In this article, Sun addresses the problem of narrow understanding of cultural localization of IT products, and proposes a new methodology of "cultural usability," which expands the scope of localization from the designer's site to the user's site. The article is based on Sun's dissertation project, a comparitive study in the users' efforts in localizing the text messaging technology in the U.S. and China. Sun bases his framework of "cultural usability" on activity theory, British cultural studies and genre theory. Sun argues for a broader approach in IT product localization that takes account in user localization in the design process of IT products.
Sun's framework of "cultural usability" addresses the usability from a much broader context. His insight in the use localization complicates our understanding on issues arise from the use of technology, and sheds light on these issues. However, the concept of "user localization" needs some lose interrogation. Since user localization is not always predictable--in fact, depending on perspectives, some may want to emphasize precisely the unpredictable aspects of user localization when they use the term--it is a question how this concept can be useful for design.
Showing posts with label Sun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sun. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
BIB_10: Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
In his dissertation, Sun challenges the narrow focus on an artifact and its functionality in current localization practices, use a case study of the success of the hard-to-use text messaging technology in China to demonstrate a broader approach to usability studies and localization. Sun examines and compares multiple cases of local use of mobile messaging in the U.S. and Chinese contexts, relying on the framework of cultural usability and drawing on key concepts and methods from activity theory, genre theory, and British cultural studies. The study demonstrate how concrete use of technologies in local contexts helps us understand localization not only on the designer's site, but also on the user's site. Sun calls for a change in localization practices and move from a narrow focus on functionality to a broader socio-cultural perspective.
This dissertation serves as a great example of what's possible in research in web usability in culturally specific contexts. It brings up the problem of "culture" foremost, and invites us to consider it in a broader sense instead of conceiving it as only national cultures. The fieldwork yielded very rich data for analyses to understand complex issues such as individual user's goals of using technology in her/his social context, and how aspects of the technology afford or formulate her/his goals.
This dissertation serves as a great example of what's possible in research in web usability in culturally specific contexts. It brings up the problem of "culture" foremost, and invites us to consider it in a broader sense instead of conceiving it as only national cultures. The fieldwork yielded very rich data for analyses to understand complex issues such as individual user's goals of using technology in her/his social context, and how aspects of the technology afford or formulate her/his goals.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
BIB_06: Johnson, R. R. (1998). User-centered technology: a rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany.
In this book, Johnson addresses the problem of user-centered technology from a rhetorical perspective and explores the implications of the rhetoric of (user-centered) technology to technical communicators and, more importantly, the technical communicators' contribution to this conversation shared in various disciplines from sociology and history to philosophy and technical communication. The book starts with a theoretical discussion of the user and user-centered technology from a rhetorical perspective. Relying on classic rhetorical tradition (such as the Aristotelian idea of teche), Johnson refigures technology as art. By doing so, Johnson restores the user's status as "practitioner," "producer," and "citizen," and calls our attention to the important yet neglected and trivialized user's knowledge, especially the aspect which he calls metis or cunning intelligence/knowledge. Based on this rhetorical analysis of technology and user, Johnson creates a model for user-centered technology analysis called the "user-centered rhetorical complex of technology" that centers on the "user's situation" in technology use. In the second part, Johnson first reviews different user-centered perspectives in human factors, and points out their value, especially methodological value, in understanding user-centered technology. At the same time, he also points out their limitations, which precisely lie in their methodological focus. Johnson then "confronts technological determinism" by offering an critique of different types of technological determinism and anti-technological determinism perspectives across disciplines of sociology, history, and philosophy. It is followed by the third part, a discussion of user-centered issues and the application of user-centered rhetorical theory in technical communication, specifically, document development. Johnson concludes the book with a chapter addressing pedagogy from a user-centered perspective and the future of the discipline of technical communication in view of user-centered understanding of technology.
Johnson's book provides a solid rhetorical theoretical foundation of the user-centered perspective to understand the use and communication of technology. I found Johnson's model of the "user-centered rhetorical complex of technology" a great tool for analysis of user and the use of technology. By centering the user in the use of technology, the model reflects a great emphasis on the context of the user experience, or what Johnson calls the "user's situation." The idea of metis also a useful concept when we understand what Sun (2004) calls the "user localization" of technology.
