UX study to validate design patterns for android choice screens.
Client
BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, partnered with us to evaluate Android choice screens mandated by the Digital Markets Act across EU markets. These critical interfaces determine default browser selection, significantly impacting digital market competition and consumer choice.
Challenge
Choice screens often privileged the gatekeeper's own browsers, creating an uneven playing field. There were no standardized UX principles to implement the legal mandate properly. The hardest part was designing interfaces that treated all search engines fairly, without unintentionally favoring one over another.
Impact
Conducted comprehensive research across 5 EU countries, combining qualitative insights from 35 in-depth interviews with quantitative data from 1,400 participants testing 7 interactive designs. BEUC used our findings to inform policy discussions and establish ethical UX standards across the EU, creating a more level playing field in the digital market.
Role
Design lead
Worked directly with
Senior Advisor
Legal Officer
Deliverables
Research
Prototype
User testing
Data synthesis
EU design guidelines
Duration
4 Month
When default design creates unfair advantage
In the EU, Google holds more than 80% of the search engine market. During Android setup, users are presented with a choice screen to pick their default search provider. In theory, this promotes competition. In practice, the design makes Google the default winner, most users simply tap what they know.
BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, wanted to change that. They asked our team at Bonanza Design to research and redesign choice screens so that consumers could make fair, informed decisions.
Nudging fair choices without manipulation
We had to answer one big question:
How do you design a screen that encourages fair choice, without overwhelming or misleading users?
Key barriers stood in the way:
Familiarity bias → people pick Google out of habit.
Information gaps → many don’t know alternatives exist.
Design bias → current layouts give Google a visibility advantage.
How we approached the problem
We broke the project into three phases:
1.Research & Principles
Reviewed literature on choice architecture and behavioral economics.
Defined design principles: fairness, switchability, education, inclusivity.
2.Ideation & Prototyping
Sketched 80+ ideas, narrowed to 25, then refined 5 into interactive prototypes.
Simulated the Android onboarding flow to keep context realistic.
3.Testing
Qualitative: 35 in-depth interviews across 5 EU countries.
Quantitative: 1,437 participants (via Prolific).
Tools: UseBerry for heatmaps, click data, interaction tracking.
What we discovered
We tested 7 variations of choice screens:
Logos Matter → removing logos (A2) made users less likely to choose alternatives.
More Info Helps → expanded descriptions (A3) increased awareness, but not enough to outweigh habit.
Scrolling Works → placing Google below the fold (A4) nudged +2.1% more users to explore other engines.
Reflection Helps Too → adding an info screen before selection (A6) reduced Google’s share by -4.41%.
Combination Designs → mixing these interventions worked best, but familiarity bias remained the strongest driver.
What this means for Design
Our experiments showed that even small tweaks in UI can shift choices, but they must be applied carefully:
Keep logos and branding → users rely on them
Add positive friction → scrolling or reflection screens encourage more exploration.
Place Google lower in the flow → visibility matters.
Provide clear explanations → help users understand what’s at stake.
From UX experiments to EU Policy
This project showed how UX design decisions carry policy weight, and how small details in interface design can impact competition across an entire continent.
Recommendations shared with EU policymakers and regulators.
Helped shape guidelines for fairer competition practices under the Digital Markets Act.