Researching wearable biosensors has made me realise that choosing the sensing technology is only half of the problem. Even if a device can collect accurate physiological information, it will not be useful to my project if the person finds it distracting, uncomfortable or socially intrusive.
This feels particularly important for autistic users because the wearable itself could become another sensory demand.
A lot of wearable technology is designed around technical efficiency first. Watches, rings, patches and headsets all create different types of contact with the body, and each one introduces its own material, pressure, temperature and movement.
For this project, I need to question whether a device intended to support regulation could accidentally contribute to dysregulation.
A tight strap may feel secure to one person and unbearable to another. An adhesive patch may be discreet but uncomfortable on the skin. A ring may be visually subtle but unsuitable for somebody who dislikes hard jewellery. A headset may provide immersive support while introducing weight, heat and isolation.
The most technically advanced wearable is not necessarily the most accessible wearable.
This becomes much easier for me to understand when I think about my sister.
Summer would be unlikely to choose something made from a hard material that feels like jewellery, but she would be much more likely to tolerate something soft or fabric-based. That does not mean fabric is automatically the correct solution for autistic users generally, but it immediately exposes a weakness in designing one standard physical form for everybody.
Her preference makes me think more seriously about materiality as part of accessibility.
Instead of only asking what the wearable looks like, I need to ask what touches the body, how long it touches the body for, whether it moves, whether it traps heat, whether it can be felt continuously and whether the user can remove it easily.
This opens up the possibility of moving away from the visual language of conventional medical or fitness wearables.
Fabric bands, soft textiles, clothing-integrated sensors or objects already commonly worn during travel could potentially feel less clinical and less intrusive. The technology might also be able to disappear into something familiar rather than asking the traveller to wear a completely new object.
I am interested in the idea that the best wearable may be one that does not constantly remind the user that they are wearing technology.
This also links back to discretion. Some travellers may want the system to remain invisible to other people, while others may not care about visibility at all. That should be a choice rather than something decided for them.
Where the technology sits on the body will also affect both sensing and experience.