the long term. They
simply do not see the appeal of these products
as currently presented or are not rewarded by
the current experience of using them (“oppression” vs. “liberation”).
Size and form factor make current wearables a
consumer marketing challenge – the technology equivalent of the fanny pack. To a large degree, it’s not a matter of making such devices
are destined for a certain small segment of
users. Such devices will always attract attention and comment because they are visible on
the body: they announce that the user is interested in health and fitness tracking and invite
comments at the gym, an athletic event, or
an after-work mixer. Thus, the fitness tracking
paradigm depends on the user who views the
tracking device itself as a valuable totem.
Wearable Total Volatile Organic Compounds detection device
composed of ams sensor component, Amber Waves daughter
board, and Nordic semiconductor development platform.
Design in beta development at Modern Edge
Source: Modern Edge
better looking or more stylish, but the fact that
there is a visible device at all. To paraphrase
Wired author Bill Wasik, anyone who wears a
Bluetooth earpiece makes a statement, regardless of form factor (Wasik). Merely the fact that
a product is a visible standalone device will be
a turnoff to many consumers. First, it announces that the wearer has a utilitarian goal in mind,
and secondly it suffers from what Wasik deems
the “trucker hat syndrome” – or the phenomena that with limited selection, sooner or later the consumer is going to meet one or more
people in the same room with the exact same
accessory. The accessory model limits SKUs,
such that the vendor cannot create hundreds
of different wearables the way a clothing manufacture could.
Bullish analysts forecasts for consumer wearables vary from $30 billion (ABI Research) to $53
billion by 2019 (Juniper Research 2014), though
many of these predictions are based on the existing growth rate of wearable accessories and
the continuing future of this paradigm. In our
view, accessory devices alone, no matter how
aesthetically pleasing, will not drive growth because they are driven by tech companies, lacking the sensitivity to other body worn devices,
and an understanding of the apparel market for
women men and children.
With the promise of invisible integration into apparel, wearable technology will begin to make
tracking and monitoring less of a burden and
more natural. Successful usage models in clothing will engender more adoption as users experience benefits, emotionally and physically.
Our belief is that relative to typical mass market
opportunities, activity bands and smart watches are a niche product. Even the varieties with
a strong emphasis on fashion and aesthetics
10 | Modern Edge, Inc.
Rise of Medical,
Apparel, and IoT
Wearables as
Technology
As technology and battery chemistries begin
to catch up with the demand of mobile computing, industry has begun to warm again to
wearable tech within clothing. An area primed
for growth is the use of multiple low-energy
sensors embedded in clothing essentially
having the effect of making these systems invisible in general usage. Prime movers include
wireless technology, internet connectivity, and
data integration. New low power protocols –
including Bluetooth Low Energy, iBeacon, and
Zigbee – are capable of transmitting data with
relatively low impact on a device’s battery and
in some cases, are able to use a mesh networking protocol (such as Zigbee’s ability to
pass data from one node to another toward
its destination).
Designers and technologists have begun to
look at wearable tech as a wirelessly connected ecosystem of devices and sensors rather
than multiple stand-alone processing devices.
This shift is allowing for a more realistic scenario in light of the implementation of components within the user’s clothing and accessories. When designing systems, brands could
incorporate various functional components
into a user’s shirt, belt, shoes, wrist-top, jacket, and smartphone.
11 | Modern Edge, Inc.
A flexible robust tracking matrix for outerwear and active
wear that has the capacity to remain active for nine months.
Modern Edge internal development project
Source: Modern Edge
As an example of a lighter footprint, one concept
would be to have a sensor in a heavy winter coat.
When the user is wearing the garment, sensors
could relay a great deal of information about
the user’s state: The presence of a heavy coat
may indicate that the user is about the leave the
house and may need the lights on in the garage.
A sweater may indicate that it’s too cold in the
house, and the thermostat needs to adjust the
temperature to a comfort level. Simple sensors
could track the temperature at which a user typically chooses to wear a garment, adding a layer
of personalization to automated home systems
(which would be extremely challenging to track
otherwise). This level of user-driven activation
could augment the algorithms for temperature
management currently offered by sophisticated
learning thermostats.
