<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>The Augmented Shopping Trolley: An Ambient Display To Provide Shoppers with Non-Obvious Product Information</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.</institution>
          <addr-line>g., HCI): Miscellaneous</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Author Keywords Persuasive technologies</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>product information, ethics</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Jon Bird, Vaiva Kalnikaité and Yvonne Rogers Pervasive Interaction Lab The Open University Milton Keynes</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>MK7 6AA</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="UK">UK</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>The Augmented Shopping Trolley consists of an ambient handlebar display connected to a scanner. When a shopper scans an item the handlebar lights up to provide them with information about the product, such as its nutritional, ethical or environmental attributes, that are not obvious from its packaging or label. The system is designed to seamlessly integrate with a shopping experience: it uses familiar supermarket technologies; it keeps both of a shopper's hands free; and the simple ambient display facilitates the 'fast and frugal' decision-making typically observed in a supermarket. Our initial lab-based study shows that the display can be understood at a glance and used to select items based on a product's nominal properties (for example, it is organic), ordinal properties (for example, it has low, medium or high food miles), as well as a combination of the two at the same time. Where as usability was the focus of our initial design, ethical issues have come to the fore as we develop the system for use in supermarkets and we discuss how these are influencing our design.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>ambient
display,
shopping,</p>
      <p>
        INTRODUCTION
In a supermarket, shoppers tend to make snap judgments
based on just a few salient cues (low price, recognized
brand and attractive packaging) and they rarely take time to
read product information labels [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. However, recent
consumer surveys indicate that shoppers want more
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise,
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee.
      </p>
      <p>
        Copyright © 2011 for the individual papers by the papers' authors.
Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume
is published and copyrighted by the editors of PINC2011..
information about the global consequences of their
consumer decisions [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. Our goal is to provide
‘nonobvious’ nutritional, ethical and environmental product
information, that is, information that is not immediately
obvious from an item’s packaging or label, in a form that is
as salient as the features that typically inform consumers’
decision making. The Augmented Shopping Trolley (Figure
1) is designed so that it fits as seamlessly as possible into a
supermarket shopping experience. We use familiar
supermarket technologies: augmenting a standard shopping
trolley by attaching a scanner and embedding an ambient
display in the handlebar. This gives our system two
advantages over using mobile devices to provide product
information. First, the trolley scanning technology is faster
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] and second, because the ambient display is built into the
trolley handlebar a customer’s shopping experience is not
disrupted by having to repeatedly access and store a mobile
display. Underhill [10, see chapter 4] emphasizes the
importance of having both hands free during shopping.
Our approach to designing an effective ambient display,
first outlined in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ], is motivated by studies of ecological
rationality which investigate how people make reasonable
decisions given the constraints of limited time, information
and computational resources that characterize most real
world situations [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6 ref8">6, 8</xref>
        ]. This research indicates that most
natural decision making is made on the basis of ‘fast and
frugal’ heuristics – short-cut strategies where people ignore
most of the available data and instead focus on the most
useful information and process it quickly. Often people
make a decision based on a single reason as this strategy is
quick and simple and avoids having to weigh up trade-offs
between multiple and potentially conflicting options. This
approach is not rational in certain environments, namely,
those where available pieces of information are
approximately equally useful. However, in a shopping
environment, the distribution of information usefulness is
highly skewed, that is, the most useful piece of information
is a lot more important than the second most useful, which
in turn is considerably more important than the third, etc.
Our handlebar ambient display consists of just sixteen
LEDs. When a shopper scans a product, a few pieces of
non-obvious information, such as whether it contains nuts,
is fair trade or has low food miles, are displayed as a salient
pattern on the display.
      </p>
      <p>
        Given that information salience influences a person’s
behaviour unconsciously [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ], rather than through rational
reflection, this raises ethical concerns about the Augmented
Shopping Trolley, chief of which is that this system could
potentially manipulate people into behaving in ways that
they would not otherwise do, and furthermore, that they
might not be aware that they had been manipulated. This
concern, and also issues to do with privacy and clarifying
how our system benefits shoppers, form the ethical
considerations that are influencing how we deploy the
Augmented Shopping Trolley in a supermarket.
      </p>
      <p>The paper is structured as follows: first, we describe the
display hardware and how it conveys product information;
second, we describe a lab-based evaluation of the system
that demonstrates the efficacy of the ambient handlebar
display for conveying non-obvious product information;
and third, we describe the ethical issues that are informing
the development of the system for use in supermarkets.
