Applying and testing an approach to design for culturally diverse user groups

  • Published on
    05-Jul-2016

  • View
    214

  • Download
    1

Transcript

  • Applying and testing an approach to design forculturally diverse user groups

    P. Bourges-Waldegga,*, S.A.R. Scrivenerb

    aResearch and Advanced Studies Centre, MexicobCoventry University, Coventry, UK

    Received 16 July 1998; received in revised form 21 December 1999; accepted 29 January 2000

    Abstract

    This paper intends to illustrate how user interface designers can apply the Meaning in Mediated

    Action (MIMA) approach (P. Bourges-Waldegg, A.R. Scrivener, Meaning; the central issue is cross-

    cultural HCI design, Interacting with Computers, 9 (3) (1998) 287310, special issue on Shared

    Values and Shared Interfaces) to design for culturally diverse user groups. After outlining its

    theoretical foundation, we describe how the MIMA stagesobservation, evaluation, analysis and

    designwere carried out to redesign a WWW system. Finally, we assess the efcacy of this

    approach by comparing the results of the evaluation of the original and the redesigned interfaces.

    q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

    Keywords: Culture; Interface design; Representation; Meaning; Context

    1. Introduction

    With developments in communication and computer technologies, a number of new

    possibilities have arisen for the interaction between people worldwide. For example,

    geographically dispersed individuals and groups can now work together through the

    computer, can communicate in new ways, and can interact in many other transactions,

    from playing a computer game, to exchanging knowledge, or trading with a range of

    products and services. However, for the interface designer, the use of shared computer

    systems, such as GroupWare, Computer-Supported Co-operative Work (CSCW), Compu-

    ter-Supported Communication (CSC), and the Internet presents a great challenge, parti-

    cularly in how one deals with cultural factors in design, as geographically dispersed user

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126 111

    Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126

    0953-5438/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

    PII: S0953-5438(00)00029-1

    www.elsevier.com/locate/intcom

    * Corresponding author. Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados, Rincon Colonial de Calacoaya,

    Atizapan Endomex 53996, Mexico. Tel.: 1 52-5-397-7182.

    E-mail address: pbourges@mail.cinvestav.mx (P. Bourges-Waldegg).

  • groups will often be culturally diverse. Traditional approaches, such as internationalisa-

    tion and localisationhere called culturalisation [1]cannot be used effectively in the

    case of systems shared by culturally diverse users because they are based on recognising

    the differences that exist between cultures in order to produce specic versions adapted to

    the needs of a given target culture. Instead, an approach is needed, capable of dealing

    directly with culturally heterogeneous user groups, and capable of integrating cultural

    diversity, rather than diversifying the user groups into target cultures, because the exis-

    tence of several target culture adaptations can complicate useruser interaction instead

    of facilitating it. Moreover, since the purposes of a shared-system include those of inter-

    action and communication, it can be assumed that the culturally diverse user is prepared to

    interact with other users who speak different languages, or with interfaces which utilise

    other languages.

    According to Bourges-Waldegg and Scrivener [2], culturally determined usability

    problems have a common origin in understanding the intended meaning of the representa-

    tions used in the system (including those involved in the user's interaction with the task,

    the environment, the tool and other users1). They (ibid.) argue that the cultural differences

    affecting usability and design are mainly representational, and that a culturally determined

    usability problem can be characterised as the user's difculty in understanding that repre-

    sentation R means M in context C (adapted from Ref. [3]). In order to understand that

    representation R means M, knowledge of the context in which that meaning is rooted is

    needed. That is mainly because the meaning of a representation is determined by its

    context of use, i.e. where and how the representation is used, what are the surrounding

    or associated representations and meanings, etc. Interface elements affected by culture,

    such as colour, words, numbers and sound [4], appear to be problematic largely because

    they are representations and their meanings can be understood differently by culturally

    diverse people when they do not share the knowledge of the context in which they are

    rooted.

