UX/UI Project
Concept Project
Mobile App
Ongoing
Solo Project
Is there true utility for AR in meeting business and user needs beyond a merely aesthetic viral art experience?

A self-driven speculative conversation piece exploring the possibilities of augmented reality for Nike and a redesign of Nike’s shopping experience, online and in-store.

The Challenge

Users are frustrated with protracted and inefficient shopping processes and need a way to discover products they want more efficiently. They do not want to spend too long shopping, but need to spend the time trying on the product in-store to make a more informed decision.

The Solution

Virtual try-on allows users to have a more accurate visualisation of how products will look and fit their bodies, aiding them in the decision-making process, both in-store and online. The proposal encourages:

Higher potential for discovery. Users are able to visualise many more products on themselves than a changing room would in a short period of time.
More assurances for online-shoppers. A lower likelihood users have to go through the protracted returns process.
Streamlined decision-making. Users only spend time finding and physically trying on suitable products in-store.

The Brief

How can augmented reality help Nike meet its business goals whilst improving the in-store customer shopping experience?

As an architect and now a UX designer, I find the idea of augmented reality a compelling and thought-provoking tool for society, functionally, but also sociologically and culturally.

In this project, I take Nike as a case study and ask: Is there true utility for AR in meeting both business and user needs beyond a merely aesthetic viral art experience? What is the effect of combining the physical and the digital? Can it revolutionize the nature of in-store shopping?

This duality of the physical and digital is interesting to study within the retail sector. We continue to shop and navigate retail online, on screens, more, year on year. At the same time, in-store shopping continues to resurge post-pandemic, but the nature of it is changing to one that prioritizes brand-building through highly aesthetic retail experiences. Nike last year utilized AR in this manner as part of a campaign, where after scanning a QR code, customers could observe flying objects around them in-store and add virtual stickers to shoes. Can we and should we do more than this with AR?

I use Nike as the commercial basis of this exploration because it is a brand who has dabbled with AR before, who’s brand image aligns with using new technologies, and has the financial resources to facilitate it.

The Ven diagram adjacent identifies the intersection of user and business needs, and frames 3 questions to begin my exploration.

1

Initial Research

User Interviews
Contextual Inquiry
Affinity Mapping
Interviewing the Customers

Shopping habits have continued to evolve with the growing influence of online platforms and the larger societal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. To begin, my objective was to understand the following:

  1. How Nike customers shop in-store and online today: what are they motivated and frustrated by?
  2. How customers perceive Nike as a brand
  3. Attitudes towards augmented reality

I interviewed 12 Nike customers, who shopped at Nike to varying degrees, online and in-store. Each was asked to name 3 adjectives they associated with Nike, and the word map adjacent gives us an idea of how they perceive the brand, the scale of the word correlating to the frequency it was said.

We can draw two main concepts from this:

  • Nike as an ‘innovative’ and ‘aspirational’ brand at the forefront of technology.
  • Nike as a ‘convenient’ and ‘reliable’ brand customers can rely on for ‘quality’.
In-Store vs. Online: Convenience is King

Speed and convenience was the highest ranking reason for both channels.

  • For in-store, speed/convenience equates to quicker decisions, because they could try on the product, ensure it fits and they liked it in-person.
  • For online, convenience refers to the time/effort saved going into the store, and if last minute, users will purchase multiple sizes/styles.

Slightly more users used online-shopping to discover new products than in-store.

  • For online, users found it more conducive to understanding the range of products on the market/comparisons in price.
  • For in-store, whilst users often shop with a specific item in mind, they did in fact frequently discover and purchase items they had not intended to.
In-Store Frustrations

Overbearing sales assistants represented the top pain point across the board for users. Customers do not want to interact with people if they can help it, showing little interest for consultative personalised selling. However, when assistance is needed, looking/waiting for it represented a frustration.

Waiting and queuing for anything was considered a major pain point, particularly for the changing rooms. One user stated “I don’t even know if I will buy the item I’m queuing to try on, which makes me all the more impatient”.

The effort of changing in general was an issue for a subset of users; getting in and out of clothes, the limit on items one can try on (Nike limits to 4 or 6 in certain branches), and whether they have the sizes to try on in the first place.

