NPR had a segment on wearable computing, in particular how unsuccessful the designs have been as things “everyone” wants to wear.
In particular, the story notes perception that the designs suffer from skewed design teams. In particular, all male design teams have produced wearables that are unattractive to women. This is probably true of most tech gadgets, but really hurts products that are supposed to be worn as clothing or jewelry.
The story quotes Maddy Maxey to comment that ‘excluding people from a design creates “micro-inequities,” sending the message that a device “isn’t something that you’re meant to have.”‘
I would agree with these points, but I would go farther. The design teams really ought to include people who are not rich, young, techies. Most ‘cool’ tech, including wearables, is so far divorced from most people’s lives that it really does send the message that you are not meant to have it. Does a working mother need her watch to monitor her exercise (as if she gets any)? Does a elder care worker need fancy jewelry to let her know her phone is ringing—when her phone is right there? Does anyone other that a big deal master of the universe need custom printed headphones? Does a kid working at a fast foot place need a ring to let him buy stuff with a swipe?
The piece also interviewed Isabelle Olsson of Google, who is apparently responsible for Google Glass looking the way it does. She talks about “beauty and comfort”, and diversity in design (i.e., including rich, young women as well as men). But nothing here about safety, privacy, or any consideration of whether the product is good for people.
I still say Google Glass is still evil.
And I’m still waiting for wearables worth wearing.
Robert McGrath's Blog 