Important components of this model are new
modes of hands-free, eyes-free interaction.
Such apparel integrated devices are unlikely to
require user interaction in the moment of use.
Successful usage models in clothing may engender more adoption as users seek to add
to data sets reviewed asymmetrically from the
time of the data collection.
The Competitive
Landscape for
Wearables in Apparel
In terms of market position, current appearances of apparel-integrated wearables vary
from low-end novelty garments to very high-
end designer apparel, out of reach for most
consumers. Ralph Lauren’s biometric shirts,
demonstrated at the 2014 US Open and created in partnership with Canadian company
Omnisignal, are slated to arrive in stores in
2015. The shirt does not feature plugs or wires
but relies on bio-sensing silver fibers that are
woven into the nylon compression material.
With heart rate, respiration, and other onboard
systems, it is not intended for the mass market. With any sensor embedded textile clothing, maintaining a minimum clothing pressure
is important. Tight contact with skin is required to obtain reliable physiological signals
12 | Modern Edge, Inc.
while some body garment mobility is needed
for wearing comfort (Harms, Li). Other highly
publicized embedded apparel has appeared
from Studio XO as concepts for celebrities.
Current examples have gone beyond tops,
bottoms, and jackets as well. For instance,
smart socks from Sensoria contain textile
sensors under the foot to detect a runner’s
cadence, contact pressure, and foot landing
techniques. Conductive fibers in the socks
transmit sensor data to an anklet that wirelessly relays data to a mobile app. Using a
knit cap, Caseco’s Blu-Toque blends wireless
headset functionality, allowing the wearer to
take a call and not have to worry about their
hands getting cold in the winter.
Momentum Shifts from
Tech Industry
to Apparel Industry
What is next? We believe wearable technology
– first envisioned in apparel and then employed
in standalone accessories – is now due back
in apparel for four major reasons: battery technologies, computationally powerful low-cost
components, networking standards, and finally a more personal and intimate social usage
model. We see a shift from technology embedded products that are purely functional to ones
with a combination of functional and emotional
Strategic framework for triggering successful interactions
Research is distilled into a strategic framework that defines and guides the design and development process by providing input
to marketing specifications and product specifications. Identifying what is not essential is as valuable as identifying what is.
Source: Modern Edge
13 | Modern Edge, Inc.
benefits, including long-term health and social interaction. A number of latent digital-real world hybrid communities were spelled out
in 2003 by Kortuem and Segall (Kortuem) and
include helper communities, bargain-hunter
communities, knowledge communities, political communities. To those augmented by
technology and situated in physical space, we
would include social interaction communities.
Mature implementations of wearable apparel exhibit many of the following qualities: the
technology is always on, it is presence aware,
communicative, and pro-active–that is, as
user attention is scarce, it can operate without
interaction (Kortuem).
or heavy coverage in the weight of fabric, wrinkled or pressed performance, dry cleaning or
washing machine routines in terms of care. A
consumer connection is based on the subtleties designers select for the use case and the
complimentary fabric chosen. As a result of our
research, we predict that the perspective on
wearables will shift from the way we currently see wearable technology and how we wear
apparel. The shift from wearable devices to integrated apparel technology will outrun trends
and extend into a global movement that will
reach consumers, designers, and factories as
well as bring significant return on investment.
As technology disappears into apparel, the discussion will likely be lead by brands with a tight
focus on style, emotional connection, and aspirational qualities in the apparel and footwear
segment. Technologists are finding out what
fashion designers have always known: devices must be attractive in the context of other
apparel and personal accessories, not just in
comparison with other technology. Consumers
are primarily visually and aspirationally driven. Apparel designers have a clear vision for
use-case scenarios based on detailed observational data on consumer lifestyles and behavior. By cuing off branded style, fit, as well
as knowledge of consumer needs and desires,
the apparel industry has connected on a deeper, aspirational level. Apparel and watch makers have built their businesses on body worn
clothing and devices where fashion, aesthetics, and function blend. Textiles create a connection with users on an intimate level based
on the feel of the fabric. Garments provide
warmth or cooling in body temperature, light
14 | Modern Edge, Inc.
social wearables emerge
The market space we have chosen to study as
a strategic business case is centered on social
communication technologies among male and
female adolescents (age 13 - 22). Further, we
have chosen social communication technologies for the American market because of the
region’s high adoption rates of new technology. The current climate of the apparel-based
business case is one in which retail apparel
markets have cooled off and brands are seeking new vectors and opportunities.
