“Cognitive overload on the card-loading selection page”
Simplified the card-loading page to match the rest of the flow
NDAThis case study covers sponsor work protected by a non-disclosure agreement, specifically the company’s prototype visuals and analyzed competitors are excluded or generalized.
Outcome
From the project, we handed off a validated set of best-practice design guidelines for entertainment and hospitality kiosk interfaces alongside a journey map that exemplifies the findings and recommended next steps regarding the continuation of guidelines to Frogslayer.
Overview
The sponsor was Frogslayer, a custom software development firm who partners with food and entertainment brands to build guest-facing digital products. Our team was asked to explore and construct a standardized set of evidence-based design guidelines that would assist in future kiosk-related projects by avoiding usability pitfalls.
The Problem
Kiosks are becoming increasingly common in various industries due to their convenience and cost-efficiency for businesses; however, their design continues to cause users to consistently experience moments of frustration.
Unlike older and more common digital products such as mobile or web apps, kiosks lack a standard practice design framework focusing on the user comfort, leading to continuation of recurring usability pain points.
My Role
I worked as a UX Designer & Researcher on this project, contributing through researching the current state of kiosk design, building the base user flow, constructing the usability-testing prototype, and iterating upon insights across three rounds of testing.
In addition to design work, I was the team’s primary point of contact with Frogslayer’s product team, maintaining both sides’ mutual understanding of the project’s progression, and also co-led internal planning and defined specific actions to accomplish the project’s intended goal.
Researching
Clarifying Scope with the Sponsor
Due to the requested problem being initially vague as “design kiosk interface guidelines,” we recognized the need to immediately narrow down the broad scope for tangible results.
This understanding led us to approach Frogslayer’s product team for their prior internal research that led to the project’s inception, resulting in us receiving an existing Figma prototype.
After auditing it, we discussed our thoughts with Frogslayer's product team and eventually determined the following scope focuses:
- Internal ergonomics
- Hospitality & entertainment industry
- Loyalty programs
- External environmental factors
Establishing the Evidence Base
With the scope focuses determined, we then built our foundation focusing on two perspectives of stakeholders related to our guidelines: the producer side (how businesses build kiosks) and the consumer side (how users experience them).
Starting with the producer side, we focused on answering the following questions:
- What makes up a kiosk interface?
- How are companies designing kiosk interfaces today?
Secondary Research
“What makes up a kiosk interface?”
We reviewed articles, journals, and literature across the four dimensions a kiosk interface has to account for: interface elements, consumer psychology, loyalty programs, and physical kiosk constraints.
The recurring gaps we surfaced:
- Usability challenges: slow task completion, environmental noise, unclear affordances
- Design pitfalls: inconsistent touch targets, low contrast, inaccessible screen heights
- Function-first over discoverability — interfaces optimize for transactions, not exploration
Competitive Analysis
“How are companies designing kiosk interfaces today?”
We audited kiosk-industry sites, reviews, and product imagery to map the design conventions incumbents currently share and the opportunity gaps our guidelines could target.
What we found:
- Consistent labeling of each screen’s purpose at the top
- Interactive elements clustered center-screen, with names kept to one or two words
- Opportunity gap: little use of space outside the center — edges left empty to avoid cognitive overload
Gathering Firsthand User Insight
After understanding the producer's side, we shifted to the consumer's perspective to answer the following questions:
- How do users currently interact with kiosks?
- How do users actually behave on kiosks in context?
Interviews & Survey
“How do users currently interact with kiosks?”
We interviewed users for firsthand stories and ran a companion survey with the same guiding questions to reach a broader audience. Together they surfaced how users currently perceive, navigate, and disengage from kiosk flows.
What we found:
- Confidence stems from familiarity — users treated kiosks as an extension of touch-screen patterns they already know
- Confusion arises when options become overwhelming or poorly labeled
- Loyalty programs are rarely used — cited as not worth the effort, annoying sign-up, or simply forgotten
Field Observations
“How do users actually behave on kiosks in context?”
We observed four participants at a partner indoor entertainment center completing two real tasks (buying a play card and checking / reloading balance), converting each session into a user journey map to surface friction that self-report couldn’t catch.
