Spotlight Archives - Page 3 of 10

A Q&A with Hong Kim, Designer of Frame Runners for the 2028 Paralympics

Spotlight articles shine a light on designers, engineers and researchers we admire, asking leaders in the field about their work and their creative journey. This month, our theme is Inclusivity in Design, and we are looking at how products, systems and experiences can expand who gets to participate, and on whose terms.

Hong Kim, Frame Runner Designer for the 2028 LA Paralympics

Frame Running will make its Paralympic debut as a medal event at the 2028 Los Angeles Games, marking a major milestone for a sport that has transformed access to running for people with cerebral palsy. Originally developed in Denmark in 1991 as “RaceRunning,” the three-wheeled running frame quickly spread throughout Northern Europe through CPISRA. In 2019, World Para Athletics officially recognized it as a track discipline, assigning sport classes T71 and T72 and later renaming it Frame Running. In 2023, the rehabilitation organization Good Playground introduced the sport to South Korea by designing and distributing domestically produced running frames, helping train a new generation of athletes for the road to LA.

To explore this space, we spoke with Hong Kim, a New York based multidisciplinary designer and 3D specialist who now leads Frame Runner development for Good Playground. Drawing on years of serious cycling, architectural visualization and medical simulation, Hong approaches the Frame Runner not as a medical aid but as a high performance sports machine and a tool for freedom, dignity and joy.

In this conversation, we discuss engineering for extreme forces, the realities of co-designing with athletes and clinicians, and how elite sports can reshape everyday mobility design for children and seniors.

CAD rendering of a Frame Runner design shown from the side and front, illustrating how an athlete's body positions within the three-wheeled frame, with a chest support, handlebars, and two rear wheels. — A CAD rendering of Hong Kim’s Frame Runner design, showing the athlete’s positioning within the frame from the side and front.

Q:

Can you tell us a little about your journey and how you came to work with the Korean Paralympic team for the 2028 Games?

A:

I am a New York based multidisciplinary designer and 3D specialist. After graduating from Parsons with an MFA, I worked across many different fields, including medical simulation, LEGO game development, 3D fabrication and architectural lighting simulation.

Outside of work, I have been a long time rider and leader with the New York Cycling Club. That experience gave me a very deep, hands-on understanding of how bicycles work, including mechanics, geometry and engineering across different riding styles.

Those two tracks came together in RH1, a carbon scooter concept I developed with an architect colleague. We approached it with total production rigor, and the combination of high-fidelity visualization and 3D-printed prototypes proved that engineering-backed design can bridge the gap between concept and reality.

Eventually, all of this connected. My diverse design background, together with my cycling knowledge, matched what Good Playground needed. That is how I became the design and project lead for a custom Frame Runner program ahead of the 2028 Paralympics, working for a broader international market rather than the Korean team alone.

Q:

A competition mobility device becomes an extension of the athlete’s body. How does that shape your approach to design?

A:

There’s not much existing reference for this kind of device, so a lot of what I do, I have to invent. My starting point is always stability. That’s why I lean on triangular structures, they give the most confidence for a rider to actually push their physical limits. If they don’t feel safe, they won’t try.

From there, I bring in aerodynamics and performance, but always on top of that stable base. I don’t design it as medical equipment. I’m designing a sports machine, something an athlete is proud to use, visually and emotionally.

Q:

Every athlete moves differently. What are the biggest biomechanical differences you consider when designing a Frame Runner?

A:

Sizing, small, medium, large, is just the starting point. The real complexity is in how each athlete transfers energy into the machine. Some push almost entirely through the chest support; others generate strong lateral force through rapid arm strokes. I was genuinely surprised watching some athletes push hard enough that the metal connection between the frame and body actually tore.

So the real challenge isn’t just making parts adjustable, it’s making sure every joint and connection point where force concentrates can survive that load, so 100% of the athlete’s effort transfers directly into forward motion instead of getting lost in flex or wobble.

Pull quote from Hong Kim reading, your strongest tools are your ideas and your curiosity.

Q:

Can you share a moment when working with an athlete completely changed the way you thought about design?

Three athletes competing in Frame Running on a track, each pushing a three-wheeled frame with helmets on, racing side by side. — Athletes competing in Frame Running.

A:

Watching that chest support tear under real force was one. Another was an athlete whose leg kept rubbing against the frame during training, something no CAD model would ever show you. Those issues only appear when a real person, with a specific body and movement pattern, uses the device.

Working with a company founded by a physician was critical here, I had direct access to feedback from doctors and physical therapists, and could translate that immediately into structural changes. It taught me that this work isn’t about a beautiful static rendering. It’s about managing force, friction and human limits in their most extreme form, and that’s genuinely humbling.

Q:

How much of a competition Frame Runner is customized for each athlete, and what stays standardized?

A:

We use a hybrid model, custom frame geometry combined with standardized bicycle components. The main frame is tailored to the athlete’s height and proportions, built around small, medium and large, with extra-small or extra-large available when needed.

For everything else, we rely on off-the-shelf bike parts wherever possible, handlebars, stems, saddles, seatposts, and wheels in 650c or 700c sizes, along with specific wheel-tilt angles for stability. That keeps things serviceable using familiar bicycle infrastructure, rather than requiring a lab or factory every time something needs adjusting.