Reference
Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Johnson's book provides a solid rhetorical theoretical foundation of the user-centered perspective to understand the use and communication of technology. I found Johnson's model of the "user-centered rhetorical complex of technology" a great tool for analysis of user and the use of technology. By centering the user in the use of technology, the model reflects a great emphasis on the context of the user experience, or what Johnson calls the "user's situation." The idea of metis also a useful concept when we understand what Sun (2004) calls the "user localization" of technology.
Reference
Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
RR_02: Nielsen, J., & Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web usability. Berkeley, Calif.: New Riders.
Nielsen and Loranger's book is perhaps one of the most well researched and comprehensive Web usability on the market. The information delivered in the book—both the discovery of users' behaviors and the guidelines for Web usability design—is very useful. For instance, the severity scores of the usability problems draw attention to the careful design for better search, findability (IA, category names, navigation, links), page design (readability, layout, graphics, amateur, scrolling), and information (content, product info, corporate info, prices) (p. 131). Despite that the book is both a market success and a useful reference for designers, there are a few issues with the book that need to be addressed.
Continuing the point of severity, I found the concept of “severity” not a very useful attribute because of its complexity. According to Nielsen, the severity of a usability problem is determined by its frequency, impact, and persistence (p. 125). The calculation of the severity score based on the scores of the three attributes (rated on a 10-point scale) is to “multiply the frequency rating by the impact rating, then multiply that number by the square root of the persistence rating and divide that by the square root of 10” (p. 123). Granted that factoring in three attributes and comes up with a single score of severity is a very attractive idea and is useful to a certain extent (such as to give an overall idea of what are the most severe areas of usability problems as the authors have done), I do not think this score can be of practical use when guiding the design, because the three attributes, frequency, impact, and persistence really describe different aspects of a problem and need to be considered holistically in a real situation when a designer or a usability specialist are trying do decide which problems are to be fixed under the specific financial, technological, and personnel conditions. In other words, in a real design situation, using a single value to determine what usability problems should be prioritized is problematic. In fact, the authors surely understand the messiness of the prioritizing usability problems in a practice. Nielsen and Loranger have pointed out that severity should not be the only factor when making the decision of what problems to fix: “when enough little irritations add up to a bad user experience, people are likely to leave and not return” (p. 132). However, they failed to offer a better method of application of their data. In fact, providing a discussion of how to consider and balance the treatment of problems based on the three attribute rather than simply meshing them together into one single attribute will be more helpful in a practical situation.
Another issue with the book is related to cultural usability and Web localization. Although the authors claim that their research is based on testing with users from all over the world, the guidelines still fail to address possible cultural differences in Web usability design. In fact, the guidelines are more suitable for cultures of, using Hofstede's and Hall's cultural categories, high individualism, low power distance, high masculinity, and low-context, characteristics of the U.S. (see Singh & Pereira, 2005).
For instance, when analyzing a Web site with “high-severity usability problem,” the authors write, “The problem on this bank's "About Us" page is that it does not tell enough to establish trust and credibility. Yes, the bank says that it is a "home of traditional banking," but it doesn't back that up with facts such as when the bank was founded, how many branches it has, how solid it is, or any other specific information that would make you feel comfortable handing your money over to it” (p. 127). What the authors have pointed out is surely a usability problem. However, some would argue that this problem is considered more severe in the U.S., a masculine, highly individualist culture, and low-contextual, where statistics and facts are highly valued, than in more feminine, collective culture, and high-contextual, where community and family are valued more than hard numbers. The language on the Web site such as “take advantage of nearly 150 years of banking experience,” and “We're proud of our history of helping thousands of families and individuals to save money, buy homes, plan for a wedding or college education, prepare for retirement, and to make banking—and everyday life—easier and more convenient” is very appealing to an audience that values community and family. The images of seniors and a middle-aged couple are also appealing to a high-contextual culture. On the other hand, the problem with the lack of specific statistics might not be a huge problem in high-contextual cultures. In fact, according to Singh & Pereira, politeness and indirectness are highly valued in high-contextual cultures, and “the use of indirect words like 'perhaps,' 'probably,' and 'somewhat'” can emphasize the politeness on Web sites in these cultures (p. 145). Throughout the book, issues of cultural specificity have never been brought up, which is a disappointment.
