Tips for keeping a work journal as a designer

It wasn't long into my professional life that I started keeping a work journal. A technical designer or even a pattern maker will potentially have to be responsible to a lot of different people. Most apparel companies these days are small businesses and frequently family-owned small businesses. It is difficult to find a job as a technical designer/pattern maker with an established successful business, but I managed to do it two times. My client work is limited, but there are similar difficulties in keeping track of your work.

Keeping a work journal as an employee

As an employee I had to respond to all kinds of situations. A technical designer communicates with individuals at all levels of product development and manufacturing. This would include fabric sourcing, testing, fitting, pattern making, grading, cost analysis, returns, and even customer service. The boss could change from project to project. In my experience at family-owned businesses, various family members would be responsible for certain areas and would sometimes be in charge of a particular project. The shifting responsible could sometimes land on you if one department or individual disagrees with a particular decision.

In order to protect myself, I started keeping a work journal. It was pretty basic and bare bones. I usually used an inexpensive spiral bound notebook that I would pick up at the back to school sales. Though, you could go as fancy as you choose. These are the usual details I would record:

1. Date
2. Project/Style name
3. Description of work completed that day
4. Time spent on the project

But sometimes I would record requests for changes:

1. Date
2. Project/Style Name
3. Description of work completed and WHO REQUESTED IT
4. Time spent on the project

Sometimes the requested work was a change in a pattern. Sometimes I questioned the validity of the request. But, I wasn't the boss. I could advise or recommend something different, but ultimately it was not my final responsibility so long as I could prove who made the request and when.

Sometimes I had design meetings or phone meetings. I recorded:

1. Date
2. Topics discussed
3. Assignments and deadlines
4. The person who gave the assignment.

A typical entry would read:

January 5, 2018
Style: 1234
Completed first pattern draft. Double checked grade. Sent style to have first sample cut and sewn.

Style 2234
Boss requested this style have a 1 inch hem instead of 3/4 inch. Made adjustment and double checked grade. Sent style to have new sample sewn in intended fabric for style.

My work journal saved me a few times. I would have the company owner or project boss come back and ask about something. I could look back in my journal and tell them exactly what happened. There were a few times I would have multiple people tell me to do one thing and then completely reverse and do the opposite. Believe me, you will not regret keeping a work journal!

Keeping a journal for client work

My journal entries for client work is not much different. I would include, of course, the name of the client and a description of the project. Another important thing to keep track of is the time spent on the project. Keeping track of time will let you know if you are being fairly compensated and whether you need to make adjustments in billing. Eventually these notes would be moved to a file that would include any pictures, correspondence, and invoices.

1. Date
2. Client name
3. Project/Style Description
4. Work completed
5. Time spent
6. Any other relevant correspondence.

Understanding pattern grading for children's clothing

I'm catching up with some questions and comments. It's been a while since I've answered a grading question.

My brain is spinning with all the reading I've been doing on this subject. Can you please explain to me why I couldn't grade within my separate size ranges by grading, for example, 3-6 with one particular grade rule and then taking then changing my grade rule for the next section? Would this not be taking the difference growth rates and such into account? I feel like there's probably a reason that I haven't quite grasped yet. Thanks so much.

Grading women's clothing is different from grading children's clothing. Women's clothing is graded with either a 1 1/2" or 2" grade between the sizes. This grade rule refers to the change in circumference measurements between the sizes. There is a lot of criticism for this grade rule because it appears to not have a connection to actual body measurements. That assumption is not strictly true, but it is true this practice is a convenience for the industry. It is too difficult to mass produce clothing and create a custom fit for an individual woman. This grading convention has historically proven to fit the most women in the most efficient way.

Men's clothing has many more sizes. These sizes are given size names that correspond to actual body measurements such as waist, pant leg inseam, or neck and sleeve. The circumference difference is usually 1 inch but it may be 2 inches for larger sizes.

Children's clothing is different. Children grow exponentially from birth. Their growth makes it difficult to group children into size groups, but over 70 years ago a measurement study managed to give us enough measurement data to do just that. That measurement data shows that the change between children's sizes is not even. This is true regardless of how sizes are arranged or named. The circumference measurement difference may range between 1/2" to 1" or more. There are similar irregularities in length grades. Children's clothing brands interpret measurements in their own way, so you will see variation in the marketplace.

Speaking to this particular question. If you group your children's sizes so they are called 0-3M, 3-6M, 6-9M, etc., your grade rule will still vary between the sizes. But there will be no grade change between a 3M and a 6M in the size called 3-6M. When developing a grade rule for this kind of size system, I interpret the sizes like this:

0-3M = 3M
3-6M = 6M
6-9M = 9M

You can call your sizes whatever you choose, but for pattern making and grading you have to assign a meaning to that size. Interpreting sizes with a size label of 0-3M as a single size 3M is the easiest way to develop grade rules and it seems to work.

Knitting with Chronic Fatigue

I know it has been a while. Some of the recent comments here have even suggested this is a dead blog, like so many. It's true I have not posted in a while. My Chronic Fatigue flared up pretty bad in January and it continued through to about August. I've always self-diagnosed my fatigue as functional chronic fatigue. In other words I have always been able to work through the fatigue and just deal with it. This last time was different. I still worked, but I started to wonder if I really could continue working. Besides the fatigue, the brain fog was overwhelming. And then it was waking up each day stiff and sore as though I hadn't slept at all.