AMBIENT HANDLEBAR DISPLAY DESIGN
The handlebar display was designed to provide shoppers
with salient and easy to read information about a scanned
product’s nominal properties (for example, whether it is
organic or contains nuts), its ordinal properties (for
example, if it has low, medium or high food miles), as well
as a combination of the two at the same time. We
constructed the display by attaching 16 bicolour LED units
to a piece of wood inside a transparent plastic tube (Figure
1). This replaced the plastic handlebar in a standard
shopping trolley. The LEDs are controlled using 2
TLC5940 chips (Texas Instruments) that are driven by an
Arduino microcontroller. In our lab-based study this is
attached via a USB cable to a laptop running a Processing
application. Each LED unit can be set to red, green or
orange (when both the green and red LEDs are on). Each
time a product is scanned, the display changes in the
following way. First, it goes from an all green background
(idle state) to a half second sweeping movement of orange
that indicates scanning is in progress. There is then a beep,
as typically heard at a checkout counter, to signal that
scanning is completed and the display then changes to a
new state that provides relevant information about the
product. If the display is configured to show a nominal
property of the product, then it flashes green if the property
is present and shows the idle state if it is not. If the display
is providing ordinal information about the product, the
display employs a bar graph metaphor, with the number of
red pixels indicating the degree to which an item has a
property. Specifically, if an item has a low degree of a
property then pixels 1-3 turn red and 4-16 turn green; if
medium then pixels 1-8 turn red and pixels 9-16 turn green;
and pixels 1–13 turn red and 14-16 turn green if the item
has a high degree of a particular property. Finally, both
these representations can be combined to show the value of
a nominal and an ordinal property at the same time. In our
study, after a participant selected or discarded an item, the
display changed back to the all green idle state.</p>
      <p>LAB-BASED SYSTEM EVALUATION
5 adults (1 female, 4 male, aged between 20 and 40) took
part in a lab-based evaluation of the Augmented Shopping
Trolley. Each participant completed 12 shopping scenarios
where they were asked to pick up and scan 5 items of a
particular product type and only select those items that met
specified criteria. A scanner was attached to the shopping
trolley (Figure 1) but was non-functional and the handlebar
display was changed using a Wizard of Oz methodology.
On the basis of the changes in the patterns on the handlebar
display, participants had to decide whether to select the
item and place it in their trolley or discard it and place it on
an adjacent table. Since this was an exploratory study, we
were intentionally vague about the operation of the ambient
display as we wanted to see whether participants could
understand it intuitively. We only told participants that the
display patterns would change depending on whether a
product had a specific property (yes/no), the degree to
which a product had some property (high/medium/low) or a
combination of the two. Participants were allowed to scan
the items as many times as they wanted and in any order,
before they made their decision about whether to select a
particular item. We used 4 product types: milk; breakfast
cereal; wine; and juice. Each shopping scenario used one of
the product types and participants were asked to select from
5 different items. For example, select those bottles of wines
that meet the specified criterion (fair trade) and put them in
the trolley, and place the others on the discarded items
table. Each of the items was a real product but we masked
any product information on the packaging and told
participants to only use the handlebar display to decide
whether they should select an item or not. The experimenter
playing the Wizard of Oz role sat at a table on which the 20
shopping items were grouped by product type. Each item
was individually numbered so that the experimenter could
change the display appropriately when the participants
scanned a particular item.</p>
      <p>In the first 4 shopping scenarios the handlebar display
indicated whether a scanned item had a particular nominal
property or not: whether a milk product was organic;
whether a breakfast cereal contained nuts; whether a bottle
of wine was fair trade; and whether a carton of juice
contained added sugar. In 2 of these scenarios the
participants had to select items that had a particular
property and in the other half they had to discard items if
they had a particular property. For example, in the first
shopping scenario participants had to select a milk product
if it was organic and discard it if it was non-organic; in the
second shopping scenario participants had to select a
breakfast cereal if it did not contain nuts and discard it if it
did.</p>
      <p>In the next stage of the evaluation, the participants
completed 4 shopping scenarios where the display indicated
whether a product contained a low, medium or high value
of a particular ordinal property. The task was to select items
that had a specified property to a particular degree.
