BIB_12: Sapienza, F. (2008). A shared meanings approach to intercultural usability: results of a user study between international and American university students. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 51(2), 215-227.

In this study, Sapienza reports the results of a user study between international students (non-native English speakers) and American students using an U.S. university website. He concludes that even among culturally heterogeneous users, there can be a space for shared meanings mediated with one shared language (in this case, English), which makes it possible for us to speak of a universal web usability. He calls this approach a "shared-meanings" or "shared-context" approach. 

Sapienza's study shows that international students can use English-based website effectively and efficiently. However, while he talks about a space for "shared-meanings," this space is mediated by a shared language, that is, in fact, a dominant language. If the international students do not have a choice, they will have to adapt to the English environment. Sapienza argues that there is no localization necessary, but this is at the cost of the international users. 

BIB_12: Zahedi, F. M., & Song, J. (2001). A conceptual framwork for international web design. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 44(3), 83-103.

In this article, Zahedi and Song develop a conceptual model for web design that address the impact of cultural and individual characteristics on users' perception and satisfaction of web documents. There are six cultural characteristics, which include power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, anxiety avoidance, long-term versus short-term orientation, and polychronic versus monochronic time orientation. There are six individual factors that include demographics (age and gender), professional knowledge, information technology knowledge, flexibility, information processing abilities, and cultural knowledge. The authors define document effectiveness as perceived usability, reliability, clarity, and comprehension.

The cultural characteristics this model uses are widely used in studies examining cultural factors on web design. However, the propositions the authors have concluded on the basis of the cultural and individual characteristics are without any empirical or other support. It seems that the authors just assume that groups that have these characteristics will prefer certain characteristics of the documents they use. To me there is really no new well supported ideas in this article but reporting information from other sources and speculations on the authors part.

BIB_12: Amant, K. S. (2005). A prototype theory approach to international website analysis and design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 73-91.

In this article, Amant examines the application of prototype theory in website design targeting different cultural groups. Specifically, his discussion focuses on how prototype theory can shed light on the use of metaphors in web design that are appropriate for target users of specific cultural backgrounds. Prototype theory, a construct from cognitive psychology, explains how human beings use prototypes to classify objects. Amant argues that this theory offers a method for us to understand how users from different cultural groups interpret icons based on their culturally constructed prototypes so as to design appropriate visual presentations of information on websites.

This article is an example of the studies that have been done in technical communication that examine the cultural factors and web design and web usability. Like many other studies, this study focuses on the visual presentation of web information. Prototype theory, while useful in determining what metaphors to use when designing websites, it does not offer a method to understand deeper needs of users from different cultural groups.

BIB_10: Choong, Y.-Y., Plocher, T., & Rau, P.-L. P. (2005). Cross-cultural Web design. In R. W. Proctor & K.-P. L. Vu (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in Web design (pp. 284-300). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

In this chapter, the authors aim to give a comprehensive perspective on cultural effects for Web design. Drawing on the theorization of cultural dimensions, the authors organize the discussion into dimensions of web design: affective dimension (including colors and graphics), perceptual dimension, function dimension. These discussions are followed by a cross-cultural web design guidelines developed based on the understanding of these dimensions of design. The guidelines address the following topics: languages and format, presentation and layout, graphic design, cultural preferences for colors, information architecture, searching, and interaction. The chapter closes with a discussion of international usability evaluation, in which the authors discuss specifically the cultural aspects in conducting the usability testing, participant recruiting, and working with local interpreters.

The intended audience is, according to the authors, HCI researchers and Web design practitioners, but technical communicators can definitely benefit from it. The cultural dimensions used in this chapter provide a framework to categorize cultures that can be very useful when analyzing websites. However, we need to be reflective about the reductive tendency in the cultural dimension approach.

BIB_10: Arnold, M. D. (1998). Building a truly World Wide Web: A review of the essentials of international communication. Technical Communication, 45(2), 197-206.