I have been dealing with fatigue for over 10 years. The fatigue has varied in intensity but rarely interfered with my ability to do what I wanted. I did get tired of being tired all the time though. Just over a year ago I felt like I hit a wall. I needed help because my fatigue was starting to interfere with my enjoyment in life. I won't go into all the details, but it was enough for me to start looking for an open-minded doctor. Thankfully, I found an integrative medicine doctor who believed me. That was key. She started me on a supplement routine and one prescribed medication. I started to feel good and my energy level came back. So good that I felt like picking up my knitting needles again. I was ready to knit something challenging.

I started these socks in August of 2017. I picked the Celtic Denim Sock pattern because I had always wanted to knit socks with cables. Many ravelers mentioned the socks were a bit small in circumference, so to add to the challenge, I adapted the pattern. I did a 72 stitch cast-on instead of 64, distributing the extra stitches into the pattern. I also added a 1x1 rib for about 1 inch at the cuff. It was too difficult to jump into the cables without having some kind of stabilizing rows where you didn't feel like your needles would fly off the stitches. The cables really slowed down my sock knitting until I got the hang of it. After finishing the leg on sock #1, it was actually pretty easy.

So, I started the socks in August. I was feeling so good that I started to reduce some of my supplements (big mistake!). In September we started on a major renovation project for our house. As these things go, there were problems every step of the way. My focus and attention was not on these socks, but I picked them up now and then and managed to finish the first sock by January. Our house project finally, sort of wrapped up in December, so in theory I should have been able dig in to sock #2 and finish this project up. Instead, my body collapsed from the stress of the renovation project and my fatigue was the worst it had ever been.

It took me 8 months to finish sock #2. The brain fog and fatigue really zapped my knitting mojo. I had to let go of a lot of things, which only added to my frustration. Thankfully, after a couple of appointments with my doctor over several months, she got me back on track with a new regimen. I can't say I'm 100% yet, but I'm doing much better.  These socks literally took a year of my life and represent a story of what it takes to deal with chronic fatigue.

So these are my tips of dealing with fatigue and knitting (or any other hobby, project, or life plan):

1. Don't give up!
2. Find a doctor that believes you. I highly recommend an integrative or functional medicine doctor.
3. Don't stop taking your meds, supplements included, without talking to your doctor first.
4. Work on a project gradually. A few rows at a time is great! Don't give up!
5. It's ok to let a project languish for a while.

This blog is not really a health blog. It started with my posts on pattern making and fashion design and then evolved to whatever project I was currently working on. I will probably be getting back to that in time. One problem came to my attention. My contact form was supposed to send me notifications but it wasn't working properly. I will be working through those questions and comments over the next few months as I write new posts. I will also provide updates on current projects as time (and energy) allows.

Patches and Pinwheels pt. 3

Three fourths of the blocks are finished. I've made some progress on the remaining 16-patch blocks but have a ways to go. It has been slow going now since I am taking the time to measure the piecing and blocks before starting the next one. I am fairly certain that my difficulty is from inaccurate cutting. Placing the ruler inconsistently can cause some pieces to be just a bit smaller or larger than other pieces. Bonnie Hunter loves piecing quilts with lots of small pieces. I'm curious as to how she really maintains accuracy. With as careful as I thought I was, I still ended up with difficulties. This is something that I will have to revisit as I go forward with other quilt projects.

Patches and pinwheels pt. 2

After fixing all of the 16-patch blocks, I assumed that I had all the blocks I needed for the top. But once I started laying out the blocks, I realized I only had half the number of blocks needed. I went back to the pattern. In Bonnie Hunter's free patterns, she does not necessarily give you piece or block counts. The free patterns are a bit more of a free-form tutorial style. In this pattern she tells you how she laid out her quilt and you have to do the math to figure out what that means. There are pluses and minuses to this approach. In my case, I just did the math wrong.

You can see how many 4-inch squares I was able to cut out of the upcycled shirts. A large or extra large shirt can yield quite a lot. I will definitely have left over squares for another project. I do take the time to square up my half-square triangle blocks because it does make it easier for matching the points in the final pinwheel blocks.

I made a visit to the local thrift store because I was out of white/light colored fabric. I managed to score some XXL white cotton dress shirts. I should have enough fabric to finish up these blocks!

There is some debate in the quilting community. Some people seem to think that fabric from clothing is not great for quilting. I tend disagree. Upcycling old clothes hearkens back to yesteryear when our grandmothers did not waste anything useable. Producing a quilt from otherwise useless clothing is the ultimate in recycling and economy.

A new quilt project : Patches and Pinwheels

I have been following Bonnie Hunter for a few years and I finally decided to try one of her quilt patterns. I selected Patches and Pinwheels, one of her free patterns at her website. I wanted to try one of her quilt patterns because I wanted a feel for how she designs her quilts. I admire Bonnie's ability to sit down at a machine and sew scraps together to create a quilt - though I suspect she uses eQuilter design software more than we know. On the surface, this method of using fabric scraps in ready to go sizes seemed very relaxing. I also want to migrate into designing my own quilts. I know I can, but I get stuck at the planning stages. I needed to loosen up in my expectations of color and fabric and just play.