Pull quote from Hong Kim reading, mobility design isn't just about mechanical speed, it's about freedom, dignity and identity.

Q:

How would you describe Good Playground‘s overall design philosophy for the Frame Runner program?

A:

Good Playground’s logo integration and graphic concept

It comes down to two things: engineering simplicity and total visual branding. On the engineering side, we’re minimizing part counts and optimizing structure for real manufacturing, true 3D engineering grounded in structural reality, not surface styling. On the design side, we’re building one unified visual language across every touchpoint, frame geometry, uniforms, footwear, helmets…so the whole program reads as a single high-performance sports identity, even within a tight budget.

Before scaling up, we field-tested 100 first-generation stainless steel units with young athletes, so these decisions came from real feedback, not assumptions.

Q:

Has designing competition mobility devices changed the way you think about products for everyone, not just athletes?

A:

Definitely. My long-term interest is everyday life, seniors, children, anyone who needs mobility support. I want to shift medical devices away from a cold, clinical aesthetic into something closer to lifestyle or sports gear. The emotional experience matters as much as the mechanical one.

Looking ahead, I hope to initiate projects like a “My First Wheelchair” concept, a lightweight indoor wheelchair designed for young children encountering mobility devices for the first time. My goal is for it to feel more like playing with building blocks than sitting in hospital furniture. If a child feels curious and proud instead of sick, that changes everything. High-performance sports projects serve as our testing laboratory, and what we learn there will eventually shape warmer, more inclusive everyday products.

Q:
You’re also an avid cyclist. How has that shaped the way you think about design, ergonomics and performance?

A:

Photorealistic rendering of the Frame Runner in orange and blue, showing the triangular frame, chest support, handlebars, and three carbon wheels. — A rendering of the Frame Runner design, currently a work in progress.

If I weren’t a cyclist, I don’t think I could design this product well. Personal experience is everything with rideable devices, no matter how beautiful something looks, nobody uses it if it’s uncomfortable. I ride many different machines, folding bikes, gravel bikes, road bikes, mountain bikes, and a Frame Runner is just another member of that family to me.

Cycling also taught me how small changes matter: a two-millimeter adjustment can completely change how your body feels after hours of riding. That’s shaped how I think about ergonomics as something dynamic, not fixed, early in a season, athletes need a more upright, comfortable position; as they train, they naturally settle into a lower, more aerodynamic one. The equipment has to be able to follow that evolution. I call it biogeometry, designing for how the body and machine change together over time, not for one static moment.

Q:

Looking ahead, what do you think is the next big opportunity in mobility design, and what advice would you give designers who want to work in this space?

A:

The biggest opportunity is shifting focus from transportation to quality of life. People with physical limitations don’t want gear that makes them look fragile in public, there’s a huge, underdeveloped space for mobility tools people are genuinely proud to use, closer to personal style than medical equipment. Mobility design isn’t just about mechanical speed, it’s about designing freedom, dignity and identity. Any product that raises someone’s daily quality of life while breaking that stigma has the potential to lead this field.

My advice to other designers: don’t overthink it, and don’t be afraid to start. You don’t need to be an expert in everything, let doctors handle medicine, engineers handle calculations, fabricators handle the builds. Your strongest tools are your ideas and your curiosity. Stay genuinely interested in how people actually move and live, and the technical problems become challenges you want to solve, not obstacles.

Three images showing the RH1 carbon scooter concept: a finished render, a photo of a physical prototype being handled, and hand-drawn technical sketches with measurements. — Hong Kim’s RH1 carbon scooter concept, from rendering to clay prototype and sketches.

–

Our conversation with Hong left us with a clear takeaway: inclusive design isn’t about compensating for limitation, it’s about engineering trust. What stayed with us most was where he wants to take this next, beyond elite sport, toward everyday mobility devices that give children and seniors the same freedom and pride he’s building for Paralympic athletes.

At Interwoven Design Group, collaborations like this are a huge part of what makes our work so meaningful. Many of the projects we work on exist at the intersection of design, engineering, material science, healthcare, and emerging technology. Working alongside experts like Candace not only pushes the work further technically, but also expands how we think about problem solving, comfort, usability, and the future of wearable systems. It’s this cross-disciplinary exchange that continues to make the field of smart textiles such an exciting space to work in.

Check out the rest of our Spotlight series to hear more from leaders in the design industry. Sign up for our newsletter and follow us on Instagram and LinkedIn for design news, multi-media recommendations, and to learn more about product design and development!

A Q&A with Dr. Candace Chan, Materials Scientist and Battery Researcher in Smart Textiles

Spotlight articles shine a light on designers, engineers and scientists we admire, asking leaders in the field about their work and their creative journey. This month’s Spotlight interview explores the rapidly evolving world of Smart Textiles — a space where materials science, wearable technology, and garment design are beginning to blur together in fascinating ways. While wearable tech often focuses on sensors, data, and interfaces, one of the biggest challenges has always been power: how do you create energy systems that are small, flexible, safe, and comfortable enough to disappear into the garment itself?

Dr. Candace Chan, materials scientist and battery researcher based in Arizona and professor at Arizona State University.

To dig deeper into that question, we spoke with Dr. Candace Chan, a materials scientist and battery researcher at Arizon State University, whose work focuses on developing advanced energy storage systems, including flexible batteries for wearable applications.

