Revised goals of experiment

• Evaluate what features of a posting can help increase trust for a potential consumer
• Evaluate whether users prefer having an interface that allows them to scroll through a list of available items or an interface that shows all the users registered for the apartment with their current status
• Evaluate which of the above interfaces performs more efficiently at browsing both specific food postings and neighbors

One takeaway from our field study was that participants who have little interaction with their neighbors generally have a low level of trust with one another. Our first goal is to help us understand what kind of information should be shared to increase trust between users. We will be evaluating this goal through analyzing multiple features such as, attaching pictures of the food in the posting versus not attaching a picture, viewing an user with a completed profile versus a partially completed profile. 

Our second goal is to help us better understand how to design our main page in order to display important visual information. A simple design option we have is to list only items and persons that are active. Although this option considerably cuts down on info onscreen, we feel that this layout hinders the ability to visualize their community in a salient way. As such, we aim to evaluate the subjective preference of the list interface against an interface that maps more closely to the building. 

Our third goal will look at whether there is a difference in efficiency between a layout that organizes building community by room versus one that displays just active listings and active persons. This will help to inform us about any possible tradeoff in efficiency brought on by emphasizing community in a way that does admittedly introduce more clutter.

Experiment method

Participants

We aim to recruit 12 participants overall, taking a purposive sampling approach to recruitment. A representative sample of the population living in apartment buildings (or similar co-living complexes such as condos or townhouses) will be chosen. Those living in student dorms will be excluded, as findings from our field study mostly indicate either a lack of interest or lack of capacity for this kind of food sharing in temporary residences such as dorms.

Conditions

Our study will consist of two experiments, each with two tasks. All 12 participants will complete all four tasks. 

 

Experiment 1 will be comparing two different components of our interface: food posts and user profiles. For each component, we will be assessing the level of trust the participant perceives given the amount of information (Low, High) contained in each. 

The main difference between the low and high level of information category of the food posts is that the high food post contains a longer description, an ingredients list, and a separate dietary notes section. Additionally, the description also mentions that the user is looking to make friends and willing to share or trade food. For the low food profile, the dietary notes section is mixed in with other hashtag labels.

 

As for the profiles, the main difference between the low and high level of information profiles is that for the high profile, the user uses a real picture, contains the user address, has an awards/trophy section and shows mutual friends.

Experiment 2 will compare the efficiency and overall satisfaction between two distinct layouts for the main page of our interface. The two layouts that we will be evaluating are the apartment view and the list-view layouts. 

 

For the apartment view, the layout will be designed to mimic the layout of an apartment, specifically being organized in floors and enabling the user to browse other users on a specific floor. Additionally, each user may visually indicate that they are looking for food, marked with a “hungry!” (red box in picture below) indicator next to their profile, or post a food dish that is available that is indicated with a picture of their food (green box in picture below).

The list view will be simpler and straightforward, featuring two headings that indicate both users who are looking for food and food postings that are currently available.

Experimental Tasks

Experiment 1:

Meal Selection Process Task – this task consists of two parts: comparing between a high/low level of information for food posts, and comparing between a high/low level of information for user profiles. After each part, the participant will be asked to respond to a survey after each comparison.

Experiment 2:

Person-targeted task – For each of the two main page layouts, the participant will be prompted to find a person on a specific floor that is looking for food. For each trial, the screen will feature different people and food listings that the participant will have to search for. Once each trial is completed, an intermediate screen will show for 3 seconds that will prompt the participant for the next trial. An example prompt would say “Find any person living on the 3rd floor who is looking for food”.

Food-targeted task – For each of the two main page layouts, the participant will be prompted to locate a specific food listing. Each listing will be specified only by their name. Like with the person-targeted task, the screen will feature different people and food listings that the participant will have to search for. This task will also utilize an intermediate screen. An example prompt will say “Find the food listing for tomato soup”.

The ordering between these two tasks will also be counterbalanced between participants, but the participant will always complete the food listing task and user profile task before starting the person-targeted task and the food-targeted task. 

Design

Our study consists of two 2×2 within-subjects factorial designs. The first experiment consists of two levels of food postings (Low, High) and two levels of profiles (Low, High). The second consists of two levels of apartment layout (spatial vs list) and two different tasks (person-targeted search vs food-targeted search).

Procedure

Actual procedure may vary in order due to counterbalancing of conditions. The following is one example: 

Experiment 1

1. Participant will have 2 minutes to to read through a basic user profile and task description.
2. Participant will perform the meal selection process task.
3. Participant will complete a survey.

