Wearable Technology - Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing

WEARABLE
TECHNOLOGY
Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing

Will Wearable Technology Make us More Skillful? | 03
02 | Wearable Technology: Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing
Probably the most discussed technological advancement since
the iPhone was introduced, wearable technology embodies the
unavoidable and fascinating era of enmeshing computers and
advanced electronic technologies onto our selves – through
accessories and clothing. In sci-fi speak – it is the biological
integration of electromechanical elements for the benefit of the human
self. Cyborgs, then.
In this article I will explore four key questions with wearables –
• Will wearable technology make us more skilful?
• Will it make us more connected?
• Will it make us healthier?
• Will it be stylish?
In each, I will strive to understand the potential and concern for
technology in these areas and explore how effective this tech is at
replacing something inferior, or not.
Duncan Stewart, Research Director from Deloitte, concluded recently
that wearable technology will have the greatest effect when it replaces
something noticeably inferior, or nothing at all. In essence – it will only
truly be beneficial when it actually solves an unmet consumer need.
A good parallel comes from looking at mobile payments. Of the 7.5
million mobile payments carried out in 2012 in the USA, 7 million
of them were used by customers paying for coffees in Starbucks.
Simply coffees (…and cakes) in Starbucks. The point here is that, in
North America, where there is already a hugely established, integrated
banking system – the ability to conduct mobile payments is not
needed. Everyone has cards, often numerous cards, and ATMs are
on every corner. The consumer need to pay for something or transfer
money between places or people, is already met. However, if you
turn the attention to Africa, where the banks are few and far between,
cards are rare, and above all, cash is an obvious and delicate asset
of worth, mobile payments (such as M:Pesa or Fundamo) drastically
changed the way in which Africans could deal with their finances.
So it becomes clear that, in the US, mobile payments do not replace
anything successfully, whereas in Africa it becomes something of great
meaning.
Just like mobile payments are not needed in the US, where might
wearable tech cause more issues than benefits? Or just like mobile
payments in Africa, where does wearable tech succeed in progression,
and truly help people?

Will Wearable Technology Make us More Skillful? | 05
WILL IT MAKE US MORE
SKILLFUL?
Watch any Google Glass trailer and you’ll
be smacked around the face by some
wonderfully romantic examples of how Google
Glass (and therefore wearable technology
overall) can help you instantly learn new vital
skills that improve your life. The ability to
know what a tiger looks like, when making
an ice sculpture of a tiger’s head, we can all
agree, is an important facet of everyone’s
life. The amount of times I’ve stood holding a
chainsaw, with a block of ice in front of me,
thinking, “What the hell does a Sumatran Tiger
look like again?”
There will, no doubt, be a huge explosion of
“skill apps” for Google Glass that will aim
to quickly and instantly make you better at
something by displaying augmented reality,
content and information above your right eye.
iCaddy is a great example of this in action –
it aims to educate you on the best golf club
to choose, the perfect trajectory and line to
hit the ball, and I imagine, will automatically
scream “get in the hole” once you’ve hit it.
There are examples being talked about where
novice surgeons are able to bring up videos
of information of how to better conduct the
surgery. It’s fairly worrying that the surgeon
doesn’t know this already, but then the idea of
using technology to perfect a skill is an age-
old but also intriguing prospect.
There is no doubt that technology can help
us perform better and faster. Simply look at
the IAAF’s banning of carbon fibre blades
(as worn by the infamous Oscar Pistorius)
because they might offer competitors a “clear
mechanical advantage”.
The problem is not in the idea, but is instead
in the consequences of using this technology
too much. What I’m interested in is the current
human capability to cognitively learn a skill
without the use of technology. A key human
trait is the ability to make mistakes and learn
from them. Having technology there as a
Google Glass trailer (Google)
iCaddy Google Glass app (iCaddy)
Google Glass Surgery
constant resource might negate this vital part
of learning a skill – we could become over
reliant on that technology.
We are all aware of the arguments against Sat
Nav – removing the satisfaction in finding your
way to somewhere by constant navigation
from a (however sexy sounding) computer
voice. Mercedes are indeed in partnership
with Google Glass, designing a ‘door-to-door’
capability where the Google Glass wearer
can receive accurate directions to and from
exact destinations including walking from
the car park. The problem is that actually
getting lost can be beneficial. The ability to
cognitively deal with a situation and find a
solution (getting lost and finding your way to
somewhere) is not only an important skill for
your own development, but might also be a
nice idea. Getting lost on a Belizean island
and uncovering a new beach – one that was
not my intended destination, gave me a
better experience. Likewise, learning from my
mistakes on the golf course, and realising that
I cannot use a 5-iron to get out of a bunker,
has made me the slightly-less-than-terrible
golfer I am today.
The concern is that technology is reducing
our cognitive ability to fully learn skills. Digital
Dementia, as its unnecessarily drastic name
suggests, is the medical understanding that
“gadgets ease the burden of memorizing
tedious information but if we don’t use our
brain functions, the overall cognitive skills of
being aware and perception will ultimately
decrease.” (Dr. Kim Young-bo, Gachon
University Hospital, Incheon).
Is it possible that wearable technology could
encourage a more intense version of this
condition? If it is used to diagnose and dictate
errors and solutions when somebody is
learning a skill, or worse still, if it negates the
chances of somebody making an error – then
surely the human capacity to effectively learn
new skills will be tempered.
“There is no doubt that
technology can help us
perform better and faster.”
SAM CROMPTON
HEAD OF USER RESEARCH, SEYMOURPOWELL
Mercedes’ Google powered navigation (Mercedes)