    Hence, culturally heterogeneous user groups are particularly difcult to deal with, as

    their members may not share the knowledge of the contexts in which the intended mean-

    ings of representations are rooted, and this can produce difculties in understanding,

    during system interaction. However, it is important to recognise that culturally diverse

    users may also share the knowledge of some of these contexts independently of the culture

    they pertain to. In other words, a person does not necessarily need to belong to a specic

    culture to share a context. For example, the meanings of the Italian words pizza,

    mozzarella and pepperoni are cross-cultural because they are based on a shared

    context determined by the worldwide advertisements of pizza brands. Shared contexts

    occur because neither people nor cultures are isolated entities ignorant or blind to the

    `different other'. Although a culture can be dened as a specic group of people sharing a

    distinctive set of values, symbols, rituals, heroes, etc., cultures are, to different degrees, the

    result of their interactions with other cultures [5].

    Thus, from a design point of view, we argue that the problem for user interface

    designers primarily is one of how to communicate the functionality of the system to the

    members of a culturally heterogeneous user group when representations can be culturally

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126112

    1 User-user, user-tool, user-task and user-environment interaction based on the HCI model proposed by [10].

  • relative and therefore misunderstood. To tackle this problem the designer needs to pose

    two basic questions: (1) Will the users understand that representation (R) means (M) in the

    context of the interface (C)? (2) Will a culturally heterogeneous user group share the

    context (C) in which that meaning is rooted? Representation is dened as any aspect

    of the system conveying or intended to convey meaning, meaning is what the repre-

    sentation conveys, and context refers to how and where a representation is used, and to

    the representations surrounding it.

    In this way, if for example, the designer is working on a tourist information WebSite and

    needs to communicate the existence of a link to a restaurants database, then, she/he needs

    to:

    1. Ask whether the users will understand that the representation chosen to communicate

    this function, say a fork-and-knife icon (R) means restaurant (M) in the context of the

    webpage interface (C).

    2. Determine if the culturally diverse members of the user group share the knowledge of

    the context (C)say, international airport signalingin which the fork-and-knife icon

    (R) is based.

    The rst point will serve to establish whether a representation is cross-culturally under-

    standable in the interface context. The second point will help to determine if the culturally

    diverse users share the context from which the icon and its meaning were taken and

    therefore could understand other representations and meanings rooted in the same context.

    If the answer in each case is yes, then the culturally diverse users will probably understand

    the metaphora link to a restaurant databaseas well as other representations rooted in

    that context, despite the fact that some may eat using chopsticks.

    This interpretation of the interface design problem reveals where the designer of shared-

    systems should concentrate, in order to tackle culturally determined usability issues:

    1. on evaluating whether the culturally diverse users understand that representation (R)

    means (M) in context (C);

    2. on determining whether the culturally diverse users share the context (C) in which the

    meaning of a representation is rooted;

    3. on designing or redesigning representations from identied shared contexts.

    We called the approach proposed above `Meaning in Mediated Action', MIMA [2]. The

    MIMA approach consists of four cyclic steps: observation, evaluation, analysis, and

    design. In the following pages we will describe these stages and how they were applied

    to redesign the interfaces of a WWW system consisting of a browser (Netscape English

    version 2.0) and a WebSite (the Nemeton). We selected Netscape's browser for evalua-

    tion because although it is widely used and shared we expected culturally determined

    usability problems to occur. This expectation was based partly on the fact that Netscape

    was originally designed to suit a culturally specic user group, and on the results of other

    cross-cultural evaluations of interactive systems [6]. We chose the Nemeton WebSite

    (comprising a series of pages about a pop-music band called The Shamen) because we

    considered that although it dealt with a topic of possible cross-cultural interest, it was

    designed in a very culturally specic way.

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126 113

  • 2. MIMA observation

    The aim of MIMA observation is to understand how representations mediate the actions

    of the users and to identify any breakdowns in this mediation. Hence, this stage consisted

    of observing a sample of the target culturally diverse group in interaction with the WWW

    system (see Appendix A) in order to identify these breakdowns. According to Ref. [7] a

    breakdown entails that something is wrong with the system and therefore the user has to

    break it down to elucidate the problem. In the particular case of MIMA we focused on

    problems related to the understanding of meaning. For example, we identied difculties

    in understanding the intended meaning of the representations involved in the WebSite's

    Visitor's Book (the English word reload, the computer specic jargon, etc.), which

    produced breakdowns in the usertool and usertask interactions, and consequently in

    the useruser interaction. Also in the WebSite, almost all the tags used as links produced

    problems. These included Feedback, Diary, InfoBase, The End and the Forum.