Specifically, participants were asked to select milk with a
medium fat content, cereals with a high sugar content, wine
with low food miles and juice with a medium water content.
In none of these scenarios were participants asked to
discard items if they had properties of a particular degree.
The final 4 shopping scenarios tested whether participants
could understand the display when it simultaneously
showed information about both a nominal and an ordinal
property of a scanned item. Participants were asked to
select milk that was organic and low fat, cereals that
contained nuts and had a medium sugar content, juice that
had added sugar and high water content and wine that was
not fair trade and had medium food miles. Only in the wine
scenario did participants have to reject items on the basis of
information about a nominal property of the product.
USABILITY RESULTS
4 out of the 5 participants were able to interpret the ambient
handlebar display and complete all the tasks without any
mistakes. The other participant made one consistent error in
2 of the first shopping scenarios where the task was to
discard items if they had a particular nominal property: they
selected, rather than discarded, them, but did not repeat this
error in the final shopping scenario which also required an
item to be discarded if it had a particular nominal property.
Several participants reported that they found the tasks
where they had to discard items with particular properties
more difficult and it did seem to increase the cognitive load
in all participants, resulting in a slightly slower response
time (approximately 2 seconds, rather than 1 second for the
other conditions). This could be due to the colours used in
the display: a nominal property is indicated by a green
blinking display, a colour that many people associate with
positive properties, rather than ones that should be avoided.
All participants reported that the display was intuitive to
use and were able to quickly read it even though they were
not given explicit information on the meaning of the display
patterns. Only two participants scanned items more than
once and this was exploratory activity at the beginning of
the evaluation when they were seeing how the interface
worked.</p>
      <p>
        ETHICAL ISSUES AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
Whereas usability issues informed our initial design, ethical
considerations are shaping the development of the
Augmented Shopping Trolley for use in supermarkets. This
is because our ambient display not only provides salient
product information for shoppers, but also potentially
influences what they purchase. The use of persuasive
technologies raises ethical concerns for many people. For
example, Page and Kray [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] used an online questionnaire to
investigate people’s views on the ethics of using persuasive
technologies to encourage healthy living. 72 participants
rated the ethical acceptability of a number of different
scenarios which varied in 3 different factors: whether a
participant chose to use the technology or an external
agency initiated its use; whether there was a clear benefit
for the participant or not; and the technology used (text
messages to the participant’s mobile phone; public
announcements in the participant’s location; Facebook
messages; restrictions on the participant’s bank account;
and electric shocks). The results indicated that the majority
of the participants viewed the use of persuasive
technologies in most of the questionnaire scenarios as
unethical. When there was no clear benefit to the
participant, mobile phone were considered the most ethical
persuasive technology. However, approximately the same
proportion of participants (40%) considered them very
ethical or ethical as the proportion that considered very
unethical or unethical when. A large majority of
participants found the other technologies very unethical or
unethical. In scenarios where the use of a technology would
clearly benefit the participant, for example, save their life,
then this usage was considered slightly more ethical than
the cases where the technology did not benefit the
participant. However, it is not clear whether these
differences were statistically significant. When people were
able to freely choose whether to use a persuasive
technology or not, then texts, public announcements and
Facebook messages were considered ethical by the majority
of respondents, in comparison to the situation where the use
of the persuasive technology was initiated by an external
entity (for example, the UK’s National Health Service).
Electric shocks and bank account restrictions were
considered very unethical or unethical by the majority of
respondents, even when a participant chose to use them.
Page and Kray’s findings seem to concur with a central
factor identified by applied philosophical analyses of
ethical behaviour, for example, the use of persuasion in
advertising [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Namely, the ethics of an action are
determined, to a large degree, by the extent to which that
action impacts on an individual’s autonomy, that is, their
capacity to choose how to act and determine their own life.
Page and Kray’s research also highlights that privacy and
the extent to which a participant benefits are important
issues for determining the ethical acceptability of
persuasive technologies. All three of these ethical
considerations (autonomy, privacy and benefits) are
shaping the development of the Augmented Shopping
Trolley.
