2. 1
Introduction
Grocery shoppingisanarea of immense interestand growth at the moment, which makes it an
ideal market for revolution in technology and design (Galante, Lopez & Munby, 2013; Warschun,
Delfmann, & MuBig, 2012). We were assigned with the task of venturing creatively into this field to
create an innovative shopping experience for a fictional supermarket “PriceValue”.
From our beginnings, we first gathered and introduced ourselves in a small conference room.
We triedtocreate an atmosphere of thinkingoutsidethe reigns of current online shopping trends. Our
initial couple of sessionsweresomewhat restrained as perhaps contrary to our initial plan. Unease has
never found itself a feature within a creative stronghold. Despite our early tardiness, we eventually
loosenedupandourideas began to flow and unravel. In order to be innovative in our thinking, fi rst of
all we decided that we needed to find out what was currently available or ‘out there’ in the online
grocery shopping world. To do this we each took upon the task of researching around the area
individually and reporting back to the group with our different findings.
Research and Requirements Gathering
The goal of gatheringliterature wastocollectivelygraspthe fieldof online shopping,itscurrent
trendsand mostimportantlytofindoutwhypeople seemedtoprefertoshopinan ‘oldfashioned’way
despite the remarkablepotential technologycouldholdforit.Currentliterature onthe subjectmay
informusof howmoderninnovatorsare viewingonline shoppingandperhapsmaysparkan ideaaswell
as informuson the topic.Undoubtedlythere isgreat potential tomake moneyfromonline shoppingin
thisday and age,yetno organisationhasproperlybrokenthroughwithanoutstandingdevice oridea
that people genuinelywanttouse.We alsowanteddiscoverthe general opinionspeopleholdtowards
online shopping,barriersthatpreventtheiruse,andthe motivationsbehindtheircurrentusage
patterns.
Of the informationgatheredduringthe initial research,one particulararticle thatstoodoutwas
entitled‘The Future of Online GroceryinEurope’.Here Galante andcolleagues(2013) suggestthat there
isa lotof potential formarketgrowthinthe fieldof onlineshopping,andthatpeople wanttoshop
online butjustdon’tfeel thatthe effortinvolvedisworthit.Theygo onto say that a clickand collect
system(selectingandpurchasingonline butcollectingfromthe store) maybe of greatpopularityinthe
3. 2
future,cuttingoutthe unpopulardeliverycharge.Essentially,thismethodof drive throughshopping
allowsthe customertoavoidbothqueuingand carryingtheirbags to theircar. The authorscontinue to
suggestthatthe reasononline shoppinghasn’ttakenoff isithasadditional costsinthe line of labour
deliveries,vehiclesandtheirfuel andmaintenance costs,withcustomersreluctanttofork outthe extra
expensesforthe additional convenience.Theycontinue tosuggestthatthe progressof online grocery
shoppingdependsona single retailertomake the firstboldandassertive move towardsinnovationfor
the othersto quicklyfollow suit.Theymake averygoodpointaboutthe requirementof aneasyto use
and effective interface,asonline shopping experiencesdiffergreatlyacrossgrocers,yetare still
severelylackingconsideringhowmanyitemsthatare purchasedona weeklybasis.If the interface is
difficulttouse anditemscan’tbe located,itcan resultinthe user gettingfrustratedandabandoning
theirtransaction.The article continuestooutlinepotential risksinvolvedinonlinegroceryshopping,
such as systemcrashesthatcan resultinhavingto start all overagain,a late deliverythatleadsto
ruineddinnerplansandunclearlabellingresultinginthe wrongitemsbeingpurchased.
Anothernoteworthyarticle thatwasencounteredisentitled‘A FreshLookat Online Grocery
Shopping’.Here Warschunandcolleagues(2012) declare thatthe major hurdle tobuyinggroceries
online isthatpeople are generallyalreadyhappywiththe waytheyobtaintheirgroceries.Thiswould
suggestthatin orderfor online shoppingtotake off,customersmustprefertodotheirshoppingonline
above doingitinperson.Anotherimportantpointmade inthisarticle worthmentioningisthatthere is
verylittle roomforerror inselectinganddeliveringgoodsonline,tosuchan extentthata usermay
neverattempttouse the service againif a product isincorrector if a deliveryisn’tquickandefficient
enoughfortheirstandards.
From our researchanddiscussionswe foundthatacommonkeybarrierthat put people off
online groceryshoppingwashavingtodeal withdifficultinterfaces.Anotherirritableflaw thatseemed
to regularlyappearwasthe cost of deliveryandthe durationthatittook forthe groceriesto arrive,
particularlywithinpopulartime slots.People generallywanttheirfoodthe same daythattheyorderit,
and thislimitationof currentmethodsseemedtobe a keydeterrentinonlineshoppingoverall.
Additionallyif the costof deliveryisquite highitcanbe a matterof principle tonotwant to have to pay
a great deal fora generallypoorservice.Anotherservice thatwaswidelyavailable instoresbutnot
online,wasthe abilitytoavail of popularoffersandreduceditems.Peopleseemtolove offersand
catchinga deal evenif theydidn’tsetouttobuythe itemorperhapseven wantit,so itwouldbe
4. 3
importantto make the customerfeel asthoughtheyweren’tmissingoutonanythingbyavoidingthe
supermarket.We foundthatdifferentpeople have differentstandardsof selectinggoodswhile
shoppingsoitwouldbe importanttomaintaina veryhighstandardto satisfyeverybody’sneeds,
providingthe freshestproductsandensuringthatthe packagingwasn’tdamagedorout of orderin any
way. We foundthat eventhe ideaof online shoppingpeoplefoundtobe quite tediousand
uninterestingsobearingthisinmindwe wantedtocreate a funand enjoyableexperience outof the
online shoppingtask.