    The representations used in the browser also produced breakdowns on the understanding

    of both the tool and the task. For example, the functions involving the words Handbook

    and Directory were misunderstood, even though all of the users spoke English. The

    word Cool was a problem too. The following example taken from one observation

    session, shows how the meaning of the word cool is not clear to the user.

    J: () for example What's Cool does that mean like the temperature, or? Maybe

    the pop group, I mean the jargons of the band.

    Although he recognises the word and understands some of its meanings, the context in

    which the meaning of cool in Netscape is rooted is unfamiliar to him.

    The majority of the breakdowns detected during the MIMA observation occurred in the

    usertool interaction. Therefore, MIMA evaluation focused on the tools' representations

    and helped to establish which of the problems described above were general usability

    issues involving representations and which were culturally determined usability problems.

    3. MIMA evaluation

    MIMA evaluation focuses on asking if the users understand that representation (R)

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126114

    Table 1

    Interviewer record format

    BROWSER:

    Interviewee: D

    Culture: Spanish

    Representation Participant's denition

    Home Starting point

    Reload Load again

    What's new? Name of an anti-virus program

    File Documents, programs

    What's Cool? Cool is Cold, The button's purpose may be to show What's wrong

    with the program, if it has failed

  • means (M) in the context (C) of the interface. Hence, this stage consisted mainly of

    interviewing a different sample of culturally heterogeneous users, to ask them about the

    meaning of each of the problematic representations detected during the observation stage.

    The interviewer recorded in a structured format the participants' denitions (see Table 1).

    To carry out the interviews, a horizontal prototypeinvolving only the main function-

    ality of the system [8]was produced. We did not use the actual system for MIMA

    evaluation because we wanted to prohibit possible learning of the representations'

    intended meaning gained from using the system. The participant's responses were

    audio-recorded in order to backup and conrm the data from the interviews.

    4. MIMA analysis

    The aim of MIMA analysis is to assess the extent to which the users understand each

    representation and to determine whether the culturally diverse users share the context (C)

    in which each representation is rooted in order to inform design or redesign decision

    making. This stage was carried out in three ways:

    1. By assessing the user's understanding of intended meaning (Table 2); the intended

    meaning of each representation is compared with the user's denition and the designer

    assesses if the user's understanding can produce any misconceptions or problems. If the

    user's denition is reasonably close to the intended meaning of the representation, then

    the evaluator ticks in the Assessment of IM box. If the evaluator believes that the

    user's denition can be a source for potential misunderstandings, or simply is too

    different from the intended meaning, then she/he puts a cross in the Assessment of

    IM box.

    2. By determining the cultural specicity of each representation. The specicity analysis

    is done by comparing all of the participants' assessment-records (see Table 3). Those

    representations that were widely understood can be seen as pertaining to a shared

    context from which other representations can be taken for design purposes. We can

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126 115

    Table 2

    Example of a participant's assessment of intended meaning

    Interviewee: D

    Culture: Spanish

    Representation Intended

    meaning

    Participant's

    denition

    Assessment

    of IM

    Home Point of departure Starting point U

    Reload Load again Load again U

    What's new? What is novel? (what WebSites) Name of an anti

    virus program

    File Organised related material or items.

    Metaphor of a box or folder for

    organising documents.

    Documents, programs U

    What's Cool? What is good? (what WebSites,

    according to Netscape)

    Cool is cold, The button's purpose

    may be to show What's wrong with

    the program, if it has failed

  • determine whether a context is shared from this analysis because we set out from the

    thesis that in order to understand a representation, knowledge of its context is needed.

    Hence, if the users understood a particular representation it means that they know the

    context in which it is rooted, and therefore they share it.