This article, published in 1998, offers a glimpse into the status of the research in web design for international audiences in historical moment. Arnold argues that because of the increasingly diversified cultural backgrounds of web users, internationalization has become an important issue for web designers and usability researchers. Arnold's discussion about the web focuses on the linguistic, cultural, technological, and legal challenges at that time, and offers a basic guideline for practitioners to design internationalized websites.

This article lays out a few areas of concerns at the end of last century and provides a historical background for our understanding in the development of the research area. The author's discussions about the concerns in internationalized web design are very basic compared to the more sophisticated research more than a decade later. However, it shows how our understanding in web design and cultural concerns has evolved and involved a group of interdisciplinary researchers and practitioners.

BIB_04: Farkas, D., & Farkas, J. B. (2002). Principles of Web design. New York: Longman.

Among literally hundreds of Web design books, Farka & Farka's book primarily targets an academic audience and as its title suggests, focuses on principle issues in Web design rather than detailed instructions. The book starts with a chapter that offers an overview of the Web and Web design -- theory, key concepts, genres, and history. The following two chapters are based on the process of Web development, from planning, designing and budgeting, to Web building. The authors also talk about how to put together a competitive team and the roles of each team members. Because of the multimedia nature of the Web, the authors devote a chapter specifically to content development, discussing what content format to choose and how to use them effectively. Then they move on to a discussion about the social implications and ethical concerns in Web design, which covers important issues such as accessibility, safety, and control of information. Chapter six to nine are devoted to information architecture and navigation, in which the authors talks about the theoretical foundation of information design on the Web -- hypermedia theory -- and some very practical strategies of designing information and navigation such as designing the navigational interface and effective links. The next two chapters focus on the how to develop content for Web sites. Specifically, the author cover both writing for the Web and graphic design. In the last chapter, the authors come back to the topic of information design, and discuss the organizational strategies other than the hierarchical organization, which is the most used organization on the Web.

Farka and Farka's textbook is a useful book for perhaps technical communication graduate students because of its firm grip on Web theory. They authors bring on the table some important issues a responsible designer must consider such as the ethics of design. However, if the audience wants to learn more practical strategies of Web design, this book might not the be best choice. Besides, published in 2002, the book is a bit following behind today's technologies. Apart from the text dominant black & white format without many visual examples, the most noticeable issue is that the authors regard Web sites primarily as documents, rather than platforms of user interaction (although they have mentioned briefly that some Web sites are "online computing environments"). This may be true ten years ago, but we have seen Web sites increasingly merging with applications in the past five years or so. Therefore, contemporary Web design must have new concerns that accommodate these new changes.

RR_04: Farkas, D., & Farkas, J. B. (2002). Principles of Web design. New York: Longman.

As the title of the book suggests, Farkas and Farkas are primarily concerned with the principles of Web design. This suggests that this book is a guiding overview of Web design, but at the same time, inevitably lacks the details and depth of any of the aspects of Web design it covers. The focus on principles also explains the theoretical priority of the book. Although the authors have devoted chapters to talk about the application of these principles in the process of Web development, they did not put as much effort into providing examples to show the audience how to do it. As to the theory, the authors cover fairly extensively the issues and consideration concerning Web design at their time. However, an eight-year old book on the Web is inevitable outdated, not in the sense that what the authors discuss is irrelevant to today's technological and social context, but that these principles are no long adequate for successful Web design today. New understanding of the Web and design principles are needed to accommodate the new technological and social changes.

The authors rely on hypermedia theory to understand the Web. However, hypermedia theory, which perceive the Web as a network of nods and links, is no longer adequate in understanding today's Web, or Web 2.0 so to speak. Instead of linked nods, the Web perhaps should be understood today more accurately as databases and the user interfaces (which are not just the screen, but everything involved in user's interaction with the databases). What I mean by database is different from, say, Manovich's notion of database. In The Language of New Media, Manovich argues that the “key form of expression” of new media is database as opposed to the traditionally dominant narrative (p. 194). He argues that:

Many new media objects do not tell stories; they don't have beginning or end; in fact, they don't have any development, thematically, formally or otherwise which would organize their elements into a sequence. Instead, they are collections of individual items, where every item has the same significance as any other. (p. 194)