Will Wearable Technology Make Us More Connected? | 07
Current wearable technology only offers the user a short-term shallow
understanding of something… an instant fix, one that, rather than
actively helping a user to developmentally learn a skill slowly and
properly, might just aim to quickly cure errors. This technology sets out
to “ease the burdens” of normal cognition, and actually I think these
‘burdens’ are very necessary parts of the true authenticity of learning
a skill.
Wearables and apps should be developed to take heed of the fragility
and importance of true cognition, and design for a partnership with the
human need to “try, fail, learn, try, fail, learn, try, succeed, learn”.
SUMMARY
WILL WEARABLE TECH-
NOLOGY MAKE US
MORE SKILLFUL?
WILL IT MAKE US MORE
CONNECTED?
“Look at me, look at what I’m doing... I’m
flying a plane,” is effectively what Google
Glass and its ability to live-feed to others is
really allowing us to do.
We all know that technology has been used
with good effect to help us connect to others
in situations where true connection with those
is tricky. Skype-ing a brother in Sydney is a
true godsend. Gone are the days of stuttering
phone conversations across the world,
where a seven-second delay renders the
conversation useless.
Wearable technology has similarly started
to solve “noticeably inferior” connections.
The Insider Band helps people simply and
easily locate their friends at music festivals.
Interactive map points allow users to spot
the location of their friend. No longer do we
need to sit, missing our favourite act, at a
designated meeting point or back at the tent.
Wearable technology, and Google Glass as
a prime example, can help us connect with
others from afar. The ability to share a live
experience with somebody is a compelling
and meaningful service that these kinds of
tech can facilitate.4
The concern, though, is that technology in
general, and therefore wearable technology,
might hinder our social skills.
There has been an on-going argument that
mobile phones and technology are actively
destroying our social skills. It is difficult to
agree to this or at least outline this argument
without seeming like a luddite, which, at
my 30 years of age, seems a little archaic
for me to promote. “The digital revolution
is destroying British manners leaving a
generation of young people barely able
to communicate properly,” says etiquette
specialists Debrett’s.
Google Glass Hangout demo (Google)
The Insider Band (Esurance & ClearHart Digital)
“The digital revolution is
destroying British manners
leaving a generation of
young people barely able to
communicate properly.”
DEBRETT’S

