Designing the ProofScan app
My role on this project: research design and analysis
As a primary UX researcher on this project, my role was to plan and execute extensive primary research, conduct usability tests and support the design team.
Timeline: 3 weeks
UX Designers: Sarah Evans, Dwight Stoddart and Jeff Dinsmore
Final designs
Our client was Transparent Path, an exciting Seattle based company, whose mission is to prevent sickness, stop waste and upgrade outdated food supply chain practices through use of blockchain.
They wanted to develop an app that consumers could use to access information about products they buy. The app would track where the food came from, how it got to them and what happened to it along the way (e.g. shipping, processing etc.)
Transparent Path wanted to find out:
2. Would consumers trust transparent information and would they pay more for it?
1. Is there a need for an app that would offer transparent information to consumers?
4. Would users want more information about food related issues?
3. How consumers feel about a ProofScore concept, one food score that would quickly tell them how transparent the product is?
Needs, wants and invisible consumer goals
Through extensive research, we found six key insights around consumers’ needs and desires and two key insights specific to concept of the food score and app preferences.
Consumer insights Operational insights
ProofScore is complex, it requires further research with food producers
Information displayed is too dense and hard to digest
There is a need for transparency
It has to be credible
Fear and negative connotations may lead to avoidance
Consumers’ personal values govern their choices
I want to know I am doing the right thing without thinking
Food safety is confusing
We also uncovered invisible consumer goals and unexpected visceral reactions during our research, offered detailed recommendations and provided an extensive research report for the client.
Our work process across three weeks
Process
Due to time constraints, we adopted a hybrid approach, sequential upfront, leading to iterative development as designs started to emerge.
At each stage we had touch points with the clients, to make sure their vision aligns with the design.
Interviews - to explore the topic, find out what consumers want and inform the questions for the survey
Concept testing - to explore what people think about the ProofScore concept and how they feel about it
Affinity mapping - to synthesise the interview research and help us identify user needs
Survey - to capture a wider audience and gather additional data (including qualitative insights)
Online card sort - to explore what might be included in the ProofScore
User testing - to explore consumers’ visual preference for the ProofScore and to test the functionalities of the newly developed app
Research rationale
Since the scope of this project
was so large and we only had 3 weeks to complete it, it was important to use this time in a
way that would give us maximum amount of data we could present to our clients, which would also guide the design team in the creation of the ProofScan app.
We also wanted to answer this question:
How might we help consumers avoid food borne illness, find out information about the foods they buy and provide educational content around food issues.
All this research provided us with some insights into how consumers base their decisions when they shop for food and what they think about transparency.
There is a need for transparency
Transparency is important to consumers as it gives them the tools to make informed decisions about foods they buy.
But many felt it’s not enough
We tested a concept of transparency versus known certifications, to find out if consumers would choose transparent information over known food certifications. Consumers reported that their choice would come down to the information they find, and often this information was down to values they hold.
percentage of Consumers who rated the following aspects as important (scores for extremely important and very important were combined)
It has to be credible
Participants worried that transparent information may not be trustworthy. They were aware that businesses often use clever marketing and questioned if this would be the same thing.
Knowing that information is based on technology and therefore hard to tamper with, enhanced consumer trust
In a survey, we asked participants how much would they trust transparent information and they too, exhibited caution. But when they were made aware transparency would be based on technology, such as scanners and sensors, and harder to manipulate, they were more willing to trust it.
Our recommendation was to emphasize the use of blockchain, to enhance credibility.
Unexpected visceral reactions
During our research, we also uncovered consumers’ unexpected visceral reactions to fear. While exploring food safety and recalls, majority of the participants said this was a valuable information, however one participant said to her, having the power to see if something was recalled would be alarming, and would influence how she reacts to food.
Fear of recalls is too much for some
Most people can handle a bit of fear, and there are people who even enjoy some degree of fear (e.g. scary movie or an extreme sport) but some people can be more fear avoidant. To such people, recall information can be too much to handle.
We recommended to our client that any informational content about recalls not be displayed very prominently on the screen to avoid evoking fear.
During user tests, we also found that some users are alarmed by sensor data (e.g. temperature fluctuations). Even insignificant fluctuations, when buying animal products, can appear alarming and lead to avoidance.
Our recommendation was to show this data when it reaches unsafe or unacceptable levels only.