    3. By comparing the participants' denitions in order to nd common use of representa-

    tions (see Table 4).

    5. MIMA design

    Some of the representations that presented problems were selected to illustrate the

    MIMA redesign process. It is important to note that design decisions were taken purely

    on the basis of culturally determined usability problems, therefore the redesigned versions

    may present other kinds of usability problems, but this is not an issue here. If MIMA was

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126116

    Table 3

    Example of the specicity of representations

    Representations Participants Total Specicity (%)

    A B C D E F G H I J K

    Home 3 27.2Reload 2 18.1What's new? 5 45.4File 2 18.1Cool 8 72.7

    Table 4

    Example of the comparison between participants' interpretations

    Representation Intended meaning Participants' denitions

    What's Cool? What is good?

    (what WebSites,

    according to Netscape)

    Cold, odd, up to date, new, What's wrong

    with the program, if it has failed

    Directory Listing Directorate board, who runs the Netscape

    company, tree-style structure sequence,

    dictionary, a manual providing directions on how

    to use the system, drive c:/and drive a:/ (as in PCs)

    History Record

    (or visited WebSites).

    This representation was generally interpreted as the

    history of the Internet, of Netscape or of the

    WebPages i.e., how it was born, how it evolved, who

    create it, etc. Also as the subject of History e.g., past

    events of a country

    White pages A metaphor of a Phone Book

    (the function includes a directory

    to nd the names and e-mail addresses

    of Internal users).

    Blank page New page, Blank Document,

    Form or ofcial report

  • integrated within an overall design processsuch as the Star Model [9]these other

    problems would be considered, and all aspects of usability would be examined when

    making design decisions.

    MIMA analysis helped in the redesigned stage mainly in two ways: (1) to determine

    which representations needed to be redesigned; and (2) to bring to light shared contexts in

    which new representations could be based.

    One of the representations that needed to be replaced according to the MIMA analysis

    was What's Cool? The specicity analysis shows that the majority of the participants did

    not understand it. Redesign was done then by analysing those representations that were

    widely shared in order to nd other words associated with them (pertaining to the same

    context) that could convey the intended meaning. For instance, one of the representations

    more widely shared was Location (usually dened as place or site). Since the actual

    function of the What's Cool? button is to link the user with a page containing recom-

    mended sites or locations in the Web, we decided to use the word Site in the new

    representation Best Sites (Fig. 1). The word Best was chosen simply because it is a

    common word in English and the users shared this linguistic context. Using the same

    rationale, What's New? was substituted by New Sites (Fig. 1) in order to give some

    consistency to the buttons.

    Another example is that of Handbook which was replaced with Net Help (Fig. 1).

    This decision was made taking into account the MIMA analysis information where the e-

    mail icon's question mark (Fig. 2) was generally interpreted by the participants as help,

    which is exactly the purpose of a handbook. Also, the word help seems to be more

    common in the vocabulary of non-native English speakers than handbook, as the parti-

    cipants used exactly that word to dene the question mark. Therefore the new representa-

    tion's meaning is rooted in a shared contextpossibly international airport signalingfrom

    which other associated representations can be taken to communicate other system func-

    tions.

    The case of White Pages is very similar. The majority of the participants misunder-

    stood this representation as a function to open a new page or a blank document. However,

    its function is to link the user with a search engine to nd people addresses. Since the word

    Search in the Net Search button was shared by all of the participants we decided to

    replace White Pages with People Search (Fig. 3). The word People was again

    chosen because it is a common word in English, and the users shared this linguistic

    context.

    The representation Netscape News was replaced by Discussion Groups (Fig. 4).

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126 117

    Fig. 1. Browser's directory buttons (redesigned).

    Fig. 2. The original e-mail icon.

  • According to MIMA analysis, news (news groups) was not culturally shared.

    However, the existence of such a concept in the context of the Internet was not alien

    for the heterogeneous participants. When analysing the representation the Forum in the

    WebSite, the existence of such a concept in the participants' knowledge became clear

    (some of the participants misinterpreted it as a metaphor for discussion groups). Hence, the

    representation was modied to communicate the function in that way. Even if the concept

    is unfamiliar for some users, the function may be easier to understand and learn with these

    words.