Will Wearable Technology Make Us More Connected? | 09
Now this is a misleading statement. As
mentioned above, technology has actually
created much richer connected experiences
with people separated by time and distance.
If anything, the Google Glass trailers highlight
the most consumer-friendly aspect of the
tech being its ability to live share. The ability
to use this kind of tech to live share across
continents is no doubt solving a consumer
need.
Where the Debrett’s argument might hold up,
however, is when thinking about the actual
human, interpersonal interactions that we
have every day.
The recent I Forgot My Phone short
epitomises the backlash against “phubbing”
whereby people might check their emails
or reply to text messages on their phones
while ignoring their friends in front of them. I
think we can all admit doing exactly this, and
hypocritically asking somebody else to put
their phone down because “it’s just a rude
thing to do”.
Google Glass lovers, or Glovers as I have
just termed (nb: not a serious term) might
exclaim that actually – the glasses help us to
not only communicate with others afar, but
due to its transparency – can still allow us to
communicate effectively face-to-face.
Really? Is this true? From what I hear, talking
to somebody using Google Glass, if they are
still searching information, will still be like
talking to somebody with a squint. Looking
up to the top right will still be a pretty obvious
indication that they’re either lying, or that
they’re accessing Google.
It reminds me of being in a pub recently,
where a debate started and very quickly
finished. “What was the name of that small
basketball player in the NBA?” somebody
asked… “Was it Spud Webb?” and before
any dynamic conversation could happen,
somebody had already got the phone out, and
had the full answer – “It was Muggsy Bogues,
5 foot 3, played for Charlotte Hornets.” Done,
conversation over. The human interaction
– diverse to-ing and fro-ing of knowledge
and counter-knowledge was interrupted and
ended by technology.
Live sharing data and communicating with far away colleagues,
friends and family members is an unarguably beneficial facet of this
technology. It is a prime example of where these devices are positive
for us.
Wearable technology could interrupt genuine authentic face-to-face
exchange. Unfortunately though, the act of using technology whilst
interrupting authentic human exchange is simply progression – yes it’s
rude, but it’s an engrained social norm for young people, and we have
to get used to that.
What I suggest then is that the presence of wearable technology might
create a new social behaviour… whereby removing of the technology,
turning off the Google Glass, and silencing the iPhone will in fact
become a positive ritual – a sign of respect – a sign of “Actually, I’m
going to switch this off and we can have as fallible and as fault-full and
as wrong-as-it-is-right a conversation with each other.”
SUMMARY
WILL TECHNOLOGY
MAKE US MORE
CONNECTED?
I Forgot My Phone film (Miles Crawford)
I Forgot My Phone film (Miles Crawford)
“From what I hear, talking
to somebody using Google
Glass... looking up to the
top right will still be a pretty
obvious indication that
they’re either lying, or that
they’re accessing Google. ”
SAM CROMPTON

10 | Wearable Technology: Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing | Sam Cropton, Seymourpowell Will Wearable Technology Make Us Healthier? | 11
WILL IT MAKE US
HEALTHIER?
One category of wearable technology that
has really exploded are devices that actively
monitor, diagnose and utilise biological data
from the body to provide statistics regarding
the health and vitality of the wearer.
From Nike’s foray into technology (the
Fuelband) to Jawbone’s UP, to Kickstarter-led
projects such as the Melon Headband – there
are already a huge wealth of products and
partner services available.
Indeed, the Quantified Selves are right this
moment jogging, swimming, cycling, sleeping,
concentrating, not jogging, not swimming, not
cycling – all creating swathes of data about
what they are doing.
The really interesting aspect is how relevant
this data is for the user. I use a heart rate
monitor when running, and that information for
me dictates how fast or slow I run. Likewise
other people might use a Nike Fuelband and
find that this work for them. The power of
these products is how they make the user
react to this information. There is a biological
reaction to the digital feedback – if somebody
has not achieved their NikeFuel goal, they
might jog to the bus, or actively modify their
behaviour. Likewise the Melon Headband
will monitor how hard you concentrate on
certain tasks, causing you to try and focus
more on those that you are particularly slack
on. You might give your afternoon cycle full
attention, but reading this article may have
you completely disengaged.
So this feedback loop between machine
analysis and human reaction is surely a
beneficial thing? By creating competition
against the self and others, this feedback loop
also plays into the human’s innate comparison
complex and strive for betterment.
The accuracy of the technology is to improve
– a lot of the wearable tech available currently
cannot be fully aware of what exact activity
you’re doing and how – meaning that accurate
data still relies on user-tagging or other
markers. However, the real potential of this
health and vitality sector comes from the data
mass. By learning the data patterns in scores
of people, that technology and the ecosystem
of services around it will only improve. This
means that the understanding of how to boost
health and well-being could improve too.
For example, looking at the sleep patterns and
routines of an unhappy person and comparing
them with the metrics from a happy individual
could lead to more intelligent ways to
recommend and improve happiness. As we all
remember from school, the more data there is,
the more robust an output can be.
Wearable technology in this case makes
business sense. 35% of absence is due to
stress, anxiety and depression (DoW&P 2013),
with sickness costing UK business £15 billion
per year (BBC). I’m sure I don’t need to tell
you this, but £15bn is a hell of a lot of money.
So if technology can help make people
happier and healthier then business directors
will be ‘happier’ and financial figures will be
healthier, too.
Understanding the biological changes of
the body en masse will always aid medical
advancement. Mimo is a lovely product for
babies. The ‘connected’ onesie monitors
the baby’s movement and sleep patterns –
helping the parents monitor their child. It can
track when a baby rolls onto its back or its
stomach during the night and the regularity
of the baby’s breathing patterns. But if you
consider this data being collected en masse,
and collated and analysed for paediatricians,
then it might help us to better understand cot
death, for example.
The technology is going to get smaller,
more accurate, and will be placed on and
in us in ways that currently seem intrusive.
Researchers at the National Taiwan University
Nike Fuelband SE (Nike)
Melon Headband (Melon)
“If technology can help
make people happier and
healthier then business
directors will be ‘happier’
and financial figures will be
healthier, too.”
SAM CROMPTON
Mimo baby monitor (Mimo)
Melon Headband app (Melon)

