Designing Wearables with People in Mind

  • Vladimir TombergEmail author
  • Daniel Kotsjuba


Wearable computing devices enter into different areas of our life. Among others, the most prominent themes are bio-tech fusion, synced lifestyle, organic computing, human enhancement, health empowerment, and learning. Design of wearables implies the tangible, wearable, and sometimes ubiquitous interfaces, as for input as well as the output of a data. The screen-based laws, rules, and guidelines often have nothing to do with such nonstandard types of human-computer interfaces. The nature of user interfaces for wearables is versatile and different from the traditional, screen-based human-computer interfaces. For designing wearables, it is not enough to apply the usability rules. The wearable devices are worn on a body, and that is the main distinction from screen-based devices. People have different sizes of clothes, mental and physical abilities, and social and cultural background. These properties start to play an important role in interaction design for wearable computing. In this paper, we review a hierarchical model for Universal Design principles that we propose to use for evaluation of prototypes of the wearable devices. We describe different groups of the Universal Design principles and propose a combined tool for use in the evaluation of the design of prototypes for the wearables.


  1. Al-Salhie, L., AlRashed, W., & Al-Wabil, A. (2015). Usability heuristics for the design of interactive attention assessment and rehabilitation technologies. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 604–615).Google Scholar
  2. Alsumait, A., & Al-Osaimi, A. (2010). Usability heuristics evaluation for child e-learning applications. Journal of Software, 5(6), 654–661. Scholar
  3. Bird, J., & Di Paolo, E. (2008). Gordon Pask and his Maverick machines. The mechanical mind in history (pp. 185–211). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bradlow, D. (2016). Can parallel lines ever meet? The strange case of the international standards on sovereign debt and business and human rights. The Yale Journal of International Law Online, 41(2), 301–239.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 700–745. Scholar
  6. Center for Universal Design NCSU – About the Center – Mace, R. L. (2008). Center for Universal Design, College of Design, North Carolina State University. Accessed 10 Feb 2018.
  7. Clarkson, P. J., Coleman, R., Hosking, I., & Waller, S. (n.d.). Inclusive Design Toolkit. EDC, University of Cambridge. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.
  8. Claveria, K. (2015). Why wearable tech isn’t taking off, and what tech companies can do about it – Vision Critical Blog. Vision Critical. Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
  9. Coleman, R. (1994). The case for inclusive design-an overview. Proceedings of the 12th Triennial Congress, International Ergonomics Association and the Human Factors Association, Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Connell, B., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., et al. (1997). About UD: Universal Design Principles. Version 2.0. Raleigh: The Center for Universal Design. Raleigh, NC. Accessed 7 Feb 2015.
  11. Culyer, A. J., & Bombard, Y. (2012). An equity framework for health technology assessments. Medical Decision Making, 32(3), 428–441. Scholar
  12. Department of Health. (2011). No health without mental health: A cross-Government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages Analysis of the Impact on Equality (AIE). Department of Health.Google Scholar
  13. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D., & Beale, R. (2009). Human-computer interaction. In Encyclopedia of database systems (pp. 1327–1331). Springer US.
  14. Dong, H., McGinley, C., Nickpour, F., & Cifter, A. S. (2015). Designing for designers: Insights into the knowledge users of inclusive design. Applied Ergonomics, 46(PB), 284–291. Scholar
  15. Dumas, J., & Redish, J. (1999). A practical guide to usability testing. Wiltshire: Cromwell Press.Google Scholar
  16. Equality and Diversity. (n.d.). RDaSH NHS Foundation Trust. Accessed 18 Feb 2018.
  17. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2011). Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance. Equality and Human Rights Commission.
  18. Equality Impact Assessments (EIA’s). (n.d.). RDaSH NHS Foundation Trust. Accessed 17 Feb 2018.
  19. Erlandson, R. F. (2010). Universal and accessible design for products, services, and processes. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2009). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. Boca Raton: CRC press.Google Scholar
  21. Gemperle, F., Kasabach, C., Stivoric, J., Bauer, M., & Martin, R. (1998). Design for wearability. In Digest of Papers. Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers (Cat. No.98EX215) (pp. 116–122). IEEE Comput. Soc.