Afterthe groupfeltthat theyhadcollectedsufficientinformationtounderstandthe underlying
potential andlimitationsof the online shoppingexperience,theystartedtobrainstormideasforthe
project.Itwas agreedthat a focuson creatinga betteronline shoppinginterface wasnotenough,and
insteadthe groupdecidedtothinkof interestingandnovel experiences centredaroundfood. The aim
was to create a productthat people wantedtouse initsownright,because of the functionalitythe
productitself offered,whichcouldthencouldbe connectedtothe worldof online groceryshopping.
Thisallowedustobroadenour scope for ideaswhichfocusedonuserexperience attheircore.
From a broad varietyof potential ideasvaryingfromvirtual realityandgamificationconceptsof
shoppingtoa smart trolleythatwouldscanand weighitemsastheywere placedintothe basket,we
eventuallydecidedonaSmart Fridge anda CookbookAppas our final twochoices.Bothseemedto
have the most potential incatchingonwiththe publicandalthoughthe previousideaswere goodthey
perhapslackedthe depth,dimensionanddurabilitythatthe final twopossessed.The smartfridge idea
rose out of current interestinthe “internetof things”,amarketof massive potential andinnovation
(Kortuem,Kawsar,Fitton,&Sundramoorthy,2010).The pitchwasthat smart algorithmscouldbe
combinedwithavarietyof sensorstoallow forthe analysisof fridge contents,andthisinformation
couldbe effectivelyandappropriatelyparsedforuseful informationtobe impartedtothe enduser.The
Cookbookapptookinspirationfromthe currentinterestinrecipe andmeal planningapplications
(Breton,Fuemmeler,&Abroms,2011) buttook advantage of the potential integrationwithonline
shoppingforan easierandmore streamlinedmeal preparationexperience.Itwasthoughtthatif people
enjoyedusingthe designedproduct,andthe integrationwithPriceValueallowedforaneasierwayto
shopfor groceries,itwouldincrease the amountof people shoppingonlineaswell asincreasing
PriceValue’srevenue.Throughtheirincreasedrevenue,theywouldbe able topayfor developmentand
improvementsof suchproducts,whichwouldinturnleadtomore revenue.The popularonlineretailer
5. 4
Amazonhas gaineditsmarketdominance throughasimilarmodel,where thereisahighinitial
investmenttoincrease brandawarenessandshoppinginteractions(Rayport,1999).Customerswould
thenbe enticedintoanecosystemthatwouldpromote highlevelsof transactions,whichwould
eventuallyleadtoanexponential increase inprofitsandinvestmentreturn.
A targetdemographicwaschosen foreach projecttoallow forgreaterfocus onspecificuser
requirements,whichwouldthenleadtouseful,applicableandtailoredsolutionsthatwouldserve to
entice the userto increase theirshoppinghabits.The maindemographicdecidedforthe Cookbookapp
was students,astheyare oftenthrustintoforcedindependence,whichisperfectforthe realmof
followingrecipesandplanningmeals(Holdsworth,2009).Parentswere decidedtobe the best
demographicforthe smart fridge,astheyare typicallyhomeownerswhowouldhave aneedto
purchase theirownfridge.The familyunitwouldalsoleadtolargerlevelsof interactionwiththe
appliance,whencomparedtostudentsandbusyprofessionalswhichare more inclinedtowardstake
out,or the elderlywhichare tendtorejectnew technology(Rouillard,2012).
From here itseemedappropriatetoconductan online questionnaire tofindoutabouthowboth
studentsandfamiliesfelt aboutthe appandfridge.Anonline surveyseemedtobe the mostappropriate
and efficientmethodtogatherinformationfromthe publicasitallowedustoaccessa large pool of
informationquickly,andwasquite easytoadminister.Additionaltothis,studiesconductedbyLuce and
colleagues(2007),Smyth,Dillman,ChristianandStern(2006) and Funke,ReipsandThomas(2011),
revealedthatparticipantsare more revealingwithinthismediumwhilealsoelaboratingfurtherontheir
responses.We formulatedaconsent formto beginwithinordertooutline whatinformationwe were
investigatingandwhywe were lookingforit.We thengatheredsome general demographicinformation
to give some contexttosubsequentresponses.
Aftergatheringthe resultsfromthe SmartFridge questionnaire,we foundthatpeople preferred
to shopin a store as it waseasiertocompare itemsandsource the bestdealsandoffers. Trustin the
supermarketstaff wasanotherimportantfactor,ascustomerspreferredtoselectthe freshestmeats
and vegetablesthemselves,asgenerallythe date of the goodsselectedbythe supermarketstendedto
suitthe store rather than the customer.People were alsoveryunhappywiththe shopssubstitution
system.Theydidn’twantthe hassle of receivingthe wrongproductasit wasenoughto irritate the
shopperandput themoff shoppingonlineagain.Technologyanddifficultieswithaninterface was
anothercommonresponse andwasenoughforpeople toavoidonline shoppingcompletely.With
6. 5
regardto the CookbookApp,similarconcernsoverthe interfacesusabilitywasof greatimportance and
occurredfrequently.Anotherimportantnote wasthatcurrentdietaryappsfor those withrestricted
dietsneverconsideredthe user’sbudget,renderingthe suggestedmealsquiteexpensive.Bothof the
surveyssuggestedthatboththe appand the fridge were innovativeandwouldbe usedbythe vast
majorityof the participants.