    6. Testing MIMA

    In order to assess the efcacy of MIMA, the redesigned representations were subjected

    to a MIMA re-evaluation,2 which was carried out a few minutes after the MIMA evalua-

    tion of the original representations with the same culturally diverse eleven participants.

    This was possible because at the time of the study (MIMA evaluation and MIMA re-

    evaluation), the representations were already redesigned according to a previous pilot

    study carried out with a different sample. A prototype (see Appendix B) of the same

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126118

    Fig. 3. Index menu (redesigned).

    Fig. 4. Widow menu (redesigned).

    2 Following redesign, a subsequent MIMA observation should be also considered, as it can provide a more

    complete understanding of how these redesigned representations mediate the users actions, e.g. insights into how

    the users exploit the detection of a shared-context in deriving meaning of representations embedded in the same

    context.

  • form as that used in the MIMA evaluation of the original representations was used to

    ensure that the new representations were tested under conditions comparable to those in

    which the original versions were tested.

    The same interview record format was used to assess the understandability of the

    representations' intended meanings. The participants' responses were audio-recorded.

    MIMA analysis was then compared to the MIMA analysis of the original representations

    in order to measure any improvements in the understanding of intended meaning. In

    addition, a questionnaire designed to record the participants' opinion on the clarity of

    the original and redesigned interfaces was also carried out.

    To analyse the results of this comparison we will deal separately with the browser and

    the WebSite as the latter can be seen as providing more room for improvement.

    6.1. Browser

    An overall improvement in the understanding of intended meaning can be observed in

    Fig. 5. Table 5 indicates the `specicity' of the original representations and Table 6 the

    `specicity' of their new versions.

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126 119

    Fig. 5. Number of problems in understanding intended meaning.

    Table 5

    Specicity of each of the original representations

    Representations Participants Total Specicity (%)

    A B C D E F G H I J K

    1 Bookmarks 4 36.32 Add Bookmark 4 36.33 What's new? 5 45.44 What's Cool? 8 72.75 Handbook 6 54.56 Directory 8 72.27 Browser 10 90.98 White Pages 8 72.79 Key icon 8 72.2

    10 E-mail icon 5 45.411 Netscape News 9 81.8

  • As it can be observed, there is a considerable decrease in both the overall number of

    problems and the number of problems with each representation. The word Net was not

    understood on some occasions, however, this did not have an effect on the overall under-

    standing of the Net Help button. The word Sites was not understood only by partici-

    pants F and G.

    The results of the questionnaire were also positive. The great majority of the

    participants found the redesigned representations easier to understand, i.e. eight

    participants found the redesigned versions more understandable, two participants

    found the original interface easier, and one thought that there was no difference

    between them.

    6.2. WebSite

    As in the case of the browser, there was an overall reduction in the number of problems

    in understanding intended meaning (see Fig. 6). Problems in understanding the intended

    meaning of the redesigned representations were minimal; only three participants failed to

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126120

    Table 6

    Specicity of each of the new representations

    Representations Participants Total Specicity (%)

    A B C D E F G H I J K

    1 Favourites 2 18.12 Add to List 1 9.03 New Sites 1 9.04 Best Sites 1 9.05 Net Help 0 0

    6 Index 0 0

    7 Navigator 5 45.58 People Search 0 0

    9 Padlock icon 2 18.110 E-mail icon 0

    11 Discussion Groups 0 0

    Fig. 6. Number of problems in understanding intended meaning.

  • understand two of the representations (see Table 8). Respectively, Tables 7 and 8 show the

    specicity of the original representations and of their new versions. Comparison of these

    two tables reveals a decrease in the specicity of each representation.

    The questionnaire also shows the improvement of the redesigned version, as the

    majority of the participants found it the easiest to understand, i.e. only one participant

    found both interfaces to be equally understandable the rest (10) found the redesigned

    version more understandable.

