EYES ON THE MENU
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg display="block" id="4032579123" role="presentation" viewBox="0 0 47 47" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path d="M 10.5 0 C 16.299 0 21 4.701 21 10.5 C 21 16.299 16.299 21 10.5 21 C 4.701 21 0 16.299 0 10.5 C 0 4.701 4.701 0 10.5 0 Z" fill="rgb(255, 255, 255)" height="21px" id="IXXx_e8Dj" transform="translate(13 13)" width="21px"/></svg>)
A CASUAL-DINING CHAIN
Eye-tracking in the field
23 adult diners, asked to arrive hungry, read the current menu and a redesigned version at a table inside a working restaurant, for full ecological validity.
Heatmaps and scan paths showed where attention goes, where it gets lost and how it connects to what people finally order.
In-depth interviews & semantic differential
Semi-structured interviews explored the explicit, experiential and symbolic side of the menu.
A semantic differential rated functionality, beauty, informativeness, brand coherence and engagement.
Psychophysiological measures
Facial electromyography (fEMG) and electrodermal activity (EDA) captured arousal and implicit emotional reactions, second by second.
Synchronised with eye-tracking, they linked each reaction to the exact dish or section being looked at.
A menu is the most-read piece of communication in a restaurant, yet it is rarely tested with the people who use it. Starting from a UX/UI analysis, we designed an alternative version of the client’s menu to compare two different reading experiences.
Attention turned out to be highly concentrated: a few burger and appetiser sections captured most of the viewing time, while desserts and sides were almost ignored, and 83% of diners skipped the front page entirely.
Interviews confirmed the friction: 78% found the menu too big and awkward to handle, 70% too dense with text, and 52% were unsure whether sides were included.
Biometrics made the experience visible. Skin conductance spiked at the moment of ordering, a sign of choice anxiety caused by cognitive overload, while jaw-muscle activity peaked on the very dish that would then be ordered: appetite showed up before the decision.
With the redesigned menu, a more natural reading order and repositioned sections more than doubled orders for the moved burger lines: fewer items were ordered overall, but they were higher-value ones, with average spend essentially stable.
Diners also liked a “rough” style, as long as it was coherent with the brand, but found the menu predictable and monotonous: an opportunity to add surprise without losing clarity.
