BIB_10: Kostelnick, C. (1995). Cultural adaptation and information design: two contrasting views. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 38(4), 182-196.

In this article, Kostelnick discusses the global and the local approach to the cultural adaptation of information design. Kostelnick argues that cultural adaptation of information design is a continuum with global (universal) on one end and cultural-focused on the other. By analyzing the assumptions about perception, aesthetics, and pragmatics of information design these two approaches reveal, the author argues that the universal modernist approach to information design is losing ground to the culture-focused postmodern approach. However, he points out that the two approaches are complimentary to each other and offer pragmatic benefits and drawbacks depending on the rhetorical situations,

This article offers a theoretical ground for the issue of globalization and localization of information design, which can be applied to web design. It seems that at the time when this article was written, globalization and localization were considered contrasting each other. This dichotic view seems less prominent now, when the processes of globalization and localization may be considered two different aspects of the same process.

BIB_07: Massanari, A. L. (2010). Designing for imaginary friends: Information architecture, personas and the politics of user-centered design. New Media & Society, 12(3), 401-416.

In this article, Massanari interrogates the notion of "user" in HCI and UCD discourse and three tropes commonly used: the "stupid user," the "user as victim," and the "user as co-creator" (p. 404). He associates the three tropes of the "user" with three approaches to design; the "stupid user" is an assumption of system-centered design, the "user as victim" is associated with user-centered design, and the "user as co-creator" is associated with participatory and activity-centered design. In response to the idea and practice of using personas to understand users, Massanari argues that personas are hegemonic and often reductive in nature. He also points out other researchers' work that indicates that personas cannot always effectively solve the problems of "the elastic user," "self-referential design," and "design edge cases" in the design process in practice (p. 409). In addition, the perceived non-scientific nature of personas in an organization makes it difficult to convince everyone to take them seriously. However, Massanari seems to agree that personas can serve as effective communication tools. Drawing on cultural rhetorical theory, specifically, the Marxian concept of "interpolation" and postmodern idea of "simulation," Massanari argues that personas interpolate the users into what the designers want them to be, and since the personas are simulacra of the real users, they tend to blur the distinction and create an illusion for the designers that they are designing for the real users but actually they are designing for their simulacra. In the conclusion, Massanari points out that the advance of technology and its increasing integration in our life "will likely require new approaches to user research" p. 412).

Massanari's view on personas is challenges the practice increasingly accepted and employed in the IA and technology design industry, partly as established experts such as Alan Cooper's promotion. Using personas in the design process is almost inevitably hegemonic and reductive, yet it is well received in the industry as Cooper indicates in the foreword on his book The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. There certainly connects to what Coppola (2005) has pointed out "a universal drive for utility [that] underlies technical communication research" (p. 263) and beyond. Massanari has briefly touched the topic of Web 2.0 technology in this article, but has not further elaborated on the idea. Nevertheless, the insight this piece offers is still valuable in the context of Web 2.0.