Candace collaborated with Interwoven Design Group as part of the SMART ePANTS initiative — a multi-disciplinary research project exploring how electronics, conductive textiles, and embedded systems can be integrated directly into garments without compromising comfort or movement.

With a background in chemistry and nanomaterials, Candace brings a perspective that bridges fundamental science with real-world applications. What makes her especially compelling to talk to is the way she translates incredibly complex technology into ideas that feel surprisingly human and relatable.

Q:

Can you tell us a little about your background and how you first became interested in battery technology?

A:

My training is actually in chemistry. When I first went to college, I thought I was probably going to go to medical school like a lot of people do. But then I started taking chemistry courses and became really interested in materials science — especially nanomaterials. At the time, nanotechnology was becoming a huge area of research, and there was a lot of excitement around how materials behave differently at very small scales.

When I was a graduate student, I became involved in a research project exploring nanostructured materials for batteries, and what we found was that by making materials smaller, you could improve their mechanical properties, lifetime, and charge storage. That work eventually spun off into a startup company, which was exciting because it showed how fundamental research could become a real product.

I’ve always been interested in understanding the chemistry and fundamentals of materials, but also in figuring out how to leverage that understanding to improve everyday technologies. It just happened that batteries became the area where I could really see that impact.

Q:

In very simple terms, how does a battery actually work?

A:

In a nutshell, a battery is an energy conversion device. There’s chemical energy stored in the materials inside the battery, and through electrochemical reactions that energy gets converted into electrical energy that we can use.

Basically, the reactions allow electrons to move from one material to another, and the battery is designed so we can leverage those electrons by running them through a circuit to power a device.

What’s interesting is that different batteries work in different ways depending on the materials and reactions involved. Some batteries, like a typical 9-volt battery, aren’t rechargeable because the reactions happening inside them can’t easily be reversed. In rechargeable batteries, you can apply electricity to reverse those reactions and restore the stored energy.

There’s actually a lot happening at the atomic level inside a battery. It’s not just electrons moving around — in many cases the atomic structure of the materials themselves is changing during the reaction process. Sometimes those changes are reversible, and sometimes they’re not.

Q:

Most people picture batteries as hard, rigid objects. How do you even begin to make a battery small and flexible enough to live inside a textile or garment?

A:

That’s actually a really big challenge, and it’s one of the reasons this project was so interesting. A lot of traditional batteries are rigid because they’re designed to contain corrosive liquids and protect the materials inside. The hard casing is really there to keep everything sealed and stable.

Flexible ribbon battery developed for smart textiles, held between gloved fingers — The ribbon battery developed for the SMART ePANTS project.

But batteries don’t necessarily have to be rigid. If you look at lithium batteries — like the ones in phones or laptops — many are already packaged inside flexible polymer films instead of hard metal casings. So the question becomes: how do you take that idea even further and make something small and flexible enough to disappear into a textile?

A big part of it is balancing the power requirements of the device with how small you can realistically make the battery. In the SMART ePANTS project, we were fortunate to work with a team developing very low-power electronics, which meant we could design a much smaller battery, which we call a ribbon battery. That really opened the door to creating something that could integrate more naturally into the garment itself.

What’s interesting is that so much development has happened with sensors, wearable interfaces, and data systems, but the battery is still often the limiting factor. In a lot of ways, the battery has become the “ugly duckling” of wearable technology — everyone wants devices to be smaller, lighter, and more invisible, but power is still the thing holding many of those ideas back.

Q:

For people who may not be familiar with the field, how would you explain what smart textiles are and why people should be excited about them?

Flexible battery embedded into a black textile swatch as a smart textile prototype — A flexible battery embedded into a textile swatch.

A:

For me, a smart textile is really a textile with improved functionality because it has embedded electronics integrated into it — including the power source. What’s exciting is that the possibilities are so broad. Smart textiles could support healthcare monitoring, athletic performance, mobility assistance, or entirely new types of wearable experiences that we haven’t even fully imagined yet.

Q:

The Smart ePants project brought together textiles, electronics, engineering, and garment design. What was most exciting or surprising to you about working in such a cross-disciplinary space?

A:

Everything about it was really interesting to me because I had never worked so closely with people from the textile and garment world before. I didn’t fully appreciate how much development had already happened in smart textiles — from conductive threads to knitting structures to the different ways electronics can be integrated into garments.

What was most exciting was seeing all these different disciplines come together around a common goal. It really showed how much innovation can happen when engineers, scientists, and designers are all approaching the same problem from completely different perspectives.

One thing I realized during the project was how valuable co-design can be. We initially approached it as, “Okay, we’ll make the battery and then figure out how to integrate it into the garment.” But I think if we had collaborated even earlier in the process, the battery itself might have evolved differently. I learned that the way a garment moves, stretches, and behaves on the body can actually influence how you design the technology inside it.

Q:

One of the biggest goals in wearable technology is making the technology almost invisible to the user. How close do you think we are to smart garments that truly feel natural and comfortable?

A:

I think we’re getting much closer. One of the really interesting things about the SMART ePANTS project was that so much of the testing focused on comfort and durability, asking whether the garment still felt natural once the electronics and battery were embedded inside it.

