Accessibility first food ordering Kiosks
SI-699, the Master's capstone project, enhances digital interfaces and accessibility in restaurant food ordering kiosks. Addressing challenges for users with disabilities, it develops tailored physical and interface design solutions. By identifying and addressing pain points, the project aims to create inclusive experiences for all interacting with restaurant kiosks.
My Role
Duration
Team
Anshika Saxena, Christine Cabrera, Phil Mendez & Sharadhi Raghuraj
UX Research, UI Design and Prototyping
3 months
THE OPPORTUNITY
Improving accessibility for kiosks for people with motor dexterity impairments in self-service technologies.
Motor Dexterity - Mobility/Dexterity Impairment is a broad term referring to any physical disability that limits the physical function of one or more limbs.
TLDR: Final Presentation & Report
INITIAL PROBLEM STATEMENT
Food ordering kiosk accessibility encompasses physical and user interface aspects. Existing solutions often target visual and hearing impairments, leaving a gap for motor dexterity challenges. The study aims to enhance user experience, considering ergonomic needs and addressing motor dexterity impairments. Consolidated findings will guide solutions for improved kiosk usage.
MOTIVATION & ANTICIPATED IMPACT
CHALLENGES FACED BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Self-ordering kiosks in restaurants often use touchscreen technology, which can be challenging for individuals with disabilities. Motor disabilities, temporary limitations, and small buttons or fonts can lead to difficulties in selecting or inputting information. Additionally, the tactile intensity of the screens may pose challenges for those who struggle with strong touch interactions.
Self-ordering kiosks pose challenges for wheelchair users due to their design for standing individuals. Adjusting the kiosk's height to align with eye level for those in wheelchairs is often unclear. Wheelchair users may need to stretch and bend to interact with the screen. Inconvenient placement of the kiosk can make it difficult for individuals with wheelchairs, crutches, or heavy packages to access it, especially during busy times.
Security concerns while using kiosks arise when people are required to ask for assistance while processing their payment and have to depend on human intervention to handle sensitive data and related transactions. The placement of the kiosk in a public environment, with no privacy, can also lead to people succumbing to the pressure of performing certain tasks correctly, and on time in front of a large group of people.
TARGET USERS
Considering users with motor/dexterity impairments, including permanent conditions like loss of limbs, arthritis, tremors, and diseases, as well as those with physical differences due to assistive technologies. Enhancing interactions for these users can also improve experiences for others in temporary or situational instances with similar dexterity issues.
Permanent
Temporary
Situational
Goal 1
Research Question
How can we ensure the input of information protects the security and privacy of users who may require additional assistance or assistive technologies?
Protect Security & Privacy
Individuals with motor and dexterity issues may need alternative input methods like voice commands, raising concerns about privacy and vulnerability. Poorly located kiosks can pose physical risks. Protecting situational awareness in public spaces is crucial for user sensitivity.
Goal 2
Research Question
How can we improve the ergonomics of using the kiosks and provide input support based on the needs of users who may require additional assistance or assistive technologies?
Improve Ergonomics and Placement
Wheelchair users may struggle with kiosks designed for standing use. The placement of kiosks in restaurants/cafes impacts discovery and navigation. Hence, we must improve the information architecture to guide users through physical environments and enhance spatial user experience.
Proposed Research Methods
The team planned to conduct contextual inquiry research using in-person observations or virtual interviews based on volunteer preferences and availability. While physical observation may not always be possible, they aim to gather detailed past experiences through interviews to support separate role-playing and heuristic evaluations for the research.
ENSURING ACCESSIBILITY OF METHODS
CONTEXTUAL INQUIRY
SIMULATING USER JOURNEY (ROLE PLAYING)
Our research plan accommodates the method of using contextual inquiries to gather data through observations and interviews. We would recruit participants based on the different types of motor dexterity categorized above. Through a designed protocol for each category of the participant, we would analyze our findings based on observations and user responses.