This problem can be seen as part of an larger issue with this book, namely the logocentric tendency that noted by scholars concerned with the importance of context in usability. As Sun (2004) has pointed out in his dissertation Expending the Scope of Localization: “Nielsen’s view of usability attends to issues within a narrow scope: Contextual factors such as social and cultural aspects are detached from the use of product functionality. This view favors the system and defines usability as attributes measured by quantitative methods” (p. 37). This tendency can be seen throughout the book. For instance, the extensive use of statistics, and the emphasis on directness, efficiency, and simplicity. These characteristics are not necessarily bad things—quite on the contrary, they add much strength to the book—but not recognizing the complexity of contexts is a weakness in the book.
Along the same line, the book emphasizes on e-Commerce and business Web sites more than anything else. Although the authors also mention Web sites such as hospital and government Web sites, their emphasis on business makes usability seem limited to retaining users and “converting” them from users into consumers. At the Computer and Writing 2010 conference, researchers Michele Simmons (Miami University) and Meredith Zoetewey (University of South Florida) presented their research on usability of civic engagement. In their presentation, they pointed out the limitation of Nielsen's usability that is primarily for businesses, and argued that for civic Web sites, simple and fast information design could not meet the requirements of citizens who sought more complex, complete, and comprehensive information. They proposed that Nielsen's guidelines of usability should be revised for civic Web site. I completely agree with them, and want to add that this is also true with educational Web sites, where certain challenge for users/students should be part of the design.
The last point I want to make is that the book, although updated from its 1994 version, lacks a discussion on the usability in Web 2.0 environment that has been becoming the Web itself. The only place where the authors mentioned Web 2.0 is in the preface when they talk about the fact that their usability guidelines do not apply to teens' MySpace profile page design. I agree with them on this point, but there is more to Web sites and applications such as MySpace, RSS, Facebook, Wiki, Twitter, YouTube and many others which are called by some Web 2.0 Web sites/applications. I will discuss Web 2.0 with more depth in later posts. The point is, published in 2006, one would assume that this book would mention at least some aspects of the Web we have today, but it seems the Nielsen and Loranger still stay in the e-Commerce era.
References
Singh, N., & Pereira, A. (2005). The culturally customized Web site. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Continuing the point of severity, I found the concept of “severity” not a very useful attribute because of its complexity. According to Nielsen, the severity of a usability problem is determined by its frequency, impact, and persistence (p. 125). The calculation of the severity score based on the scores of the three attributes (rated on a 10-point scale) is to “multiply the frequency rating by the impact rating, then multiply that number by the square root of the persistence rating and divide that by the square root of 10” (p. 123). Granted that factoring in three attributes and comes up with a single score of severity is a very attractive idea and is useful to a certain extent (such as to give an overall idea of what are the most severe areas of usability problems as the authors have done), I do not think this score can be of practical use when guiding the design, because the three attributes, frequency, impact, and persistence really describe different aspects of a problem and need to be considered holistically in a real situation when a designer or a usability specialist are trying do decide which problems are to be fixed under the specific financial, technological, and personnel conditions. In other words, in a real design situation, using a single value to determine what usability problems should be prioritized is problematic. In fact, the authors surely understand the messiness of the prioritizing usability problems in a practice. Nielsen and Loranger have pointed out that severity should not be the only factor when making the decision of what problems to fix: “when enough little irritations add up to a bad user experience, people are likely to leave and not return” (p. 132). However, they failed to offer a better method of application of their data. In fact, providing a discussion of how to consider and balance the treatment of problems based on the three attribute rather than simply meshing them together into one single attribute will be more helpful in a practical situation.