Sensor data can appear alarming
Visual representation of
the score can evoke emotional reaction
During user testing, we tested visual preferences for the ProofScore. Couple of users had negative connotations with a grade style score. It reminded them of unhappy times at school.
Additionally, score based on stars was associated with customer reviews, which some participants connected to lack of credibility and fake reviews.
Consumers’ personal values govern their shopping choices
Consumers seem to do what makes them feel good. Supporting local suppliers and food providers and buying organic or free range produce makes them feel like they are doing something good, helping the animals and helping the environment.
Aligning personal values with consumer behavior was an expected goal, but not to this degree. Feeling good about one’s choices was very important to consumers in our studies.
Consumers that care about animal welfare were also willing to pay more for transparent products
How important are these things to you (extremely important and very important scores combined)
I want to know I am doing the right thing
Choice of supermarket comes down to whether the store’s ethos aligns with consumer’s values. Trust is then established and consumer is reassured they have made a good choice and as long as they shop in that supermarket, they can feel good about themselves.
Food safety is confusing
Many consumers were confused by the concept of food safety, and did not connect it to food which is free from bacteria causing illnesses or which has not been contaminated. Consumers trust supermarkets to provide them with safe foods. In the interviews, food safety was connected to saturated fats, allergy ingredients, pesticides or processed foods and restaurant ratings.
There is an opportunity for education
When food safety is explained, it becomes the most important thing to consumers. Consumers liked the idea of having educational content about other food related issues, accessible to them within the app, as they felt there was not enough of this information around.
ProofScore is complex, it requires further research
One of the challenges was to explore and define what consumers want to include in the food score displayed when they scan a food item. This information would inform the algorithm for the ProofScore.
Through the interviews, as well as in the survey and the card sort, we tried to define what the ProofScore would entail, but we found that this concept is very complex and often personal to consumers. Without prompts, participants gave very personal views of the score, based on things that matter to them (e.g. is it organic, local etc.). Some of the possibilities were then explored through a card sort.
Food safety and accuracy of information were consumers’ primary goals, while their secondary goals were to do with personal values (e.g. fair trade, fair labor, free range etc.)
Consumers’ primary goals are safety and
freshness, then personal values
User testing insights
Once the app was designed, we tested the prototype with users, who were encouraged to comment on functionalities and ease of use.
Additionally, we explored preferences for map view - representing the path the food took. After testing, we also encouraged users to share their opinions about the app itself, such as the look and feel.
Product reactions
One participant said that even one degree of temperature fluctuation in transit would make them avoid buying the product (if a product was an animal product such as cheese, milk or meat).
This avoidance could be harmful to producers, especially as small temperature fluctuations are normal and do not compromise the product.
Displaying this information only where the safe levels are exceeded would be more helpful.
We gave participants a Product reaction test following user testing. The words associated with the app were mostly positive. Not so positive associations were around information that was too dense and not easy to see or understand were addressed by the UX design team during iteration.
Sensor data is alarming
Some participants were alarmed when they noticed sensor data.
RECAP
What did we learn?
Throughout this project, our goal was to explore if the idea of transparent food resonates with consumers and in what way. Also to deep dive into ProofScore concept and find what consumers think and feel is important to include in this score. What did we learn?
Consumers feel transparent information would help them make good decisions
Many felt this would allow them to source food that is better quality
Consumers let their values guide their behaviours
Personal beliefs and values, such as sustainability concerns and animal welfare had a great impact on shopping behaviours.
Food safety is confusing to consumers
Many don’t know what it refers to, but when they are told what it means, food safety becomes their primary goal.
Fear may affect buying decisions
Providing detailed information regarding food can be counterproductive, as consumers don’t understand its meaning
The next steps
Exploring avoidance
Alerts and sensor data can appear alarming to users. Exploring this through interviews would determine how much information is helpful without causing panic. Fear can be counterproductive and lead to avoidance of certain produce, so better understanding of users’ reaction to the alerts is needed. Further research into sensor data and recalls is needed to gain insight into user behaviors, governed by fear.
Consulting the other side of the food chain
ProofScore also presented a challenge.
If we give consumers what they want included in
the ProofScore, what about the other side of the
food chain? Would this hurt food producers,
shipping companies and anyone involved on the
other side of the food chain?
We recommended to Transparent Path to conduct extensive research with other stakeholders before making firm decisions about the ProofScore.