Flexible batteries connected to test leads for performance and durability evaluation — Testing the battery for performance and durability.

Our team really tried to make the battery as small and non-detectable as possible rather than simply integrating an off-the-shelf component. We customized the battery specifically around the low-power devices the electronics team was developing, which allowed us to make it much smaller and more flexible.

I was actually really proud that we exceeded the comfort and durability metrics. Even after aggressive bend testing, the battery still functioned and the stiffness change in the fabric was less than 10%, which was far better than the project requirements. That was a big moment for us because it demonstrated that these systems really can begin to integrate naturally into textiles.

Q:

Where do you think smart textiles and embedded power systems are going to have the biggest impact first, healthcare, sports, military, consumer products, or somewhere else entirely?

A:

Historically, military applications are often the first place these technologies gain traction because that’s where a lot of the early funding and development happens. There’s still a huge need for better embedded power systems for soldier-worn devices — in some cases, people are carrying nearly 30 pounds of batteries to support different equipment.

That said, I think healthcare and consumer wellness are going to continue pushing the field forward as well. Right now there’s enormous interest in wearable technology for monitoring health, exercise, recovery, and performance, but almost everyone is still struggling with the same issue: the battery. I was at a flexible electronics conference earlier this year, and it felt like every company had a battery problem. There’s clearly a lot of opportunity — it’s just a matter of finding the right applications first.

Q:

Looking ahead five or ten years, what excites you most about the future of smart textiles, wearable technology, and flexible batteries?

A:

What excites me most is that it finally feels like all the different pieces are starting to come together. The electronics are getting smaller, the textiles are becoming more advanced, and there’s a much greater understanding now of how to integrate these systems into something people can actually wear comfortably.

Materials scientist Candace Chan working in a lab on flexible battery research for wearable technology — Candace Chan in the lab, where her research focuses on advanced energy storage and flexible batteries for wearable applications.

From the battery side, there’s still a huge opportunity. Everywhere I go, whether it’s healthcare, flexible electronics, or wearable technology conferences, people are still talking about the same challenge: they need better power systems. It almost feels like everyone has a battery problem right now.

That makes me optimistic because it means there’s still so much room for innovation. I think the future will come from much closer collaboration between scientists, engineers, and designers. The more these technologies are developed together — instead of as separate parts added at the end — the more natural and invisible wearable technology is going to become.

–

Speaking with Candace was a fascinating reminder that some of the most important innovations in wearable technology are happening behind the scenes. While sensors, interfaces, and data often get the attention, our conversation highlighted just how critical — and challenging — power systems really are. Her perspective as a materials scientist brought a completely different lens to the SMART ePANTS project and revealed how much thoughtful engineering goes into making technology feel seamless, flexible, and almost invisible on the body.

A Q&A with Cordy Swope, Designer and Strategist in MedTech and Human Experience

Spotlight articles shine a light on designers and engineers we admire, asking leaders in the field about their work and their creative journey. This month’s Spotlight explores MedTech through the perspective of designer and strategist Cordy Swope — whose career has moved from automotive and consumer products into healthcare innovation, global consulting, and corporate leadership.

Portrait of Cordy Swope, designer and strategist at Seven19 and Pratt Institute graduate. — Cordy Swope, designer and strategist at Seven19 and Pratt Institute graduate.

From IDEO to Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, BMW, Toyota, and now Seven19, Cordy has spent decades navigating the intersection of design, systems thinking, and human experience. In this conversation, we discuss the complexity of designing for healthcare, the realities of bringing human-centered design into large organizations, the influence of living abroad, and why optimism may be the defining trait of every designer.

Q:

Your career has spanned IDEO, healthcare, automotive, consulting, and international work. How did you first find your way into MedTech?

A:

I wouldn’t say that I’m a MedTech or healthcare native by any stretch. I grew up personally terrified of hospitals and anything to do with doctors until I was well into my thirties. Then, when I was working at IDEO and got assigned to a pharma project for Eli Lilly. Part of the project involved developing injection devices, but the part I was leading focused on adherence — how to help women in their late sixties stick to a treatment that required daily self-injections and refrigeration. We built prototype kits with fake pens and visited patients in their homes in places like Georgia and Florida. We’d interview them, leave the kits with them for about ten days, then come back to see what actually worked for them — not necessarily what they liked, but what worked. Up until then, I had mostly worked on projects centered around desirability — BMW, Coca-Cola, consumer brands. This was different. These treatments had the potential to prolong life or significantly improve quality of life. That’s really when I fell in love with healthcare and MedTech.

Q:

What separates a medical product that simply works from one that truly improves a patient’s life?

A:

The design process in healthcare is a multistakeholder ecosystem. To put it another way — it’s damn complex. There are layers of competing needs between doctors, patients, caregivers, payers, manufacturers, regulatory requirements, and business concerns. You have to disentangle those competing needs and reformulate them into something workable. In a way, it’s the ultimate design problem. I’ve always been attracted to problems that are greater than any one person’s ability to solve. In healthcare, every project requires a team of people who know more than you in different areas. Otherwise, you’re going to be very limited in what you can do. There’s real satisfaction in producing something that gets into the hands of doctors, patients, and caregivers and genuinely changes someone’s experience — even if you’re not the person inventing the medicine itself.