Wearable accessories and small portable
smart devices have, of course, grown swiftly
within the area of social communication. The
norm for many adolescents has become per-
15 | Modern Edge, Inc.
sonal accessibility at any time of day or night.
But there has been a downside to the constant attention to online communication, with
an emphasis on lean-forward engagement to
the exclusion of one’s environment. Our research suggests that such pressures cast a
deleterious effect on in-person relationships,
work productivity, and sense of self (Davis,
Christofides). Social media, for instance, promotes self-disclosure without the feedback
loop of non-verbal (gestural, facial) communication, leading to embarrassing overshares
and other cringe-worthy interactions. Social
interaction researcher Walther shows that as
users who practice this type of disclosure
without the balancing effect of social feed-
back and correction have experienced anxieties and frustrations within existing platforms
(Weisbuch, Walther).
Such communication barriers are a market
opportunity. As society adjusts to the novelty
of current digital communication and social
media platforms, there may be a backlash
and a desire to socially connect in a more
natural, meaningful way. Where today’s social
media is dominated by clicks and diverted
attention, tomorrow’s may recruit the natural
senses as well as verbal and gestural forms
of self expression.
Adolescents have decamped from Facebook
to sites where communication exchanges are
shorter and somewhat more private (Tumblr,
SnapChat, Yo, etc.), somewhat mitigating the
associated drama that longer personal disclosures sometimes create (Allen). They are
also looking to sites like SnapChat for places
where their contributions aren’t recorded, in
Future technologies will focus on creating
theory on a historical timeline. Trends in platsuccessful and satisfying in-person relationform choice for adolescents may also point to
ships, a classic return to quality over quantity.
issues inherent in underAnd like most technollying site architectures.
ogy trends, this means
Current social media
Future technologies will focus on that the visibility of the
platforms, for instance,
technology will fade into
creating
successful
and
satisfying
promote discrete asymthe background. Where
metrical and symmetrical
in-person relationships, a classic the majority of wearables
communication. (That is,
are visible today, we prereturn
to
quality
over
quantity.
modes in which the user
dict the vast majority will
can post to other users
be invisible in the near
without reciprocation and
future. We shall likely
ones in which two or more users can commusee this as simple but successful transfers of
nicate freely.) As commercial platforms expewearable technology integrated into apparel.
rience varying levels of success with these
models, most have evolved into a combinaThe technology cycle as we see it lies beyond
tion of extremes: posting to large audiences
the steps in which a new market is trying to find
at once or having discrete one-on-one intervalue and utility. Utility has been proven in many
actions. Across the board, however, the marsmall ways; now it’s time for brands to scale
ket contains significant lacunae for symmetopportunities with a significant consumer userical communication opportunities involving
case models. Such an opportunity will likely
a seamless, personal, and contextual mix of
involve a consolidation of software, hardware,
in-person and technologically enhanced comand networking standards that will ensure its
munication channels.
integration with everyday consumer lifestyles,
retail environments, and public spaces. In every
16 | Modern Edge, Inc.
push to a broader market, there is a trend toward combining and bundling products, accessories, and features, and we see this threshold
coming up for integrated apparel technology.
Our business case for technology integrated
apparel explores wearables as social fashion.
The Venn diagram catalogs positive consumer
experiences over a variety of touchpoints inherent in a mature integrated apparel model. From
a market research and ethnographic standpoint,
a powerful emotional pull for the consumer exists in triggering successful social interactions.