Experiment 2

1. Participant will have 3 minutes to familiarize themselves to both the spatial-view and list-view layouts of the application.
2. Participant will perform the person-targeted task after one practice trial.
3. Participant will perform the food-targeted task after one practice trial.
4. Participant will complete a survey regarding their experience with both layouts. The survey will help to gather information about which interface was more desirable. 

Apparatus

The experiment will be conducted in different project rooms around the UBC campus. The basic profiles and task description will be printed and given to the participants, and the actual tasks will be conducted on a provided tablet.

Variables

Independent variables

Experiment 1

• Profile (Levels: Low, High – within-subjects)
• Food Posts (Levels: Low, High – within-subjects)

Experiment 2

• Layout (Levels: Spatial, List – within subjects)
• Search Task (Levels: Person-centered, food-centered – within-subjects)

Dependent variables

Experiment 1

User Trust Level – using a Likert scale to record data and determine the level of trust the participant has with different food posts and user profiles (with different levels of information). The participant will fill out their preferences after the completion of the first task.

Experiment 2

Average time to complete – for each task, the average amount of time between trials will be calculated. The time for each trial will be recorded in a spreadsheet and verified by reviewing the video recording session.

User satisfaction – after completing both tasks, the participant will report their satisfaction with a brief survey that includes six Likert scale questions, and a question asking about which layout they overall prefer.

Control Variables

Experiment 1

Order of interfaces – will be counterbalanced

Order of information level – will be counterbalanced

Experiment 2

Order of layout – will be counterbalanced

Order of search task – will be counterbalanced

Hypotheses

Participant Trust Level

H1: Higher levels of trust for user profiles with higher levels of detail will be reported than those with lower levels of detail.
Null: There will be no difference in the reported values for trust between the two user profiles.

H2: Higher levels of trust for food posts with higher levels of detail will be reported than those with lower levels of detail.
Null: There will be no difference in the reported values for trust between the two food posts.

 

Layout

H3: There is a difference in the time spent in performing (search tasks) between the two layouts.
Null: There will be no difference in the time spent in performing (visual search tasks) between the two layouts

H4: There will be a difference in the reported desirability between the two layouts.
Null: There will be no difference in the reported desirability between the two layouts.

Planned statistical analyses

For experiment 1, we will be using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) to test the difference of means between ratings, information level, and profile vs food post. 

For experiment 2, we will use analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the difference in means between search time and the overall satisfaction between the two layouts. We will mainly be looking at whether the layout has a main effect, but we will also determine if there is an interaction effect between layouts and tasks. The ordering of the tasks and of the layouts will also be considered.

Expected limitations of the planned experiment

For experiment 1, our task would not be a realistic situation since the participant will not be going through the normal flow of the interface to get to these pages. Additionally, the participant will not be able to message the other party to develop trust between each other, which may affect the findings of our analysis, since actual users of our interface can develop trust in other ways than just the amount of information given.

In regards to experiment 2, while it is reasonable to assume that a user will want to search for both food and other users who are looking for food, we did not provide a way to filter information or perform the task based on a criteria. For example, it is likely a user would want to find meals that are suitable for a vegetarian diet. Another way to filter through postings could be to provide times in which a person will specifically be looking for food, allowing a user to plan ahead on when they will desire food. However, since a visual search forms the basis of these activities, it will still provide useful evidence for which layout is most efficient and desirable. Future research should be conducted on how to best implement some of the features listed above.

Supplementary experiment materials

Experiment 1 – Profile and Task Description

Experiment 1 – Survey

Experiment 2 – Survey

Consent Form

Call For Participation Form

Next Steps

Moving into prototyping, our biggest focus will be figuring out how to develop and maintain a level of trust between strangers who live in the same building or area. Without this, users may be reluctant to share to begin with. By exploring different design alternatives, we hope to find a method of communicating trust that is effective and safe, meaning concerns about consuming food produced by neighbors will be alleviated as much as possible. We also wish to create a prototype with building a rapport between users in mind. 

We aim to accommodate needs unique to both providers and receivers (respecting that some users may fill either role in our design). A buyer should feel safe acquiring and consuming food, efficiently find food that fits their needs, and provide feedback to a seller that other potential buyers can utilize. A seller should be able to advertise their food accurately and efficiently, and feel the same sense of satisfaction that comes with sharing practices as they exist now.

Additional recommendations might be to consider the timing of food availability and the ability to support sharing ingredients (possibly regarding this as a special, simple version of the process for sharing meals).

