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

2. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 2 Overview: sizing & labelling background to size – shape issues NTU research European initiatives proposal for a global scheme

3. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 3 Context [from a SizeUK press release] 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)

4. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 4 Related NTU research [image taken from E-Tailor project report IST-1999-10549]

5. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 6 Ready to wear sizing issues

7. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 7 body size & shape normal = large range of heights, girths, body types socio-economic plus regional & national / ethnic variations somatotype trends

8. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 9 Table 1 Womenswear sizing [based on Winks (1997), table A4] CountrySIZE (typical UK average) Australia Bulgaria Canada Czech Republic Denmark Holland Hungary Iran Ireland Israel Japan New Zealand Poland Spain Sweden Switzerland UK USA Russia 14 81 32 3AA45 40 34 164/80/94 or N90 38 12 40 92/99 14 164/92/96 (46+2)/L C40 40 14 12 164/92/96 International complexity & confusion

10. UK and Europe: sizing co-operation 08 December 1998 - Neckermann, Frankfurt 30 June1999 - 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 June2001- H & M, Stockholm 24January2002- Puma, Herzogenaurach 18September2003- Otto, Hamburg

11. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 14 code structure - women Prime Dimension (PD) code number plus subsidiary girth and height code numbers Bust or Waist first digit(PD) Hip second digit Height third digit + + BASIC STRUCTURE OF SIZE INDICATION (women)

15. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 15 Building up the CEN code Bust8084889296 code23456 Hip very narrow average very wide narrow wide code 1 2 3 4 5 Height160164168172176 code 2 3 4 5 6 412423434445456 final code

16. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 16

17. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 17 Example with pictogram – men “334”

18. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 19 ‘German’ counter-proposal 1 st digit – Prime dimension [PD], 8 cm interval e.g. bust 76 – 152 cm waist 60 - 136 code digit 1 - 8 2 nd digit – secondary girth dimension, 5 options [std + 2 up, 2 down] e.g. hips 0 – 4 [std 2] or alternate PD band 5 – 9 [std 7]; waist – chest drop for men in 8cms code digit 2 or 7 for standard, higher digit for wider, lower for narrower 3 rd digit – height – 4 cm intervals e.g. women 156 = 1 to 188cm = 9 men 0–9 = 160 – 196cm code digit 0 – 9 for body height band

20. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 20 Alternative – 2 digit half-girth plus height/shape letter HEIGHT GIRTH very short A,F,K,P,U short B,G,L,Q,V regular C,H,M,R,W tall D,I,N,S,X very tall E,K,O,T,Y Sporty A,B,C,D,E 50A50B50C50D50E Regular F,G,H,I,J 50F50G50H50I50K Sturdy K,L,M,N,O 50K50L50M50N50O Corpulent P.Q.R.S.T 50P50Q50R50S50T Fully rotund U,V,W,X,Y 50U50V50W50X50Y [Otto Versand et al.]

21. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 21 None of these proposals gained wide acceptance by commercial representatives Need for a simplified global scheme “more research needed”

22. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 23 HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION - narrow distribution: 1-3 size variants enough - almost ‘normal’: about as many tall as short

24. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 24 GIRTH DISTRIBUTION - broad spread : needs 10+ size options - asymmetric : long ‘tail’ for bigger sizes

25. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 26 little correlation between height & girth Figure 6: Height v Bust for ‘size 12’ 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 150155160165170175180185 height [cm] bust

27. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 27 shape variations; shape averaging

28. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 30 Labelling proposal - use prime customer measurement MENWOMEN tops bottoms chest waist bust hips

31. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 31 UK Size (approx) Bust girth – cm (in) New standard 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 80 (31.5) 84 (33.1) 88 (34.6) 92 (36.4) 96 (37.8) 100 (39.4) 104 (40.9) 108 (42.5) 112 (44.1) 116 (45.7) 120 (47.2) 124 (48.8) 128 (50.4) 132 (52.0) 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 Girth example (women’s tops) –actual metric measurement (cms)

32. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 32 Length – code letter for height / leg length CODE Men Ht leg cms Women Ht leg cms English XLMSPXLMSP 192 186 180 174 168 84 80 76 72 68 176 170 164 158 152 80 76 72 68 64 Extra long Long Medium Short Petite

33. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 33 Trouser example with ISO pictogram visual communication: diagram with garment’s key dimensions Size 96L [was 38 long] Size 124X [was 18 extra tall] women men

34. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 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. Knox/IFFTI Nov2005 35 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] 60 84 104