Q:

IDEO is famous for design thinking and human-centered design. What changed when you moved into large corporations like Johnson & Johnson and Novartis?

A:

Hand-drawn patient journey map titled Diane, illustrating a 40-year-old teacher's experience moving from pain and diagnosis to fear, side effect concerns, and the difficulty of weekly self-injections. — A patient journey map exploring the realities of self-injection therapy.

The hardest adjustment was around access to users and patients. At IDEO, we had systems around how data was collected, protected, and managed. We could do deep ethnographic research because the patient owned the data and we owned the process. Inside a corporation, especially a pharmaceutical company, everything becomes much more regulated. You’re really limited in your interactions with patients, so we had to hire outside researchers or find workarounds.

The other big shift is that in consulting you’re judged on the impact you create for the client and the customer. Inside a corporation, success depends much more on internal relationships. You have direct access to the means of production, which is amazing, but getting things implemented requires relationship-building. From the outside, people might call it politics. Inside, it’s how things move forward. One executive once gave me a piece of advice I’ve never forgotten. She said, “I want you guys to do the work. I don’t want you teaching marketers and engineers how to do design thinking because they’ll learn just enough to crash the plane into the side of a mountain — and then they’ll blame you. She was absolutely right.

Q:

We’ve seen a huge rise — and now some backlash — around design thinking, AI, and innovation culture inside corporations. From your perspective, what happened?

A:

Cordy Swope giving a lecture on design thinking fundamentals in front of a red slide showing mindsets, principles, skillsets, and a Venn diagram of desirability, viability, and feasibility. — Cordy Swope presenting the fundamentals of design thinking.

I think there was a period where companies were falling all over themselves to bring in designers and redesign their processes and workflows. But a lot of it was poorly managed. You had people halfway learning design thinking, claiming to be experts, selling services, and often misunderstanding what design actually is. There’s a reason there’s been backlash over the last few years. The way designers work is fundamentally different from how corporations work.

Corporations are often in the business of being inevitable — wanting to own everything, standardize everything, reduce risk. Designers are exploratory. Designers are trying to figure out a preferred future. That tension is always going to exist. In some ways it’s productive because it defines where designers add value, but it also creates friction. Now with AI, people are asking whether design itself is going away. Personally, I don’t think so. Some days it feels overwhelming, but other days AI just feels like another tool in the toolbox. I still remain optimistic despite all the turmoil.

Q:

You’ve now gone full circle — from consulting to corporate and back into consulting again. How has that changed your perspective?

A:

Going back into consulting feels a little bit like coming home. A lot of the methods and practices I used fifteen years ago were still there like muscle memory, even if I had to work the kinks out. It’s liberating in some ways because you don’t have to constantly compromise or go along with things you know are going to be mediocre — which everybody does in the corporate world at some point. I once heard someone say that when you go from consulting to corporate, you’re trading insecurity for frustration. And when you go back to consulting, you trade frustration for insecurity. That’s pretty accurate. In consulting, you’re always thinking about the pipeline. But you also get the excitement of solving new problems and working across industries.

Q:

You’ve also spent significant time living and working abroad. How did those experiences shape your approach to design?

A:

One of my first jobs was at Toyota. I had lived in Japan before that, and the role involved future-focused storytelling for designers — looking at culture, architecture, fashion, and behavioral trends and translating them into inspiration for automotive design. Later, at Continuum, I worked extensively with BMW in both Europe and North America. A lot of the features we developed back then are still in BMWs today because the work was so deeply human-centered. Eventually, I met my wife through that work, moved to Munich, and lived in Germany for years. I think you can learn a language relatively quickly. But learning a culture — the unwritten rules, the mentality, the references — can take a lifetime. It’s similar to learning the culture inside a corporation. You have to understand the invisible systems. People often focus on the linguistic challenge of living abroad, but I think it’s really the cultural challenge that gets you.

Q:

As fellow Pratt graduates, I have to ask — what stayed with you from your Pratt education throughout your career?

A:

I came into Pratt from an English literature background, so I felt like a bit of a black sheep. But one thing that stayed with me forever was the fearlessness of prototyping. At Pratt, there was this mentality of: what if we just build something immediately? It might be mostly wrong, but maybe it’s not all wrong — and we can use it to ask better questions. Later at IDEO, I recognized the same philosophy. “Build to think.” Using a physical prototype or mockup to ask better questions is still one of the most valuable design tools I know. You don’t always need the perfect words to formulate the perfect question. Sometimes you just put something in front of people and learn from the reaction.

Q:

Final question. From Pratt to Germany, from IDEO to Seven19 — what’s the thread that connects everything you’ve done?

A:

I think it’s dissatisfaction with the current state combined with an optimism that the future can be better. About eighteen years ago, when my first child was born, I realized that since I had the privilege of working as a designer, I wanted to help design the kind of world I’d want my kids to live in. So I look around, and usually I’m dissatisfied with what I see. Then I use the tools of design — prototyping, visualization, whatever tools my team and I have — to build momentum toward some kind of preferred future. Designers are uniquely equipped to visualize what could be before most people can. And honestly, I still remain optimistic.

