When removing friction helps some people and quietly exploits others.
Last week’s BBC News report (link here) on why we spend more at self service screens stayed with me. I feel that this isn’t really about technology, it’s about who benefits from design, and who pays the price later.
Let’s be clear, self service screens can be a relief.
For people who struggle with confidence. For those who find verbal interaction stressful. For many neurodiverse people. Not having to speak can mean dignity, autonomy and calm. That matters and it should be protected.
The same systems that remove judgement also remove pause.
-They nudge
-They upsell
-They normalise bigger portions and poorer food choices
No human moment. No chance to reconsider. When those nudges are embedded in food environments, they do not land equally.
They land hardest where money is tight, time is short and stress is already high. That is not accidental. It is design.
This is not an argument against self service. It is a challenge to the idea that design is neutral.
If digital systems are built to support people who find face to face interaction hard, then they carry a responsibility not to exploit reduced resistance or vulnerability.
What better looks like:
Use behavioural insight to support health, not just spend
-Default to nutritious options
-Reduce pressure selling
-Design with neurodiverse users, not at them
Technology can widen gaps quietly. Or it can close them intentionally.
What responsibility do you think designers and retailers should take here?