Creative Design
Withthe resultsfromthe userquestionnaire, we were able to organise a database of common
issuesusersencountered.The database wasfilteredforthe mostsalient and important concerns raised
by participants, which could then be formulated into a set of user requirements. Producing a set of
stable requirements from users means that you create a sound foundation in which to build design
solutions, and allows for an end product that is focused and targeted at improving user experience
(Chavan et al., 2009; Rogers et al., 2015).
Requirements were separated into three categories: Fridge Specific, App Specific, and Mutual
Requirements. Due to the underlying theme of online grocery shopping, some requirements were
consistent across both product ideas, and this allowed for the formulation of solutions that were
subsequently applicable to both products as well.
One issue that many participants expressed was that they did not trust the supermarket to
deliverthe bestqualityperishablestothem.Complaintswere raised about bruised fruits or vegetables
that did not look particularly fresh, as well as meat and dairy products that were already close to their
expiration dates. Basically, customers had certain standards for different foods, and did not trust the
employeesthatwere selectingtheiritemstodosoto theirunique specifications.A proposed solutionto
this issue was named “Shopper Trust”, and involved a rating system that would allow users to leave
public ratings and feedback on their specific shopper. In principle, this solution aimed to allow for
customers to vocalise their preferences and received suited service accordingly.
Deliverywasarecurringtopicinthe userresponsesasa large deterrentagainstonline shopping.
Waiting for deliveries within certain time slots, no same day delivery and high delivery price were all
commonlystatedconcerns.Customerswould feel like they weren’t able to commit themselves to any
7. 6
task within the time slot, as they could be interrupted at any time to accept the delivery. A proposed
solution to this issue was a real-time delivery tracker, which would give an estimate to arrival time,
allowingforgreatertransparencyanduser satisfaction. This solution was inspired by applications such
as Uber, as well asreal-time bustimetablesandDomino’sPizzadelivery indicator. Same day delivery is
beingcurrentlyexplored by both Amazon and Google in the United States to great customer feedback
(Zych,2015), thusinspiringthe team to include this functionality to potentially solve this issue. Lastly,
deliveryprice wasindicatedtobe toohigh,especially when the number of items ordered is low. Again
takingfromthe Amazonbusinessmodel (Rayport,1999), we decidedtoinclude free delivery whenever
possible. It would seem reasonable to include free delivery when the customer spends over a certain
amount, earns enough loyalty points to balance the cost, or as a service that comes packaged with
purchasing the fridge, and so these principles were included in our design.
When purchasing items online, customers frequently stated that there wasn’t enough
information onthe product,andthisleadto erroneouspurchasing of wrong items or items that are too
large. As such, we proposed that PriceValue would invest in creating a large, extensive and detailed
database of all the products they currently sell, so that information could be presented clearly to the
customer, but also incorporated into the smart algorithms behind the two products. Nutritional value
was alsoimportanttocustomers,andso includingthisinformation in the database would allow for the
automatic creation of meals and recipes that met certain criteria, such as dietary needs or allergies.
Particularly, the fridge was seen to benefit immensely from this database, as it could communicate
effectivelywiththe appliance tocalculate quantitiesandother relevantdetailsbasedonthe contents of
the fridge.Thiscommunicationbetweensmartalgorithmswouldallowforsuggestions,notificationsand
extradetailstobe presentedtothe customer when needed, such as notifying them when certain food
items were running low, or that certain food was about to expire. The database could also connect to
the customer’sorderinghistory,toallow forthe emergence of shopping trends that could be exploited
for furtherautomation.Thisdatabase isalsoimportantfor the organisation of meals and recipes in the
Cookbook app, as questionnaire participants were very interested in getting suggestions based on
budget and dietary requirements.
With our solutions formulated, we could move on to create scenarios that would show the
systeminaction,allowingforthe creationof contextaroundthe userexperience,aswell ashighlightthe
tasksthe userwill perform(Carroll,2000).To allow fordiversityindesignideaswheneventually moving
8. 7
to a lo-fi prototype, we created essential use cases (Constantine & Lockwood, 1999), user groups
(Rogers et al., 2015) and storyboarding scenarios (Jacobson, Christerson, Jonsson, & Overgaard, 1992;
See Appendixfolderforexamples),whichallowedforadiverse spreadof useractionsand reactions. For
example, a storyboard was sketched of the different situations in which notifications could be used
within both the designed products to impart information which was thought to be relevant to the
current situation. Detailed personas were also created to induce a more empathetic perspective
towards users, as the team could make decisions with specific fictional characters in mind (Dix, 2004;
Rogerset al.,2015). One of the designedpersonaswasastudentnamedMaud,whohad specificdietary
requirements as she was allergic to nuts and a vegan (See Appendix folder for further examples).
Once enoughappropriate andrelevantdocumentationwascreated,we were prepared to move
onto the next step of design, the low-fidelity prototype. The conceptualisation of our ideas into a
prototype wouldthenallow us to evaluate our solutions with the end-users, to gauge their efficacy as
solutionstotheirraisedconcerns,aswell asgainingadiversityinperspective regarding how they could
be improved (Schon, 1983).