At the end of our conversation, Cordy and I found ourselves reflecting on something that feels increasingly important right now: optimism. Despite rapid technological change, AI disruption, corporate upheaval, and the growing complexity of the systems designers work within, there remains a shared belief that things can be improved. That belief may ultimately be one of the defining characteristics of design itself. As Cordy put it, designers are in the business of “figuring out the preferred future.” And perhaps that ability — to imagine something better before it exists — is exactly what makes design such a powerful force within healthcare, technology, and beyond.

A Q&A with India Pearlman, Packaging Designer for Beauty and Wellness

Spotlight articles shine a light on designers and engineers we admire, asking leaders in the field about their work and their creative journey. This month’s Spotlight focuses on the world of wellness and beauty through the lens of India Pearlman, a packaging designer whose work sits at the intersection of industrial design, branding, and product experience.

India Pearlman, packaging designer based in New York and Pratt Institute graduate.

A graduate of Pratt Institute, India brings a distinctly three-dimensional, systems-driven mindset to a field often perceived as purely graphic. Her approach reflects a broader shift in design—where packaging is no longer just a container, but part of a larger ecosystem shaping how products are experienced, displayed, and lived with over time.

We spoke with India about how she found her way into packaging, how industrial design continues to inform her work, and the details she notices that most people miss.

Q:

Can you tell us a bit about your background and what led you into the wellness and beauty space?

A:

I’m a designer based in Queens, currently living in Ridgewood. I graduated from Pratt in 2020 with a degree in industrial design, which was honestly a wild time to enter the workforce. A lot of traditional industrial design roles were hard to find, especially because so much of that work is hands-on.

At the same time, there were a lot of packaging roles opening up. I hadn’t studied packaging in school and wasn’t initially interested in it, but I ended up falling into it because of the timing.

Looking back, it makes sense. My dad works in marketing, and growing up he would show me different pieces of packaging and ask which one I liked more. I think that kind of thinking was always there, even before I realized it.

Eva NYC Freshen Up Invisible Dry Shampoo, a hair care product that combines stock packaging with custom graphics and color application.

Q:

Do you specialize in a particular area of packaging?

A:

I primarily work in beauty and wellness. I got my start in hair care, and the work tends to involve a mix of stock and custom packaging, with a strong focus on graphics, color, and application.

Q:

Do you think industrial design is becoming broader again as categories like beauty and wellness evolve?

A:

I definitely think so. At first, it felt strange to move from identifying as an industrial designer to working as a packaging designer, but over time I’ve seen how closely those disciplines are connected.

There’s a strong overlap between graphic thinking and the physical object—how something exists in space, how it’s held, how it’s experienced. Packaging and industrial design really do belong to the same world.

Q:

How does your industrial design background show up in your work today?

A:

I still rely on it constantly. Having that three-dimensional understanding has allowed me to go further in my role and take on more than just packaging. I often work on retail displays and spatial elements as well, which are very much rooted in industrial design.

Lemme’s Walmart retail display, where packaging extends into spatial and retail design.

My understanding of materials also helps me collaborate more effectively with other teams. I’m able to bring ideas that are creative but also feasible, and sometimes even anticipate challenges before engineering gets involved. That foundation makes a big difference in how projects move forward.

Q:

What usually comes first for you: visual idea, tactile experience, or story?

A:

I typically work under the brand design team, and branding involves a lot more story-based thinking. I like to start with that because it gives me a direction and purpose. Because I work closely with brand teams, there’s often a strong narrative behind the product, and that gives me direction and purpose.

Packaging design involves a lot more brand thinking. Working within brand guidelines might seem limiting, but I actually find it freeing. It allows me to focus more deeply on the design itself, knowing that I’m working toward a clear and intentional goal.

Q:

Beauty trends move fast. How do you think about what lasts versus what’s fleeting?

A:

It can be tricky. Right now, we’re seeing a lot of minimal, sans-serif typography and simple, blocky forms, and that’s been around for a while.

I look at a lot of references. I scroll through Pinterest, study retail environments, and look at other brands, but I also rely heavily on intuition. One of the biggest considerations for me is how a product will live in someone’s home. Is it something they’ll want to keep and display, or something more temporary?

I also look to interior design trends for inspiration. There’s a movement toward more expressive, colorful spaces, what people call ‘dopamine interiors’, and that’s influencing packaging as well, especially for younger brands.

Q:

What’s a packaging detail most people never notice, but you always do?

A:

I immediately notice when things don’t align across a product line. If packaging isn’t proportionate or the typography shifts from one SKU to another, it really stands out to me.

A lot of my work has focused on refining those details. In one role, I did a full packaging revamp that addressed inconsistencies most people wouldn’t consciously see, but that make a big difference in how cohesive the line feels. I’m always thinking about how everything works together as a system.

Q:

NEST x Drawbertson Holiday Collection, an example of packaging that functions as a unified system across an entire product line.

When you’re shopping, are you able to enjoy it? Or are you redesigning everything?

A:

It depends on where I am. In a typical grocery store, I’m definitely redesigning things in my head and questioning a lot of decisions.

But I love going into smaller markets that carry emerging brands. Those spaces tend to have really thoughtful, exciting packaging, and I find them genuinely inspiring. I also take a lot of photos when I’m out, especially in places like Sephora, whenever something catches my attention.

Grocery stores are hard. there’s a lot of packaging that’s been around a long time where I’m like – we could do this better.

