User evaluations Sustainable Food Consumption - adrienerice/The_Chosen_Ones GitHub Wiki

Google Form - Questionnaire

• Past behavior
• Behavioral motivation
• Behavioral results
• Whether they have used the relevant app, experience, thoughts
• If you have used it, the evaluation is very low, why?
• If used and rated high score, why？
• If there was a new app to help you reduce food waste, do you think it would be useful?
• What features would you want?
• Expectation scoring: create groups and monitor each other
• Expectation scoring: Give unwanted food to the needy in advance
• If the scoring value is high, ask about the range of acceptance to the people - relatives? Friends? Classmates? Acquaintances? Strangers?
• Thank you for your participation, if you want to continue to participate in the interview, you can leave your contact information

Although I conducted the survey with expectations, I was surprised to learn that almost everyone had the experience of forgetting food in the fridge (or even outside) until long after it had expired and then having to throw it away. As mentioned in the previous academic literature, the results of this questionnaire also confirm that lower prices are one of the main reasons to induce participants to overspend. If the whole family lives together, this problem is relatively easy to solve, as there is always an elder who remembers what you bought to occupy the fridge and cupboards, and even if the food is really close to its shelf life, then it is only necessary to eat it together as soon as possible (it is relatively easy to solve this problem with a large number of people)

Participants who live in rented houses with friends or unfamiliar people and those who live alone are more likely to encounter the above situation. The reasons for this are not yet clear from the questionnaire and will be explored in more detail through interviews. The percentage of participants who have used similar products to help them keep track of food and reminders is not very high, and those who have used them are not very satisfied with them, mainly because they find them cumbersome to use, they do not support adding photos (or the photo recognition is not accurate), and they lack interactivity and fun to make them effective. For this group of participants who have used this type of software, I would ask questions about the features and food sharing to understand what features are designed to really help users solve their problems.

1. Have you ever gone to the supermarket to buy too much food? Were you able to eat it all in time afterward? If not, what did you do with it?
2. Have you or your roommate experienced expired food not being eaten in time or even left in the original place for a long time, and finally had to not throw it away?
3. What will you do if the food bought by your housemate occupies the refrigerator for too long or even expires?
4. Will it be useful to use a shelf life reminder app to reduce that kind of waste food?
5. Do you have any good ideas to deal with the food you buy and can't finish?
6. Have you heard about food sharing? Have you donated food before?
7. If there was a platform that could help you find people in need of this food, would you want to use it? Would you prefer to give them to familiar people or strangers, or what if it was the other way around?
8. Any other ideas about saving food/reducing food waste in the house?

After the interviews I came up with several interesting results: the majority of the interviewees had experienced food overbuying for reasons different from those indicated in the literature, and they often consumed them simply because they wanted to and thought they could finish them. I did not know this in the previous questionnaire because my questionnaire design was a bit incomplete and I did not think that my own subjective thoughts (buying too much because it was on sale) would guide their thoughts, and often participants were not willing to leave constructive comments in the "others" option.

I also asked questions about their attitudes and opinions about a food waste reduction app, and only two of the interviewees were aware of and had used a similar app to help them keep track of their food. Surprisingly, neither of them rated the app highly, citing that it did not work as expected and had limited features, such as the need to manually search for food, manually check status, and lack of fun. The interviewee thought that adding social features or a recipe search function might make him use this type of application again. However, more people gave different opinions on this issue, like some of the interviewees who suggested that the science education feature was denied by others. Nonetheless, I was able to get a lot of useful information from the user interviews to help me with the design process.

In the very beginning, I was inspired by the smart trash bin proposed by (Altarriba et al. 2017), my initial idea was to build a platform that would be fun and easy to use, but would also allow people to monitor each other to help users confront the act of throwing away food. However, due to the lack of clarity of the target users and the results of the interviews, such a platform is very limited: first of all, family members do not really need a similar software to help monitor each other, because parents can always teach their children, and this makes the software much less interesting and loses its original meaning. In addition, many participants do not rent rooms with friends or familiar people, which means that using such software to facilitate communication between people in a room can be more or less disturbing and awkward. While it may be possible to use this opportunity to increase mutual communication and thus improve relationships, compulsory socialization may discourage a large percentage of users from using it in the first place. Several researchers have found school counselors’ attitudes toward the use of technology to be mostly positive, but lower when new technologies are introduced (Carlson et al., 2006; Rainey, Mcglothlin, & Miller, 2008; Steele et al., 2014).

• 
• https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sg3BDlxMYD2XBQFZCWfJHms3OgY5Orts/view?usp=sharing
• 
• https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IFQrOYfcqhxpFUAewnJ_Nt6bsBfFz26k/view?usp=sharing
• The results of the TAM show that the participants have a high level of approval of the usability and ease of use of foodpro, and they all say that they can manage food more easily. However, the percentage of participants who would continue to use and recommend it to others was not as high, and based on this result I asked four participants at random. Their responses were that it felt more like a personal app or that socializing would cause some embarrassment. Others said they wanted to keep their information separate from their social life and did not want too much exposure even if they were friends. They all said that the recipe feature felt better than the "friend" feature and that the reason for this result was supposedly their concern about sharing their food, which included safety issues and the fear that letting friends eat something that was not fresh would affect the relationship (even though the app limits the types of food that can be shared based on shelf life).

I wanted to get more detailed user feedback, including what features they specifically liked and what features were relatively less important. I chose think aloud as the user testing method for this phase, allowing users to interact with the functional prototype and give specific ideas and comments. To improve the prototype design, I will collect results by arranging different tasks for observation and follow-up questions

• Tasks

1. Search a food
2. Talk to the robot and enter food to get recipes
3. Mark the food to make it "sharable"
4. Find friends who want to share food and friends who have food that is about to expire

• Follow-up questions

1. What do you like most about the app? (Color/Features/Functions etc.)
2. What do you dislike about the app? (Color/Features/Functions etc.)
3. Is it easy to complete the task? Which one is the clearest one and which one makes you feel confused?
4. Could you give reasons or explanations for those situations?
5. Is there anything you expect but it doesn't work here?
6. Any suggestions for the app? (Layout/design/function/navigation etc.)

Unlike the results of the previous tam test, many participants felt that the buddy feature was worth implementing and that it was great to have a friend to help remind them when they were having trouble thinking about too many food-related issues personally. In addition, due to time issues I was unable to show the photo recognition and buddy features in this prototype, but based on user feedback both were features they were looking forward to. For the available features, participants all said they liked the idea of getting recipes by talking to the robot, as many of the recipes currently on the market include ingredients that are not available at home, and this can cause a degree of frustration in recipe selection. One participant said she had been excited to click on a recipe, only to have to close it after looking at the ingredients needed, and I hope my design will help solve this problem and maximize the use of ingredients already available for cooking, thus helping to solve the problem of excess food piling up.

Deslonde, V & Becerra, M 2018, ‘The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): Exploring School Counselors’ Acceptance and Use of Naviance’, The Professional Counselor (Greensboro, N.C.), vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 369–382.

Eva Ganglbauer. 2013. Towards food waste interventions: an exploratory approach. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication (UbiComp '13 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 337–342. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2494091.2501086

Ferran Altarriba, Stefano Eugenio Lanzani, Ana Torralba, and Mathias Funk. 2017. The Grumpy Bin: Reducing Food Waste Through Playful Social Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 90–94. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3064857.3079125