    7. Discussion

    As the same participants undertook both evaluations it might be argued that the results

    are explained by learning. However, the second MIMA evaluation was conducted imme-

    diately after the rst evaluation, therefore there would have been no opportunity for

    participants to gain experience of Netscape and the Nemeton WebSite. In addition, the

    order in which the representations were tested was not the same in MIMA evaluations 1

    and 2. Nevertheless, it can be argued that participants had experience with the ideas behind

    the complete interface before they started with the second session. We believe that this is

    not the case because the actual functions of the representations were never discussed with

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126 121

    Table 7

    Specicity of each of the original representations

    Representations Participants Total Specicity (%)

    A B C D E F G H I J K

    1 Diary 9 81.82 InfoBase 6 54.53 Axis Mutatis 11 1004 Forum 11 1005 The end 11 1006 Nemeton Radio 10 90.9

    Table 8

    Specicity of each of the new representations

    Representations Participants Total Specicity (%)

    A B C D E F G H I J K

    1 Concerts 0 0

    2 Information 0 0

    3 New CD 0 0

    4 Projects 2 18.15 Nightclubs 1 9.06 Listen 0 0

  • the users and the original and the re-designed representations were very different in their

    forms and meanings. For instance, the original representation White Pages and its re-

    designed version People Search: the former was interpreted as a blank page or document

    by the majority of the participants so it seems difcult that the users could have guessed the

    meaning of People Search from that interpretation. Other example is The End and

    Nightclubs; the users misunderstood the former as the exit to the site, so it is unlikely

    that they could have learned the existence of a link to The End Nightclub within

    the WebSite. Hence, we do not believe that learning was a signicant factor in the

    results. Nevertheless, we do recommend in future practice the use of different

    samples for MIMA evaluation and re-evaluation to avoid the possibility of learning

    effects.

    It can also be argued that the observed improvements were inuenced by the possibility

    of participants being more relaxed during the second MIMA evaluation and therefore

    more responsive to the evaluator's questions. Since the representations tested at the

    beginning of MIMA evaluation 1 were generally understood (i.e. many generated few

    problems) we do not believe that this represents a signicant factor. Moreover, we

    would argue that although participants might have been more relaxed during the

    second evaluation they were also likely to be more tired and therefore more likely

    to record additional failures to understand the intended meaning of the redesigned

    representations.

    Finally, the results of the questionnaire measuring the participants' opinions

    about the understandability of the original and redesigned interfaces may also be

    disputed, as the users could have assumed or guessed that the second interface was

    supposed to be better. However, the questionnaire was only used to support the

    results of the comparison between MIMA evaluation 1 and 2 that shows that the

    redesigned representations were better understood by the culturally heterogeneous

    participants.

    8. Conclusions

    In order to illustrate how the MIMA approach works in practice, we described how each

    of its stages was carried out to redesign a WWW system. MIMA observations led to the

    detection of problems with the way representations mediated the actions of the users. The

    majority of these problems emerged in the user-tool interaction. Hence, MIMA evaluation

    focused on these problems by interviewing a sample of culturally heterogeneous users in

    order to record their understanding of meaning. The participants' denitions were then

    assessed and analysed during MIMA analysis. The representations that needed to be

    redesigned were identied and specic as well as shared contexts, then used to aid the

    MIMA redesign process, were detected.

    From the practical experience described in this paper, we can also say that using the

    MIMA approach, an improvement on the WWW system's usability was achieved. Tested

    by a culturally heterogeneous user group the MIMA redesigned representations were more

    easily identied and understood. In addition, the majority of users perceived these repre-

    sentations as clearer.

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126122

  • Interculturally shared-systems are becoming ever more popular around the world and

    yet there are very few ways of dealing with the culturally determined usability problems

    that can occur when using them. MIMA is an attempt to help designers resolve these kinds

    of problems, based on including rather than excluding potential users on the basis of

    cultural differences. As it was illustrated, it provides a general framework capable of

    uncovering the particular culturally determined usability problems affecting specic

    design cases, and helps designers to understand how their representations mediate the

    users' actions. In this way, MIMA also relieves the designer of the task of consulting and

    assessing culturalisation guidelines and does not require specialised expertise, other than

    having a clear understanding of the concepts here described, i.e. context, representations,

    and meaning.

