Revealing the Unexpected: The Art of User Experience in a Self-Service Coffee Machine

As as a product and user experience expert, I continually find fascination in the intersection of design, functionality, and user interaction. When I discovered the self-service coffee machine at an upper-class hotel offering unique beverages such as "Kaffe Schnaps," "Kaffee Fertig," and "Kaffee Luz," (special Swiss beverages mixing coffee with some local spirits) my anticipation brimmed at the opportunity to interact with a machine promising to blend the worlds of coffee and spirits. Regrettably, my initial excitement gave way to a rather different reality. Let's unpack this experience, step by step.

First Impressions

Upon first encounter, the coffee machine is a sight to behold. The sleek and modern design, with its sparkling clean surface and interactive touch screen interface, captures your attention and curiosity immediately. The strategic placement at the breakfast buffet adds a touch of grandeur and indulgence to the morning dining experience. The machine promises an experience of luxury and an adventure into unique blends of coffee and spirits.

In Search of A Spirited Blend

As I navigated through the touch screen menu, the options presented - among many more traditional coffee specials - were "Kaffe Schnaps," "Kaffee Fertig," and "Kaffee Luz." Each selection on the machine invited me to explore a novel world of flavors, promising an adventurous blend of coffee with an essence of various spirits. Intrigued by the Swiss tradition these names evoke, I started my exploration with "Kaffe Schnaps."

The Dose of Reality

After selecting "Kaffe Schnaps," expecting a rich blend of robust coffee and a shot of fruit brandy, I realized the actual function was to adjust the coffee dose and not to dispense the spirit as initially presumed. Similarly, choosing "Kaffee Fertig" and "Kaffee Luz" only adjusted the coffee strength and dosage, with no added spirits.

This discrepancy between expectation and reality is where the user experience fell short. The machine interface leveraged the allure of spirited coffees to attract interaction, but the result was a regular coffee with varying strength and dosages.

User Experience: The Gap Between Expectation and Reality

As a user experience expert, this situation underscores the significance of clear and honest communication in design. While the machine excelled in visual appeal and user-friendly navigation, the incongruity between the conveyed promise and the actual function led to disappointment.

This could be avoided with clear, accurate labels. Or, with a clear communication that these are for restaurant staff use only "pre-processing" steps when preparing the respective coffee - spirit blends manually. 

Concluding Thoughts

In the realm of user experience, the journey matters as much as the destination. When it comes to our luxurious self-service coffee machine, the overall aesthetics, usability, and brewing functionality are impressive. However, the user experience could be significantly improved with more transparency and accurate communication of the machine's capabilities.

In essence, as UX practitioners, we must remember that while it's essential to create captivating user experiences, meeting users' expectations with sincerity and transparency is crucial to creating a truly satisfying interaction. - "Kaffee Schnaps" at the push of a button would have been too much of a luxurious  breakfast experience ;-)

Coffee is vital to survival! - Usability of coffee machines could be key ...

I love coffee. - The taste, the smell, the process of brewing and preparing, ...

Now, if dinosaurs became extinct because of not having coffee, or just because of incredibly poor usability of coffee machines would be an interesting subject to study.

For me personally - usability of coffee machines is key!

As a long time user of the Nespresso coffee system - which I overall really like - I have to say that many things have been done right by Nespresso.

It is not that easy to develop a robust end to end system with third party manufacturers of coffee machines, brewing units, and probably a high heterogeneity and complexity in coffee production, roasting, and packaging processes in order to deliver a reliable and reproducible coffee at the finger tips of the end consumer..

However, there is that one trap I am falling into every single day at least once. - The empty water tank trap!

To put out a quote of a famous author of usability and user experience literature - "Don't Make me Think", Steve Krug. 

Products that require the user to think are just not finished!

It goes into same category as "any product that needs a manual to work is broken"- Elon Musk.

Now, how is this this with Nespresso coffee machines?

- Need for a manual: I can not remember that there is a need for that!

- Making me think: no, it does not make me think! - Nevertheless, I repeatedly fall into the same trap of missed usability! - The empty water tank!

Obviously, one key precondition for brewing a good tasty coffee is supply of water. With a non industrial coffee machine - a consumer model - where there is no direct and continuous supply of water filling up the water tank, and making sure that there is a critical level of water in the tank prior to starting the coffee brewing process becomes a user task.

Now, my problem!