Apparel as Catalyst for
Interactions
A new paradigm in social interaction uses apparel as the catalyst to create interactions,
kicking off more natural methods of communicating with technology. Our research suggests
that advances in wearables, batteries, sensors, algorithms, connectivity, IoT and production techniques are moving wearables in apparel from an early adopter movement over 20
years ago with exposed wires and connection
points – almost hazardous in appearance – to
a mature, subtle, and seamless integration,
able to be produced at a cost-effective rate as
demand increases and the use cases evolve.
Our preliminary use case capitalizes on sensory feedback including body movement and
gestures, visual indicators and eye contact,
communities, interests and locational awareness. We believe enhanced communication
17 | Modern Edge, Inc.
and interaction will help shift technology integration to the background so that users can
effortlessly engage in rich dialogues.
Examples of technologists already incorporating this lean-back model to interaction include
the “Blush” prototype of Noah Feehan of the
New York Times R&D Labs. Blush glows when
the user is involved in a familiar topic of conversation (Feehan).
Just a word of caution: these use cases are
provisional and thematic in nature and meant
only to advance a dialog about the future of
wearables in apparel. We’re not betting on the
specific concepts arriving in stores, but on
use cases and concepts in the general vicinity
and spirit appearing in the marketplace nearterm. Apparel industry efforts integrating ethnographic insight, beautiful design, and empathetic technology applications will drive the
full definition of the following use cases.
THREADCASTING:
four use cases
USE CASE 1:
Push, Provoke
Conversations
Use Case 1 pushes short text messages from
an app to an item of clothing. (“Push”, defined
as the mode of internet communication that is
one-way and initiated from a server, rather then
pulled by the end user). Depending on the implementation of the app, the user could push
messages onto his or her own clothing. Alternatively, with a system of permissions and a
thoughtful attention to experience design, the
app could send messages to a friend’s garment.
The size and flow of messages would be similar to texting or tweeting (yet likely a fraction of
Twitter’s 140-character limit). Examples of messages could be #breaktheinternet, Lebronion!,
If the 80s Never Stopped, Lifetime Biopics, or
#swag. At times in the wearer’s day or at the
wearer’s discretion, the item could be neutral
and indistinguishable from an ordinary garment.
include social groups traveling together, students, teams, and participants at conferences.
Use Case 1 assumes a visual connection to
others who view the shirt to appreciate its
message and the user’s proximity to an audience who would appreciate such a message.
Its rationale is less utilitarian than emotional,
and can be even moreso in scenarios in which
users entrust others to display messages on
their own garments.
In terms of development, Use Case 1 has a low
barrier to entry, utilizing existing technology
and infrastructure such as a low-power wireless Near-Me-Network (NMN) connected to a
mobile phone. In branded settings, Use Case
1 could be a means of displaying the wearer’s
interests, in which case it may connect with an
iBeacon or NFC system. The use case would
enlist a flexible shirt display technology as well
as an accelerometer in the circuit; like all Use
Cases listed below, it would automatically turn
on and off by motion cues.
The push capability for Use Case 1 encourages self-expression in which users trend the
causes, notes, and quotes to which they feel
a strong emotional or creative connection. The
use case offers the ability to change messages in real time, or to trigger by events happening in the online or real-world spheres. Likely inroads for early adopters of the use case
18 | Modern Edge, Inc.
USE CASE 2:
Gestural, Haptic
Elements in
Augmented
Expression
Touch and ordinary human gestures can be incorporated into digital wearables with available
technology, and an opportunity for advancing
these dimensions should be pursued. The gestural basis for Use Case 2 enables a user to
send a message through a simple hand motion,
sensed by the user’s clothing and received in
the form of a haptic or visual cue on another
user’s garment. The technology is enabled by
gesture recognition, by which the underlying
technology identifies a common hand gesture
such as a friendly wave, as well as a haptic
technology, by which feedback is imparted by
sense of touch in the form of pressure, temperature change, vibration, or motion.