Low Fidelity Prototype and Evaluation
Low-fidelity prototypes are a cheap, efficient and easy way to transform abstract ideas into
tangible andtestable artefacts(Rogersetal.,2015). Prototypescanrange fromwoodenblocks,sketches
on paper to complex pieces of software (Schon, 1983), but all are built with the purpose of testing a
specificconcept or feature (Baskinger, 2008). Our team had two purposes in mind when designing our
low fidelity prototypes: to show users a more concrete representation of the potential experience
available fromthe product,andto gauge engagementandexcitementtowardsthe products as a whole.
To create our prototypes, we focused on the method of sketching outlined by Greenberg,
Carpendale, Marquardt, and Buxton (2012) as it is the simplest form of artistic expression and
communicative tool. Artistic talent is not a requirement of sketching as the focus lies on the design
instead of the aesthetics. Lo-fi prototypes of different interfaces, such as the ones described by
Baskinger’s (2008) index cards, get designers into the mind-set of graphical user interfaces, as well as
navigation,buttonplacementsandinterface metaphors(Rogersetal.,2015). Lo-fi prototypes carry a lot
9. 8
of advantages (Dix, 2004) which were behind our reasoning for dedicating a large portion of our
resources to their extensive use. These include cross-team communication, clarification of
requirements,formation of design alternatives, extremely low cost and its low requirements to entry
(Dhillonetal.,2011). However,there were certain limitations attached to this undertaking. The length
of the development cycle was greatly increased, especially as all team members were involved in
designing their own subsections of our products. Additionally, this compartmentalisation of design
meant there was little consistency and integration between interfaces. When presenting these
prototypestothe user,thislack of underlyingsequence couldhave negativelyimpacted the evaluation.
The team devised a structure of components required for each product prototype, with some
overlapwhenfeatures connect to more general online shopping were involved. In total, 19 interfaces
items were planned for the fridge and 18 interface items were planned for the cookbook app (See
Appendix folder for further details). These included sketches of icon placements and navigational
structure for itemssuch as the delivery tracker, the shopper trust system and the substitution system.
For the purposesof evaluation,the imageswere amalgamated into a PowerPoint presentation
that was shown to participants as an illustrative tool while we conducted a structured interview with
them. The team member ran through a prepared script while the participant sat in front of the
demonstrationof the application,where theycouldrelaytheiropinionsaboutthe productfreelyasthey
saw it.Thiscognitive walkthrough technique allowed for the greater insight into the exact thoughts of
the participants and their feelings toward the product (Dix, 2004).
Overall,the responsestothe lo-fi were overwhelmingly positive, with participants exclaiming
theyreallylikedbothproductideasandwere excitedto see a finished product. One participant stated,
“The idea that the fridge can tell me if the items I am purchasing will fit is amazing”, with another
interested in the glass door interface, “The glass door is a great idea. Why don’t any fridges have this
already? Being able to overlay information on the contents would be fantastic – it’s kinda Star Trek”.
Participants also highlighted that they enjoyed the personal touch that the Shopper Trust solution
offered, and that they thought it could become “a hit in real stores”. It is important to state that the
script used to evaluate the lo-fi prototype did carry a very positive tone, highlighting the potential
advantages and benefits of the system which could have biased the participants towards positivity in
theiropinions.Thisconfoundwillneedtobe addressedinfurtherevaluationstoprevent contamination
of opinion between designers and users.
10. 9
The information collected was analysed to see what advantages and disadvantages each
product offered so we could better decide which product to move forward onto the hi-fi prototyping
stage (See Appendix folder for further examples). The fridge received positive reactions towards its
smart notifications and suggestions based on the contents, and customers seemed to react positively
towardsthe experience.However,withthe parentdemographic,careful care would be needed to keep
usability as clear and easy to navigate as possible, as they may not be used to normal technological
conventions like students would be (Rouillard, 2012). Positive responses were also seen for the
cookbook’sabilitytoorganise andsuggestmealsbased on price and dietary preferences, as usual apps
of the nature would regularly suggest healthy but expensive meals. Additionally, the student
demographicismore eagertoadopt new technologies,andwould be more receptive to this product in
general. Cookbook applications are very common in the current market, so the PriceValue offering
wouldneedtobe extensivelyfeaturedandverywelldesignedtostandabove the restof the market and
capture an audience.
Takingall considerationsmentionedabove,the teamdecided to move on with the smart fridge
productas itwas seenasthe most innovative,creative and interesting solution to the online shopping
problem.People seemedgenuinelyinterested in using the smart fridge and stated that they thought it
would make their shopping experience easier, and thus increase shopping overall. Additionally, the
featuresandideasconnectedtothe cookbookappcouldbe integrated into the smart fridge design at a
later date, to create a more complete and feature rich product.
High Fidelity Prototype
The hi-fi prototype,while atime-consumingandresource-intensive commitment,isknowntobe
an effective way to test functionality, define a navigational scheme, portray the look and feel of a
product, and serve as a living manifestation of a product (Rogers et al., 2015). According to Lim and
colleagues (2008), prototypes can act as a filter to emphasise particular key aspects of the product,
which can then be presented to the end user for feedback. Taking the primary qualities that were
perceived most positively and innovative by the previous evaluations, we were able to create a
fundamental principlefordesign.The designthatemergedwouldallow foranefficient measure of new
possibilitiesandunderlyinglimitationsof the product. Finally, the hi-fi prototype allows for previously
abstract conceptual ideas to be concretised and externalised (Lim et al., 2008). While certain studies
11. 10
foundcomparable feedbackfromusersfrombotha lo-fi andhi-fi prototype, regardless of the different
in interactivity and cost (Sauer & Sonderegger, 2009; Dhillon et al., 2011), the advantages of the hi-fi
prototype appeared to be worth the commitment necessary to take the product design to the next
iteration.
