Choose a kiosk location by testing the same screen from seated and standing viewpoints at several points during normal service. A spot passes only if both viewers can read and use the menu without shielding the screen or changing the restaurant’s usual lights and door positions.
That decision is about more than whether the display looks bright. Reflections can hide a price, a customization choice, or the button needed to review an order. A readable location also needs enough room for a guest to approach and for staff to help without blocking the line.
Make one person responsible for the location decision
Assign a manager or shift lead to own the test and record the result. The owner does not need to perform every check personally. One employee can stand at the kiosk while another checks the seated view, but one person should make sure the checks happen at the planned times and that failures are addressed before a location is selected.
Start with two or more plausible locations. Each should leave a practical route to the counter, pickup area, and entrance. Avoid treating a spot as a candidate if the kiosk would routinely obstruct guests or staff. Readability is essential, but a clear screen in the middle of a queue is not a good placement.
Walk through the restaurant at the times when light changes. Morning sun may fall across the entrance; an afternoon reflection may come from a window or shiny counter. Evening lighting may illuminate the screen differently. Doors opening during service can change reflections too. Keep those normal conditions in the test rather than closing a door or switching off a light just to improve the display.
If you are still deciding what the kiosk needs to do, review the kiosk documentation and list the screens your guests must use. Include ordering steps, not just the home screen: a large welcome message can be legible while smaller prices or option labels are not.
Use a three-time readability worksheet
Test each location at three representative times, such as opening, the busiest daylight period, and evening service. Use the actual display and intended menu presentation where possible. If a final menu is not ready, use a representative screen with similarly sized item names, prices, choices, and controls, then repeat the test with the final menu before deciding.
The shift lead records both viewpoints at each time. The seated reviewer checks from a natural seated approach; the standing reviewer checks from a natural position in front of the screen. Neither should lean around a reflection or shade the display to make the result pass. Record what is hard to see, not just a general impression that the screen is bright enough.
The following results are hypothetical. Both locations use the same menu, and the reviewers can read every required element at location B. A pass requires both viewpoints to meet that standard at the stated time.
| Location and time | Seated view | Standing view | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: opening | Menu and controls readable | Menu and controls readable | Pass |
| A: lunch | Window reflection hides prices | Prices readable, but reflection crosses options | Fail |
| A: evening | Overhead light obscures review button | Menu and controls readable | Fail |
| B: opening | Menu and controls readable | Menu and controls readable | Pass |
| B: lunch | Menu and controls readable | Menu and controls readable | Pass |
| B: evening | Menu and controls readable | Menu and controls readable | Pass |
The decision is B, provided its space and installation quote are workable. A fails at lunch and in the evening, even though it looks acceptable at opening. The lunch standing view also fails because a required choice is obscured; a guest should not have to guess which option they selected.
Keep a short record alongside the table: date, weather, lights in use, usual door position, screen model and settings, and who checked each view. A photo can help show a reflection, but it should support rather than replace a person’s reading check. Repeat the test if the menu, display, screen angle, or surrounding lighting changes.
Compare fixes against guest impact and cost
When a preferred location fails, consider moving the kiosk before buying accessories. A move can avoid a recurring reflection, but it may put the order screen farther from staff or create a new queue conflict. Have the shift lead walk the proposed path from entrance to ordering and then to pickup.
Changing the screen angle or adding a glare-reduction accessory may be worth asking about. Ask the hardware supplier whether the proposed change fits the quoted display, how it affects the seated view, and whether staff can clean and maintain it. Do not assume an accessory will fix readability; repeat all six viewpoint checks after any change.
A different display is another option. Ask to see the proposed screen with your menu in your lighting, not only a specification sheet or a demonstration in a showroom. Ask which brightness and display settings staff can adjust, who controls them, and whether settings remain practical across shifts. Confirm that the proposed hardware and software work together before paying for a replacement.
Compare the staff effort as well. If a location requires someone to adjust the screen or explain hidden options throughout lunch, include that work in the decision. A small upfront saving is less useful if staff must repeatedly leave the counter to help guests read the menu.
Request an installed quote for each viable approach. Separate fixed costs, such as the quoted screen and installation, from recurring or variable costs, such as software and processing charges where applicable. Ask about exception costs too: moving the unit later, replacing an accessory, extra support, or a return if the screen does not fit the space. These are cost categories to check, not assumed charges. Fleksa’s plans show its published pricing, checked November 2026; ask for a written quote covering the proposed setup. The kiosk break-even guide can help frame the wider purchase decision.
Run the same-menu pass-or-fail test
Before selecting a location, have the shift lead write down the required task: a reviewer must be able to find an item, read its price, choose an available customization, and read the order review screen. Use the same menu and display settings at each candidate location. Keep lights and doors in their usual service positions. If a door normally opens as guests enter, include that condition without deliberately changing the usual flow.
The expected result is simple: from both viewpoints, the reviewer can identify each required element and complete the navigation without shielding the screen, asking someone to read it aloud, or moving into an unnatural position. Test opening, daylight rush, and evening conditions. A location fails if any required element is unreadable at any of those checks.
Record the failed screen and what caused the problem where visible. For example, note that a window reflection covered the price, rather than writing only “bad glare.” Save the worksheet and, if useful, a photo taken from the reviewer’s position. Ask the vendor to demonstrate a proposed correction, then repeat the full test rather than checking only the time that failed.
Use a simulated order for this exercise. Stop before any real payment, guest message, or courier dispatch. A simulated check establishes whether staff can read and navigate the screens; it does not show how the location performs during a live rush.
If no candidate passes, keep a staffed ordering option available while you change the location or evaluate another display. Staff should be ready to take the order directly rather than directing a guest back to an unreadable screen. Ask the vendor what can be changed and what cannot, then schedule another simulated check. Do not treat a promise of a future fix as a pass.
Confirm the choice in service
Once a location passes the simulated checks and the quote is acceptable, plan a limited live service pilot with a shift lead watching the area. This is different from a practice order: real guests may choose to place real orders during service. Keep staff available for questions and a staffed ordering fallback open.
Watch for guests pausing at the same screen, moving to avoid a reflection, or leaving the kiosk to ask for help. Also check whether the queue blocks the entrance or pickup path. Record the time and condition when a problem occurs, then decide whether to adjust and retest or return to staffed ordering while another location is assessed. A successful simulation is a starting point, not a guarantee that every guest will find the screen easy to use.
Compare this workflow with your current process, then ask Fleksa to demonstrate its restaurant kiosk with the ordering screens and proposed hardware relevant to your setup. Bring the completed worksheet and ask which display, installation, and support options are included in the quote.
Frequently asked questions
Is a brighter screen always the best fix for glare?
No. Brightness may help in some conditions, but a reflection can still cover important text or controls. Test the actual display and menu from both viewpoints before choosing it.
What if the kiosk passes during the day but fails at night?
Treat the location as a fail for the tested service pattern. Record the evening light source, consider a different location or adjustment, and repeat the full test under normal conditions.
Can staff use a phone photo instead of checking the screen?
A photo can document a visible reflection, but it does not replace a person reading and navigating the menu. Check from seated and standing positions at each planned time.
