Wearable tech is all the rage. Almost every other day, new gadgets that can be strapped on, attached or worn seem to hit the headlines. Smartwatches, smartglasses, fitness trackers and augmented reality headsets are just a few of the most well known, but there are many more.

All these devices have something in common – they seem to be aimed at consumers, either fitness freaks or gamers and geeks, or those with more money than sense. It seems that few, if any of these gadgets really have any practical use beyond gathering health data or making our lives slightly more convenient by being able to check our emails without reaching for our phones.

All well and good, but what about productivity? Analysts are falling over themselves to trumpet wearable tech’s enterprise prospects. Research firm Forrester predicts that “By 2020, wearable technology will be common within many organizations — and in the following four years, through 2024, wearables will become instrumental to how many employees do their jobs”, while VisionGain says the wearable market is already worth $5.24 billion this year.

Some even go as far to say that the enterprise will be responsible for driving wearable techs’ adoption elsewhere. A GigaOM report states that “the enterprise environment will play an important role in the growth of wearable computing because of the hands-free nature of the work. In contexts such as hardware repair, maintenance of heavy infrastructure (e.g., nuclear reactors and sophisticated hardware) or outdoor construction, where real-time geographical information is required, wearables can be ideal.”

Maybe, but if that’s really the case why don’t we see wearables in the enterprise already? How often do you see people reading tests on their smartwatch? Rarely, I’d imagine, if at all. Even though the likes of Google, Samsung and (allegedly) Apple are all keen on pushing the idea of wearables, the technology is yet to go mainstream. On the contrary, a recent survey by Endeavour Partners suggests that most people who’ve tried using wearables have already given up on using them.

What’s holding back wearable tech?

One suggestion is that wearable technology is currently being held back by a design barrier that, unless addressed, will keep adoption at bay. Although it is still a relatively new idea, these design issues need to be resolved otherwise wearable technology could fail to realise its full potential and break into the mainstream.

“I tried on Google Glass at a party and not only did I look awful, I found myself checking my email on the dance floor. It did not enhance my experience,” said Lindsay Nuttall, chief digital officer, BBH London, in an interview with The Drum. “Fashion is at it’s most fun when someone gives you a spontaneous compliment for rocking your look that day. I want an outfit that is ‘likeable’ – basically collecting digital compliments so I know which days I have nailed it. I would also like a key staple that could change through seasons and with my mood. Until we get into that territory, it’s not really doing it for me.”

Aesthetics are one thing. Practicality is another, and its notable that we’ve yet to see a device that could be truly useful in an enterprise environment. “The wearables that are very successful are the ones that are designed to solve a very specific problem for someone that a smartphone isn’t doing,” noted Endeavour Partner’s Dan Ledger in the above survey.

Let’s take smartwatches as an example. These combine the use case of two devices we already have – a phone and a watch. But to date, all the smartwatches we’ve seen are dependent on smartphones, and their functionality is less. Take away the smartphone and your smartwatch becomes as useful as a fitness tracker like Fitbit. But the smartwatch has a less attractive design, its larger, and less comfortable – which is why hardly anyone has one.

Another problem with wearables is the people who actually wear them. One of the supposed advantages of strap-on gadgets is they leave our hands free to perform other tasks, but are humans really capable of multi-tasking?

Don Norman, a cognitive science professor at UC San Diego, an Apple vice president and an IDEO Fellow, argues that we’re not. “Without the right approach, the continual distraction of multiple tasks exerts a toll that disrupts performance. It takes time to switch tasks, to get back what attention theorists call situation awareness. Interruptions disrupt performance, and even a voluntary switching of attention from one task to another is an interruption of the task being left behind.”

“Can wearable devices be helpful? Absolutely. But they can also be horrid. It all depends upon whether we use them to focus and augment our activities or to distract. It is up to us, and up to those who create these new wearable wonders to decide which it is to be,” says Norman.

Waiting for that iPhone moment…

Proponents of wearables are waiting for an “iPhone moment”, where a gadget becomes utterly indispensable to anyone who tries it out. If and when that moment arises it would surely be a turning point for wearables, convincing consumers they just have to strap sensors and computers to their skin at all costs.

But will that moment arise? It’s hard to say, but the smartphone evolved out of an existing device that was already indispensable to most of us – the telephone. As for wearable tech, its most recognizable and popular form factor is watches, glasses and bracelets. These are not indispensable items because not everyone chooses to wear them. In other words, there’s little incentive to start doing so unless we reach a perfect balance between style, functionality and cost.

The Bank of America and USA Today recently carried out a study which showed that almost half of all Americans couldn’t go a single day without using their smartphones, and 3 out of 10 people would go back to get it if they left it at home.

Would anyone say the same if they forgot their smartwatch or their Fitbit? Unless we have that iPhone moment, most probably wouldn’t bother.

photo credits: Keoni Cabral via photopin cc; Thomas Hawk via photopin cc; ルーク.チャン.チャン via photopin cc