For instance, when the wearer uses a hand
gesture to say hello to someone, the intended
recipient receives a cue such as a slight pressure on the arm. At the same time, the user
and recipient may have shirts that display the
word “HI.” Wearers have the ability to opt in
and program the gestures with preferred words
desired to express to a nearby audience. Use
Case 2’s rationale is both highly emotional, in
that it incorporates a tactile method for personal communication at a distance, and utilitarian, in that it could become a useful com-
19 | Modern Edge, Inc.
munication system in crowded professional
and social environments.
Use Case 2 would rely on the same existing
infrastructure as Case 1, but the barrier to entry
could be higher in miniaturizing components of
the gesture recognition and haptic features,
and invisibly incorporating them into the garment. The technology would likely incorporate
an accelerometer and some type of actuator
such as a small motor or piezoelectric device.
USE CASE 3:
Visually Connect in
Proximity
Whether users are looking for introductions on
Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn, collaborative
filters for suggesting like-minded people are
often right (and sometimes not.) To harness a
user-matching concept in the real world, Use
Case 3 enables a visual change in apparel. One
iteration could be an indicator light on a shirt
sleeve if a user with same interests enters the
wearer’s vicinity. A green light appears on the
shirt if the new person wants to interact with
the wearer. A blue light appears if the wearer
accepts. A red light if the wearer declines. The
wearer can then opt into an online conversation via a social media network and share additional interests.
Interest-matching is predicated on a wireless
Near-Me-Network (NMN), powered by Bluetooth LE or similar some low-power, shortrange wireless link. Proximity would be es-
tablished by a wireless protocol periodically
sending requests as far as 50 meters to exchange information with users with a similar
garment. Use Case 3 has a low barrier to entry
because the physical location would not require
special infrastructure. Users need only the garment. Additional capability, such as an app or
online component could be further offered on
mobile phones. One challenge to Use Case 3
would be the need for a certain saturation point
among users in a location. Yet, before mass
scale, Use Case 3 could be proven at sporting
events, youth events, and camps/conventions
where subcultures are self-selected and can be
made rapidly aware of the product.
USE CASE 4:
Connect with
Communities Based
on Interests
Sharing interests with other users online propels
conversations beyond the obvious introductory
Conceptual prototype developed by Modern Edge with Patrick
Chiang (copyright 2014).
Example of THREADCASTING for use cases described above
(Proximity, Push, Gestural, Interconnected).
Source: Modern Edge
comments and allows participants to pick up
the discussion on a deeper level. With a wearable use case, the same concept can be ported
to physical space to augment real-life conversations (Feehan). Use Case 4 connects followers
of brands in a way that self-selects participants
and generates more involved interest. The garment extends the previously mentioned Use
Case 3 by including contextual awareness of
indoor locations. It first connects users through
the near-me-network, but also shapes the conversation around shared interests in a physical
environment – picture a large store where Arctic
Monkeys fans are directed to a special display
in the music department or a museum that triggers interaction with like-minded visitors when
approaching a specific exhibit.
Currently, the experience of brand loyalty includes individual recognition in stores/dealerships, coupons received by email or postal mail,
and social media updates. To take brand loyalty
further, the concept connects the wearer to a
community of other fans. In the spirit of a Range
Rover club or Green Bay Packers club, the use
case enables wearers to engage with others,
introduce favorite products to an audience, or
learn about new products, experiences, events,
special sales, and promotions. Gamification
would be an additional way to engage – for instance, the user might have to visit all regional
locations of a specific restaurant brand in order
to be in the “inner circle.”
In terms of business model design, the use case
is as favorable to the brand as it is to the consumer. For instance, if the specific implementation uses Apple’s iBeacon technology, the brand
20 | Modern Edge, Inc.
can learn about its customers while customers
receive the added value of social-interaction,
coupons, and product knowledge.
Use Case 4 presents a higher barrier to entry
than the other use cases in that it would rely
on the deployed infrastructure of on-site beacons, such as iBeacon or another low-power device. The use case would also require a
wearable technology that could receive a signal
from an iBeacon on behalf of the brand. iBeacon and competing beacon technologies typi-
cally broadcast a unique identification number
to a receiving device (usually a mobile phone),
but in this use case the receiving unit would
be the garment instead. In the case of iBeacon, notification is registered in three different
ranges: immediate (within centimeters), near
(within meters), and far (greater than 10 meters
away). (Maximum range is typically 70 meters,
depending on the environment.) Such distance
gradations would likely come into play in a
gamification extension of Use Case 4.