However,asisinherentin the nature of prototypes, some compromises had to be taken. Time
limitswere aneverpresentfactor,andsowe had to focuson horizontal prototypingstyle where arange
of functionswere shownwithminimal detail andinteractivity. As the intention was to quickly test user
opinion to the design, overall experience and functionality of the product, this approach was seen as
appropriate.Afterdeepimmersioninthe requirementsoutlined by the users and their opinions on our
proposedsolutions,we feltwe could create a conceptual model of user experience we desired for our
users (Rogers et al., 2015).
We decided to use a rapid prototyping application known as Invision
(http://www.invisionapp.com/),which allows for easy and quick formation of high fidelity prototypes.
These prototypescanbe easilyanimatedandcarriedacrossplatforms,which made the final evaluation
easier to accomplish. The framework allowed us to create static images that could be animated into a
clickable andinteractiveexperience.The interfacewasdesignedusing Photoshop,andthenuploadedto
the Invision Platform and connected with other static images to create a coherent interface. Due to
issuesof continuityof designseenwiththe lo-fi prototype, we chose to allow one designer full control
of the interface,whichallowedforaconsistentvisiontobe carriedacrossthe whole interface.However,
this also meant that it was more vulnerable to oversights and carried biases in perspective (Dix et al.,
2004). The final interactive version shown to users can be found at https://invis.io/UX54TY1QT.
The design included 13 screens that were the minimum necessary to portray the range of
features the smart fridge would provide (See Appendix Folder for all images used). Interactivity
remained low and was restrained to basic navigation between screens. This allowed for a focus on
overall experience and functionality, instead of being bogged down on the more intricate details of
extensive in-depth design. As prototyping is an iterative process (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1997), the
subsequentversionsof the productcoulddelve deeper into the specific details after general feedback
was received from the overarching system.
The first image was of an overlay screen that appeared over the glass door of the fridge. The
overlaywould give information on items within the fridge, such as expiry dates, remaining content as
12. 11
well as suggestions or notifications. To prevent an overwhelming display that was too information
dense,iconswere usedwhereappropriatewithminimal text.The iconsrelied on the design metaphors
principlesoutlinedbyErickson(1990),which allow for the user to understand a product by transferring
knowledge fromfamiliarconcepts.Tosuggestremainingcontentwithin packaging, a percentage metre
was usedsimilartothose seeninbatteryindicators.Toindicate expiration dates, a clock metaphor was
used. This clock is surrounded by an arrow to suggest a consumption or reuse, similar to the arrow
foundinrecyclingicons.Anexclamationmarkwaschosenfor notifications, as they are a regular design
conventionforitemsof importance.Lastly, a gear icon was chosen for the menu, as it’s conventionally
knownto meansettings, or more features. The notification itself required actual text, to allow for the
full explanation of the details being provided.
The menuscreenwas dividedintoagrid-basedformat,as this is regularly seen with computers
and phones, and is an easy to navigate and a familiar system. Icons were picked that were thought to
best describe the main functions of the fridge, with titles underneath for ease of use. Overall, the
system aimed to be aesthetically pleasing, with a visually focused interface with large, high quality
images.The goal wasalso to dothe mostprocessingaspossible in the background, to allow the user to
be presentedwiththe mostrelevantinformationatthe mostrelevanttime.Whetherthiswasclearfrom
the presentation will be highlighted in the later evaluation. In the My Fridge section, items were
highlightedthatwere abouttoexpire andwere runninglow,allowinguserstoordermore automatically
or add it to their shopping list. The online shopping section focused on regularly shopped items and
itemsthatwere runningout.Thiswas chosenbecause usersdescribedthe dull andrepetitiousnature of
shopping online for items that they’ve bought over and over again. Usually there’s a set of items that
shopperswouldsticktoo,toppingupwhenevertheyranlow on one item or another. The system could
potentiallyguessthatitemswere runninglow,basedonthe analysisof frequencyatwhichcertainitems
were bought, even if they’re not placed inside the fridge itself.
The shoppertrust initiative received positive feedback from lo-fi evaluations, and so received
prominence inthe hi-fi design.Twoscreenswere createdtobothexplainthe innovative features of the
system, and to highlight the possible benefits it carries. Additionally, the substitution function and
deliverytrackerwere populardesignsolutions,receivingprominence in the hi-fi prototype as well. The
inspiration for the real time tracker came from services such as Uber, which give an estimation of the
time until arrival of the vehicle.
13. 12
Withthe hi-fi prototype,detailshadtobe ironedout,suchas procedure of navigation,interface
interaction and material, as well as nature of exposed content. This helped to further concretise the
conceptual ideas and better highlight the potential of the product to users for evaluation.
Final Evaluation
Evaluatinginterfacesshouldbe seenasaprocess rather than one specific task (Dix, 2004). With
thisattitude takentoheart,the group begana secondevaluation stage, with the goal of evaluating the
hi-fi prototype of the smart fridge.