Q:

What materials or sustainability approaches are you most interested in right now?

A:

Post-consumer recycled plastic has become much more standard, which is great to see. Beyond that, I’m really interested in paper-based and refillable packaging systems.

Refillable design is especially exciting because it allows you to create a more permanent, beautiful object that people want to keep, paired with a more sustainable refill system.

I’m also paying close attention to finishes. For example, traditional foil treatments make packaging harder to recycle, so I try to push toward alternatives that achieve a similar effect while remaining recyclable. You can also get a lot out of embossing and debossing. There’s a lot of innovation happening there right now.

Q:

If you could collaborate with any brand right now, what would it be?

A:

I would love to work with Prada, especially on fragrance. Their packaging is very architectural, which really resonates with me.

There’s also something interesting about their fashion and accessories, like their bags that translate into form and function. I think there’s a lot of opportunity to bring that same thinking into packaging design. It would be interesting to see how their fashion informs cosmetics, and how something like a handbag, which is itself a functional industrial design object, could inform packaging.

—

Please reach out!

A Q&A with Roger Schmitz, Founder of Moxy Monitor

Rethinking athlete performance through muscle oxygen data

Spotlight articles shine a light on designers and engineers we admire, asking leaders in the field about their work and their creative journey. Roger Schmitz, founder and CEO of Moxy Monitor, has spent more than a decade doing exactly that. A mechanical engineer by training, Schmitz developed a wearable sensor that measures muscle oxygen saturation using near-infrared spectroscopy. The technology gives athletes, coaches, and performance scientists direct insight into how muscles are working under load.

Photo of Roger Schmitz — Roger Schmitz, Founder and CEO of Moxy Monitor

Originally inspired by medical device research, Moxy has become a powerful tool for endurance athletes, professional teams, and researchers studying human performance.

More recently, Schmitz partnered with Interwoven Design Group to solve a particularly difficult challenge: how to integrate a precision sensor into athletic apparel in a way that is reliable, comfortable, and almost invisible to the athlete wearing it.

We spoke with Roger about the origins of Moxy, what muscle oxygen reveals that other metrics miss, and what happens when engineers and designers collaborate to solve hard problems.

Q:

Could you start by telling us about yourself and the story behind Moxy?

A:

My name is Roger Schmitz. I’m the CEO and founder of Moxy Monitor, and I developed the technology that takes muscle oxygen measurements and allows us to do it accurately.

My background is in engineering—I’m a mechanical engineer by training. I worked in the disc drive industry for a while and later in medical devices. Around that time I was working with near-infrared spectroscopy, which is the core technology behind Moxy.

Those devices were large benchtop systems used for trauma patients. They had cables running to the patient and cost about $15,000. After that company failed and I was laid off, I started thinking about how to make the technology much smaller, more accurate, and dramatically less expensive.

The idea was to create a wearable, battery-powered device that cost under $1,000. I originally thought it would become a medical device, but a cardiologist I met with said something that changed everything. He said, “You should make it for athletes. The regulatory burden will be dramatically smaller.”

That’s what we did. And interestingly, a lot of researchers still buy the device today and use it to study heart failure—just not in a clinical setting.

Q:

We often hear about metrics like heart rate, GPS tracking, or power output. What does muscle oxygen reveal that those metrics don’t?

A:

Athlete wearing Moxy Monitor sensor during field performance testing — Moxy Monitor sensor placed on the thigh to measure muscle oxygen during activity.

Those metrics can be divided into two categories: external load and internal load.

External load is how much work the body is doing—things like GPS speed or power meters. Internal load is how hard the body has to work to produce that output.

Heart rate is one measure of internal load, but it has limitations. It responds slowly to changes in effort and it’s influenced by a lot of other factors.

Muscle oxygen is different because it reacts immediately. When you change the load, we see a change in muscle oxygen right away. We’re measuring what’s happening in the muscle in real time. That makes it incredibly useful for adjusting training intensity.

It becomes another tool athletes and coaches can use to understand what’s really happening inside the body based on those deeper insights.

Q:

So athletes and coaches can see that data in real time?

A:

Yes. The data can show up directly on a GPS watch for endurance athletes—we integrate well with Garmin. For team sports we connect with systems like WIMU GPS.

That means trainers or performance staff can monitor muscle oxygen while athletes are actually playing on the pitch. They can watch the data live on the sideline and even monitor the entire team.

It gives them a lot more information than they’ve traditionally had.

Q:

How do coaches actually use that information in training?

A:

Exploded view diagram of Moxy Monitor sensor showing internal components including circuit board, battery, antenna, and optical sensors — Exploded view of the Moxy Monitor sensor showing its internal components.

One example comes from a professional soccer team in Germany. During practice they alternate between small-sided games—maybe four-on-four—and full-team play. They assumed the full-team drills were more demanding.

But when they looked at the muscle oxygen data they saw that the short-sided play was actually creating more physiological load because of the constant quick bursts of action. It wasn’t showing up in heart rate, but it showed up clearly in the muscle oxygen data.

So they adjusted their training and backed off those drills slightly to avoid overloading the athletes.

Q:

Has Moxy ever contradicted what a coach believed about a player?

A:

Yes, we see that fairly often.

