IFFTI Conference, November 2005, Tokyo SIZING and LABELLING

1. IFFTI Conference, November 2005, TokyoSIZING and LABELLING Dr. Alistair Knox Nottingham Trent University School of Art & Design

2. Overview: sizing & labelling • background to size – shape issues • NTU research • European initiatives • proposal for a global scheme

3. Context • designers, pattern-cutters, graders need to know customers’ sizes and shapes • people are still getting bigger – on average about 0.4 kg per year (ref. UK Health Survey 1998) [from a SizeUK press release]

4. Related NTU research [image taken from E-Tailor project report IST-1999-10549]

5. NTU size/shape research • market research for many retailers, brands: 2D/3D + size charts • 16 surveys over 10 years • SizeUK – bodyscanner UK survey – with LCF, ULC + retail consortium • E-Tailor (EU) • Intelligent pattern alteration • 3D body shape on smartcard • national size survey white paper • National Textile Center (USA) – joint research on shape analysis • links with NTU teaching • 3D body scanning for plastic surgery evaluation Smart-card system for mass customisation

6. Ready to wear sizing issues

7. body size & shape • normal = large range of heights, girths, body types • socio-economic plus regional & national / ethnic variations • somatotype trends

8. size labelling schemes S M L XL XXL … or 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 … or 0 1 2 3 4 …. or … what?

9. International complexity & confusion Table 1 Womenswear sizing [based on Winks (1997), table A4]

10. UK and Europe: sizing co-operation 08 December 1998 - Neckermann, Frankfurt 30 June 1999 - Otto, Hamburg European Size Comparison & Letter Code Belgium France Germany Greece Ireland Netherland Spain Sweden Switzerland UK 26 January 2000 - AEDT - C&A - M&S, Brussels 05 July 2000 - Research Institute, Hohenstein 05 December 2000 - Freemans, London 26 June 2001 - H & M, Stockholm 24 January 2002 - Puma, Herzogenaurach 18 September 2003 - Otto, Hamburg

11. CEN proposal- aim to improve international standards • National standards, e.g. BS3666; new standard BS EN 13402 • European standards: CEN13402 • technical committee TC248 • drafts for definitions, measuring standards, sizing • ISO standards

12. Aims • based on standard definitions and body measurement procedures [EN 13402] • logical system using the minimum number of digits • one code system for most clothing products • easy to understand for the consumer • to be implemented Europe-wide

13. CEN Proposal • 3 digit specification code for buying, computer processing, consumer ordering • each digit is a code for • primary dimension [girth] • secondary dimension [e.g. 1(narrow hip) .. 5(wide)] • height indicator [e.g. 1(short) …. 9 (tall)] • code can be supplemented on a size label by the prime dimension in cms (for communication) and a pictogram

14. code structure - womenPrime Dimension (PD) code number plus subsidiary girth and height code numbers BASIC STRUCTURE OF SIZE INDICATION (women) BustorWaist first digit(PD) + Hip second digit + Height third digit

15. Building up the CEN code Bust 80 84 88 92 96 code 2 3 4 5 6 Hip very narrow average very wide narrow wide code 1 2 3 4 5 Height 160 164 168 172 176 code 2 3 4 5 6 final code 412 423 434 445 456

17. Example with pictogram – men “334”

18. Perceived difficulties with CEN scheme • complex and potentially confusing, e.g. current size 48 could become = 934, and 50 = 184 • will need 4 digit code for men over 2 metres • children’s tops and bottoms will be different codes • does not take advantage of the prevalence of the most common combinations of bust, waist, hip for simplicity

19. ‘German’ counter-proposal

20. Alternative – 2 digit half-girth plus height/shape letter [Otto Versand et al.]

21. None of these proposals gained wide acceptance by commercial representativesNeed for a simplified global scheme“more research needed”

22. Market research for Designers, Buyers and Merchandisers • what size are our customers? • what shape? • what is “good fit” for our products? • ANSWERS FROM SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS

23. HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION - narrow distribution: 1-3 size variants enough - almost ‘normal’: about as many tall as short

24. GIRTH DISTRIBUTION - broad spread : needs 10+ size options - asymmetric : long ‘tail’ for bigger sizes

25. Market research for designers, Buyers and merchandisers • what size are our customers? • what shape? • what is “good fit” for our products? • ANSWERS FROM SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS • how many size / shape / height options is it economical to offer? • is there a simple, universal labelling scheme which communicates the offer options?

26. Figure 6: Height v Bust for ‘size 12’ bust 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 height [cm] little correlation between height & girth

27. shape variations; shape averaging

28. commercial solutions for ready-to-wear • Heights • often 1 standard is enough in a market • sometimes short/petite & tall/long options • there will always be a few exceptions • Girths • often 5 girth variations cover the bulk of the market • with 4 or 5 cm increments, 10-15 sizes may be needed for complete coverage • Shape • mannequins & block patterns will need adjusting from time to time • no two people are identical; electronic 3D averaging can give good standards for general fit purposes NTU body shape averaging

29. Options / issues for any proposed new standard • simple versus complex code • should be meaningful to customers and suppliers: simpler the better • ‘meaningless’ size label code? [e.g. “14”] • could be redefined as required (as now), but non-standard confusion • Actual girth: metric measurements used globally • “just” some Anglo-Saxons may need to adjust! • Dual labelling; conversion tables • a new system can run in parallel with any existing • Pictogram: visual communication including other key measurements for easy understanding

30. Labelling proposal- use prime customer measurement

31. Girth example(women’s tops)–actual metric measurement (cms)

32. Length – code letter for height / leg length

33. Trouser example with ISO pictogramvisual communication: diagram with garment’s key dimensions women men Size 124X [was 18 extra tall] Size 96L [was 38 long]

34. Other implications • Unisex possibility • Customer resistance to change • education • industry consensus • phase in over time • reduces vanity sizing scope • no ‘shape’ categories – fully flexible • customers likely to know their own key dimensions • should help reduce returns (especially mail-order) • may help mass customisation

35. 104 60 84 Conclusion • Simple proposal, easily adaptable • could suit most garment types • combination of standard metric prime measurement, almost universal height/length code letter • visual supplement = pictogram with other measurements, garment-dependent Alistair Knox Size 104L [was 42 long]