The fabric for this quilt comes mostly from upcycled men's shirts, but I threw a few of mine in there as well. With my first attempt, I did not pay attention to the fiber content of the shirts and some of them were more polyester then cotton. I ended up not liking the fabric from those shirts, so they ended up in the garbage - minus their buttons. After that I primarily used only cotton shirts. I supplemented with some shirts from the thrift store which yielded a surprising amount of fabric and a few fat quarters from the fabric store.

My first few attempts at cutting apart a man's shirt to harvest the fabric took me much longer than I expected. There is this little bit of fear about potentially ruining an otherwise good shirt. An irrational fear because several of these shirts had worn collars and cuffs and were not suitable for donation. After cutting down several, I developed a system and they went pretty fast.

The cutting and sewing went pretty well until I was ready to square up my blocks. The pinwheel blocks are fine for the most part. The 16 patch blocks were not. Bonnie Hunter recommends checking the piecing periodically to ensure everything measures as it should. I did not check very often. I figure my machine was set properly after the first few blocks and away I went. Come to find out that most of my 16-patch blocks all measured 1/4-3/8" too small. If the sewing or cutting is off just a little bit on a few of those 2 inch squares, the problem is quickly multiplied across the entire block.

So yes, I am going back through the 16-patch block and redoing them. This is a good lesson on precise cutting and sewing and checking measurements.

Hawaiian quilt pt. 2 and where I am now

On January 1, 2016, I finished piecing the Hawaiian quilt, complete with borders. It was an all day sewing marathon while I watched a Justice Network marathon (one of the few antenna based channels that comes in clear). Next up is to figure out the backing and then quilting. I plan on having a local quilter do the quilting, which is why this is still sitting here. Overall I am very happy with how this came together and when I finish it, I will post more pictures.

The thing I learned from this project was precision sewing. That crucial 1/4" seam allowance. I've read about it in many quilting books and tutorials and thought that I understood it. And then I discovered that my blocks did not measure up or match corresponding blocks. It wasn't terrible, but it was enough to bother me. I took the time to carefully square up each block, which included trimming the blocks down about an 1/8" so they were all the same size. The blocks are rotated 90 degrees, so there was really no need for the seams to match on corresponding blocks. Next time, I will pay more attention and check measurements as I go.

So why the long blog absence? It was really quite simple. I started working as a pattern maker again. It was a bit of a surprise opportunity to go back. At the same time I was dealing with a severe bout of chronic fatigue. So between the two jobs and the chronic fatigue, I had nothing left. I've been feeling better recently, though every now and then I'm reminded this is something I will have to deal with for a long time. I have a lot to say about how doctors treated me and what it took for me to recover, somewhat. But that is for another day and another blog.

In the meantime, I do want to get back to blogging. I will probably focus on whatever projects I am currently working on rather than pattern making and design. I have finished a few projects over the last year and a half, so there is more to come.

Hawaiian quilt pt. 1

I started a quilt. The idea for this quilt has been floating around my head for a few years. I had some Hawaiian printed cottons left over from other projects and I wanted to use them in a modern style quilt. I have only three colors to work with, purple, green, and white. I had a hard time visualizing the overall look of the quilt, so I drew up a version using Inkscape*. I could have taken this a step further and scanned the fabric into the drawing, but this was close enough. I still have not decided on the final borders. It partially depends on how much of each color I have left after piecing the blocks. I'm fairly certain I will not be using green on the outside border. I may go for white instead with green bias binding.

Here are the actual fabrics, cut and ready to go.

 
The pattern came from Fat Quarter Fun by Karen Snyder and is called Summer Fun. I really liked this quilting book. Most of the patterns are simple, using primarily fat quarters for the tops. This particular quilt is a bit small, IMO, so I've added some additional blocks to bump it up to a full size. I'm also using yardage instead of fat quarters. Because of that, I think I should have cut and sewn things a little bit differently. More on that later. I'm excited to finally have started this project.

*Inkscape has some nifty drawing tools, including cloning. I did not use that feature here, but it would have been a perfect opportunity to use it.

Grading from body measurements pt. 3

This is part three of an ongoing discussion about N. A. Schofield's article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. Part one is here, part two here. I recommend reading the previous parts of this series before reading this one.

So what were the results of Schofield's experiment? I can't reproduce the actual results here, but it was something like this.

Imagine the square is a bodice pattern piece in one size. The star is supposed to be the same pattern piece but graded to the next size. Clearly, the two shapes have no proportional relationship to each other. The problem is further compounded by a different grade for corresponding pieces.

Imagine these are front and back bodice pattern pieces. Each corresponding pattern piece was graded separately based on the measurement data for that body location. Now imagine trying to sew the front and back together. It can't be done. Schofield freely admits the difficulty in the results. Though she also believes we need to learn how to deal with new shapes in pattern pieces in order to achieve superior fit.

Schofield's experiment left me with a lot of questions. I did not understand completely why she rejected the ASTM measurement data, nor why she went back to essentially raw data. Her grading methodology left me a bit confused. The results were clearly not suitable for industry application. Superior fit is the holy grail of fashion, but I'm not convinced that grading is the entire source of the problem. Superior fit, for each individual might only be achieved on an individual basis. In this case, 3D body scanning and customized clothing is the answer, but is it practical?

I would like to see this experiment repeated. The factors that will impact additional experiments are the measurement data and grading methodology. Why not use ASTM measurement data? Why not use traditional grading methods? I always support those who are willing to test ideas and theories. This was a worthy attempt by Schofield to ask important why and how questions.