  22. Goldsmith, S. (1967). Designing for the disabled. Accessed 8 Feb 2015.
  23. Götzmann, N., Bansal, T., Wrzoncki, E., Poulsen-Hansen, C., Tedaldi, J., & Høvsgaard, R. (2016). Human rights impact assessment guidance and toolbox. Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Human Rights.Google Scholar
  24. Healthcare NHS Foundation. (2016). Single Equality Scheme through partnerships, improve lives and the quality of care 2016-2019. Nottinghamshire.Google Scholar
  25. Inostroza, R., Rusu, C., Roncagliolo, S., & Rusu, V. (2013). Usability heuristics for touchscreen-based mobile devices: Update. Proceedings of the 2013 Chilean Conference on Human – Computer Interaction, (2241), (pp. 24–29).
  26. John Clarkson, P., & Coleman, R. (2013). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 235–247. Scholar
  27. Jones, H. (2009). Equity in development. Why it is important and how to achieve it Results of ODI research presented in preliminary form for discussion and critical comment.
  28. Karapanos, E., Gouveia, R., Hassenzahl, M., & Forlizzi, J. (2016). Wellbeing in the making: Peoples’ experiences with wearable activity trackers. Psychology of well-being, 6, 4. Scholar
  29. Kelly, M. P., Stewart, E., Morgan, A., Killoran, A., Fischer, A., Threlfall, A., & Bonnefoy, J. (2009). A conceptual framework for public health: NICE’s emerging approach. Public Health, 123(1), e14–e20. Scholar
  30. Mace, R. (1985). Universal design, barrier free environments for everyone. Los Angeles: Designers West.Google Scholar
  31. MacNaughton, G. (2015). Human rights impact assessment: A method for healthy policymaking Gillian Macnaughton. Health and Human Rights Journal, 17(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mann, J. M., & Gostin, L. (1994). Towards the development of a human rights impact assessment for the formulation and evaluation of public health policies. Health and Human Rights, 1(1), 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mann, S. (2013). Wearable computing. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd. Ed.). The Interaction Design Foundation.
  34. Metz, C. (2008). The mother of all demos — 150 years ahead of its time • The Register. The Register. Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
  35. Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. Usability inspection methods (pp. 25–62).
  36. Nielsen, J. (1995). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group, 1(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  37. Omer, I. (2006). Evaluating accessibility using house-level data: A spatial equity perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30(3), 254–274. Scholar
  38. Petrie, H., & Bevan, N. (2009). The evaluation of accessibility, usability and user experience. The universal access handbook (pp. 299–315).
  39. Phillips, C. A., Reynolds, D. B., & Repperger, D. W. (2006). Human factors engineering. In Wiley encyclopedia of biomedical engineering (p. 639). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  40. Preiser, W. F. E. (2008). Universal design: From policy to assessment research and practice. Archnet-IJAR, 2(2), 78–93.Google Scholar
  41. Pugh, E., & Currie, L. (2010). Equality in admissions. London: Equality Challenge Unit.Google Scholar
  42. Randell, C. (1996). Wearable computing: A review. Technical Report CSTR-06-004. University of Bristol. 2005.Google Scholar
  43. Schwab, K. (2018). How to design for everyone, in 3 steps. Co. Design. Accessed 10 Feb 2018.
  44. Smiley, L. (2017). Equality vs equity. The society for diversity. Accessed 18 Feb 2018.
  45. Statt, N. (2014). Wearable tech will keep failing – until we can’t live without it. CNET. Accessed 18 Feb 2018.
  46. Stephanidis, C. (2009). The universal access handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tomberg, V., & Kelle, S. (2016). Towards universal design criteria for design of wearables. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 500).
  48. Tomberg, V., Schulz, T., & Kelle, S. (2015). Applying universal design principles to themes for wearables. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 9176).
  49. Waller, S., Bradley, M., Hosking, I., & Clarkson, P. J. (2015). Making the case for inclusive design. Applied Ergonomics, 46(PB), 297–303. Scholar
  50. Wentzel, J., Velleman, E., & Geest, T. Van Der. (2016). Wearables for all: Development of guidelines to stimulate accessible wearable technology design. Proceedings of the 13th Web for All Conference (pp. 1–4).
  51. Zhang, J., Johnson, T. R., Patel, V. L., Paige, D. L., & Kubose, T. (2003). Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36(1–2), 23–30. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Digital Technologies, Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.Estonian Academy of ArtsTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations