Identifying design barriers for older adults in food packaging: A usability study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20868/ardin.2025.14.5422Keywords:
food packaging, packaging design, older adults, usabilityAbstract
Given that human physical and cognitive abilities change as we age, the food packaging industry should respond to the new necessities that emerge. However, ergonomics and universal design principles are frequently absent in the packaging design process, resulting in the implementation of package solutions that can become an obstacle for many users. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usability of ten food and beverage packages found in the market with two age groups of older adults (65-74 years and 75+ years). Participants’ hand-grip strength and lateral pinch strength were measured as background information. We evaluated task efficiency measuring opening and closing times, and identified interaction issues in opening, closing, and pouring liquids. We also explored performance differences between the two group samples by comparing opening and closing times. There was no significant difference between age groups in terms of hand streng.
Usability test results showed similar difficulties and errors during package opening in both groups due to low visibility of interactive components, unclear affordances, and anthropometric incompatibilities. We also observed a frequent use of knives or scissors to open the packaging. We identified some problems to effectively close the packaging and no errors in pouring liquids. The comparison analysis showed a significant difference only in opening times between the two age groups for the thermoformed tray (laminated cheese). Our study can help designers and engineers to introduce usability testing in their design process and to create easy-to-use packaging solutions considering older adults’ capabilities and limitations.
Downloads
References
1. Bell, A., Tapsell, L., & Walton, K. (2017a). Chapter 17 - Food Packaging and Older Adults. In Food for the Aging Population (Second Edition, pp. 349–370). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100348-0.00017-2
2. Bell, A. F., Walton, K., Chevis, J. S., Davies, K., Manson, C., Wypych, A., ... & Alexander, N. (2013). Accessing packaged food and beverages in hospital. Exploring experiences of patients and staff. Appetite, 60, 231-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.10.013
3. Bell, A., Walton, K., & Yoxall, A. (2017b). Measure for measure: pack performance versus human dexterity and grip strength. Packaging Technology and Science, 30(4), 117-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2284
4. Bell, A. F., Walton, K. L., & Tapsell, L. C. (2016). Easy to open? Exploring the ‘openability’of hospital food and beverage packaging by older adults. Appetite, 98, 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.12.004 22 ArDIn. Arte, Diseño e Ingeniería 2025, 14, 1-24 ISSN: 2254-8319
5. Budiu, R. (14 February, 2021). Internal vs. External Validity of UX Studies. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/internal-vs-external-validity/
6. Canty, L. A., Lewis, R., & Yoxall, A. (2013). Investigating openability of rigid plastic containers with peelable lids: The link between human strength and grip and opening forces. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of mechanical engineering science, 227(5), 1056-1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406212457729
7. Carse, B., Thomson, A., & Stansfield, B. (2010). Use of biomechanical data in the Inclusive Design process: packaging design and the older adult. Journal of Engineering Design, 21(2-3), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820903303456
8. Clegg, M. E., & Williams, E. A. (2018). Optimizing nutrition in older people. Maturitas, 112, 34-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.04.001
9. Czaja, S. J., Boot, W.R., Charness, N., Rogers, W.A. (2019). Designing for Older Adults. Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches. CRC Press.
10. de la Fuente, J., Gustafson, S., Twomey, C., & Bix, L. (2015). An affordance‐based methodology for package design. Packaging Technology and Science, 28(2), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2087
11. Duizer, L. M., Robertson, T., & Han, J. (2009). Requirements for packaging from an ageing consumer's perspective. Packaging Technology and Science: An International Journal, 22(4), 187-197. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.834
12. Ford, N., Trott, P., & Simms, C. (2016). Exploring the impact of packaging interactions on quality of life among older consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(3-4), 275-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1123758
13. Hensler, S., Herren, D. B., & Marks, M. (2015). New technical design of food packaging makes the opening process easier for patients with hand disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 50, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.02.002
14. International Organization for Standardization. (2019). Ergonomics of human system interaction. Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO Standard No. 9241-210). https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html
15. International Organization for Standardization. (2011). Packaging_Accessible design_General requirements (ISO Standard No. 11156:2011). https://www.iso.org/standard/50175.html
16. MacDermid, J., Solomon, G., Fedorczyk, J., & Valdes, K. (2015). Impairment based conditions. Clinical Assessment Recommendations. Third Edition. Mount Laurel, NJ: American Society of Hand Therapists.
17. Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes?.Design Studies, 32(5), 417-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003
18. Mumani, A., & Stone, R. (2018). State of the art of user packaging interaction (UPI). Packaging Technology and Science, 31(6), 401-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2363
19. Nielsen, J. (2012a, June 3). How Many Test Users in a Usability Study?. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/
20. Nielsen, J. (2012b, January 15). Thinking Aloud: The #1 Usability Tool. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/thinking-aloud-the-1-usability-tool/
21. Pousette, S., Löfgren, M., Nilsson, B., & Gustafsson, A. (2014). An extended method to measure overall consumer satisfaction with packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 27(9), 727-738. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2064
22. R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.2.2) [Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
23. Rowson, J., & Yoxall, A. (2011). Hold, grasp, clutch or grab: Consumer grip choices during food container opening. Applied Ergonomics, 42(5), 627-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.12.001
24. Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. John Wiley & Sons.
25. Świda, J., Halagarda, M., Prusak, A., & Popek, S. (2019). Identification of problems arising during manual handling of food packaging by older consumers in Poland. Packaging Technology and Science, 32(12), 607-617. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2478
26. Sudbury-Riley, L. (2014). Unwrapping senior consumers’ packaging experiences. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(6), 666–686. https://doi.org/10.1108/mip-02-2013-0027
27. Tullis, T. & Albert, B. (2013). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann.
28. Wenk, S., Brombach, C., Artigas, G., Järvenpää, E., Steinemann, N., Ziesemer, K., & Yildirim, S. (2016). Evaluation of the accessibility of selected packaging by comparison of quantitative measurements of the opening forces and qualitative surveys through focus group studies. Packaging Technology and Science, 29(11), 559-570. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2237
29. Yoxall, A., Gonzalez, V., Best, J., Rodriguez‐Falcon, E. M., & Rowson, J. (2019). As you like it: Understanding the relationship between packing design and accessibility. Packaging Technology and Science, 32(10), 496-507. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2466
30. Yoxall, A., & Janson, R. (2008). Fact or friction: a model for understanding the openability of wide mouth closures. Packaging Technology and Science: An International Journal, 21(3), 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.785
31. Yoxall, A., Langley, J., Janson, R., Lewis, R., Wearn, J., Hayes, S. A., & Bix, L. (2010). How wide do you want the jar?: the effect on diameter for ease of opening for wide‐mouth closures. Packaging Technology and Science: An International Journal, 23(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.874
32. Yoxall, A., Luxmoore, J., Rowson, J. (2008). Size does matter: further studies in hand-pack interaction using computer simulation. Packaging Technology and Science, 21(2), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.778
33. Yoxall, A., Janson, R., Bradbury, S. R., Langley, J., Wearn, J., & Hayes, S. (2006). Openability: producing design limits for consumer packaging. Packaging Technology and Science: An International Journal, 19(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.725
34. Winder, B. (2006). The design of packaging closures. In N. Theobald & B. Winder (Eds.) of Packaging closures and sealing systems (pp. 36-67). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
35. Wenk, S., Brombach, C., Artigas, G., Järvenpää, E., Steinemann, N., Ziesemer, K., & Yildirim, S. (2016). Evaluation of the accessibility of selected packaging by comparison of quantitative measurements of the opening forces and qualitative surveys through focus group studies. Packaging Technology and Science, 29(11), 559-570. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2237
36. World Health Organization (October 4th, 2021) Ageing and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
ArDIn does not charge authors for processing or publishing an article and provides immediate Open Access to its content. All content is available free to the user or their institution. Users are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without prior permission from the publisher or author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant to the journal the right to a Creative Commons attribution / Non-Commercial / Non-Derivative 4.0 International (CC BY NC ND) License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of authorship and non-commercial use.
- Authors may separately establish additional agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (for example, placing it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book).
Unless otherwise indicated, all contents of the electronic edition are distributed under a Creative Commons license.