Seamless Interchange in Channels

Shopping habits are no longer confined to the binary of shopping either in-store or online. Rather, customers may discover an item online, then try in-store some time later, or discover an item in-store, before later going online to make price comparisons and purchasing from the most appropriate outlet. The customer journey is not confined to one channel, but spread across multiple.

Hybridization of Online and In-store Shopping

The majority of users I interviewed also used their phones whilst shopping in-store to aid their shopping experience in some way. This can be divided into three categories:

  1. Reference images
  2. Price comparisons
  3. Stock locations

In this way, we start to see a hybridization of the in-store shopping experience with the benefits of browsing online.

Attitudes towards Augmented Reality

Most of the users I interviewed had not encountered AR within a retail setting. Two users who had, described IKEA Place, which utilized AR to visualise how products would look in the homes of the users. Both saw lots of potential in the concept, but felt the execution was not realistic enough to make a decision from.

Many users had however experienced AR in a more artistic sense, such as within an art gallery, or through social media filters. They associated AR with fun, playfulness, and whimsy, but also showed interest in its possibilities for combining the digital world with reality.

Key Insights

2

Defining the Problem

Problem Statement
User Persona
User Journey
HMW Statements
‘Jack needs a way to discover products he wants more efficiently because he does not want to spend too long shopping, but he needs to spend the time trying on the product in-store to make a more informed decision’
Problem Statement

The above problem statement distils the overarching sentiment of a majority of users from my user research. These users prioritise time and convenience when buying in-store. Ultimately, they are looking to discover products that suit and fit them as efficiently as possible, and be in and out the store quickly, but is tethered by trying items on and the resultant decision-making process.

User Personas

The primary user persona, Jack, is an archetypal summation of the same subset of users the problem statement is based on. Jack is a regular customer of Nike, both in-store and online. He discovers products he desires through both channels, and nearly always goes in-store to try it on before purchasing, referring to his phone for information throughout the process.

Customer Journey

The customer journey below is built off of the behavior a subset of users described going through when they shopped for an item at Nike, as well as a contextual inquiry whereby I observed one customer during their in-store experience.

We can identify two main protracted processes that causes the most frustration here.

  1. Locating a specific product. This becomes a paint point when several hindrances come together e.g locating the style in a busy store + finding a specific size + asking and waiting for the assistant to bring the missing item.
  1. Inefficient discovery process represents the arguably more severe frustration, for example, queuing for the changing rooms and trying on the outfit, only to find the item is not suitable and to either leave the store empty handed, or repeat the process of discovery and evaluation once again. Frustration becomes more severe where a long time is spent with no satisfactory results i.e. an item the user wants to purchase.

We also see that the stages of discovery, locate, evaluate, and purchase is not so linear. Rather, stages may repeat over the in-store decision-making process.

3

Ideation

User Flows
Sketching
Wireframing
User Flows
Can AR Address Customer Pain Points?

The interweaving of online (via mobile) and in-store shopping lends itself well to the concept of AR as a digital overlay onto reality, and points to mobile phones as the portal through which to view this overlay.

The two main pain points identified along the customer journey are:

  1. Locating the correct products/sizes quickly.
  2. Streamlining the in-store fitting and decision-making process.

For locating products, the first opportunity for AR is a type of way-finding service to assist users in navigating to their desired style and size. This allows Jack to find his pre-saved Nike items as expediently as possible, with zero interaction/dependency on sales assistants.

However, one should ask, does the problem justify the cost of AR? Firstly, this pain point is only apparent in larger busier stores, and could also be resolved with efficient spatial layouts and physical way finding. Secondly, whilst helping jack find the item he wants, this solution is somewhat conclusive, constraining the discoverability of other items.

The second opportunity here is for a virtual try-on service, allowing Jack to visualise multiple items on himself, guiding his decision-making process. We can break down the benefits of this solution to 4 main points:

  • Streamlined decision-making ensures Jack only spend time finding and physically trying on suitable products in-store.
  • Higher potential for discoverability for the user; Jack can visualise many more products on themselves than a changing room would in a short period of time.
  • More assurances when online-shopping and a lower likelihood Jack has to go through the protracted returns process.
  • Bringing the advantages of online shopping in-store, such as product and price comparisons.

