IFFTI Conference, November 2005, Tokyo SIZING and LABELLING

IFFTI Conference, November 2005, Tokyo

SIZING and LABELLING

Dr. Alistair Knox

Nottingham Trent University

School of Art & Design

2Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

Overview: sizing & labelling

• background to size – shape issues

• NTU research

• European initiatives

• proposal for a global scheme

3Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

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)

4Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

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

5Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

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

6Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

Ready to wear sizing issues

7Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

body size & shape

•normal = large range of heights, girths, body types

•socio-economic plus regional & national / ethnic variations

•somatotype trends

8Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

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?

9Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

Table 1 Womenswear sizing [based on Winks (1997), table A4]

Country SIZE (typical UK average)

AustraliaBulgariaCanadaCzech RepublicDenmarkHollandHungaryIranIrelandIsraelJapanNew ZealandPolandSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUSARussia

148132

3AA454034

164/80/94 or N90381240

92/9914

164/92/96(46+2)/L

C40401412

164/92/96

International complexity & confusion

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

11Knox/IFFTI Nov2005

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


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


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


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 OFSIZE INDICATION (women)


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

412 423 434 445 456final code


Size indication 3 digits Women main (outer- and underwear excluding overcoats, knits, blouses, vest, swimwear and bodies, but including corsetry lower body)old size 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58bust (PD) 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 110 116 122 128 134 140

code 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7orwaist (PD) 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 94 100 106 112 118 124

code 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7

hip (SD) 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 117 122 127 132 137 142extra choice: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 50,1,3,4 or 5,6,8,9 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 35 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

height (SD) 156 160 164 168 172 176 180 184 188extra choice: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91,2,3,5,6,7,8,9

new size 124 174 224 274 324 374 424 474 524 574 624 674 724 774

old size 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58


Example with pictogram – men “334”


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


‘German’ counter-proposal

1st digit – Prime dimension [PD], 8 cm interval

e.g. bust 76 – 152 cm

waist 60 - 136

code digit 1 - 8

2nd 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

3rd 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


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,E50A 50B 50C 50D 50E

Regular

F,G,H,I,J50F 50G 50H 50I 50K

Sturdy

K,L,M,N,O50K 50L 50M 50N 50O

Corpulent

P.Q.R.S.T50P 50Q 50R 50S 50T

Fully rotund

U,V,W,X,Y50U 50V 50W 50X 50Y

[Otto Versand et al.]


None of these proposals gained wide acceptance by commercial representatives

Need for a simplified global scheme

“more research needed”


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


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79

Height (inches)

Fre

qu

ency

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


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

Bust girth (inches)

Fre

qu

ency

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


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?


little correlation between height & girth

Figure 6: Height v Bust for ‘size 12’

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185

height [cm]

bu

st


shape variations; shape averaging


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


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


Labelling proposal

- use prime customer measurement

MEN WOMEN

tops

bottoms

chest

waist

bust

hips


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)


Length – code letter for height / leg length

CODE Men

Ht leg

cms

Women

Ht leg

cms

English

X

L

M

S

P

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


Trouser example with ISO pictogramvisual communication: diagram with garment’s key dimensions

Size 96L

[was 38 long]

Size 124X

[was 18 extra tall]

women men


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


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

IFFTI Conference, November 2005, Tokyo SIZING and LABELLING

Documents

Transcript of IFFTI Conference, November 2005, Tokyo SIZING and LABELLING