We would use the method of role-playing to understand the user journey in the discovery phase to gather data while exploring the use of self-service technology. By recruiting participants as per their willingness to be a part of a user journey for people with motor dexterity disabilities, we would design the scenario using a protocol for the context
UNOBTRUSIVE METHODS
According to Nielsen Norman Group, the average no-show rate for usability studies is 11% (Nielson, 2003). This means, beyond scheduling time with participants through internal and external avenues, we will need to explore creative paths to collect data should participants choose to withdraw from our study.
DIGITAL ETHNOGRAPHY
Lizzy Burnam (2022) describes digital ethnography as follows:
Digital ethnography... is a remote research method that involves studying people in their natural environments to gain context-dependent insights into their needs, behaviors, and experiences using tools like computers, smartphones, and social media to observe users virtually.
There are many ways to go about digital ethnography, but we elect specifically the netographic method, which involves “collecting data from free, previously-existing content” (Burnam, 2022). We pursue the netographic method, and not asynchronous interviews or digital diary studies because this in our view is more cost-effective and reliable. Because this is meant to be a contingency, a safety, and a backup for limited research participants, this is a rational approach. Still, we want this method to be rigorous and, as such, we have defined the parameters below.
Ann Arbor Area Community
Disability Community Action Lab
We briefly tested these and found posts as recent as 6 months.
It is also active with regular posts and posts as recent as 1/30/22. See also: Disability Community Action Lab.
Facebook (local)
r/disability
It is an online community for general disabilities. The split between mental and physical seems significant. That said, a keyword search may effectively narrow results. See also: r/wheelchairs
Primary Research
Secondary Research Observations
Outcomes
Findings
1
The structure of the kiosk is at an acute angle with a possibility of glare from direct sunlight and is not adjustable to accommodate any inconveniences.
Missing headphone jacks, screen readers, and braille instructions on the device.
2
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
SELECTION METHOD AND ANALYSIS
USER JOURNEY MAPPING
HEURISTICS EVALUATION
Speech output and audio jacks with volume control have difficulty in discoverability
There’s no visual, tactile, or haptic indication to enable accessibility features on the system.
Flashing visuals along with 3-finger gesture controls makes it difficult for users
1
2
3
Complies with basic usability standards.
Touch limitations are unclear.
Touch and visuals are major impediments without alternate equivalents to accommodate users with disabilities.
3
2
1
PANERA BREAD (Store 1)
Implemented comprehensive recruitment strategy targeting local universities, disability organizations, and expanded to out-of-state universities and online forums. Conducted interviews with 3 users and observed 1 user interacting with a food ordering kiosk.
We collected data from interviews and organized it in Excel sheets, extracting relevant information and categorizing quotes and insights. Utilized thematic coding to generate final insights for design requirements.
We gathered secondary research data from sources like TikTok and YouTube to gain a deeper insight into how people with disabilities (visual impairments, motor dexterity challenges, using a wheelchair) interact with kiosks and gauge the accessibility of these technologies. The process of our analysis comprised watching the videos, focusing on users’ interactions with kiosks, taking relevant snapshots, and adding our insights about every video.
We have created a journey map for 3 of our interviewees who used food ordering kiosks. P1 and P2 used the same type of kiosk in the same type of restaurant and both had some similar experiences and interactions.
We conducted a usability evaluation of Panera, ShareTea, and M36 systems following Goodman et al.'s methodology. Established selection criteria and comparison dimensions. Tests were performed by researchers in pairs, assessing various factors and assigning severity ratings. Findings were reported to the group, although intercoder reliability measurement was not conducted due to constraints.
SHARE TEA (Store 2)
M36 (Store 3)
User Journey Mapping
Notable negatives - Including kiosks in a restaurant ordering processes raises questions about the intended audience and their needs. Accessibility challenges were encountered, such as difficulty entering the facility without assistance and kiosk stands obstructing powerchairs or scooters. Mistakes in orders were made due to limitations in customization options. Inadequately accessible kiosk screens and lack of assistance led to process abandonment.
Notable positives - P1 and P2 expressed satisfaction with finding the accessibility mode, feeling relieved when the menu accommodated their needs. P1 mentioned the positive experience of accomplishing the task independently, feeling a sense of achievement and pride.
