# NFC Tag Awareness and Its Visual Implementation on Food Packaging: Case Study in Slovenia
## 3 Results
### Design Implementation of NFC Tags  
For the design implementation of the NFC tag, various combinations were used in the online survey to analyze the trend of NFC tag placement. For the familiar packaging (Alpsko), six different displays were analyzed where the NFC tag was combined with the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Knowledge and Recognition for Group 1 and Group 2**} \\ \hline  & **(in \%)** & **Below Level 5** & **Level 5 and 6/1** & **Level 6/2 and Above** & **BB** & **X** & **Y** & **Z** \\ \hline Recognition of NFC & 75.7 & 71.4 & 73.9 & 65.4 & 2.5 & 14.1 & 28.3 & 26.3 \\ \hline Knowledge of NFC & 58.1 & 40.0 & 57.5 & 53.8 & 2.0 & 11.0 & 21.7 & 18.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: NFC tag knowledge in general and by group segmentation. existing logo (Figure 1). Respondents were asked to choose between two layouts (A and B, D and E, G and H). Further, for both the familiar packaging (Alpsko) and the fictious packaging (Natalis), only different positions of NFC tags in the layout were evaluated (Figure 2). The well-known packaging (i.e., Alpsko) carries brand recognition that could influence the respondents' perceptions and reactions. By including a non-existing design (i.e., Natalis), we aimed to control for this bias and observe how participants engage with the NFC tag placement when they have no pre-existing association with the brand. This allowed for a more objective analysis of visual attention and tag recognition. The majority of responses in the online survey indicated a preference for the bottom left position, suggesting that the research question asking whether NFC tags were more visible to consumers on the package's bottom right side may encounter challenges. Respondents most commonly chose the bottom left position (Table 3). Analyzing the heat map from the eye-tracking measurements (Figure 2), it can be seen that the most visible position for the familiar packaging was center right, while, for the fictitious packaging, it was the bottom right. In the online survey, respondents chose a position without interacting directly with the packaging, while the eye-tracking method simulated real-life engagement with the product. The survey might reflect how users are accustomed to interacting with familiar packaging (such as Alpsko), leading them to choose locations where they think the tag should be placed. While the survey captured conscious preferences, eye-tracking captured subconscious, real-time visual behavior, revealing where the attention naturally gravitated without the influence of prior expectations. In the survey, we used a consistent layout, only changing the position of the NFC tag to minimize the effect of some parts of the screen not being equally noticeable and relying on eye-tracking technology to identify areas of interest across different packaging designs. In future studies, we plan to introduce more templates with modified layouts of the boxes  
Figure 1: NFC tag positions in combination with the logo on the familiar packaging: (**A**) NFC tag center right; (**B**) NFC tag bottom right; (**D**) NFC tag bottom right; (**E**) NFC tag bottom left; (**G**) NFC tag bottom left; (**H**) NFC tag center right. Figure 2: NFC tag positions (**left**) and heat maps (**right**). to assess whether different configurations impact the visibility and perception of NFC tags. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how layout influences consumer interaction with packaging. The analysis of the time to first fixation (TFF) and time of fixation duration (TFD) data show that the position \"center right\" consistently experienced the shortest TFF (1.83 s) and longest TFD (1.12 s) in relation to both designs, indicating that it was quickly noticed and that it held the respondents' attention for longer.