Wearable computer comfort can be affected by numerous factors, making its assessment based on one value with one scale inappropriate. This paper presents a tool that measures wearable comfort across six dimensions: emotion, attachment, harm, perceived change, movement, and anxiety. The dimensions for these comfort rating scales were specifically developed for wearable equipment assessment by applying multidimensional scaling to a comfort term association matrix developed using the results of groupings of wearable computer comfort terms. Testing the scales on four different types of wearable computer showed that the scales can be used to highlight differences in comfort between different types of technology for different aspects of comfort. An intraclass correlation of .872 suggested that the scales were used with a high level of reliability. A second study showed that modifications made to a wearable computer resulted in improvements in comfort, although they were not significant (p > .05). A potential application for this research is as an aid to designers and researchers for assessing the wearability, in terms of comfort, of wearable computer devices and to determine the effectiveness of any modifications made to the design of a wearable device.
References
1.
Akbar-Khanzadeh, F., Bisesi, M. S., & Rivas, R. D. (1995). Comfort of personal protective equipment. Applied Ergonomics, 26, 195–198.
2.
Bristow, H. W., Baber, C., Cross, J., & Wooley S. (2002). Evaluating contextual information for wearable computing. In The Sixth International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 179–185). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
3.
Chaffin, D. B. (1973). Localized muscle fatigue: Definition and measurement. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 15, 346–354.
4.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (1999). Work-related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
5.
Gemperle, F., Kasabach, C., Stivoric, J., Bauer, M., & Martin, R. (1998). Design for wearability. In The Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 116–122). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
6.
Hagberg, M., Silverstein, B., Wells, R., Smith, M. J., Hendrick, H. W., Carayon, P., et al. (1995). Identification, measurement and evaluation of risk. In I. Kuorinka, & L. Forcier (Eds.), Workrelated musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs): A reference for prevention (pp. 139–212). London: Taylor & Francis.
7.
Haniff, D. J., & Baber, C. (1999). Wearable computers for the fire service and police force: Technological and human factors. In The Third International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 185-186). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
8.
Harms-Ringdahl, K., Carlsson, A. M., Ekholm, J., Raustrop, A., Svensson, T., & Toresson, H. G. (1986). Pain assessment with different intensity scales in response to loading of joint structures. Pain, 27, 401–411.
9.
Harms-Ringdahl, K., & Ekholm, J. (1986). Intensity and character of pain and muscular activity levels elicited by maintained extreme flexion position of the lower cervical upper-thoracic spine. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 18, 117–126.
10.
Helander, M. G., & Mukund, S. (1991). The use of scaling techniques for subjective evaluations. In M. Kumashiro & E. D. Megaw, Eds.), Towards human work: Solutions to problems in occupational health and safety (pp. 193–200). London: Taylor & Francis.
11.
Hünting, W., Läubli, T., & Grandjean, E. (1981). Postural and visual loads at VDT workplace: 1. Constrained postures. Ergonomics, 24, 917–931.
12.
Knapik, J., Harman, E., & Reynolds, K. (1996). Load carriage using packs: A review of physiological, biomechanical and medical aspects. Applied Ergonomics, 27, 207–216.
13.
Knight, J. F. (2002). The ergonomics of wearable computers: Implications for musculoskeletal loading. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Birmingham, UK.
14.
Knight, J. F., & Baber, C. (2000). Wearable computers and the possible development of musculoskeletal disorders. In The Fourth International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 171–172). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
15.
Nicol, F., Humphreys, M., Sykes, O., & Roaf, S. (1995). Standards for thermal comfort: Indoor air temperature standards for the 21st century.London: Chapman and Hall.
16.
Phillips, C. A., & Petrfosky, J. S. (1983). Neck muscle loading and fatigue: Systematic variation of headgear weight and center-of gravity. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 54, 901–905.
17.
Putz-Anderson, V., & Galinsky, T. L. (1993). Psychophysically determined work duration for limiting shoulder girdle fatigue from elevated manual work. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 11, 19–28.
18.
Robinette, K. M. (1993). Fit testing as a helmet development tool. In New development in mechanics, biomechanics and design aspects of military helmets (pp. 69–73). Farnborough, UK: Defense Research Agency, Flight Systems Department.
19.
Robinette, K. M., & Whitestone, J. J. (1994). The need for improved anthropometric methods for the development of helmet systems. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 65(5, Suppl.), A95--99.
20.
Saito, S., Taptagaporn, S., Sotoyama, M., & Suzuki, T. (1993). Physiological indices of visual fatigue and visual comfort related to VDT work. In M. J. Smith, & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Applications and case studies (pp. 909–913). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
21.
Sauter, S. L., Schleifer, L. M., & Knutson, S. J. (1991). Musculoskeletal discomfort and ergonomic predictors in VDT data-entry work. Human Factors, 33, 151–167.
22.
Shackel, B., Chidsy, K. D., & Shipley, P. (1969). The assessment of chair comfort. Ergonomics, 12, 269–306.
23.
Sommerich, C. M., Starr, H., Smith, C. A., & Shivers, C. (2002). Effects of notebook computer configuration and task on user biomechanics, productivity and comfort. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 30, 7–31.
24.
Stein, R., Ferrero, S., Hetfield, M., Quinn, A., & Krichever, M. (1998). Development of a commercially successful wearable data collection system. In The Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 18–24). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
25.
Whitestone, J. J. (1993). Design and evaluation of helmet systems using 3D data. In New development in mechanics, biomechanics and design aspects of military helmets (pp. 64–68). Farnborough, UK: Defense Research Agency, Flight Systems Department.
26.
Wiker, S. F., Chaffin, D. B., & Langolf, G. D. (1989). Shoulder posture and localized muscle fatigue and discomfort. Ergonomics, 32, 211–237.
