Effective Wearable Design

  • Kathleen M. RobinetteEmail author
  • Gary Shigeru Natsume
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


New types of wearable products with electronics and intelligent components are rapidly entering the global consumer marketplace. These new wearable technologies have greater need for fit precision to function properly with broad demographics. However, traditional anthropometric averages and human 3D models alone are proving to be insufficient for achieving the fit required. Effective product development requires iterative use of human subjects starting early in the design process. The fit testing must be continued throughout the process with close communication with industrial design and various engineering teams. This process is particularly important for products that are the first of their kind and thus have no precedents to follow.

This paper will review the effective fit study process developed at various institutions to ensure correct fit and comfort on highly technological products. The process was applied and proven at a new technology startup in Florida, Magic Leap Inc. The result was not only an effective fit for their target market, but also an elegant design which is comfortable to wear for a long duration of time and intuitive for consumer to interact.


Fit Displays Sizing 


  1. 1.
    Heard JL, Hayes DO, Ferrer JJ, Zilgalvis A (1969) Design of an airborne helmet mounted display: final Technical report, Accession Number AD0701385, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. Wright-Patterson AFB, OHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen BJ, Markoff JL (1972) Integrated helmet mounted sight and display special human factors report: The presentation of different visual information to each eye. Honeywell, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, Systems and Research Report Number IHMS/D-SR, December 1972Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackwell SU, Robinette KM (1993) Human integration evaluation of three helmet systems, Technical report, AL-TR-1993-0028, Armstrong Laboratory, Crew Systems Directorate. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi HJ, Zehner GF, Hudson JA (2010) A manual for the performance of protective equipment Fit-Mapping, Technical report, AFRL-RH-WP-SR-2010-0005.
  5. 5.
    Seat Guru Seat Comparison Charts Page. Accessed 12 Apr 2018
  6. 6.
    Harrison CR, Robinette KM (2002) CAESAR: summary statistics for the adult population (Ages 18–65) of the United Stated of America, AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2002-0170, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB.
  7. 7.
    Robinette K, Veitch D (2016) Sustainable sizing. Hum Factors 58(5):657–664. Epub 26 May 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mellian SA, Ervin C, Robinette KM (1990) Sizing evaluation of Navy women’s uniforms. Technical report No. 182, Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility, Natick, MA and AL-TR-1991-0116, Armstrong Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zehner GF, Ervin C, Robinette KM, Daziens P (1987) Fit evaluation of female body armor, Technical report AAMRL-TR-87-046, Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433.
  10. 10.
    Robinette KM (2007) Maximizing anthropometric accommodation and protection. AFRL-RH-WP-TR-2008-0022, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433-7947.
  11. 11.
    Dainoff M, Gordon C, Robinette K, Strauss M (2003) Guidelines for using anthropometry data in product design, HFES 300 Committee, HFES Institute Best Practices Series, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fitmetrix LLCWaynesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Magic Leap Inc.PlantationUSA

Personalised recommendations