# Eco-Friendly Design for Sustainable Gift Packaging
## 3 Results
### Consumer Feedback
The graphical presentation presented in Figure 8 provides a breakdown of the average ratings across various socioeconomic groups, highlighting differences in perceptions of animation quality, visual appeal, usability and practical value, ease of use, and overall satisfaction with the interactive label shown in Figures 4 and 5. The numerical values of the descriptive statistics are given in Table A3 (Appendix A). Generation Z tended to rate all aspects highly, with an average score of 4.3 for animation quality and 4.1 for overall satisfaction. The mode indicated consistent preference, with the highest ratings concentrated around five. Generations Y and X had more moderate evaluations, scoring  
Figure 7: The average ratings for the label design according to socioeconomic factors. slightly lower in usability and practical value compared with Generation Z. Generation X's ratings aligned closely with Generation Y in terms of the median and mode, but they showed a slightly stronger preference for animation quality. Respondents with a master's degree or higher provided consistently high scores, particularly for animation quality (4.7 average) and visual appeal (4.3). This group demonstrated a strong alignment with quality-driven features. The high school education respondents tended to rate usability and practical value lower, with an average of 2.6. This suggests a potential gap in perceived functionality or relevance for this group. Employed individuals provided balanced scores, aligning closely with the overall averages. Their ratings for visual appeal (3.7 average) and ease of use (3.5 average) indicate general satisfaction without extreme preferences. Students rated the animation quality (4.2) and ease of use (4.2) highly, suggesting a preference for user-friendly and visually engaging experiences. Respondents earning a net value of EUR 1300-1800 rated animation quality and overall satisfaction the highest (4.1 and 3.8 on average, respectively). The higher-income groups (over EUR 1800 net) showed slightly lower ratings for usability (3.1) and overall satisfaction (3.6), indicating potential disparities in expectations versus perceived value. Across most categories, the median values indicated consistency, with scores clustering around four for all groups and dimensions. This suggests that the majority of the respondents viewed the quality of the animation, visual appeal, and other factors as favorable, even if the averages showed slight variations. The mode values were predominantly four or five across the board, which reinforced the trend of positive responses. This suggests that the most common ratings reflected high satisfaction, particularly for animation quality, visual appeal, and ease of use. In Table 1, a comparison of the mean scores obtained for the survey respondents and focus group participants is presented. With a non-parametric statistical _Kruskal-Wallis test_, the rankings among the four focus groups for the parameters of multipurpose packaging, label design for the bottles, and the interactive label were compared. The variations in rankings across the focus groups were compared to identify consistency or divergence. The obtained \(p\) values are given in Table 1.  
The focus groups rated the usability and importance of the handle and the possibility to pack different products higher than the survey respondents, suggesting that participants in the smaller groups found both multifunctionality improvements in the gift packaging more favorable. In addition, we conducted user experience testing with focus groups to evaluate the handle's durability and comfort. The results showed that the handle never tore,  
Figure 8: The average ratings for the interactive packaging label according to socioeconomic factors. demonstrating its strength and reliability. However, the participants provided feedback on its shape, suggesting that a more ergonomic design--rather than a square shape--would improve comfort and usability.