Grading from body measurements pt. 2

This is part two of an ongoing discussion about N. A. Schofield's article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. Part one is here.

My initial reaction to the idea of grading from body measurements was, "Well, of course we should." And in fact, we do for children's clothing. It seemed rather obvious to me to look at children's clothing as a model. Children's sizing is based on the idea of growth, meaning that the measurement intervals between sizes are not always consistent.

Let's look at an example for a 4-6x size range.*

For sizes  4, 5, 6, 6x
Chest: 23, 24, 25, 25.5
Waist: 21.5, 22, 22.5, 23
Hip: 23.5, 24.5, 25.5, 26.5

The grade works out to be, choosing size 5 as the base size:
Chest: 1, 0, 1, 1.5
Waist: 0.5, 0, 0.5, 0.5
Hip: 1, 0, 1, 1

In this example, we have a 1" chest grade, except for size 6x which is 1.5". The waist is a 0.5" inch grade and the hip returns to a 1" grade for all sizes. Each body measurement area has it's own grade.

In women's clothing a 2" grade means that the interval change between the sizes will be 2" for chest, waist, and hips. Though even this isn't true across all brands, and you will find variations. (IMO, this is a good thing)

I don't know the history of women's sizing well enough to explain how this mode of practice came to be nor exactly why. It is clear that it does make grading, especially hand grading, much easier in practice. It is also unclear to me that grading is the source of our fitting woes. Nevertheless, it does make sense to me to go back and look at body measurements and devise a more precise grade rule.

The question then becomes, which body measurements do we use? In my children's example above, the numbers are still nice and easy to work with. The body measurements have been intentionally manipulated to be easy to work with. Raw measurement data was averaged, sorted, and studied to arrive at some numbers. Those numbers were not easy to work with, so a group of industry professionals sat down and made them that way. They modified certain measurements by about 1/8" to achieve consistency. Their modifications were rather minor and easily fall within a statistical margin of error. If you read their reasoning, it makes sense. This manipulation of measurement data for ease of use continues today in more modern measurement studies. It seems deceitful, but at the end of the day is infinitely practical. ASTM D4910 inherits this method of data handling from the measurement studies done in the 1940s, but does provide some updated measurements.

Looking at the Misses body measurement chart, ASTM D5585, it seems to be arranged and handled in the same way as the children's body measurement chart. IOW, the chart does not show a 1, 1.5, or 2 inch grade in the body measurements. It is a lot like the children's example above. There does seem to be a disconnect between measurement data and grading, at least on the surface. Individual companies will decide how to interpret and implement measurement data, and therefore their grade rules. (IMO, I think this is a good thing). And some will use a 2 inch grade, and some will not.

So what measurement data did Schofield use? She rejected the ASTM charts and created her own version of measurements derived from body measurement studies. This presented a problem because measurement studies do not always include the measurements needed for pattern making and grading. Schofield did not normalize the data, in other words make it easy to work with. Also she had to figure out how to deal with missing measurement data. I no longer have a copy of the article and can't look back, but Schofield selected certain measurements over others. How and why she handled those measurements puzzled me.

I believe Schofield's goal was to remove the idea of maintaining an ideal proportion or predictable pattern shape. She wanted to see what the body measurements really did between sizes.

Her results were almost predictable. More on that later.

*These measurements come from the withdrawn child measurement standard CS151-50. Measurements are in inches.

Grading from body measurements pt. 1

Pattern grading is the process by which new sizes are developed from an existing pattern. There are various methods or processes used to grade a pattern. These methods include slash-and-spread, shifting, and CAD. At the end of the day, each method accomplishes the same thing, a new size.

The apparel industry has received a lot of criticism for their sizing, especially of women's clothing. At it's core, sizing goes hand-in-hand with pattern grading. You have to define your sizes in order to grade a pattern. In order to grade a pattern you have to know body measurements for each size. The common grade rules for women's apparel is the 1", 1.5" and 2" grade rules used in the United States. Similar grade rules are found in Europe and the UK. The primary criticism is that these grade rules are not based on anthropometric data, or actual body measurements. Instead these grade rules are just pulled out of a hat without regard to women or their fitting needs. These arbitrary grade rules are merely for the convenience of industry.

This is the point of view taken by N. A. Schofield in her article Pattern Grading found in the Sizing in Clothing book. The goal of her research was to test the idea of creating grade rules based on actual body measurements rather than an arbitrary grade rule. There has been a lot of criticism of the industry over sizing and it is a worthy goal to research alternatives. Asking the why questions. Why does the apparel industry do things the way they do? Why do we grade women's clothing this way? Can we do it differently? I've asked a lot of these same questions as I've looked at children's clothing. When I started out, I didn't understand the why and sometimes the answer was not satisfying. I can totally get behind Schofield's motivation to try and find an answer.

And yet, I feel like I am setting up to be very critical of Schofield's research and I don't want to give the impression, as an industry professional, that even asking the questions were wrong. She was right to ask the question and to test an alternative. The results of her research are interesting and ironically (and indirectly) add support to current practices.

So here are some of Schofield's main arguments:

1. 1", 1.5", and 2" grade rules are not based on anthropometric data. Meaning it is not based on body measurements or the proportional relationships between body parts/areas. These grade rules were intended for the convenience and ease of hand grading.

2. Grade rules should be derived from body measurements. This means that grade breaks between bust, waist, and hips should not be consistent. Instead of a 34-36-38 chest measurement, we should be seeing a 34-35.5-38 (just as an example), chest measurement.