One example involved a professional triathlete who had two bikes—a road bike and a time-trial bike. She kept telling her coach she couldn’t produce the same power on one of them.

The coach initially thought she just needed to get used to the bike. But when they compared the Moxy data between the two bikes, the readings were dramatically different.

At that point the coach said, “This isn’t just in your head—this is a physiologic difference.”

They made some adjustments to the bike fit and her performance improved significantly.

Having objective data can validate what the athlete is feeling.

Q:

Performance staff in elite sports are very data-savvy—but also skeptical of new technology. How did you earn their trust?

A:

That’s a great observation. People approach them with gadgets all the time.

Our approach has been to work closely with both the research community and the high-performance sport community.

Moxy has now been used in hundreds of scientific studies, and those results get published in peer-reviewed journals. Early on people would say the device was too inexpensive to be credible—they assumed it must be a toy.

But as more researchers began publishing results, perceptions changed.

We also host a Moxy Summit, where our power users present how they’re using the technology with athletes. It’s about half researchers and half high-performance sports practitioners.

The key is consistency. Don’t overpromise. Stick to what the science supports.

Over time people start to realize the technology is legitimate.

Q:

With global events like the World Cup, where every performance detail matters, how does muscle oxygen data help teams prepare?

A:

Teams often conduct physiological testing in the lab—treadmill tests, breath analysis, lactate measurements.

The challenge is that you can’t do those tests during an actual match.

But you can measure muscle oxygen on the field. So teams can translate what they learned in the lab to real game situations.

They might know that a certain athlete can sustain a given workload for ninety minutes, while another athlete might only sustain it for sixty or seventy.

At that level, everyone is already operating near their limits. You’re not making huge changes—just small adjustments.

But those small tweaks can be the difference between winning and losing.

Q:

Moxy started in endurance sports. Where else are you seeing it used?

A:

Triathlon probably has the most users because the training is so intense and athletes need careful control of their effort.

Cycling is another big area because we integrate with many data systems already used by cyclists.

We’re also starting to see more use in running and swimming. Swimming is particularly interesting because there’s very little physiological data available when athletes are underwater.

Team sports are expanding too—soccer, hockey, and others—especially as we integrate with GPS systems used by teams.

And there are applications in strength training as well, where coaches want to understand how specific muscles are being loaded.

Q:

Wearables take a beating in contact sports. What was the biggest challenge in making Moxy work on the field cycle?

Athlete placing a Moxy Monitor sensor into a custom wearable ring on the thigh — Moxy Monitor wearable system designed by Interwoven Design Group.

A:

Attachment.
We could get the sensor to stay on, but it required tape, wraps, and a lot of effort from trainers. That’s not practical for daily use.

The breakthrough needed to be something that athletes could put on themselves so the sensor
would essentially disappear into the process of getting dressed. The thigh is a very difficult place to locate a sensor. There’s sweat, extreme movement, cutting, sprinting—it’s a tough environment.

We also discovered that muscle placement varies between athletes, so we needed a solution that allowed customized positioning.

Q:

That challenge is what led you to collaborate with Interwoven. What motivated that partnership?

A:

First of all, this is a really hard problem. It seems simple, but we’ve worked on it for ten years.

What motivated the contact with Interwoven was the need for a solution for soccer—something that worked at a team scale. Trainers needed to set the optimal location, but after that the athlete had to be able to place the sensor themselves.

It also needed to be rugged, durable, and easy to use.

To be honest, I was skeptical it was even possible. We had tried so many things already.

But it was a problem we needed to solve.

Q:

What has the feedback been on the design Interwoven developed?

Design iterations of Moxy Monitor sensor light shield and mounting ring components — Design iterations of the Moxy Monitor light shield and ring system developed by Interwoven Design Group.

A:

When people see it, they pause for a moment. You can see the gears turning.

They look at it and say, “That is really good.”

A good design always looks easy in the end. It looks obvious—like of course that’s how it should work.

But it wasn’t obvious before. That’s the hallmark of great design. It looks simple, but getting there is not simple at all.

Q:

Engineers and designers don’t always speak the same language. What did you learn from working with Interwoven?

A:

One thing that stood out was that Interwoven had a system for arriving at creative solutions.

It wasn’t luck. There was a structured method for working through the problem.

I remember coming to the studio for a design session that lasted several hours. At one point I thought we might not get there—but the team kept working through the process.

Eventually the solution emerged.

As an engineer, I tend to focus heavily on functional requirements: the sensor has to stay in place, the data has to be accurate.

But there are other equally important needs—ease of use, adaptability, and even aesthetics.

These athletes earn millions of dollars. They wear expensive gear and jewelry. The product has to look good as well as function well.

Interwoven kept the entire picture in mind. If a product doesn’t meet all of those needs, it isn’t viable.

That was a really valuable part of the collaboration.

Final Thoughts

From laboratory technology to elite sports performance, Moxy Monitor represents a new way of understanding the body under load. By measuring muscle oxygen directly, athletes and coaches gain a window into physiology that traditional metrics often miss.

For Roger Schmitz, the journey has been one of constant iteration—engineering breakthroughs, scientific validation, and collaboration across disciplines.

And as wearable technology continues to evolve, the partnership between engineers, researchers, and designers will remain essential to turning complex ideas into tools athletes can use every day.

—