[Discussion] Show equivalence cards in product summary instead of nutri and eco scores?

[jasmeet0817]

I'm often very very confused by the scores, specially ecoscore, but I find the equivalent card (This is equal to driving 2 km) very enlightening and useful. For example:

When you see this, the D Ecoscore sounds very bad.

but if you look at the environment card:

Compare that to 8.8km driving from this product:

And then there's the problem of two products having same eco score. Like this product has 3.1 km driving equivalence but E ecoscore

Just by looking at the ecoscore of E for Sesame seeds and for beef Ravioli makes my head spin. For new users this could be a loss of trust (which I've genuinely heard as feedback from friends)

Proposal (which is rather bold)

Replace the ecoscore (and also nutri? - not sure about this one) by equivalence card, which is much easier to understand

[monsieurtanuki]

@jasmeet0817 Honestly I don't see the math problem:

• the milk with D and 0.8km
• the sesam seeds with E and 3.1km
• the ravioli with E and 8.8km

There's some kind of coherence, like, if the threshold between D and E is at 1km.
"Your" problem is maybe that you don't know where the ecoscores ends (which letter?): it's not obvious!
If you're told that ecoscore E is the worst grade, you can understand that all the crap goes there. 3.1km, 8.8km, could even be 42.195km, that's crap anyway.
We don't have that problem with the nutriscore logo because all the letters are displayed and only one is selected: A is the best, E is the worst.

Additional remarks

• I would not display a green car, maybe an orange car, for milk, as we're talking about D
• I'm not sure computing the ecoscore makes sense for milk as we don't know the packaging (could be glass, plastic, tetra) and the origin (coud be France or New Zealand)

I don't think equivalence cards are easier to understand than ecoscore. But they are more precise, and focus only on a part of the ecoscore, which can indeed bring confusion.

[jasmeet0817]

Thank you for the response @monsieurtanuki

@jasmeet0817 Honestly I don't see the math problem:

• the milk with D and 0.8km
• the sesam seeds with E and 3.1km
• the ravioli with E and 8.8km

There's some kind of coherence, like, if the threshold between D and E is at 1km. "Your" problem is maybe that you don't know where the ecoscores ends (which letter?): it's not obvious! If you're told that ecoscore E is the worst grade, you can understand that all the crap goes there. 3.1km, 8.8km, could even be 42.195km, that's crap anyway.

I understand both products (3,1km or 8.8km) are bad, but they get grouped into the same score (E) which makes it look like they have similar impact, specially to new users. And that's my main problem with the scores.

We don't have that problem with the nutriscore logo because all the letters are displayed and only one is selected: A is the best, E is the worst.

Additional remarks

• I would not display a green car, maybe an orange car, for milk, as we're talking about D

Yeah, I agree. This, we should fix regardless.

• I'm not sure computing the ecoscore makes sense for milk as we don't know the packaging (could be glass, plastic, tetra) and the origin (coud be France or New Zealand)

I don't think equivalence cards are easier to understand than ecoscore. But they are more precise, and focus only on a part of the ecoscore, which can indeed bring confusion.

[jasmeet0817]

Did you say there's a product with 42.195km equivalence :D that's incredible, which product is it ? I want to use it for displaying the app to friends :)

[monsieurtanuki]

I guess it must be ravioli with New Zealand sesame seeds ;)
No product in particular; I just picked the marathon distance - where you're supposed to be running, not in a car.
Actually there's also a possible confusion with the distance you have to walk to burn all the calories.

[jasmeet0817]

@jasmeet0817 Honestly I don't see the math problem:

• the milk with D and 0.8km
• the sesam seeds with E and 3.1km
• the ravioli with E and 8.8km

There's some kind of coherence, like, if the threshold between D and E is at 1km. "Your" problem is maybe that you don't know where the ecoscores ends (which letter?): it's not obvious! If you're told that ecoscore E is the worst grade, you can understand that all the crap goes there. 3.1km, 8.8km, could even be 42.195km, that's crap anyway. We don't have that problem with the nutriscore logo because all the letters are displayed and only one is selected: A is the best, E is the worst.

Additional remarks

• I would not display a green car, maybe an orange car, for milk, as we're talking about D
• I'm not sure computing the ecoscore makes sense for milk as we don't know the packaging (could be glass, plastic, tetra) and the origin (coud be France or New Zealand)

I don't think equivalence cards are easier to understand than ecoscore. But they are more precise, and focus only on a part of the ecoscore, which can indeed bring confusion.

Yeah, I guess you are right, the equivalence is not accurate. But maybe we can make this eco score more granular A-Z ? 😅

[stephanegigandet]

The carbon footprint is only one component of the Eco-Score, and it's computed for the category average. It does not take into account many other environmental impacts (biodiversity, air and water pollution, soil occupation etc.), and it does not take into account the specific packaging of the product, its origins of ingredients, whether it's organic etc. or not.

So there won't be direct scale from carbon footprint to Eco-Score.

The Nutri-Score works the same way: we show the time you need to exercise to spend the energy of a product, but calories is just one out of 7 parameters of the Nutri-Score (e.g. salt, sugar, proteins, fibers, fruits/vegetables etc.).

Note that you can click on the Eco-Score or Nutri-Score to get more details.

[monsieurtanuki]

Thank you @stephanegigandet for your detailed comment.

There are still pending questions:

1. how can we make the experience less frustrating for @jasmeet0817's friends, who see incoherences that are not? Suggestion: adding a left padding or bullet point for "minor" elements like equivalences that should be considered as a subset
2. how do we know the worst grade of ecoscore? Is that E? Is that F? Should we display a "worst ecoscore" subtitle?
3. I didn't notice (nor check) that we could click on nutriscore or ecoscore: they look vaguely like buttons but there are obvious buttons on the page that really look like action buttons. Should we add an icon (like a "/ arrow") to suggest the clickability?

[jasmeet0817]

Thank you @stephanegigandet for your detailed comment.

There are still pending questions:

1. how can we make the experience less frustrating for @jasmeet0817's friends, who see incoherences that are not? Suggestion: adding a left padding or bullet point for "minor" elements like equivalences that should be considered as a subset

We basically need to explain it better, so "my friends :)" can understand why are Sesame seeds as bad as beef burgers, and if they aren't then they shouldn't use the same score.

3. I didn't notice (nor check) that we could click on nutriscore or ecoscore: they look vaguely like buttons but there are obvious buttons on the page that really look like action buttons. Should we add an icon (like a "/ arrow") to suggest the clickability?

This is new actually (since Wednesday), to be honest we have been working with non clickable buttons for quite a while, so it's natural it comes as a surprise when clicking these panels actually does something, but I wonder if a first time user will naturally click on them, this requires a tiny user survey. @teolemon do we have a process for conducting a user survey?