We have created a journey map for 3 of our interviewees who used food-ordering kiosks. P1 and P2 used the same type of kiosk in the same type of restaurant and both had some similar experiences and interactions.
Synthesizing Findings
FORMULATING FINDINGS FROM THE RESEARCH PHASE
1.
Users had more awareness of their physical closeness with other restaurant customers.
Source: Interview Findings
The user interface of the kiosk had limited accessibility features and did not utilize alternative modalities to support users to interact successfully.
2.
3.
The way finding of the kiosk and the payment modalities on it prevented users from interacting with the kiosk most effectively.
Source: Secondary Findings
Users need to spend a significant amount of time familiarizing themselves with the kiosk software to enable its accessibility mode.
The modality of card reading machines for processing payments was inconvenient for users.
2.
1.
Touch-based modality and visuals are major impediments without alternate equivalents to accommodate users with disabilities.
Source: Heuristics Findings
There’s no visual, tactile, or haptic indication to enable accessibility features on the system.
The height of the kiosk and its screen is nonadjustable.
3.
2.
1.
MAPPING RESEARCH FINDING TO DRAW DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Ideation
Finding
Users had more awareness of their physical closeness with other restaurant customers
Finding
The UI of the kiosk had limited accessibility and did not utilize alternative modalities to support smooth user interaction.
Finding
Interacting with the kiosk in a public environment caused stress and frustration for users.
Finding
The wayfinding of the kiosk and the payment modalities on it prevented users from interacting with the kiosk most effectively
Design Concept
and Rationale
The first component, the physical structure, is inspired by the product displays at electronic stores. The products are attached to a dock that allows them to be seen from various distances but also to be lifted out of and viewed more closely. They are also usually secured with a retractable cord so the user can hold the device comfortably and at a reading angle.
Another hardware feature includes headphones that activate screen reader capability when detached and worn by users. This device would be attached/hung on the corner of the tablet doc to improve discoverability and accessibility.
Finally, we are redesigning the location of the payment device to improve access and discoverability. We will add a credit card slider and one-touch options on the right side of the screen.
The second component of the design concept involves redesigning the digital interactions of the kiosk. This includes improving the search, ordering, and payment processes based on kiosk heuristics, accessibility guidelines, standard iconography, simplified information architecture, and accessible color palettes. Additionally, we will integrate screen reader capabilities and conduct voice prototyping to evaluate the audio features of the system
Our research questions and findings revolved around two components of kiosk design: the physical structure of the kiosk, and the digital interface of the kiosk along with its accessibility. The proposed design concept involves redesigning each of these components.
Proposed Solution
MODIFIED KIOSK HARDWARE AND DIGITAL INTERFACE
Our research questions and findings revolved around two components of kiosk design: the physical structure of the kiosk, and the digital interface of the kiosk along with its accessibility. The proposed design concept involves redesigning each of these components.
The physical structure draws inspiration from electronic store product displays, featuring docks for visibility and easy access. A retractable cord ensures secure handling and optimal viewing angles. Standardizing the kiosk screen to iPad size allows for a consistent articulating dock design. Mechanical functionality sketches outline the mounted screen's compatibility with an iPad for restaurant use.
The physical component of our kiosks prioritizes flexibility to accommodate user devices. This design decision was influenced by interview findings revealing user struggles with reaching large screen devices due to wheelchair limitations. Users expressed complaints regarding menu layout and difficulties encountered while placing orders at the kiosks.
Physical Component & Design
Our restaurant-ready physical prototype is mountable on walls or tables, offering spatial flexibility. Fusion 360 aided in estimating the size and mechanics of the iPad screen, while laser cutting crafted acrylic sheet components. Arms, assembled with adhesives and screws, and the screen holder, made of Medium-density Fibreboard (MDF) for durability, ensure sturdiness. A 'ball-socket' joint permits 60-degree movement on each end, enabling users to adjust the kiosk's angle and prevent glare.