3. Size prediction and also body measurement prediction needs refinement. This idea is rather complex. Body measurement studies create a lot of raw data. In order to make sense of it, statisticians will test size prediction by using one or two body measurements. So can you predict the overall body size by using just the height or chest measurement? And if you do that, what influence does that have on other body measurements? If a person gets taller, do they also get wider? It is a complex question and not easily answered because there are so many variables. Statisticians bring order to raw measurement data so that we can organize the body measurements into sizes. They do this by averaging and, in some cases, normalizing the data so we can work with it easily. Schofield implies that we should just rely on the raw measurement data.

The ultimate goal of this study was to improve overall fit of women's apparel by basing grade rules on actual body measurements. I'll have to break up my review of this study into multiple blog entries because I have a lot to say about it. So stay tuned.

Production Systems, Sizing, and Quality Control

Having worked in the apparel industry for a while now, I sometimes have to take a step back to see how much goes into the design, production and selling of just one item. The goal is to work out all of the bugs before an item goes into production. Still, things can and do go wrong and those things can affect the size of an item. Where can things go wrong?

1. Pattern making and grading

A poor pattern or poor grading certainly affects the size. Inadequate seam allowances, missing notches. There are a lot of little things that can go wrong, though if you read the rest of the list, you can see there are a lot of other areas that can cause problems.

2. Marking

Marking is the process of laying pieces out in preparation for cutting. Many markers are now made by computer, some automatically. There are various setting that allow the marker maker to bump pieces closer together, tilt, or rotate pieces. Each of these options can affect the final outcome, so they must be used rarely.

3. Spreading

Spreading is the process of laying fabric on a cutting table in layers. Certain fabrics stretch during this process and need a certain amount of time to relax. If the style is cut without the fabric being allowed to relax, then the pieces will relax after being cut and the item will end up too small. Layers can also shift and move.

4. Cutting

Accurate cutting is the only way to ensure the item ends up as intended.

5. Sewing

Taking too big or too small of a seam allowance affects a size. Seam allowances should allow a cut off allowance because nearly all operators trim off a little bit.

6. Finishing

Finishing includes steaming or ironing. Too hot a temperature can shrink an item.

These problems can be minimized by implementing systems and policies during each phase of development and production. One company I worked for had a quality audit system that checked each step of production. Anything that had finally made it to production had been perfected, for the most part. There was that one style that shared patterns with another style. A problem came up in production where the obvious solution was to make a new pattern for the new fabric, but that never happened. Production just had to deal with it. But those situations are rare.

In any event, systems (procedures/policies) have to be implemented for development, production, and finishing to catch problems before the item is shipped to the customer..

This blog entry was inspired by the article Production systems, garment specifications, and sizing by S. P. Ashdown, L. M. Lyman-Clark, J. Smith, and S. Loker in the book Sizing in Clothing.

A t-shirt refashion maybe

I picked up this t-shirt on clearance at Wal-mart. The embroidery caught my attention and at only $5 it was worth taking a chance. The style is meant to be loose, so the t-shirt itself is boxy. There is a drawstring casing at the high hip level to cinch it in. I did get compliments when wearing this, but it was not comfortable. The fit was just too sloppy for my tastes.

So I pulled out my TNT t-shirt pattern that I made a few years ago. My initial thought was to just cut down the shirt to match the fit of my pattern. Essentially using the t-shirt as a fabric rather than a shirt.

There are a few problems that stopped me. First is the casing. I debated on cutting out the casing and just having a band on the bottom hem but I was concerned the seam would be in a weird place. The next problem was the sleeve. There really isn't enough fabric to recut the sleeve.

Looking now at the picture, I wonder if I should take in the sides and call it good? What do you think?

Communicating size and fit through size labels and charts

The primary way most clothing brands communicate size information is through a size label. This works in most retail settings. Online (and print catalog) clothes shopping adds the benefit of including an easy to use, sometimes interactive size chart. Additional instructions on how to measure yourself is also helpful.

A pictogram showing body
dimensions for a specific size.

None of these solutions are completely fool proof. First, the manufacturer interprets and adapts measurement data to meet the needs of their identified customer. This means they have created and implemented a size system in anticipation of what their customer wants. But a customer may want something to be closer/looser fitting, and shorter/longer lengths than the manufacturer. How does one balance size and fit for a diverse population with ever shifting expectations?

The current trend among new fashion companies is to design for a very narrow customer profile. By targeting a very specific customer, the manufacturers can optimize the fit of their brand to their customer. Larger big box brands have to fit a wide range of body shapes and sizes and their clothes will never fit as well as a more exclusive brand. In some cases a manufacturer will modify their sizes for an existing size system, so that they change what a size means for their target market. In other words, a size 8 for one brand will mean something entirely different for another. This is why there is so much variation in the marketplace between brands.

On the surface this sounds like vanity sizing run amok. If manufacturers change the underlying sizes to fit their version of a size, then surely they are deceiving us into believing we are a smaller size than we truly are. Truth in advertising and all that, right?

The problem with only one size standard across brands is that it does not allow for variation. Women in particular have a large variety of body shapes and sizes. Because manufacturers are free to adapt to meet the needs of their customers having multiple versions of a size will allow people to find the version that fits them best. Once they do, and if the styling is right, they will become loyal customers.