Takingthe busy parentpersona,the hi-fi prototype was evaluated using a group of parents in a
controlledenvironment. The evaluation took place with the user sitting in front of the demonstration
application and the interviewer progressing through a pre-prepared script which highlighted features
and sought specific responses from the participant. A cognitive walkthrough (Dix, 2004) was used for
features that were not yet implemented in the prototype. By observing users’ reactions to the
interactive prototypethe developersof the appliance couldgainagreaterunderstandingof the usability
issues. This usability testing, the team felt, would encourage active feedback and highlight errors or
reactions to interactions that could not have been imagined prior to the evaluation.
The initial userrequirementswere quitebroadbutitwas hopedthatthrough refinement of the
lo-fi prototype, the application would be a step closer to meeting these requirements. A number of
elements of user experience were targeted during the evaluation; namely the shopping and shopper
trust experience,the deliveryexperienceandthe userinterface.Greater care was taken at this junction
to create a more neutral tone in the evaluation script, to avoid contamination of biases between
designers and users, a potential issue with the lo-fi prototypes.
Galante and colleagues (2013) have suggested that there is significant potential for market
growthin the fieldof onlineshoppingandthatpeople want to shop online but just do not feel that the
effortanddifficultyinvolved is worth it. With this in mind, the hi-fi prototype attempts to simplify the
shoppingexperience byremovingthe more mundane aspectsof shopping with, for example, the smart
fridge notifying users of the items they are running low on and suggesting additional items they may
wish to purchase.
14. 13
In the requirements gathering stage it was identified that a key barrier to broader adoption of
online groceryshoppingwasusershavingtodeal withdifficultinterfaces.Withthisinmindthe interface
experience had to be handled carefully. The prototype attempted to simplify the process by reducing
tasks to minimal touch interactions within the fridge’s application.
Of the usersevaluated,the majorityhadissueswiththe glass door upon which the information
overlayswouldbe presented. What had been assumed to be a practical and interesting design feature
provedtobe a turn-off forusers.User1 and User 5 were each reluctanttohave theirfridge contents on
general display.User3,perhapsjokingly,suggested this presentation of fridge items would impact her
future purchases as she may be shamed into purchasing healthier groceries. The menu interface was
streamlined to the most basic tasks identified and was popular across all users interviewed. It was
considered to be intuitive and functional.
During the evaluation, it was found that users perceived the notifications of low stock to be
useful butwere vehemently against Price Value suggesting items they may wish to buy. User 1, User 3
and User 5 each consideredthistobe tantamounttoforcedadvertisingandfounditdistasteful.Perhaps
the experience would be improved if it was made clearer that these suggestions were based upon
shopper behaviour and analytics of previous purchases.
In the article entitled ‘A Fresh Look at Online Grocery Shopping’, Warschun, and colleagues
(2012) state that a significantbarriertopurchasinggroceriesonline isthat people are generally already
quite contentwiththe waythat theyobtaintheirgroceries.The evaluations found that there remains a
reticence by shoppers to relinquish the eye-ball test of fresh products. With this considered, the
ShopperTrustfeature attempted to instil trust in the shopper that the quality checks they themselves
would perform would be taken care of by a trusted shopper. This feature was popular amongst all the
usersinthe evaluation.Theyeachfoundthe ShopperTrustandYour Shopperscreenstobe intuitive and
to the point.
Priorto the evaluation,itwashighlightedinthe requirementsgatheringphase thatpeople were
also very dissatisfied with the shop substitution systems. In the fridge interface, users were notified
whenitemswere unavailable and suggestions for replacement were offered. User 1, User 3 and User 5
each foundthisaspectof the interface tobe misleadingandall userswere uneasyabout suggestions by
the store. It was common amongst each of those who identified this as a weakness that they would
prefer to manually select substitutions or receive no item at all in its place.
15. 14
Althoughthe userinterface was generally perceived to be intuitive and navigable, there were
some design flaws identified by the users during the evaluation phase that could easily be improved
upon. For example, the Best Before feature was unpopular with User 1 and User 2 and a number of
icons were determined to be misleading or vague. User 3 identified the lack of pricing information on
the shoppingandproductdescriptionpagestobe a fundamental flaw.Therecanbe no denyingthatthis
should be rectified in the next redesign. User 5 considered there to be insufficient information
contained in the Shopper Trust screen, although they found it easy to guess the details.
Galante and colleagues(2013) alsosuggestthatthe reason online shopping has not taken off is
it hasadditional costsassociatedwithlabour,deliveries,vehicles and their fuel and maintenance costs,
with customers reluctant to incur extra expense for the additional convenience. This opinion was
validatedbythe evaluation.The DeliveryandDeliveryTrackinginterface featureswere consideredto be
adequate butthe notionof payingadditional chargesfordelivery,havingpurchasedorsubscribedtouse
the smart fridge was vexing to users. User 2 stated they considered free delivery should be one of the
contractual terms of the smart fridge and service.
The requirementsgatheringphase identified another bugbear that seemed to regularly appear
inuser responses.Thiswasthe costof deliveryandthe durationof time that it took for the groceries to
arrive,particularlywithinpopulartime slots.Peoplegenerallywanttheirfoodto arrive on the same day
that theyorderit.The priority delivery feature of the interface was considered by User 1 and User 3 to
be unclearand unpopular.Also,the feesexhibitedwithinthe prototype,while purelyfordemonstration
purposes,were exorbitantandmayhave impactednegativelyon the user evaluation. Perhaps the next
iteration, should priority delivery remain a feature, could look at including realistic charges for such a
service.