Accessibility first UI Design
Our design at this stage follows the design system of McDonald’s since most of the participants from our formative interviews were familiar with the kiosk at McDonald’s. The user flow we mapped starts with the screen welcoming users to start their order directing their attention to a pair of headphones that they could switch to if they wished to enable audio feedback or screen readers. We achieved this using the voice prototype feature of Adobe XD.
Our prototype next guides users toward a simplified information architecture of the menu options that lets them explore the entire menu categorized into different food groups one might find at McDonald’s. The following steps are customizing the chosen option based on one’s dietary preferences, adding multiple orders to the card, and completing their payment. We provided popular payment alternatives for users to choose from and integrated a card reading device on top of the screen enabling one-tap and swipe-based payment methods.
Final Design Prototype
Evaluating the Design
Evaluation Plan
● Evaluating the usability of enabling the accessibility mode, ordering food, and processing payments.
● Testing the effectiveness of multiple accessible modalities in the system.
● Evaluating the usefulness of designing a flexible and adjustable kiosk structure.
GOALS
● The testing environment would require users to be present in person to test our prototype for feedback.
● We would adapt the Wizard of Oz technique (Ramaswamy, n.d.) to test both the physical and digital components of our prototype.
● A working mid-fidelity design with the Ipad would be needed to conduct the testing that also integrates our prototyped interface re-designs.
● The testing session would need the team members to record or write their observations concerning the user’s journey while performing the given task.
TESTING LOGISTICS
1.
2.
● We would reach out to all our interview participants requesting them to participate in our usability test. We asked their permission during our interview to contact them again for testing. Our target for this study is at least 5 users.
● We also found a Reddit forum, r/Disability_Survey, to be an active platform for recruiting participants during our formative study and would use the same platform for recruitment for the evaluative study.
● We will also try reaching out to organizations like Council for Disability Concerns for recruitment.
PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT
3.
● We would analyze our prototype by presenting different scenarios for users to walk through.
● For each scenario, we would check the severity rating by analyzing where the issue occurred, how frequently it occurs across different participants, and task criticality.
● We will also make sure to keep an eye on the holistic user experience of users as they go through this journey.
ANALYSIS
4.
Evaluation Analysis
● We would analyze our prototype by presenting different scenarios for users to walk through.
● For each scenario, we would check the severity rating by analyzing where the issue occurred, how frequently it occurs across different participants, and task criticality.
● We will also make sure to keep an eye on the holistic user experience of users as they go through this journey.
• How is the usability of searching, ordering food, and processing payment?
• How effective are multiple accessible options modalities in the system? Do they follow the principle of accessibility-first design?
• How useful is the design of a flexible and adjustable kiosk structure?
• Hardware: Adjusting the height, tilt, and proximity
• Digital App: Searching
• Digital App: Ordering
• Digital App: Paying
• Accessibility Menu
Before starting usability tests, our team engaged in a 30-minute body-storming session. Each of us took on roles like user, kiosk screen, moderator, and kiosk voice. We mapped out the user journey, discussing voice assistants versus screen readers, kiosk positioning, and integrating audio input devices. This exercise proved invaluable for identifying potential pain points across the user journey.
Realization Findings
“The fact that you could bring [the kiosk] to me was nice. That I can adjust it. I like that I can pull it to me.”
Finding 1: Users found that adjusting the height and inclination of the kiosk was extremely useful to tailor to their level of comfort.
“The wide range of accessibility options are visible that a consumer would want to see.”
"I didn’t have to press [an accessibility] button first, but [the icons] are really small. If I had issues with vision, it might be hard to see.”
“I wasn’t scrolling as much, items were grouped together, and I could easily identify what I was looking for.”
“...a lot faster than the [McDonald’s] kiosk”
“.....swiping is hard for me. Tapping or insert is better.”
“I like the integrated payment device as the discoverability is easier”
Finding 2: Accessibility features provided a positive and pleasant experience but not all feature functions were understood by all users.
Finding 3: Our digital interface improved the speed of ordering for some users, as compared to the original McDonald's kiosk, but some UI design choices slowed down other users.
Finding 4: Users liked the payment integration option but preferred mobile and tap services.