Conceptual prototype developed by Modern Edge with Patrick Chiang (copyright 2014).
Example of THREADCASTING for use cases described above (Proximity, Push, Gestural, Interconnected).
Source: Modern Edge
21 | Modern Edge, Inc.
conclusions
T
echnology development has evolved quickly without the behavioral studies or understanding of how humans would interact with it. The results have pushed our culture into
an interaction mode that is driving away from our natural communication methods using the
senses. To drive more successful social interactions, we anticipate entrepreneurs, developers,
innovators, and software and hardware engineers to develop use cases and solutions appropriate for THREADCASTING. Such a model triggers social interaction through sensory stimulation,
ubiquitous communication, and successful integration in apparel.
22 | Modern Edge, Inc.
recommendations
A
and implementation
s the use cases are developed, strategic partnerships and alliances should form with
clothing manufacturers and social platforms to create dynamic communities. Attractive
new use cases will also drive adoption of social wearables, and business models will reflect
increased value beyond the sale of an item of apparel. As in Use Case 4, there can be added
value for the brand in terms of new consumer data streams and analytics potential. In the case
of apparel with some push messaging feature, an additional communication channel to customers is possible.
Implementation should be created by using scalable ecosystems that can be integrated with
existing technologies. Siloed systems become outdated quickly and have a slimmer chance
of success in a mass market context. Early adopters can create movements around THREADCASTING and use the technology in a more flexible behavior model that enhances communication and experiences. Our paradigms attempt to establish healthier interactions by changing
the dynamics of the technology. If technology is used as an ingredient opposed to the main
dish, digital hybrid interactions can become effortless and more human. We are driving to catalyze richer, more dynamic conversations in which technology enables, enhances, or provokes,
instead of insinuating itself as the driving force of a conversation.
23 | Modern Edge, Inc.
works cited
Allen K et al. “Social Media Use and Social Connectedness in Adolescents:
The Positives and the Potential Pitfalls.” The Australian Educational and Developmental
Psychologist. Volume 31. No. 1. July 2014, pp 18-31.
Anderson J, and Rainie L. “The Internet of Things Will Thrive by 2025.” Pew Research Internet
Project (May 2014).
Christofides E et al. "Risky Disclosures on Facebook: The Effect of Having a Bad Experience on Online Behavior." Journal of Adolescent Research, January 2012, Vol. 27. No. 6, pp 714-731.
Davis K. “Young people’s digital lives: The impact of interpersonal relationships and digital media use on adolescents’ sense of identity.” Computers in Human Behavior Volume 29, Issue 6, November 2013, pp 2281-2293.
Feehan N. “Blush: Designing a Social Wearable” solidcon.com/solid2014/public/schedule/
detail/33270.
Gopalsamy C et al. “The Wearable Motherboard™: The first generation of adaptive and responsive textile structures (ARTS) for medical applications.” Virtual Reality 1999, Volume 4, Issue 3,
pp 152-168.
Harms H, Amft O, and Tröster G. "Does loose fitting matter? Predicting sensor performance in smart garments." Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Body Area Networks. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications
Engineering), 2012.
He Y and Schiphorst T. “Designing A Wearable Social Network” Proceedings of CHI Student
Research Project 2009.
Kortuem G, Segall Z. “Wearable Communities: Augmenting Social Networks with Wearable
Computers” IEEE Pervasive Computing. Volume 2 Issue 1, January 2003. pp 71-78.
Li L. I, et al. "A Novel Design Method for Intelligent Clothing Embedded Sensor System Based on Knitting Technology and Garment Design." Textile Research Journal 2009.
24 | Modern Edge, Inc.
Patel MS, Asch DA, and Volpp KG. “Wearable Devices as Facilitators, Not Drivers, of Health Behav
ior Change.” JAMA. Published online January 08, 2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.14781. Accessed 19 January 2015.
