A silent question that hardly anyone in the consumer tech industry wants to address head-on is located somewhere between the living room and the lab: do older people genuinely want the products we keep creating for them? If someone bothered to ask, the truthful response might upset a lot of product roadmaps. Chunky watches, large typefaces, and flashing indicator lights are just a few examples of the assumption that permeates every electronics aisle. The design makes it clear that you are getting older. The older customer frequently just strolls by.
This is being challenged in an intriguing way by a new line of research. It asks how persuasive a piece of technology is, and whether we even have a proper way to measure that, rather than what devices the elderly should accept. This change is reflected in the recent research on smart clothing, which focuses on the so-called young elderly. Using user journey mapping, in-depth interviews, and the Kano model, researchers developed an evaluation framework with thirty indicators to determine what is most important. Although the framework’s validation score of 3.987 out of 5 sounds technical, the more intriguing aspect is what the numbers pointed to.
One particularly noteworthy finding is the kind of detail that most likely caused the researchers to stop in the middle of their coffee. It turns out that older users didn’t want their smart clothes to appear smart. They favored the technology concealed in everyday clothing, such as a typical shirt or cardigan, with the sensors and circuitry tucked away. Not a single glowing button. No aesthetic from the app store. Just clothing that just so happened to pay attention. For nearly ten years, the wearable industry has continuously misinterpreted that preference, which has a subtle dignity.
It’s difficult to ignore how frequently the tech industry conflates value and visibility. Google Glass, which attempted to make computing wearable, was mocked in part due to its self-announcement. Leaning into well-known watch shapes helped the Apple Watch survive. Products continue to arrive with the same loud design language despite the lesson being repeated. The stakes are higher for older users. Not only is a frailty-signaling device out of style, but it can also feel like a tiny public admission. Therefore, concealment is not vanity. It’s independence.
The framework for persuasive evaluation is important because it attempts to quantify this kind of subtlety. Although the term “fuzzy comprehensive analysis” doesn’t pique anyone’s interest outside of academia, the idea behind it makes sense: it captures emotional states rather than binary responses. After all, aging doesn’t fit neatly into categories. Neither does faith in technology. Researchers in this field believe that the outdated metrics, which were taken from more recent user studies, just don’t translate. A former engineer in Karachi, a widow in Lisbon, and a 68-year-old retiree in Osaka all have relationships with technology that are influenced by past events that are not visible on the spec sheet.
The framework has limitations, of course. The sample size was not very large. There was no tracking of long-term effects. The question of cultural variation among aging populations worldwide is still unanswered. Broader pools and objective measurement instruments layered on top of the behavioral ones will be necessary for future iterations. Nevertheless, there is hope for the future. For years, the topic of digital inclusion has been discussed, primarily in speeches. This is one of the less common instances of someone attempting to construct the ruler before constructing the final product. As always, it’s unclear if the industry pays attention.