The inability to avail of the same offers online as in-store was another feature that was
identifiedasimportanttousersduringthe requirementsgatheringphase.Customerswishedtofeel like
theywere notmissingoutondealsand offers by avoiding the supermarket. Thus, the Rewards feature
and associated screens were created. User 1, User 3 and User 5 each suggested that rewards were a
positive move, common in all grocery retailers but felt the implementation of this in the Price Value
fridge application was handled incorrectly. The points system, again for demonstration purposes, was
considered to be wildly high. Those same users each remarked that they would prefer money-back
16. 15
discounts rather than store-suggested loyalty items. Rewards and offers are highly regarded by
consumers so this should be prioritised in the next iteration of the interface.
Rogers and colleagues (2015) identify anumber of factors for interpreting evaluation data. The
reliability of the evaluation seems to have been quite high, in that many of the results were echoed
across eachof those usersthat evaluatedthe hi-fi prototype.Despitethis,itisasmall sample size and it
wouldbe pertinenttogrowthissample size should the product be developed further. The validity can
also be considered to be high, as the participants evaluated each of the features of the application as
well asthe interface.Thiscouldof course be increasedwithahigherdefinitionprototype, i.e. a working
smart fridge,foruserstoevaluate.Sucha prototype wouldseemlikeapositive nextstep,allowingusers
to evaluate the prototype in a in a natural setting or “in the wild” (Rogers et al., 2015). There were a
number of unintended negative biases introduced, namely around the use of arbitrary figures for
prioritydeliveryandsuggestedrewards.Inthe nextiterationof the productthese will be addressed.The
scope of the findings is quite narrow and can be used to implement positive changes to the product
quickly.
Conclusion
The team were able to evolve an idea from an initial abstract concept to a concrete and
extensive realisation of both design and functionality. The final hi-fi, while basic in its interactivity
allowed for a material representation of the concept that was presented to real potential users and
evaluated.There wasadistinctshiftinperceptionandemotionalvalence towards the product from the
lo-fi prototype to the hi-fi, which could suggest that the lo-fi evaluation methods had too positive a
slant. While the glass door was immensely popular initially, it appears that after seeing it in action,
participants were made acutely aware of the aesthetic needs of an organised fridge, which they no
longer felt was appealing. Participants even suggested that the glass door be removed altogether
because of thisor made frostedinstead.Due tothe overlaytechnologyof the design,thiscouldbe easily
integrated into the design, were a slider of sorts could change the opacity of the screen to the user’s
liking. Highlighting this feature in future iterations could aptly cover these concerns.
The participantswere generallynegative aboutcertainfeaturesof the fridge, particularly about
placeholder item suggestions and pricing. This could be easily fixed in a future iteration where prices
17. 16
wouldbe includedasaneutral sign,whichwouldallow customerstonote thata price wasavailable,but
not invoke the emotional valence attached to judging their perceived value. Users also felt that
suggestionswere aformof intrusive advertising,perhapsbecause the itemspickedwere not items they
wouldusually shop for themselves. A small user survey of regularly purchased items could be used to
tailorthe evaluation experience to the customer and highlight the unique features of the product in a
mannermore similar to what they would experience if they owned the product themselves. Finally, a
greater effort should be made to highlight why certain suggestions were chosen, as these can act to
increase usertrustinthe algorithm,asopposedtoleadingtosuspicionof ulteriormotives.Lastly,due to
the small sample size,the reactioncouldhave been just a coincidental distribution of a segment of the
population adverse to the idea, and a larger sample can be used in the future to combat this.
Overall, the smart refrigerator has great potential as a product and would fit well into the
current trend towards home automation and the internet of things (Kortuem et al., 2010). With
modifications and further innovative thinking, the product could serve to be the boost needed to
increase growth in the online shopping market and increased adoption. Even without considering the
productitself,keyideas highlighted in the design could be incorporated into existing online shopping
experiences to increase their sales and revenue (e.g. delivery tracker and shopper trust).
This project allowed the team to be immersed in the design experience and discover the
limitationsof the process,butalsothe potential forinnovation.Itisclear from our experience however
that the perspectives of the users and the designers do not always align, and it is necessary to include
frequent and extensive user input to assure a quality experience centred around the user, who will
ultimately be the one benefitting from the experience.
18. 17
References
BASKINGER, M.(2008). PENCILS BEFORE PIXELS:A PRIMER IN HAND-GENERATED
SKETCHING.INTERACTIONS,15(2), 28-36.
BEYER, H., &HOLTZBLATT,K.(1997). CONTEXTUAL DESIGN:DEFINING CUSTOMER-CENTEREDSYSTEMS.
ELSEVIER.
BRETON,E.R., FUEMMELER,B.F., &ABROMS,L. C.(2011). WEIGHT LOSS—THERE IS AN APPFOR THAT!BUT
DOES IT ADHERE TO EVIDENCE-INFORMEDPRACTICES?TRANSLATIONAL BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 1(4),
523-529.
CARROLL,J.M.(2004). BEYOND FUN. INTERACTIONS, 11(5), 38-40.
CHAVAN,A. L., GORNEY,D., PRABHU,B., &ARORA,S.(2009). THE WASHINGMACHINE THATATE MY SARI -
MISTAKES IN CROSS-CULTURAL DESIGN,INTERACTIONS,16(1), 26-31.
