# NFC Tag Awareness and Its Visual Implementation on Food Packaging: Case Study in Slovenia
## 3 Results
### Design Implementation of NFC Tags
Despite the relatively high standard deviations, the Kruskal-Wallis test confirm (mean rank, Table 4) the ranking, aligning with the average values that suggested that the \"center right\" was the most visible and engaging position. The research question regarding the visibility of the NFC tag on the package's bottom right side was addressed through the online survey. The findings indicate that the bottom left position was considered the most favorable location, for both the well-known and the fictitious packaging. Interestingly, the online survey results contradict the eye-tracking findings, with participants favoring the bottom left position as the most suitable for the NFC tag. However, eye-tracking and statistical analysis consistently demonstrated that \"center right\" was the optimal location for visibility and attention. Therefore, while participant preferences leaned toward the bottom left, objective data show that the center right was the best position for capturing visual attention, leading us to reject the initial assumption that the bottom right was optimal. In the graphic layout shown in Figure 3, the NFC tag is presented with and without an invitation to interact with the tag, as well as in two colors, blue and green. In order to promote interactive behaviors, the following text was added to the label: \"more about the origin of milk and its production can be found here\". Looking at the heat map of NFC tags based on color and presence or not of an invitation (Figure 3) for both packaging designs (Alpsko and Natalis), the tag in a distinctive (contrasting) color with an invitation was the most visible. The visibility of the graphic element was primarily due to the high contrast between the background and the tag. It is logical that the blue color blended with the background, making it less noticeable. Empirically, the NFC tag was also seen earlier when presented with an explanation or an invitation, at least from the perspective of our results (Table 5). With respect to the time to first fixation, the tag with the invitation was seen more \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TFF**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**TFD**} \\ \hline
**Position** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **Rank** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **Rank** \\ \hline L bottom & 129 & 2.37 & 1.65 & 232.92 & 3 & 136 & 0.79 & 0.55 & 0.55 & 3 \\ R center & 128 & 1.83 & 1.56 & 185.82 & 1 & 137 & 1.12 & 0.76 & 0.76 & 1 \\ R bottom & 138 & 2.18 & 1.43 & 224.59 & 2 & 138 & 0.81 & 0.57 & 0.57 & 2 \\ L center & 50 & 2.79 & 1.10 & 288.20 & 4 & 50 & 1.04 & 0.65 & 0.65 & 4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(R\)—right, L—left, SD—standard deviation, s—seconds.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Eye-tracking results in relation to NFC tag position. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Packaging** & **Bottom Right** & **Bottom Left** & **Center Right** & **Center Left** \\  & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline Alpsko with logo and NFC tag (A and B) & 67.1 & / & 32.9 & / \\ \hline Alpsko with logo and NFC tag (D and E) & 41.5 & 58.5 & / & / \\ \hline Alpsko with logo and NFC tag (G and H) & / & 57.9 & 42.1 & / \\ \hline Alpsko with NFC tag (Figure 2) & 34.1 & 39.6 & 25.6 & 0.6 \\ \hline Natalis with NFC tag (Figure 2) & 30.5 & 61.6 & 1.8 & 6.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Choice of NFC tag position from different layout combinations from the online survey. quickly, although only by 0.01 s; with respect to total fixation duration, the tag with the invite was observed for longer, i.e., 0.28 s (no invite = 0.63, invite = 0.91). By using the normal distribution test (\(p\)-value = 0.000), we proved that the tested data were not normally distributed. The results were analyzed with a t-test, which yielded a \(p\)-value = 0.389 in relation to the time to the first fixation, meaning that there were no statistical differences between NFC tags with or without an invitation for the consumer.