Another issue with the book is related to cultural usability and Web localization. Although the authors claim that their research is based on testing with users from all over the world, the guidelines still fail to address possible cultural differences in Web usability design. In fact, the guidelines are more suitable for cultures of, using Hofstede's and Hall's cultural categories, high individualism, low power distance, high masculinity, and low-context, characteristics of the U.S. (see Singh & Pereira, 2005).
For instance, when analyzing a Web site with “high-severity usability problem,” the authors write, “The problem on this bank's "About Us" page is that it does not tell enough to establish trust and credibility. Yes, the bank says that it is a "home of traditional banking," but it doesn't back that up with facts such as when the bank was founded, how many branches it has, how solid it is, or any other specific information that would make you feel comfortable handing your money over to it” (p. 127). What the authors have pointed out is surely a usability problem. However, some would argue that this problem is considered more severe in the U.S., a masculine, highly individualist culture, and low-contextual, where statistics and facts are highly valued, than in more feminine, collective culture, and high-contextual, where community and family are valued more than hard numbers. The language on the Web site such as “take advantage of nearly 150 years of banking experience,” and “We're proud of our history of helping thousands of families and individuals to save money, buy homes, plan for a wedding or college education, prepare for retirement, and to make banking—and everyday life—easier and more convenient” is very appealing to an audience that values community and family. The images of seniors and a middle-aged couple are also appealing to a high-contextual culture. On the other hand, the problem with the lack of specific statistics might not be a huge problem in high-contextual cultures. In fact, according to Singh & Pereira, politeness and indirectness are highly valued in high-contextual cultures, and “the use of indirect words like 'perhaps,' 'probably,' and 'somewhat'” can emphasize the politeness on Web sites in these cultures (p. 145). Throughout the book, issues of cultural specificity have never been brought up, which is a disappointment.
This problem can be seen as part of an larger issue with this book, namely the logocentric tendency that noted by scholars concerned with the importance of context in usability. As Sun (2004) has pointed out in his dissertation Expending the Scope of Localization: “Nielsen’s view of usability attends to issues within a narrow scope: Contextual factors such as social and cultural aspects are detached from the use of product functionality. This view favors the system and defines usability as attributes measured by quantitative methods” (p. 37). This tendency can be seen throughout the book. For instance, the extensive use of statistics, and the emphasis on directness, efficiency, and simplicity. These characteristics are not necessarily bad things—quite on the contrary, they add much strength to the book—but not recognizing the complexity of contexts is a weakness in the book.
Along the same line, the book emphasizes on e-Commerce and business Web sites more than anything else. Although the authors also mention Web sites such as hospital and government Web sites, their emphasis on business makes usability seem limited to retaining users and “converting” them from users into consumers. At the Computer and Writing 2010 conference, researchers Michele Simmons (Miami University) and Meredith Zoetewey (University of South Florida) presented their research on usability of civic engagement. In their presentation, they pointed out the limitation of Nielsen's usability that is primarily for businesses, and argued that for civic Web sites, simple and fast information design could not meet the requirements of citizens who sought more complex, complete, and comprehensive information. They proposed that Nielsen's guidelines of usability should be revised for civic Web site. I completely agree with them, and want to add that this is also true with educational Web sites, where certain challenge for users/students should be part of the design.
The last point I want to make is that the book, although updated from its 1994 version, lacks a discussion on the usability in Web 2.0 environment that has been becoming the Web itself. The only place where the authors mentioned Web 2.0 is in the preface when they talk about the fact that their usability guidelines do not apply to teens' MySpace profile page design. I agree with them on this point, but there is more to Web sites and applications such as MySpace, RSS, Facebook, Wiki, Twitter, YouTube and many others which are called by some Web 2.0 Web sites/applications. I will discuss Web 2.0 with more depth in later posts. The point is, published in 2006, one would assume that this book would mention at least some aspects of the Web we have today, but it seems the Nielsen and Loranger still stay in the e-Commerce era.
References
Singh, N., & Pereira, A. (2005). The culturally customized Web site. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)