Revised Task Examples

1. Tony – the time-constrained student.

Tony is a UBC student who lives in dorms on campus with his girlfriend. He is currently taking 5 courses and is swamped with homework and weekly assignments. This leaves him with minimal time to buy groceries and prepare food for him and his girlfriend. Tony doesn’t want to keep ordering food delivery from restaurants as the delivery fees and bills are stacking up, and the restaurant foods are too salty and greasy for his liking. However, food delivery is the most convenient and time saving compared with his other options of buying groceries and cooking or eating out at restaurants.

2. Adam – the cook for numerous people.

Adam recently moved from Port Moody to Vancouver to be closer to his new workplace. One of Adam’s hobbies is cooking as it allows him to try food from various cuisines. Living with his family allowed him to cook multiple dishes at a time since he would always have people to share his food with him. This is now an issue for Adam since he lives alone, he finds it hard to adjust his cooking style to cook just one portion. He is constantly finding himself with too many leftovers and feels that the leftovers are preventing him from cooking and trying new dishes. Unfortunately, since Adam is new to his neighborhood, he hasn’t found anyone to share his food with yet.

3. John & Mary – the generous neighbour.

John and Mary have been living in the neighbourhood for over 20 years with their 3 children. They own a 5 bedroom house and they are also renting out their basement suite. Currently, Mary prepares meals for her family as well as the tenant. To do this, she has to go grocery shopping twice a week. Additionally, as the couple are very close with their neighbours, they often will babysit each other’s children as well as share food with each other. During holidays, their tradition is to bake cookies and other appetizers to share with extended family and neighbours.

 

Prioritized List of Requirements

Absolutely must include:

The requirements in this category mainly include basic abilities for users to interact with listed items. From our field study, we found that not everyone is comfortable and trusting of their neighbors, so we strongly believe that creating a system to build trust between one another will be crucial in supporting the application.

• Users must have the ability to:
  • Browse accurate depictions of food and see food items that are available
  • Post food for sale or give away for free
  • Purchase (claim if free) food for a clear cost in relation to the proportion and quality of food they are getting
• A system that can help build trust between users so that they feel safe using the application and interacting with one another
  • At the moment, we have a couple of ideas on how we can increase trust (for example, writing reviews for the food vs writing reviews for the user who posted) which will need to be explored further.
  • A level of trust should communicate with users that a seller is legitimate in what they sell, and that they do not need to have any health concerns consuming their food

Should include:

This category includes features that helps to create trust between users and the system. To build trust, we want users to be able to learn more about each other, so they don’t feel like they are strangers. Additionally, we found that knowing the process of how a food is prepared is valuable to know as well.

• A system to facilitate messaging between users
• Allow users to communicate the allergens in the household of the receiver
• Ability for users to edit their own profiles and view the profiles of other users
• The ability for users to communicate the process of how food is prepared when listing an item up for sale

Could include:

The features in this category are non-critical and provide users with an easier way to search for food and learn more about a dish.

• Tags so that users can filter through all the available options
• Ability for users to post a complete ingredient list in food
• Ability to put up ingredients that have not been cooked yet

Could exclude:

We believe that this feature would be nice to have for those who have established themselves within a neighbourhood and regularly interact within one, but we want to maintain a focus on building food sharing rapport where it does not exist and leveraging computing to make it more efficient where it does. Swapping is relevant to the latter case, but it is not critical we explicitly afford swapping.

• Ability for users to swap/trade foods explicitly

Design Alternatives

Alternative #1: Card System (UberEats-esque)

With this design, users are able to scroll through previews of dishes that are available near them. On each preview, it could display a picture taken of the dish, name, price, and a rating that shows how popular the dish or seller has been recently. Clicking on the preview would bring up more details of the dish, such as ingredients (with allergens being highlighted), a high-level description of how it was prepared, special notes by the seller, a way to contact the seller, and a way to indicate your interest in the meal. Users can also choose to view a seller before looking at the food they are selling to see a short bio and reviews given to them. After arranging to order a dish, the buyer will have the option to leave positive feedback tags about the food or the seller, but also the option to report something that went wrong.

 

Pros:

• Easy to show list of available dishes in their area with relevant details
• Personalizable bio on the profiles allows sellers to express themselves but also indicate what food they like to prepare
• Positive feedback tags are simple to use to encourage buyers to leave feedback for other buyers

Cons:

• Reviews are limited by predetermined tags and can’t leave personal comments
• A lot of initial trust is based on first impression and ability for the seller to disclose information about their dish or their profile (e.g limited by language or communication skills)
• If a user wanted to see if there was a type of food available, they are limited by their ability to scroll through the cards

Alternative #2: Review System (Yelp-esque)

For alternative 3, we plan to have a web application where users can search for food similar to how Yelp searches for restaurants. There would be a search bar and the user can filter by different preferences, like price, culture, etc.

