Project Background

Produce sharing in local communities today is often inefficient and fragmented. Existing solutions lack a strong sense of community, fail to optimize surplus resources, and fall short in promoting sustainable practices. Producia is designed to fill this gap by connecting community members aged 18+ who are interested in gardening, outdoor activities, farmers’ markets, and nature-based experiences. The platform empowers neighbors to exchange, discover, and share fresh produce in a way that is social, sustainable, and resource-efficient.

Solution Overview

Process

Research

Initial Research

We began with some exploratory qualitative research into this problem space. We wanted to understand about people's experiences with sharing, buying and selling produce.

Competitive Analysis

‍

After completing the competitor analysis, we found that existing solutions leave key gaps that Producia can uniquely address:

• None of the products provide a true Swap & Barter Exchange System with a structured trade proposal and negotiation flow — existing platforms are limited to donation models (Olio, Fresh Food Connect) or simple buy/sell transactions (Farmish).
• Although current products offer maps or listings, none deliver an Interactive Harvest Map with Local Discovery that showcases real-time availability, freshness, and seasonal context.

‍

Affinity Diagram

We interviewed participants and captured detailed notes about their experiences with gardening, produce sharing, and sustainability. Using affinity diagramming, we:

• Transferred our notes onto digital sticky notes
• Grouped similar insights together
• Identified emerging themes and user priorities

Insights

After reviewing our affinity diagram, we identified several key insights that capture the major findings and themes emerging from our analysis.

‍

Synthesis & Ideation

Persona

‍

Storyboard

‍

User Flows

In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of our users' experience, we created user flow diagrams. These diagrams visually outline the step-by-step journey users take when interacting with our product, focusing on four key areas.

‍

‍

Low-Fi Prototypes

Wireframe Sketches

After we decided the main flow and overall structure, we divided the experience into four major sections based on the user flows. Below are the wireframes I created for the "Searching Item + Message Seller" and "Add Listing Flow".

‍

‍

The main stages of this application can be translated into these following features.

‍

‍

Paper Prototypes

We then created paper prototypes based on our wireframe sketches and user flows to simulate the on-screen interactions. The prototypes then are used for think aloud user testing. This allowed us to rapidly iterate, and gather early user feedback. Below are the paper prototypes for the application.

Think Aloud Testing

During testing sessions, we presented the different paper prototype flows to participants and asked them to “think out loud” as they interacted with each screen. We wanted to understand these main questions:

1. Whether the overall flow makes sense

1. Out of the current flows, where are some areas of innovation that we should pivot to

1. For the matching process: what are people’s preferences on the default view (card vs grid) on different devices

We compiled our recorded interview notes and found the following insights:

‍

‍

USER TESTING

UF1: User Flow for Listing a Produce Item:

Commonalities:

• Both tech-savvy and less tech-savvy users found the initial steps of listing a produce item straightforward.
• Clear labels and an intuitive interface were appreciated by both user groups.
• Moderately tech-savvy users had no significant issues and completed the task successfully.

​​

Key Findings:

• Some aspects of the listing process, particularly photo cropping, were still confusing.
• Struggles were observed in understanding and using certain features like location filters.
• Potential pain points include difficulties with image manipulation and complex filters.

​​

Potential Solutions:

• Provide more user guidance or tooltips for actions like photo cropping
• Simplify or make advanced features like location filters optional
• Continue to improve the user experience for individuals with limited tech proficiency.

UF2: User Flow for Searching with Filters: Commonalities:

• Both user groups, including tech-savvy graduate students and less tech-savvy users, found the filter system to be user-friendly and effective.

• The user flow for filtering by category, price, and location seemed straightforward for both groups.

Key Findings - Pain Points:

• Less tech-savvy users may struggle with understanding whether their selected filters are active (also may be fault of paper prototype due to its limitations)

• A lack of clear feedback regarding active filters could lead to potential frustrations.

Potential Solutions:

• Provide clear feedback to users about the status of their selected filters.

• Consider adding visual cues or indicators to confirm filter application.

‍

Notes from User Testing:

User testing (User 1) feedback #1: “I am a little bit confused about the adding list icon is used for when I first saw it. Is it designed for the buyer to add the list they wanna buy, or is it designed for the seller to add the list they wanna sell?

User testing (User 1)  feedback #2: “When I am filling out the pickup times, I would rather not type in the date, I would rather select it if possible.”

User testing (User 1)  feedback #1: “When I went to type in something, the keyboard covered the selection and I couldn’t see it.

User testing (User 2)  feedback #2: “I wish I also could have modified the location”

User testing (User 2)  feedback #2: “I am not sure who I am messaging in the messenger area.”

User testing (User 3)  feedback #1: “Where did my quantity of bananas go.”

User testing (User 3)  feedback #2: “I am confused why there's a keyboard now? Also, will i get an email or something to confirm?”

User testing (User 3)  feedback #3: “I am confused by when I clicked on the filters button and it showed me the map, was this on purpose”

User testing (User 3)  feedback #4: “Are these sliders supposed to move”

Desired Potential Changes:

1. Pick up time input to be changed from text input to a slider input
2. Change buttons to be consistent with user input throughout flow
3. In flow 2 change flow of occurrence of keyboard
4. In flow 2 change filters button to display filters and the map button to display map
5. Confirm keyboard does not block input field when user is inputting information
6. Explain add listing with a tooltip (how to use, what it’s for)

Mid-Fi Prototypes

High-Fi Prototypes

Reflections

For our final presentation, we used storytelling with a persona to illustrate the existing pain points in the pet adoption process. We then touched upon all the stakeholders (pet adopters, shelter employees, shelter owners) and how this platform can benefit them

We started out our project with a lot of ideas in mind for this platform, but through user testing and due to time constraints, we decided to focus on a few of the ideas that stood out.

If we had more time, we would bring our former ideas back and fully explore them. Our platform only covers the early stages of the adoption process, having more time and resources would allow us to conceptualize how to aid adopters and shelters further along the way.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