What we found:
- Payment transactions were the biggest point of confusion — tap vs. swipe vs. insert, and which reader to use
- Kiosk lag and inefficient screen-space use disrupted flow and hid important information
- Countdown sounds and abrupt auditory feedback reduced user confidence mid-task
Ideating
From Individual Sketching to a Testable User Flow
After building a sufficient foundation and familiarity with the current state of kiosk interfaces, we moved on to develop the user flow in two passes: individual sketching and feature selection, then wireframing the features into an interactive prototype.
The purpose was to conduct usability tests applying our findings to an interactive flow, so users could verify their authenticity in real-world scenarios.
Individual Sketching & Feature Selection
To ideate in extensive detail, we first individually brainstormed through quick sketching arcade kiosk user flows before reconvening. After discussing and assessing each other’s individual feature ideas, we voted on each other's works to decide which features to include in the usability test flow.
Field observations had previously surfaced the significant pain-point themes:
- Payment-related interactions due to instructions being only textual
- Auditory countdown cues that prompt action due to the threat of returning to the beginning of the flow
As a result, we ideated features that would address those pain points, in addition to other features that could improve the overall usability of the flow.
The selected feature themes included:
- Onboarding assistance
- Clarity of affordances to reduce moments of hesitation through consistent UI designs
Wireframing on the Observed Base Flow
To focus more on the features’ implementation, we imported a base kiosk arcade user flow based on the one utilized during user observations to quickly expand the wireframe into an interactive prototype ready for use.
Verifying
Validating and Retesting with User Insights
We ran three rounds of moderated usability testing at the Purdue Memorial Union (PMU) to simulate the busy atmosphere of a real arcade. The prototype was used as a research instrument, iterated between rounds to address recorded friction points and modified to assess user feedback on a specific finding.
Round 1
7 users
Round 1 focus: Verify that the PMU testing environment was representative of a busy arcade, and observe how users interacted with the initial prototype for the first time
“Consistent resistance to signup, plus confusion that loyalty required an entry fee”
Loyalty pop-up with a clear comparison of member tiers and deals to compel interaction
“Ending-page orientation broke layout consistency”
Flipped the end page from vertical to horizontal
“Payment buttons read as different elements from the rest of the screens”
Redesigned payment buttons to match the site’s button system
Round 2
7 users · A/B test
Round 2 focus: Because most Round 1 users didn’t attempt to click the sign-up-as-member button, we surfaced membership as a pop-up to force interaction with it, then ran an A/B test through the pop-up to gauge two candidate loyalty-program models, tier-based (upgrade for perks) vs. upsell-based (spend $20, play with $25), in the context of the entertainment industry
Upsells engaged even hesitant users, but a recurring “might be a catch” mistrust surfaced around unclear deals and member pricing
Selected upsells over tiers as the loyalty model, then modified upsell prices and deals for clarity to build trust
“Reset button unused in every observed session”
Replaced the unused reset button with a sign-in button
Round 3
5 users · final validation
Round 3 focus: Verify the validity of the iterations we made after Round 2 using an improved prototype. Because Round 2’s iterations tested well, we did not iterate on the prototype further after this round, and instead applied the findings directly into the deliverable guideline.
Round 3 confirmed that the Round 2 iterations were effective, so instead of another prototype pass, we recorded the findings from this round directly into the deliverable guideline:
- Users found the interface intuitive due to the one-at-a-time instructions that prevented them from feeling overwhelmed.
- Users often missed “Join for Free” while skimming, even though joining being free was the biggest conversion driver. As a result, we recommended in the guideline to place key information at the top of any membership prompt.
- Users habitually rejected memberships because they assumed the membership required cost or commitment. To combat this, the guideline recommends prominent cost transparency on any membership prompt.
- Colors were well-liked as they are utilized to guide the user throughout the user flow through contrast.
Across all three rounds, the feature that received the most changes was the loyalty program — specifically iterations for clarity of its labelling of the “Join for Free” upsell with pricing, as we needed to actively combat users’ habitual suspicion of the membership requiring monetary cost.
Takeaways
Prototype as Research Instrument
Designing a prototype as a tool and not as a product heavily differed from my previous projects, where the end goal was to construct a prototype for developers to implement. As a result, I prioritized research verification over design aesthetics when designing the prototype.
Environment as Design Material
Due to the project's scope being primarily the entertainment industry, the team and I needed to consider the appropriate environment for testing, leading us to use a nearby campus building known for its consistently busy atmosphere. From this project, I find that it is important to heavily assess user feedback in the context of the environment as a factor of a user's experience with a product.