Additionally, once the user selects a food that they want to purchase, they will be able to see the reviews that the seller has. Previous buyers are able to rate the food out of 5 stars with 5 being the best, upload images of the food that they received, and write comments as well. 

Pros:

• New users will be able to easily see previous reviews and comments of sellers and if the reviews are good, they may develop a sense of trust with the seller for the food that they are buying.

Cons:

• Since this system would be used ideally for neighbours or people living in a close area, it may be hard for users to leave truthful or bad reviews, which may skew the system.
• There may be limited sellers in the area, and the review system may not be as beneficial in the long run, especially since the buyer may have developed a stronger relationship or sense of trust with the seller over time

Alternative #3: Casual Messaging Platform (Instagram-esque)

For our fourth design alternative, we plan on having a casual messaging platform where sellers can take pictures of the food that they are selling, write descriptions, add hashtags, upload videos or live stream their food preparation, as well as create posts that will show up on the newsfeed of the platform. Buyers can then sort the newsfeed based on hashtags, distance, price, or by who they follow and scroll through to see what food is available to purchase. The buyer can also tune in on a live stream or look at videos of how the food was made to be able to see what the food preparation process is like. When the buyer is interested, they can send direct messages to the seller to arrange for time of pickup or ask any questions that they have.

Pros:

• By giving the option for the seller to post their food preparation process, they can help to establish a sense of trust in the food that they make for their customers/neighbours
• Buyers would be able to see the videos of the food preparation and judge for themselves if the preparation meets their standards
• With the direct messages system, it would help encourage interaction between the buyer and seller, which is ideal in this case because they would ideally be neighbours and can get to know each other.

Cons:

• Sellers may see video taping or live streaming their cooking process as a hassle and only post descriptions or images of the food that they are selling
• Buyers may find the layout too big and may have to scroll for longer to find something that they desire

Project Direction Changes

The direction and scope of the proposed mealsharing system remain largely unchanged. At the project’s core, it still aims to facilitate buying/selling/trading of food between users in the same building complex/small community. Considerations made that were not originally in the proposal include:  

• Reflecting more diversity in use cases and target users:
  • Not only an emphasis on building community through food, but also on discovering new types of food (e.g. belonging to different cultures)
  • On building meals with multiple dishes through buy/sell/trade
  • People who like to cook in bulk, but end up with too many leftovers (e.g. those who might like to swap tupperware meals after stretching the same dish out for days)
• A design-appropriate way to build trust in other users
  • Possible solutions might look like some sort of rating systems and/or user profiles, though this is to be explored in the design process

Task Examples

1. Michelle is a single parent of 2 children and lives in an apartment complex. To make enough money to support the family, she is working part-time at 2 jobs and she does not own a car. Her schedule allows her to pick up and drop her children from school and spend a few hours with them. This leaves her with minimal time to buy groceries and prepare home cooked food for her children. Michelle doesn’t want to keep ordering food delivery from restaurants as the bills are stacking up and she fears that the restaurant foods may be too salty and oily for her children to eat constantly.
2. Adam recently moved from Port Moody to Vancouver to be closer to his new workplace. One of Adam’s hobbies is cooking as it allows him to try food from various cuisines. Living with his family allowed him to cook multiple dishes at a time since he would always have people to share his food with him. This is now an issue for Adam since he lives alone, he finds it hard to adjust his cooking style to cook just one portion. He is constantly finding himself with too many leftovers and feels that the leftovers are preventing him from cooking and trying new dishes. Unfortunately, since Adam is new to his neighborhood, he hasn’t found anyone to share his food with yet.
3. John and Mary just moved into their new apartment a couple of days ago and have been meaning to introduce themselves to their new neighbors. They recently immigrated from Italy to Vancouver and they do not know anyone in the city. The couple knows how to cook outstanding Italian dishes, however, they have not had the opportunity to try authentic home-cooked dishes from other cultures. During their meal prep, they plan to make some excess Italian food with the intention of handing it out to some of their neighbors to start the conversation. Hopefully, in the future, they can trade Italian food for other cultural foods with the new friends that they make. However, they don’t know who else would be interested in becoming friends or trying foods from different cultures in their apartment, so they do not know how much food to make or for who.