    Other more general advantages of this approach are that it can be used along with a

    general HCI approach, to ensure that culturally determined usability problems are

    addressed within the more general framework of HCI, and that it is likely to be cost

    effective in comparison with culturalisation as, for example, it does not require extensive

    study of target cultures, or the production of several culturally specic versions of an

    interface [2].

    Appendix A. Prototype

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126 123

  • P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126124

    Ad d Bo o k m a r k

    Ne t sca p e Ho m eWh a t s Ne w ?Wh a t s Co o l ?

    Ne t sca p e Gal l e r i aI n t e r n e t Di r e ct o r yI n t e r n e t Se a r chI n t e r n e t Wh i t e Pa g e sAbo u t t h e I n t e r n e t

    Ne t sca p e M a i lNe t sca p e Ne w sAdd r e ss Bo o k

    Boo k m a r k sHis t o r y

    Gen e r a l Pr e f e r e n ce sM a i l a n d Ne w s Pr e f e r e n ce sNe t w o r k Pr e f e r e n ce sSecu r i t y Pr e f e r e n ce s

    Sho w To o l b a rSho w Lo ca t i o nSho w Di r e ct o r y Bu t t o n s

    Au t o Lo a d I m a g e s

    Docu m e n t Enco d i n g

    Sav e Op t i o n s

    Ba ckFo r w a r dHo m eSto p Lo a d i n g

    Und o

    CutPa st eCle a r

    Sel e ct Al l

    Fi n d . . .Fi n d Ag a i n

    Ne w M a i l M e ssa g eM a i l Do cu m e n t . . .Ope n Lo ca t i o n . . .Ope n Fi l e . . .

    Clo seSav e As . . .Up l o a d Fi l e . . .

    Pa g e Se t u p . . .Pr i n t . . .

    Qui t

    Fi l e Ed i tRel o a dRel o a d Fr a m eLoa d Ima g e s

    Docu m e n t So u r ceDocu m e n t I n fo

    Vi e w

    Op t i o n sBo o k m a r k sGo

    Di r e ct o r y Wi n d o w

  • Appendix B. Prototype (redesigned)

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126 125

  • References

    [1] P. Bourges-Waldegg, A.R. Scrivener, Designing Interfaces for Culturally-diverse Users, Proceedings of the

    Sixth Australian Conference in CHI, IEEE Computer Society Press, New Zealand, 1996 (pp. 316317).

    [2] P. Bourges-Waldegg, A.R. Scrivener, Meaning; the central issue is cross-cultural HCI design, Interacting

    with Computers 9 (3) (1998) 287310 (special issue on Shared Values and Shared Interfaces).

    [3] J.R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality, Penguin, London, 1995.

    [4] E.M. Del Galdo, in: J. Nielsen (Ed.), Internationalisation and Translation: Some Guidelines for the Design

    of HumanComputer Interfaces, Designing User Interfaces for International Use, Elsevier, Amsterdam,

    1990, pp. 110.

    [5] R. Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, Sage, London, 1992.

    [6] P. Baird, Hypertext-towards the single intellectual market, in: J. Nielsen (Ed.), Designing User Interfaces

    for International Use, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 111122.

    [7] P.C. Wright, A.F. Monk, Evaluation for design, in: A. Sutcliffe, L. Macaulay (Eds.), People and Computers,

    V, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 345358.

    [8] J. Preece, HumanComputer Interaction, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK, 1994.

    [9] D. Hix, H.R. Hartson, Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability through Product and Process, Wiley,

    New York, 1993.

    [10] B. Shackel, Usability-context, framework, denition, design and evaluation, in: B. Shackel, S. Richardson

    (Eds.), Human Factors for Informatics Usability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.

    P. Bourges-Waldegg, S.A.R. Scrivener / Interacting with Computers 13 (2000) 111126126

Recommended

View more >