It feels like every time I am approaching that Nespresso coffee machine in our kitchen, the water tank is empty. Given the fact that I do not like to think and the machine does not prevent me actively from pushing the button to start brewing a short or a long coffee, I am wasting quite a number of coffee capsules on water shortage events. - Why on earth has none of these coffee machines a clear and simple indicator on the front side of the product for low water supply levels? - Why?

Here some examples. The machines are well engineered - no doubt. The machines exhibit appealing designs - no doubt. The main operating functions - assuming filling water supply is not a main operating function which might be the major mistake of this set of product requirements - are easily reachable from the front. There was some usability engineering - no doubt. To place the water tank at the rear of the machine. That's not the worst thing to do. But, it's not the most convenient place when it comes to inspecting water supply levels. - A clear miss in assessing usability risks. Or, if it has been assessed correctly, then the mitigation is just a desaster!

I remember the early days of Nespresso machines. On the first generation machines the water tank was kind of a drawer at the bottom of the machine. And, there was a little indicator - mechanical, hence not expensive - which showed the current water levels from the front.

Now, there is that one argument of product designers - "the user will learn".

In my case - good, I might not be the average and most representative user - I do not learn about it. And my level of disappointment if the water supply pump runs dry is ever raising.

To conclude there are two questions remaining.

One, how big can such usability pain grow before a critical level for users to change product is reached?

And, two, what if dinosaurs became extinct due to poor coffee machine usability and not due to not having coffee available?

Latency - No. 2

As discussed in my earlier post - Latency - No. 1 - latency times in today‘s computerized products are a true pain to user experience.

There are different ways of handling it, if it can not be shortened down enough by design.

The most common one is the spinning icon.

However, there is also the traditional solution through good documentation and user guidance.

The good old SOP - standard operating procedure.
Do‘s and dont‘s ...

See to the right - recently found at the breakfast buffet in a tourist hotel in Ticino, Switzerland.
If it truly solves the problem - I doubt it!

At least for me it didn‘t work out. It took me longer to find my language to read - I can read and understand them all - and act on it, than to make everything wrong already in parallel while not waiting for the slow machine to take its time.

Yes, it‘s well documented. And yes, I was the one, impatiently not following the SOP. And, yes, if you would follow it - just slow down - the user experience would be pretty seamless and clear.

As user experience, UX experts usually generate evidence by observing and testing a statistically relevant sample of users. Here, the job obviously has been done. Otherwise nobody would have solved the problem with such a nice SOP in four languages and four colors.
And, from a user end it is always hard to get product design changed in a true user centric way. Once a product is launched, in most cases, there is no room for user centricity and agility to adapt to it any longer. Quality in UX is then only measured in terms of units sold or generated revenue.

In the example given above, a very nice SOP, written by a very pragmatic and customer focusing person, will prevent the manufacturer of the coffee machine from going out of business due to poor UX. What a success!

Intuitive user guidance - the parkometer

Some days ago we have been visiting a pitoresque little town in northern Switzerland. Having found a parking lot near the center. The parking lot was well equiped with a number of parkometers. Those little machines allowing payment for parking time.

Usual user guidance of such a machine is:

Start at the top. An old fashioned LCD display shows wether the machine is currently in use by indicating the current time. Bellow a slit to drop coins is located. Dropping coins makes the display to indicate the so far payed parking time. Pushing a usually green button below will print the parking ticket to be placed visibly in the car.

There is an other concept for the same purpose. The machines, probably second generation, exhibiting not only a display, a slit for the coins but also a numeric keyboard. This particular parking lot was one of those. Each parking field has a numeric indicator which needs to be entered to the payment machine. The ticket is only considered as a receipt.

However, the location of the interaction elements such as display, green button, slit for coins and numeric keyboard is not really adapted to the new concept.

Starting at the top the display indicates the current time and date. Next the slit for coins is waiting for input. - Really? - Below the coin entry element the numeric keyboard is located and at the very bottom the same green button can be found. So, how does this work?

Starting from the top we start dropping coins which will not be accepted by the machine. Why? - I would guess that you have to drop coins until the desired parking time is payed, enter the numeric identifier of your parking field, then push the green button in order to get a receipt.

Several attempts would not lead to successful payment.

After a while I would discover this little note at the bottom. A little sticker communicating the right process.

1. Enter the identifier of your parking field
2. Drop coins for the parking time
3. Push the green button
4. Take your receipt

Logical? Intuitive?

At least the sticker implies that I am not the only one...