In this sense, Manovich's (2001) understanding of database agrees with Farkas and Farkas' hypermedia theory, which regards the Web as a network of linked nods that (1) is structured (and often in hierarchical structure) and (2) allows users to navigate from one nod to another with certain freedom (which means a void of “master” or “authoritative” narrative). Manovich's database consists of linked “objects” and Farkas and Farkas's Web consists of linked “nods.” Although an “object” can be any element of information in all kinds of forms, and a “nod” is “a substantial chunk of digital content" (which often but not necessarily is a Web page) (Farkas & Farkas, 2002, p. 126), Manovich and Farkas and Farkas use these concepts and the collection of them (database and the Web) respectively to emphasize the non-linear and variable nature that is a break from the more traditional media such as print and film. In other words, hypermedia theory and Monovich's new media theory both emphasize on the freedom on the part of the audience (the user) to construct her/his narrative.

However, neither hypermedia theory nor new media theory can adequately account for the Web today. For instance, emphasis on the freedom of the user/audience in both theories regards only to reception of information. Farkas and Farkas analogize a Web site as a “lecturer” and the user as “the sole member of the audience” (p. 132). The user's power over the system primarily comes from her/his choice or preference of what information to receive. This view is based on their view that “ most websites are first and foremost information environments rather than environments for online computing” (p. 133). In other words, Farkas and Farkas's understanding of Web sites still stays at the document metaphor stage. This view implies a rather static understanding of the Web as hyper linked information environment.

Interestingly, Farkas and Farkas's views on the user and the Web are more or less shared by Manovich as he writes that databases “appear as collections of items on which the user can perform various operations: view, navigate, search” (p. 194). Not surprisingly, Manovich marvels this power of user compared to the audience of earlier media: “The user experience of such computerized collections is therefore quite distinct from reading a narrative or watching a film or navigating an architectural site” (p. 194). These views, however, do not account for the user's more active role in Web reality today. The authors may be able to explain how the user's ability to search for information affects the reality she/he is presented via the Web or new media (two different concepts; I'm not meshing them together as one). However, their theories cannot explain how individual user's search behavior affect the information she/he receive in the future or how users' search record/data affect how information is structured on the Web and, further, what the Web is becoming.

One characteristic of the Web today that authors in the early 2000's like Farkas and Farkas or Manovich were not able to clearly see (because of the technological and social constraint at the time) is the radical separation of the structure/system and the content/data. To Farkas and Farkas, for instance, a nod is both data and part of the system. However, the contemporary Web, or Web 2.0 does not work like that. Web sites are built increasingly using database and Web-based applications based on technologies such as JavaScript/Ajax. The understanding of the Web functioning as databases (not in Manovich's sense) and interfaces (which including Web-based applications that enable users to interact with the databases), however, recognize this separation, and thus provide a better lens to understanding how the Web operates today, which will serve as a basis for principles of Web design.

To be fair, Farkas and Farkas have dedicated one chapter to Web sites as online computing environments, which is more relevant to today's Web 2.0. However, the discussion is very general—no more than a few “guidelines.” Also, some of their recommendations, such as refraining from plug-in programs, should be rethought given the new technological development and users' increasing comfort level with technologies.

One point Farkas Farkas have made may deserve more attention in today's highly automated Web environment. That is their concern about power and information. They warn the readers when they talk about the “adaptive” systems such as the customized home page Yahoo's provide:

Although there is great potential in adaptive linking, it is not easy for adaptive systems to draw correct inferences about human behavior and information needs. [...] Finally, citizens must be vigilant about allowing governments, corporations, and other organizations to manage and filter the information we get over the Web. (p. 214)

Perhaps even more dangerous than the monopolization of traditional media, the monopolization of the Web—a few corporations such as Google and Facebook—means the concentration of power of control over not only information to be disseminated but also of the data collected automatically about every Internet user. If Foucault is right in saying that the control of personal information is a means to control the population, then we are indeed entering a time when possibility of control is, although invisible, evermore pervasive.


References

Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.