The problem comes back to how to communicate that to the customer. As I said at top, providing more information helps the customer to make a more informed choice. And that is the true challenge.

*This blog entry is part of my on going review of Sizing in Clothing, and is a discussion inspired by the article, Communication of sizing and fit by J. Chun. This article goes into a little more depth about how sizes have evolved and what they might mean.

Size standardization for clothing

In academic circles there is the idea that we need one measurement and sizing standard to solve all our fitting problems. A top down approach with no allowance for variation. Customers often complain that manufacturers have no idea what they are doing because nothing ever fits. Manufacturers face an enormous challenge in trying to interpret size specifications while at the same time meeting the needs of their customers. The more I read about sizing the more chaotic it seems. At the end of the day there is more than one way to look at size standardization, and I think only one battle to fight.

One standard to rule them all

Yes, the idea that one standard can be established for everyone. By forcing compliance we will have peace on earth, and yes, our clothes will fit! Considering the variety of shapes and sizes in the United States alone, the idea is really a fantasy.

• One standard guarantees that some of the population will not have any clothes that fit. One could argue this situation exists today, so why not try one standard. With no allowance to adapt to fit the wide range of shapes and sizes, then outliers will never have clothes that fit.
• Our population is constantly changing. The most recent sizing study revealed that we are taller and weigh more than we did in the past. One standard would quickly become outdated.
• Sizing studies are very expensive and labor intensive. Studies are not done frequently, so manufacturers will always be behind what is happening in the real world.

Loosely conforming to a standard while yet adapting to meet a customer's need.

Even if one standard to rule them all is unrealistic, we still need a standard. ASTM and the latest Sizing USA study have provided us with a standard that any manufacturer can use (for a price, of course). These measurement and sizing specs can act as a guide, a place to start. As a manufacturer develops their customer profile, they can adapt these standards to meet the needs of their customer.

Over the years, it's important to compare your product against these standards. I've seen patterns and sizing drift from these standards naturally through errors. These errors are not intentional, they just happen and can easily pass from one style to the next. So a careful study and comparison can bring things back. This includes measuring fit models and comparing them against the standard and analyzing customer returns due to fit issues. 

In-house size standardization

Once a sizing standard is established for a brand, it is important to adhere to that standard during product development. As an example, all new pants styles have the same finished length and waist sizes as specified. Variations in fit can come from multiple sources due to fabric variations (or problems), construction issues (taking too big/small a seam allowance, cutting errors), or variations in a pattern. You have to be careful not to draft a pattern from scratch every time. Pattern makers in the industry will use the patterns from an already proven style to develop the new style. This practice ensures consistent fit across styles. A quality control process through each step of development and production is necessary to find problems before they become big ones.

A few words on vanity sizing

Vanity sizing implies that a manufacturer wilfully chooses to ignore a size standard and relabel a size smaller than it actually is. I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy to do this intentionally. Instead I think manufacturers are trying to meet the needs of their customers while trying to conform to a standard.

*This blog entry was inspired from my reading in the book Sizing in Clothing and more specifically the article Sizing Standardization by K. L. LaBat. I made very few notes on this article and don't remember much of what I read. I did make a note that LaBat tried to prove the existence of vanity sizing by studying children's age-based sizing. I thought the argument was rather weak.

Bullet journal follow-up

On December 1st I started bullet journaling. I started with this pocket size journal because this is what I had on hand. I like the size because it does fit in my purse, but it is almost too small. I feel cramped when writing in the journal. I have acquired two new hardcover journals in just a bit larger size, so perhaps a follow-up is in order when I transition over. In the meantime, I'll use up this one.

I made the mistake of not leaving enough space for my index. I probably should have left 2-3 pages in the front of the journal for the index. Others have mentioned that it is hard to do forward planning in a bullet journal. It can be. I will often write the date for a future event in my daily task list as a note. As I review the past month when setting up the next, that note carries forward or is placed on the new month's calendar. Others have figured out ways of creating a spread with monthly calendars, but this journal is too small for that. Another difficulty is finding the monthly calendars. You can look at the index, but a long index takes time to look through. So I jumped on the bandwagon and purchased some washi tape. Just a little bit of washi tape on the edge of the paper for the month spread makes it easy to find it again. This one roll of tape should last a really long time. I found some inexpensive rolls at Walmart, but Amazon has some pretty tapes too (below).

I've learned that a really good pen makes a big difference. I'm loving the Pilot G-2 pens. They write super smooth and have nice dark ink. I never realized how much harder regular ballpoint pens were to use. They require more pressure to write and the ink is just not that dark. The pens do last a long time but I find that I can never find one when I need it. You'll want several to stash all over the house.

I spend a little time at the beginning and end of each day to write and review my many tasks. I am using this journal to keep track of tasks for my two part-time jobs, my small business, and personal tasks. I imagine if one of my jobs became much more involved, I would add a separate journal. For now I only have one journal to keep track of.

This style of journal is great because I really do use it as a mini-brain dump. Any sticky notes that get handed to me are immediately copied into my journal so I don't lose the information. Who hasn't lost a sticky note that became unstuck and floated away? Ideas that float around in my head are written down. I don't have to exert energy in the effort to try and remember something.

I'm staying more on task. Tasks are carried forward until done or until they become irrelevant. That "to-read" list has finally been collected and I'll know what books to get next. That project that I've wanted to start, now has a place to go. It really has helped reduce my stress. If you haven't tried bullet journaling, give it a look. It may work for you too.