12 | Wearable Technology: Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing | Sam Cropton, Seymourpowell Will Wearable Technology Make Us Healthier? | 13
Jawbone UP (Jawbone)
in Taipei have designed a wifi-enabled tooth
sensor (or “wearable oral sensory system”)
which is placed within an artificial tooth.
“Because the mouth is an opening into
human health, this oral sensory system has
the potential to enhance exciting oral-related
healthcare monitoring applications such as
dietary tracking”. It can accurately differentiate
between coughing, drinking, chewing and
speaking.
So the outlook is promising… however, just
like the Nuclear Weapon in 90’s action movies,
this technology needs to be kept out of the
wrong hands.
Look at how Tesco’s has been lambasted for
using Motorola armbands to monitor how
often its staff take toilet breaks. The benefit
of monitoring an individual, becomes a
controversial corporate gain at odds with the
users.7
Insurance companies are already capitalising
on wearables – it makes perfect sense for
them: by actively pushing wearable tech such
as heart rate monitors onto individuals, they
embed that individual into this biofeedback
loop that encourages the improvement of
health and vitality, and therefore less payouts
for the big guys.
Similarly black boxes in cars (called
telematics) are increasingly used by motor
insurance policies to track and reduce rates
for the least dangerous newly-passed 17 year
olds.
Whilst this makes financial sense, directly
aligning benefits with those that have or use
wearable technology could create divides
in society. These devices are, after all,
expensive. A Jawbone Up costs about as
much as a heart rate monitor (£100), with
a pair of Google Glasses currently costing
£1000. These are not accessible prices.
Chris Brauer, author of ‘The Human Cloud:
Wearable Technology from Novelty to
Production’ discusses the risk that “this could
create a two-tier health system in which
those who can prove their lifestyle choices
are beneficial obtain good rates, while those
unable to do so – either because they don’t
have access to the technology, or because
they don’t lead a healthy lifestyle – are
penalized”.
If wearable technology is proven as actively
helping people get healthier and happier,
and health care is aware and dependent on
this information, then eventually health care
schemes, including the NHS should eventually
consider releasing this kind of technology not
only for those that can afford it, but for those
that need it.
Does wearable tech in this instance replace something inferior or that
doesn’t exist? Yes it does. This, after all, is its heartland. The very fact
that this technology is wearable means it is closer to our biological
being. Our eyes. Our skin. Our heart.
As long as the data is made relevant and engaging for the user,
they will be inclined to actively improve their health, wellbeing and
happiness. The hope, then, is that this technology is not kept to those
that can afford it, but is instead available to the masses.
SUMMARY
WILL TECHNOLOGY
MAKE US HEALTHIER?
Wifi-enabled tooth sensor (National Taiwan University)
“This could create a
two-tier health system in
which those who can prove
their lifestyle choices are
beneficial obtain good rates,
while those unable to do so
... are penalized”
CHRIS BRAUER
AUTHOR, THE HUMAN CLOUD: WEARABLE
TECHNOLOGY FROM NOVELTY TO PRODUCTION
“A Jawbone Up costs about
as much as a heart rate
monitor (£100), with a pair
of Google Glasses currently
costing £1000. These are
not accessible prices.”
SAM CROMPTON