CONSTANTINE,L.L., &LOCKWOOD,L. A.(1999). SOFTWARE FOR USE:A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE MODELS AND
METHODS OF USAGE-CENTEREDDESIGN.PEARSON EDUCATION.
DHILLON,B., BANACH, P., KOCIELNIK, R., EMPARANZA,J.P.,POLITIS,I., PĄCZEWSKA,A.,&MARKOPOULOS, P.
(2011). VISUAL FIDELITY OF VIDEO PROTOTYPESAND USERFEEDBACK:A CASE STUDY.IN PROCEEDINGS
OF THE 25TH BCSCONFERENCE ON HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION (PP.139-144). BRITISH
COMPUTER SOCIETY.
DIX,A. (2004) HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION.UNITEDKINGDOM:PEARSONEDUCATION.
ERICKSON,T.D.(2000). WORKING WITH INTERFACE METAPHORS.IN B.LAUREL,AND MOUNTFORD,J. (1990)
THE ART OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERFACE DESIGN.ADDISON-WESLEY, BOSTON.
FUNKE,F., REIPS, U.D., &THOMAS,R. K.(2011). SLIDERS FOR THE SMART:TYPE OF RATING SCALE ON THE WEB
INTERACTS WITHEDUCATIONAL LEVEL.SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW,29(2), 221-231.
GALANTE,N., LÓPEZ,E.& MUNBY,S.(2013). THE FUTURE OF ONLINE GROCERY IN EUROPE. RETRIEVED FROM
HTTP://WWW.MCKINSEY.COM/INSIGHTS/CONSUMER_AND_RETAIL/THE_FUTURE_OF_ONLINE_GROCER
Y_IN_EUROPE
GREENBERG,S., CARPENDALE,S., MARQUARDT,N.,&BUXTON,B. (2012). SKETCHING USER EXPERIENCES.
MORGAN KAUFMAN.
19. 18
HOLDSWORTH,C.(2009). 'GOING AWAY TO UNI':MOBILITY,MODERNITY,AND INDEPENDENCE OF ENGLISH
HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS.ENVIRONMENT ANDPLANNING.A, 41(8), 1849.
JACOBSON,I., CHRISTERSON,M., JONSSON,P., AND OVERGAARD,G.(1992) OBJECT-ORIENTEDSOFTWARE
ENGINEERING –A USE CASE DRIVEN APPROACH. ADDISON-WESLEY,HARLOW, ESSEX.
KORTUEM,G., KAWSAR,F., FITTON,D., &SUNDRAMOORTHY,V. (2010). SMART OBJECTS AS BUILDINGBLOCKS
FOR THE INTERNET OF THINGS.INTERNET COMPUTING,14(1), 44-51.
LUCE, K. H., WINZELBERG,A.J., DAS, S., OSBORNE,M.I.,BRYSON,S.W., &TAYLOR, C.B.(2007).
RELIABILITY OF SELF-REPORT:PAPER VERSUS ONLINE ADMINISTRATION.COMPUTERSIN HUMAN
BEHAVIOR,23(3), 1384-1389.
RAYPORT,J. F.(1999). THE TRUTH ABOUT INTERNET BUSINESSMODELS.STRATEGY AND BUSINESS, 5-7.
ROGERS,Y., SHARP,H., PREECE, J.(2015). INTERACTION DESIGN:BEYONDHUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION.
UNITED KINGDOM:JOHN WILEY &SONS.
ROUILLARD, J.(2012). THE PERVASIVE FRIDGE.A SMART COMPUTER SYSTEM AGAINST UNEATEN FOODLOSS. IN
SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMS (PP-135).
SAUER,J., &SONDEREGGER,A.(2009). THE INFLUENCE OF PROTOTYPE FIDELITY AND AESTHETICS OF DESIGN IN
USABILITYTESTS:EFFECTSON USER BEHAVIOUR,SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION AND EMOTION.APPLIED
ERGONOMICS,40(4), 670-677.
SCHÖN,D.A.(1983). THE REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER:HOW PROFESSIONALSTHINK IN ACTION.BASICBOOKS,
NEW YORK.
SMYTH,J.D., DILLMAN,D.A., CHRISTIAN,L. M., &STERN, M.J. (2006). COMPARING CHECK-ALL AND FORCED-
CHOICE QUESTION FORMATS INWEB SURVEYS.PUBLICOPINION QUARTERLY,70(1), 66-77.
WARSCHUN,M., ALBERS,S., DELFMANN,W., &MUBIG,R.(2012). A FRESHLOOK AT ONLINE GROCERY.
RETRIEVED FROM
HTTPS://WWW.ATKEARNEY.DE/DOCUMENTS/856314/1214618/BIP_A_FRESH_LOOK_AT_ONLINE_
GROCERY.PDF/2F4E07B2-3859-4D79-9049-33A2F25A8B0D
XIAO,B., &BENBASAT,I.(2007). E-COMMERCE PRODUCT RECOMMENDATION AGENTS:USE,CHARACTERISTICS,
AND IMPACT.MIS QUARTERLY,31(1), 137-209.
20. 19
ZYCH,L. (2015) GOOGLE VS.AMAZON:PUTTING SAME-DAY DELIVERY TO THE TEST.RETRIEVED FROM
HTTPS://SPEEDYBOXCOURIERS.COM/GOOGLE-VS-AMAZON-PUTTING-SAME-DAY-DELIVERY-TO-THE-TEST/