The Myrtle Cardigan Finished!

I started this knitting project April 2013 and I finally finished it December 2014, about a week before Christmas. I would work on the sweater in the evenings in front of mindless television. I could only manage about 2 rows per evening before I had to set it down. Towards the end I was finally comfortable enough with the lace pattern that I could pick up some speed.

I did modify the pattern for me. I lengthened the body of the sweater by two repeats and raised the neckline by two repeats. The sleeves have lace down the center of the sleeve and stockinette for the rest. The sleeve mod was a good choice because I couldn't figure out the pattern instructions for an allover lace pattern. I think it looks just fine with the stockinette. There is still some remaining funkiness on the sleeve cap decreases, but I made it work. I was a little concerned the sweater would be too small, but it blocked out to the right size just fine.

A lot of the reviewers on Ravelry rated this pattern with medium difficulty. I rated it as difficult, just below advanced. This is because the knitter has to really pay attention to the pattern instructions, which are not typical. Some knitters have complained about that. I think for a lace design, it would be difficult to design a pattern that works in multiple sizes. The designer came up with a really interesting approach by using blocks of lace and building the size. I'm not sure every size works equally well. For example, the lace pattern for the sleeve as written in the medium size just didn't work for me. I'm not sure if it was me or not, but it was not clear. Overall the pattern needed some refinement and further editing. For experienced knitters this is a minor problem. For beginners, or advanced beginners, this pattern would be difficult. I'm so grateful for the helpful hints by other knitters posted on Ravelry. I spent quit a lot of time looking at other people's projects so I could see what other people experienced. I was able to mark several projects as helpful, and refer back to them.

Specs
Yarn: Knit Picks Stroll in Sapphire Heather
Needle size: US 5 and US 6

Creating sizing systems for clothing

This is a continuation of my review of Sizing in Clothing. The previous blog entries are History of Sizing, and the Book Review.

By Downtowngal (Own work)
[CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

What does it take to create a sizing system? We often taken for granted a size chart on a retail website or print catalog. And when something doesn't fit, it's easy to blame the size system used by the manufacturer. And we've all been there. Shopping for blue jeans or a swimsuit causes a lot of anxiety and stress as we go through more than one size to find something that fits. A. Petrova discussed all of the variables that go into making those size charts that help you select the right size in the article Creating Sizing Systems found in the Sizing in Clothing book.

So what does it take? The first big step is to measure a population and then to divide that population into various body shapes such as Misses, Petites, Tall, Plus, etc. Each category is defined by certain control dimensions such as height, weight, waist, chest, hips, or whatever is considered the key dimensions. Usually there are 3-4 key body measurements. These kind of measurement studies are expensive and are usually undertaken by government, universities, and trade organizations.

Next, each category is subdivided into sizes contained within a size range. Each category is labelled a size designation. It could be Small-Medium-Large, or numbers such as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. These size labels are meaningless until associated with a set of body measurements. (We could get into a discussion of vanity sizing here but it really doesn't matter what you call a size. It's the underlying body measurements that are key). In the US, we are accustomed to knowing what size to start with when shopping without knowing our body measurements. In the EU, there are similar difficulties though there has been some push to adopt the centilong system. This system identifies a size by height with some corresponding girth measurements. Not all European manufacturers have done this and some are as inconsistent in application as their American counterparts.

A. Petrova continues the article with some ideas on how to develop size systems or charts based on garment styles versus just body measurements. The biggest disadvantage to this idea is that the customer would need to know several size scales when shopping, making shopping a complicated experience. The advantage is that fit could be fine tuned, maybe.

So who is to blame when clothes don't fit? Is it the size chart? Maybe, maybe not. There are so many variables that it is hard to select just one reason. The fit model used in pattern development may match the size chart, but not be representative of the consumer. In other words there could be a mismatch between expectations and reality between the manufacturer and the customer. Grade rules may not match or equal actual body grades - which is a discussion for another article. Perhaps the size chart information was incomplete, lacked sufficient instruction, or had a typo. Poor construction or poor fabric quality play a factor. When analyzing sales information and returns, all of these things have to be considered.

Relying on old body measurements and pattern drafting instructions

There is a certain bit of nostalgia when looking back in time. We often say, "They don't build things like they used to," implying that we paid closer attention to quality and details. This same kind of thinking is also found in pattern making and sewing. There is a general assumption that the way things were done in the past are better then they are now. Some pull out old measurement charts and drafting instructions to recreate the past for a better present. We don't even have to go very far. There is the hope of a stylish outfit made of a 1950's sewing pattern and thinking that it will fit.

Before I go any further, let me say there is nothing wrong with looking backward and trying to understand how things were done. It is a fun exercise to draft a pattern using old instructions or sewing up that vintage pattern. This is about using old body measurement data and pattern drafting instructions to create modern clothing.

There are some key factors that make up a size - height, weight, girth, and shape. I suppose in the 1890s pattern makers and tailors were just beginning to understand the relationships between each of those factors. At least for men's clothing. Women's clothing was still a guessing game requiring customized fit. It wasn't until the 1940s that we began to see the connection to height, weight, and girth. Statistical analysis could finally show that when one factor changes, the others do as well. The studies done by Ruth O'Brien and her committee allowed us to see and understand body proportions and shapes and use that information to predict overall size. This information was not truly implemented until the 1950s and 1960s. Other studies have come along to add to our knowledge. A study in the early 1970s expanded our knowledge of children's body measurements. Another study, SizeUSA, was released in 2004 and greatly enhanced our knowledge of the US population using 3D body scanners.*

If you draft a pattern using older drafting instructions and body measurement charts, you will create something that is based on that time's understanding of body proportions and measurements. If that is your goal, then all is well and good. But if you find a free measurement chart dating back even 50 years, then you are placing your product in the 1950s.