014 | Wearable Technology: Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing Will Wearable Technology Be Stylish? | 15
WILL IT BE STYLISH?
Google Glass is the iconic flag-bearing design
for wearable technology. It has been cleverly
launched among opinion formers, celebrities
and style icons to ensure it has become the
most talked about piece of technology since
the knife-that-slices-bread.
Diane Von Furstenberg’s Spring 2013
collection on the catwalks of New York’s
Fashion Week, saw her models wear Google
Glasses as they strutted down to cheers of
opulent enthusiasm.
Google’s rather genius #ifihadglass campaign
saw celebrities and the like desperately vying
for The Great Google’s attention to cast its
God-like light upon the selected candidate,
and give them permission to hand over the
$1500 to buy a pair of the glasses.
This is PR at its best. Buzz after buzz after
buzz after buzz. Like an annoying wasp at a
picnic. But it is an admirable effort by Google
to remove the social barriers that wearable
technology does still have.
The problem is… wearable technology’s
design treads a fine line between trying to
become as beautiful and refined as jewellery,
yet, because of the infancy of the industry as
we know it now, still needs to be overt and
loud enough to communicate the brand, the
functionality and the design in order to fuse
its form onto the minds of the blogging mass
public.
We have learnt many lessons from the past,
where we have a great technological idea,
yet its advancement is held back due to a
poorly executed design. Bluetooth headsets
are a great example of a great idea, executed
poorly, designed basically, and released
blindly amongst swathes of overweight
American office workers with their mobile
phones clipped onto their belt.
So Google have done it differently – they
even managed to get a 12-page feature in the
notorious September issue of Vogue – almost
solidifying the style-credentials of glasses.
Yet even with this exposure, does the style
work? The actual Vogue shoot has been
criticised for placing the Google Glass in a
dystopian sci-fi world, accidentally playing to
the social barriers of wearable technology that
Google has tried so hard to break down.
“The images are hyperbole through
environment - Glass just makes sense in
a dead sci-fi future in the same way that
wool feels inevitable in Scotland. Because
when you actually see Glass worn in person,
noticing its absolute worst trait - how it has a
tendency to obscure the wearer’s eyeline in
profile - it’s hard to feel anything but coldness
toward the technology.” Mark Wilson,
Fastcodesign.com.
The Google Glass becomes a polarising
design – something that the design team
will have to endure – but we do see other
wearable tech pieces that are unarguably
quite beautifully designed pieces.
Misfit Wearables are a great example of a
device tackling this style issue. The chief
executive, Sonny Vu, has spoken about how,
in this evolving category, the gadgets must be
“gorgeous or invisible.”
With their Misfit Shine, they seem to have
nailed the former – a gorgeous device, that
not only calculates more than just footsteps
(as the CEO says “Life is more than just
steps”) but also calculates your full daily
activity – not just fitness, but your life. It’s a
great example of identifying that this gadget
is not just for fitness. It lives outside of the
gym, and is worn not just with a sports bra
or trainers. Its ability to be worn anywhere
has already earned it the status as “fitness
tracking jewellery”.
Diane Von Furstenberg Spring 2013 catwalk (DVF)
#ifihadglass campaign (Google)
Google Glass photograph by Steven Klein (Vogue)
Misfit Shine (Missfit Wearables)
Misfit Shine (Missfit Wearables)