Jack shops in multiple ways, across different channels. The following user flows outlines 3 possible scenarios that virtual try-on can be utilised. Digital interactions are highlighted in blue.

Virtual Try-On User Flow

There are two distinct user-flow variations for virtual try-on that we can explore further: 1. At home 2. In-store. These variations share the same core sequence but may differ in the entryway and outcome.

At home. Should the user be online shopping at home and see any products on display they desire, the user may save the product, walk to a mirror, select camera mode and virtually try on and swipe through any saved items and their size/colour variations. The user may then save it for reference, or purchase it online.

In-store. Should the user be in-store and sees any products on display they desire, the user may instead scan and save the product, before the same flow proceeds in front of the in-store mirrors. The user can then save it for reference, try it on physically in-store, or  purchase it in-store.

The outcome may for both flow variations may vary here, but the ultimate aim is to help the user streamline their decision-making process.

4

Testing

Usability Testing
Wireframing
Prototyping
Wireflows
Testing Objectives

Whilst using virtual try-on at home/online can be more expected, use in-store was more ambiguous. As such, I wanted to test the concept in relation to the in-store experience with the following objectives:

  1. Viability of virtual try-on in-store
  2. Usability of virtual try-on in-store
  3. Interest in ancillary concepts

I interviewed and conducted usability testing on 6 Nike customers over Zoom, for approximately 30 minutes each.

Users were asked their opinion on the concept of virtual try-on in-store, before being shown several prototypes (A-F) to navigate/compare in testing its usability, and wireframes (G and H) in understanding their conceptual viability.

User flow A
User flow B
User flow C
User flow D
Wireframe E & F
Wireframe G & H
Key Insights
Viability

5/6 users stated they would utilise virtual try-on in-store to varying degrees, but this is dependent on two main factors:

  1. Accuracy of the body scanning process. They would have to trust the precision of AR to match clothes to their specific body.
  2. Easy/intuitive user flow with minimal steps. Virtual try-on has to provide a significant difference in effort/ease to physically trying on items.

Users are more likely to utilise virtual try-on to gage style over precise fit, seeing the process as a decision-making aid to what they proceed to try on physically.

Users are more likely to try on items they would not normally as virtual try-on represented a low-effort/time efficient method of visualising products on themselves.

Usability

Scanning was an intuitive method for all users to save items to their phone for virtual try-on, with many stating the existing precedence of QR codes.

Users want to scan as many items as possible before virtual try-on, as it is more time efficient. They would also want to mix and match many items at the same time.

All four user flow options would be equally used. Users would want to navigate to the 3d wardrobe to see the range of product options they have saved, but also want to go to the camera directly to swipe through options.

A majority of users preferred to swipe (E) than select products in a contained toolbar (F) as they felt this was more natural and easier to use with one hand.

Recommendations
  1. Instill trust in users for the accuracy of virtual fit through a UI that espouses a sense of scientific precision over the onboarding and body scanning process.
  2. Market virtual try-on by emphasising stylistic range of products. Utilise images of Nike’s casual collection (over form-fitting sportswear), and emphasise the range of colourways available.
  3. Reduce down the steps between scanning an item and seeing an item on oneself. Test automatic saving of scanned products to reduce steps further.
  4. Provide for multiple pathways for virtual try-on. Expect users to go straight to camera view, as well as through one specific product.
  5. Prioritise a virtual try-on interface held with one hand, accounting for a comfortable area of reach for the thumb.

5

Latest Prototype

Homepage
Introduction
User Measurements
Body Scanning
Nike Augmented
Scan An Item
3D Wardrobe
Virtual Try-On
Virtual Try-On
Future Try-On
Photographic Comparison

6

Style Guide

7

Testing

Usability Testing
Wireframing
Prototyping
I am currently conducting usability testing on the latest prototype - watch this space!
Coming Soon

8

Spatial Design

Sketching
3D Modelling
Rendering
I am currently exploring and designing possibilities for the in-store spatial experience - stay tuned!
Coming Soon