We know this because not only has our understanding of anthropometry increased, but we know that the body measurements of a population change over time. If you are interested in creating your own line, it is in your best interest to obtain the most recent (and reliable) measurement data you can.



*Unfortunately the SizeUSA data is held behind a very expensive lock and key. Access is only available to those willing to pay a pretty hefty sum despite the study receiving tax dollars. Some ASTM body measurement charts have been updated to incorporate the study data. The ASTM children's body measurement chart is a mash-up of data that incorporates multiple studies dating back to Ruth O'Brien's 1941 study and some more modern data.

What size is your pixel? Precision drawing in Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator

Last September I began to follow a discussion on pixels in the Inkscape Developer's mailing list. The concern was centered around units and how they are used in Inkscape. In the early days of graphical drawing it was assumed the user would want to see their drawing full scale. In other words if you drew a box that was 1 inch square, you would want to see that displayed on the screen. In order for that to happen, a definition had to be created to tell the computer how many pixels were equivalent to one inch.

In digital imaging, a pixel, pel,^[1] or picture element^[2] is a physical point in a raster image, or the smallest addressable element in an all points addressable display device; so it is the smallest controllable element of a picture represented on the screen. The address of a pixel corresponds to its physical coordinates. LCD pixels are manufactured in a two-dimensional grid, and are often represented using dots or squares, but CRT pixels correspond to their timing mechanisms and sweep rates.  (Wikipedia)

Over the years pixel sizes, and screen resolutions, have changed. We have far superior displays on our desktops then those early developers did. We can fit more pixels into that one inch than was ever thought possible. The whole discussion about pixel sizes and resolutions, gets rather complicated. Generally speaking, what a user sees on screen is what they want to get in print. How to achieve that is rather difficult.

Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator are vector drawing programs. This means that drawing lines and objects are stored on the computer as mathematical equations. Vector drawing programs are known for their precision, accuracy, and scalability. Programs like Gimp and Photoshop are raster-based drawing programs, programs that allow you to manipulate individual pixels. You cannot scale images up, only down, because the computer cannot fill in the holes. Lines are fuzzy because they are built of individual pixels. Both pieces of software have their advantages for different uses. The differences have begun to blur in the last few years. Inkscape and AI can now do things that were exclusively in the domain of Photoshop, and yet store the drawing as a vector drawing. Of course, Inkscape and AI are used in an environment in which the vector drawing is displayed via Pixels.


There is one reason to bring this topic up, as complex and boring as it may be. There is an increasing trend among indie pattern makers in the use of Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator for pattern making. In fact, you can take classes on the subject from various sources. These software programs do work - to a point. I've noticed with Inkscape a tendency for a certain fuzziness. I've created precise drawings where I've entered the dimensions and printed them. The measurements of the printed drawing were always a little off. Inkscape is not entirely at fault, though the developers have worked on improving this in the up coming release. There are a lot of variables that we have to contend with. Your display, drawing, and printer all play a factor in the accuracy of the measurements used.

The best way to test your current setup is to draw a square in your program, such as 1 inch x 1 inch. Print it out and measure it. Be sure to look at the print quality and width of your lines. Are the lines cleanly and clearly defined? Does your square measure as expected? Do you have to measure to the outside or inside of the line to achieve the desired measurement?

I took some time to test Inkscape with my current display and printer. First, I'll show you the printed results.

The print out is pretty good. I drew a 2 inch square and it printed out as a 2 inch square. BTW, this was a square with a 1px stroke and no fill. You would think with these results, there would be no problem.

But next, I measured what I saw on the screen. The 2 inch square actually measures 1.875" x 1.875".  If this were an actual pattern piece, an 1/8" can make a difference, especially in grading. This kind of error would become magnified with each grade step. Also, the placement of critical components such as pockets, drill holes, buttonholes, seam allowances, darts, and notches could all be off by just a little bit. This is part of the problem that the Inkscape developers were concerned about.

And here is where the fuzzy math comes in.

I drew a square and entered in the exact dimensions for width and height of 2.000. Clicking off the square and then reselecting it shows that the square now measures 2.011 x 2.011 inches. Not a big deal if creating a drawing for the web or a poster. But it is a big deal when creating a precise drawing. As a user, until I print something out, I have no idea if the drawing will measure as expected. If I make adjustments, I have to take into account what I see on the screen and what Inkscape reports back to me. Fuzzy, much?

I don't know if this is a bug specific to Inkscape (0.48) or my hardware. I also don't know if this will be true in the next release (0.91). I don't know how Adobe Illustrator tests out. I do know that Inkscape and AI are not the greatest tools for pattern making and grading.

Perhaps you are thinking this is much to do about nothing. If it mostly works, then why worry about it? Specialized apparel CAD systems are optimized to not only create high precision drawings, but to do it efficiently. Sure Inkscape and AI have their place, maybe they will work for you. But if you really want to get to the next level, you need the right tools.