016 | Wearable Technology: Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing Will Wearable Technology Be Stylish? | 17
“The fundamental
truth behind wearable
technology is it has to
look good or we just
won’t wear it, we need a
reason to put it on.”
MARIEL BROWN
HEAD OF TRENDS, SEYMOURPOWELL
“Gorgeous or invisible” is a great way
to think about the two options tech
entrepreneurs must face. The actual design
of these products becomes so much more
meaningful because they are on you. People
want to wear a Misfit Shine. As Mariel
Brown, Head of Trends at Seymourpowell,
recently commented in the Telegraph, “The
fundamental truth behind wearable technology
is it has to look good or we just won’t wear it,
we need a reason to put it on.”
The other route, of course, is to go invisible
– covert tech. There are obvious security
concerns with this depending on what
functionality the device has. Google Glass, for
example, should be overt, and visible – I don’t
want someone surreptitiously filming me.
However, other devices need not be loud.
Beddit is a nice example of designing to be
hidden – a sleep tracking device that can be
kept, hidden under the sheet, and will then
sync with your phone. This technology can be
invisible when it needs to be.
Once these devices start to operate outside
of closed systems, there’s a huge wealth
of possibility for using hidden devices, and
connecting them with my on-show devices
and screens. As Seymourpowell’s Head of
Interaction Design, Lee Carroll, put it, currently
“People cannot imagine the possibilities of a
connected ‘internet of things’.”
“Even in San Francisco,
a dude wearing Google
Glass looks like a dick.”
KATE BEVAN
GUARDIAN
Beddit sleep tracker (Beddit)
The key issue here, then, is the tension between wanting to design
something loud (either because it should be loud to function best,
or because it is obnoxiously trying to showcase itself) alongside the
consumer’s desire for it to be something beautiful, discreet perhaps,
something to wear with pride, or to use and hide.
Remember, in as conversational and meme-creating world as we
live in now, the style of something can make it or break it. Designers
should take great care in designing something gorgeous, that works
across the multiple occasions it might be present in – or consider
invisibility as a way to ingratiate the tech onto us, without the need to
deal with the innate social barriers that might already be built.
Remember…“Even in San Francisco, a dude wearing Google Glass
looks like a dick.” Kate Bevan, Guardian, June 2013. 9
SUMMARY
WILL TECHNOLOGY BE
STYLISH?

18 | Wearable Technology: Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing Lessons For Wearable Technology | 19
LESSONS FOR WEARABLE
TECHNOLOGY
Right now wearables will be developed in a bid to quickly
get brands and devices to market, to coincide with the
boom, or to partner with host tech launches. It will mean we
will see a lot of products and services, apps and devices,
that will, in 2 years time, perish.
The idea of using this technology in meaningful and relevant
ways is the correct aspiration for entrepreneurs and
designers. It needs to functionally replace something that
needs replacing or improving. Or it needs to help to make a
more informed decision that can better ourselves. It needs
to be designed to suit the user - to know when it should be
loud, and to know when it should be hidden.
The invitation has been sent out to designers to fit devices
to our skin and within us – a hugely important progression
– and an invite that brings with it a lot of responsibility. The
paradigm shift will come when this merging of technology
is proven to help us better ourselves and our society. Until
then… let’s enjoy the race.

20 | Wearable Technology: Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing | Sam Cropton, Seymourpowell Seymourpowell | 21
SAM CROMPTON
HEAD OF USER RESEARCH
Sam achieved a first class honours degree in
Psychology from the University of Bath. He
quickly joined the design and research world
by setting up ProperGander, a student-led
design research company working on NPD
and advertising. Sam then joined The Youth
Conspiracy, a global brand consultancy
specialising in insight, strategy and inspiration
where he became Associate Partner, leading
global design projects for the likes of O2,
Channel 4, McDonalds, Axe and Durex. He
then entered the digital area working with
Channel 4 and Holler.
As Head of User Research, Sam is utilising
the wealth of knowledge the team has to help
create and aid innovation pipelines for brands
by starting with the consumer. By giving both
the clients and the designers an engaging and
compelling insight into the world of the user,
he hopes that future designs will very much
be better for people.
Email: sam.crompton@seymourpowell.com
SEYMOURPOWELL
Seymourpowell Ltd,
327 Lillie Road, London
SW6 7NR
UK
Tel: +44 (0)207 381 6433
Email: erin.smith@seymourpowell.com
blog.seymourpowell.com
twitter.com/seymourpowell
facebook.com/seymourpowell

Wearable Technology - Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (18)

Similaire à Wearable Technology - Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing

Similaire à Wearable Technology - Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing (12)

Plus de Seymourpowell

Plus de Seymourpowell (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Wearable Technology - Learning, Connecting, Monitoring and Posing