Poslad S. Ubiquitous Computing: Smart Devices, Environments and Interactions. Wiley 2009.
Singha A, et al. “Bio-inspired approaches to design smart fabrics.” Materials & Design, Volume 36, April 2012, pp 829–839.
Walther, J. B., Parks, M. Cues filtered out, cues filtered in. Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (2002).
Wasik B. “Why Wearable Tech Will Be as Big as the Smartphone.” Wired. 1 December 2014.
Weisbuch M., Ivcevic Z, Ambady N. “On Being Liked on the Web and in the “Real World”: Con
sistency in First Impressions across Personal Webpages and Spontaneous Behavior” J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009 May; 45(3): 573–576.
25 | Modern Edge, Inc.
author bios
Charles Austen Angell
Stephanie Battista
Austen is the CEO and Creative Director at
Modern Edge. He is the principal designer
on all internal programs and partnerships. He
oversees all Modern Edge projects from service design to user research, industrial design,
and user experience. He is responsible for corporate direction and strategy.
Stephanie is the Senior Design Program Manager for Wearables and is part of the leadership
team at Modern Edge. She directs medical and
wearable technology programs and is responsible for project management, materials, sourcing, client management, and studio culture. For
over a decade prior to joining Modern Edge,
Stephanie was the principal of her own product design and development firm specializing in
lifestyle product design, soft goods, and wearables for technology-driven start-ups. Stephanie brings expertise in hand- held and wearable
devices, materials, and technology. She is an
Industrial Design graduate of Savannah College
of Art + Design.
Austen currently serves as the Chair of the Industrial Design Society of America, and an
original trustee of the Design Foundation – a
501C3 focused on design education. He is a
noted speaker and thought leader on the role
of design in commerce and innovation. Prior
to founding Modern Edge, Austen Angell was
the Director of Design Research and Innovation
at Intel Corporation, VP of Design and CDO
at Logic Technologies, and Design Director at
National Cycle. Austen started the Intellectual
Property Team at Placon Corporation and is a
recognized authority on patent issues.
Austen has led numerous research and design
programs for the world’s most innovative companies such as Intel Corporation, Procter &
Gamble, St Jude, Medtronic, Harley Davidson,
Johnson & Johnson, John Deere, BMW, 3M,
Samsung, and Ford among others.
Dr. Karl-Heinz Mertins
Karl-Heinz provides strategic technical vision and oversees systems operations at
Modern Edge. Karl-Heinz is responsible for
the long-range direction of technological
planning, quality control, vendor relations,
and the technology development lab. Prior
to joining Modern Edge, Karl-Heinz was the
Director of Technology and Operations at
Exelon Wind.
26 | Modern Edge, Inc.
He also held research and business development positions at Deere & Company, where he helped establish John Deere
Renewables and served as its Director of
Technologies and Operations. With over
30 years of Engineering and Business experience in Europe and the United States,
Karl-Heinz brings considerable corporate
experience to the team. He is particularly
interested in successful product innovation
and new business incubation.
Dr. Patrick Chiang
Patrick Chiang received the B.S. degree in
electrical engineering and computer sciences from the University of California,
Berkeley, in 1998, and the M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 2001 and 2007. He is currently a tenured associate professor at Oregon State University.
Shih-Hung Chen
Shih-Hung Chen is a serial entrepreneur
and is currently the China Representative
for the MIT Sloan School of Management.
He previously held senior management positions at Staples (China) where he was responsible for strategy and business development. Shih-Hung holds a BA in History
from Stanford University and a MBA from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management.
27 | Modern Edge, Inc.
Modern Edge
Research Team
Nicolas Boesé, Brendan Hart, Warren Stoneburner, and Katie Lee were especially instrumental in this project. The Modern Edge team
offers decades of industry experience in health
care, device engineering, service design,
product development, and business model
innovation. Our team is deeply committed to
human-centered design, immersive ethnography, and the principles of rapid iteration
and prototyping.
Modern Edge, Inc. I 2114 SE 9th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214 I www.modernedge.com