      </p>
      <p>To ensure shopper’s autonomy, they will be free to decide
whether they use the Augmented Shopping Trolley and also
able to choose which particular non-obvious product
information they want to be informed about. Given that
users can configure the system to provide different product
information, privacy is not compromised, even though the
handlebar will be visible to other shoppers, as they will not
understand what particular LED patterns mean. Some of the
product information that will be provided by the
Augmented Shopping Trolley can clearly benefit a
participant, for example, nutritional data, whereas other
information, such as food miles, may not have direct
personal benefits. In fact, trying to minimize food miles
may lead, literally, to a personal cost. However, we assume
that if participants choose to be informed about a particular
type of product information then they do so because it is of
benefit to them and in keeping with their lifestyle choices.
We are currently considering how to use the display to
provide aggregate information about the contents of a
participant’s trolley. The display could indicate how
averaged values of all the participant’s purchases relate to
some norm(s), for example, is the weekly shop below or
above the average shopper’s food miles. Clearly, there are
normalization issues to be resolved to enable such
comparisons to be made. One ethical consideration with
this type of display is that even if an observer did not know
what aspect of product information the aggregate display
encoded, under certain conditions it could be evident
whether a participant was above or below a norm, thereby
compromising a shopper’s privacy. For example, if the
observer had also used the display themselves and the
colour encoding was fixed. One way to ensure privacy is to
allow participants to customize aspects of the display, such
as the colour encoding used. A second ethical concern with
this sort of display is that norms, like salience, typically
influence people unconsciously. To ensure that the
autonomy of participants is not compromised it seems
important to inform them about the methods used in a
display and how these typically influence behaviour before
they choose to use the Augmented Shopping Trolley
CONCLUSIONS
Our lab-based study shows that participants can rapidly
read a shopping trolley handlebar display to determine both
nominal and ordinal properties of a scanned product. Our
display is intuitive to use and requires no training.
Participants find it easier to select items when they have
desirable properties than to not select them because they
have undesirable properties. The Augmented Shopping
Trolley makes non-obvious nutritional, ethical and
environmental product information salient to shoppers and
facilitates the fast and frugal decision making typically used
in a supermarket. Some of the global consequences of
selecting particular products can now be made salient to
shoppers at the point of decision making, potentially
facilitating changes in consumer behaviour. We argue that
our system is an ethical persuasive technology as it
enhances the ability of shoppers to buy choose products in
accordance with their individual values.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Cabinet</given-names>
            <surname>Office</surname>
          </string-name>
          and Institute for Government (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
          <article-title>MINDSPACE</article-title>
          .
          <article-title>Influencing Behaviour through Public Policy</article-title>
          . London: Cabinet Office. http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/content/133/ mindspace-influencing
          <article-title>-behaviour-through-public-policy</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <source>EDS IDG Shopping Report</source>
          <year>2007</year>
          : Shopping Choices: Attraction or Distraction? http://www.eds.com/industries/cir/downloads/EDSIDG Report_aw_final.pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Page</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R. E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kray</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Ethics and Persuasive Technology: An Exploratory Study in the Context of Healthy Living</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Nudge and Influence in Mobile Devices</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>19</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>22</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Reischach</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Michahelles</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guinard</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Adelmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fleisch</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schmidt</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>An Evaluation of Product Identification Techniques for Mobile Phones</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 international Conference on Human-Computer Interaction</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>804</fpage>
          --
          <lpage>816</lpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Santilli</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The Informative and Persuasive Functions of Advertising: A Moral Appraisal</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Business Ethics</source>
          ,
          <fpage>27</fpage>
          --
          <lpage>33</lpage>
          ,
          <year>1983</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Simon</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Invariants of Human Behavior</article-title>
          .
          <source>Annual Review of Psychology</source>
          ,
          <volume>41</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          --
          <lpage>19</lpage>
          (
          <year>1990</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Todd</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <string-name>
            <surname>How Much Information Do We Need</surname>
          </string-name>
          ?
          <source>European Journal of Operational Research</source>
          ,
          <volume>177</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1317</fpage>
          --
          <lpage>1332</lpage>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Todd</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gigerenzer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Environments That Make Us Smart: Ecological Rationality</article-title>
          .
          <source>Current Directions in Psychological Science</source>
          ,
          <volume>16</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>167</fpage>
          --
          <lpage>171</lpage>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Todd</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rogers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Payne</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Nudging the Cart in the Supermarket: How much is Enough Information for Shoppers</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of NIMD2010</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>23</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>26</lpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Underhill</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Why We</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Buy: The Science of Shopping</article-title>
          . Simon and Schuster: New York.
          <year>2009</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>