Since the 1990s, inclusive design has been a key topic of discussion, particularly in relation to creating products accessible to all users.
As wearable technology has evolved into an everyday consumer product, companies in this increasingly competitive market have sought to appeal to larger and more diverse user groups.
In this context, product designers at wearable technology companies interpret inclusive design differently when developing products for broad audiences.
The diversity of human bodies poses significant practical challenges for inclusive design, with considerations extending beyond biological variation to encompass cultural perceptions of gender.
Wearable technology has evolved rapidly, transforming from niche gadgets for professional athletes into everyday accessories used by a diverse global population.
As smartwatches and health trackers become increasingly ubiquitous, companies face the challenge of designing products that both fit diverse bodies and appeal to people of all genders and body types. Wearable devices—ranging from rings and smartwatches to sensor-integrated clothing—sit at the intersection of design, fashion, and technology. Because they function in close contact with the body, accommodating bodily diversity is a central concern in their design.
A recent study by Jenni Hokka examines how designers at four leading Finnish technology companies — Suunto, Ōura, Nuanic and Myontec — are navigating the complex intersection of biology, gender norms and technology.
The study is grounded in the sociology of design, a research approach focusing on design cultures, professional practices, and the social and cultural contexts shaping design work. Rather than proposing new design solutions, the study examines how designers interpret inclusive design and how these interpretations manifest in products. The empirical material consists of semi-structured interviews with designers and product development professionals working in the four Finnish wearable technology companies.
These cases represent different types of wearable products, such as watches, rings, and smart clothing, allowing for a comparative analysis of how product type shapes the possibilities and limits of inclusivity.
A key theoretical contribution is the distinction between biological diversity and cultural constructions of gender. Although inclusive design is often presented as a response to physical differences, such as size, shape or physiological variation, the analysis reveals that designers’ decisions are also significantly impacted by gender norms that have been shaped by history. These norms act as regulatory ideals that influence assumptions about users’ preferences, aesthetics and bodily practices, even when they do not reflect actual user behaviour.
The study argues that biological differences and cultural gender norms are often confused in design processes, obscuring the fact that they are distinct both analytically and practically.
- The first case study focuses on Suunto’s sports watches, particularly the Suunto 9 Peak.
Traditionally marketed to male amateur athletes, sports watches are now being promoted as everyday devices suitable for various contexts, including work, leisure, and sleep. Suunto designers emphasised the need for a discreet, lightweight and aesthetically neutral design that could function across these settings. In this case, inclusive design was closely tied to minimising gendered cues in size, shape and colour, and avoiding overtly masculine or feminine aesthetics. However, the analysis shows that such neutrality is itself culturally informed and shaped by prevailing ideals of what constitutes a ‘universal’ accessory. Although the designers intended to move away from gendered marketing strategies such as ‘pinking’, their work still operated within the established norms of gendered accessories.
- The second case study looks at two smart rings: the Ōura and the Nuanic.
The design of rings presents a distinct challenge because they must fit the finger precisely, making bodily variation especially salient. Both companies adopted a unisex design strategy, emphasising minimalism and material quality to appeal to both genders. The Ōura ring, in particular, has gained visibility as a lifestyle and wellness product thanks to celebrity endorsements and fashion collaborations. However, despite the intention to design for ‘everyone’, the article highlights how ring sizes, proportions and aesthetic conventions still reflect assumptions about ‘normal’ bodies. Designers must decide which bodies to prioritise when defining standard sizes, revealing the limitations of universal design in practice.
- The third case study is the most thorough and focuses on Myontec’s smart sports clothing.
This clothing integrates sensors into compression garments to measure muscular activity. This case study clearly demonstrates the challenges of inclusive design posed by the diversity of human bodies. Unlike watches or rings, smart clothing must account for variations between and within different groups of athletes, including those of different sexes, sports, training histories and body compositions. Myontec designers explained that traditional fashion design processes are effectively inverted: sensor placement dictates pattern-making, with aesthetics considered only at a later stage. Extensive user testing, customisation, and close collaboration between designers, engineers, and physiologists are required for inclusive design here. However, economic constraints limit the scalability of such approaches, meaning that some products are only available as customised items.
The study revealed that inclusive design is not just a technical issue, but also a socio-cultural one, across all cases. In particular, gender inclusivity is shaped by cultural expectations regarding clothing, accessories and the use of technology. For instance, the historical association of elastic and tight-fitting garments with femininity delayed the development of smart sportswear for men until such materials became culturally acceptable through changes in sports fashion in the 1990s. This demonstrates how technological innovation can be constrained or enabled by shifting gender norms.
The findings also highlight the limitations of “design for all” approaches. Although inclusive design aims to accommodate everyone, it often defaults in practice to an assumed average or normative user, who is frequently implicitly male and able-bodied. Without continuous reflection and an up-to-date understanding of user practices, inclusive design risks perpetuating historical biases rather than challenging them. Designers are therefore encouraged to adopt open-ended, user-centered processes that do not assume stable or stereotypical gendered preferences.
In conclusion, the design of wearable technology must be inclusive and take into account both the physical diversity of human bodies and the cultural meanings associated with gender. Although technological and economic constraints influence what is feasible, paying attention to how gender norms affect design decisions can prevent exclusionary patterns from being repeated. Rather than offering simple solutions, inclusive design necessitates continuous critical engagement with the social and cultural aspects of technology. Therefore, inclusivity is a dynamic and contested process, not a fixed endpoint.
Wearable devices now represent more than 50% of the home healthcare market, while remote patient monitoring accounts for an additional 18% (1), underscoring their central role in care delivery beyond traditional clinical settings. However, widespread adoption remains the key to realizing the full value of wearable technology.
Patient engagement ultimately determines whether these devices deliver meaningful clinical outcomes and achieve their long-term market potential.
References
Hokka, J. (2024). Gender and the Diversity of the Human Body as Challenges for the Inclusive Design of Wearable Technology. Fashion Practice, 16(1), 108–133.
- Laura Avogaro from FRESCI
- No Comments