Design preferences on wearable e-nose systems for diabetes

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate potential users’ preferences and expectations for fabric-based wearable e-nose system designs in order to develop painless and non-invasive monitoring systems for diabetes. Design/methodology/approach After developing a fabric-based wearable sensor, this study used an online survey with a mixture of closed- and open-ended questions about people’s desires and preferences for use-contexts, product types, design styles, and other key design factors. Findings This study investigated the preferences and expectations on designs of wearable e-nose systems for diabetes. The results showed that designers and developers need to consider important design components including sizes, shapes, and colors for practical wearable e-nose system designs. There were strong positive and significant correlations between participant characteristics and preferred wearable e-nose system design factors. Research limitations/implications Future research could compare differences between different age groups with different types of diabetes. Practical implications Understanding these differences will help designers and marketers target consumers and create diverse designs with different versions for success in the market. Originality/value There is lack of research for considering designs of wearable monitoring systems for diabetes. This research will be the first research to understand design preferences and expectations for developing wearable e-nose monitoring systems for diabetes.

Wearable Technology Design for Autism Spectrum Disorders

“…The majority of IASD (60%) and PASD (83.3%) preferred to receive the monitored data through smartphone apps due to their ease of downloads, ubiquity, and portability, which is the similar to the results of the previous research on WT for healthcare (Koo et al, 2016).…”

Female bike riders’ clothing needs with the incorporation of wearable technology: Design and evaluation of wearers’ perception of smart clothing within the cradle-to-cradle design framework

“…Healthcare-related wearable technology sectors (e.g., medical, fitness, wellness) account for the largest portion of the total growing wearable technology market (Kim & Shin, 2015;Koo et al, 2016). Wearable devices for fitness tracking, frequently used by bike riders, occupy the greatest number of units in worldwide wearable device sales (Gwilt & Rissanen, 2011;Harrop, Hayward, Das, & Holland, 2015;Nusca, 2015).…”

“…Females constitute a significant market segment in the wearable technology market that deserves attention: females purchase wearable technology for fitness more often than males (The NPD Group, Inc., 2015). Previous studies illustrate the market potential of wearable technology designed to complement female bike riders' clothing needs and its usefulness by adding innovative clothing functions distinctive from traditional bike wear (Gwilt & Rissanen, 2011;Koo et al, 2016). For example, Gwilt and Rissanen (2011) addressed easy transformability by integrating wearable technology into clothing, allowing females to present themselves in multiple ways by changing design details (e.g., colors, motif, sizes, sleeve lengths) and garment types (e.g., jacket, cape, bag).…”

“…For example, Gwilt and Rissanen (2011) addressed easy transformability by integrating wearable technology into clothing, allowing females to present themselves in multiple ways by changing design details (e.g., colors, motif, sizes, sleeve lengths) and garment types (e.g., jacket, cape, bag). Koo et al (2016) suggested that the use of a wearable device incorporating flashing light-emitting diode (FLED) could resolve females' safety concerns by enhanced user visibility when riding either day or night.…”

Explorations of wearable technology for tracking self and others

“…In previous research, significant differences were found between novice users (NC) and experienced users (EX) in their technology acceptance (Fishbein and Ajzen 1977), decision criteria (Bettman and Sujan 1987), perceived usefulness and periods of use (O'Cass and Fenech 2003;Smith and Brynjolfson 2001), purchase intentions (Sherrell et al 2015), and use motivators (Stragier et al 2016). Although, there is research on understanding user needs and wants for wearables (Gao et al 2015;Koo and Fallon 2017;Koo et al 2016;Stead et al 2004), little attention has been paid to understanding the differences between NC and EX of wearable trackers. In addition, interviews are considered key techniques of user-centered design methodology, but there is a lack of research seeking to hear consumers' actual voices (Holtzblatt et al 2004).…”