RR_13:

Over the past two decades, the World Wide Web has been increasingly used by a rapidly growing number of users across the world and has become an indispensable medium in public, organizational, and personal communication. By 2010, the world Internet user population has exceeded 1,966 million, with a growth of 444.8% since 2000, and the Internet penetration had reached 28.7% worldwide (World Internet users and population stats, 2010). The users of the Web are increasingly diverse in terms of regions and languages, as users populations in developing countries have dramatically increased in the past decade. As of 2010, although North America, Oceania/Australia, and Europe have the highest Internet penetration rates (respectively 77.4%, 61.3%, and 58.4%), Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America/Caribbean have the greatest growths in user population since 2000 (respectively 2,357.3%, 1825.3%, and 1032.8%) (ibid). These fastest growing regions are followed by Asia (621.8%), which has the largest Internet user population of 825.1 million that accounts for 42% of the worldwide Internet user population (ibid). In terms of languages used on the Web, although English speaking users constitute the largest language group (27.3%), the number of Chinese speaking users has grown 1,277.4% since 2000 and constitutes the second largest user group (22.6%) only by a small margin (Top ten languages used in the Web). Arabic and Russian speaking user groups have also grown dramatically since 2000 (respectively 2,501.2% and 1,825.8%) (ibid).

These statistics of Web use in the past decade indicate that users of a diverse cultural backgrounds, and in particular, non-English speaking users have an increasingly significant impact on the nature of Web based communication across the globe. To understand the Web and Web based communication and, in application, to design usable web technology and artifacts for a “universe of users” (Bowie, 2009), technical and professional communicators must take it seriously the imperative of the consideration of culture and its impact of how users use technologies and information artifacts in their specific contexts.

References:

Top ten languages used in the Web. (2010, November 7, 2010). Miniwatts Marketing Group. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm

World Internet users and population stats . (2010, November 7, 2010). Miniwatts Marketing Group. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

BIB_13: Badre, A. N. (2000). The effects of cross cultural interface design orentation on World Wide Web user performance (Technical report). Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Badre takes a perspective of cultural usability in this article, and examines the patterns of cultural markers on websites categorized by countries/languages and genres. The cultural markers are identified from foraging study of websites around the world, including HTML specific, Icons/Metaphors, Colors, Specific Colors, Grouping, Flag, Language, Geography, Orientation, Sound, Font, Links, Regional, Shapes, and Architecture. Badre also identifies nine genres: Government, News & Media, Business, Education, Travel, Society & Culture, Health, Science, Art & Humanities. Websites of different countries of origin and genres then are examined for their patterns of cultural markers. Badre concludes that (1) patterns of cultural markers emerged "reflect cultural practices and preferences in websites, influence by country of origin and genre," and (2) "cultural markers can be cultural and/or genre specific and can be used to implement cultural usability guidelines" (p. 8).

Badre's notion of cultural usability stays within interface design and information architecture, especially the visual design of websites. The genres he identified are outdated for today's websites increasingly integrate their functions and increasingly interactive. The cultural markers, although useful in interface visual design, stay on the surface of web design. This article serves as a good example of many other studies that examines cultural factors in web design.

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_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_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: Sun, H. (2006). The triumph of users: achieving cultural usability goals with user localization. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 457-481.

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.

BIB_10: Bevan, N. (2009). International standards for usability should be more widely used. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 106-113.

Nigel Bevan (2009) argues for the wide use of international standards in usability in the areas of user interface design, usability assurance, usability and software quality, and human centered design process. He acknowledges that “usability depends on the context of use, design environment, resources constraints, importance of usability, etc.” and argues in spite of these uncertainties, or precise because of these uncertainty, international standards that can resolve these issues should be widely used. He subsequentially explains the benefits of using corresponding ISO standards in the four areas and discusses the cost issue. In conclusion, he emphasizes the rhetorical function of international standards in business negotiations and internal design decision making.

This article is a useful guide to the international standards relating to usability. These standards ensure the most part the process rather than the actual design requirements, and thus are not contradictory to the idea of user-centered design and cultural usability. However, we need to guard against using some standards without critique and contextualization.

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_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.

RR_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.

Johnson's book provide a rhetorical theoretical view of the user-centered approach to technology. The points well articulated in the book abound, and I want to discuss a few of them that are particularly pertaining to my project.

First of all, Johnson offers a succinct description of what the user-centered approach to technology is and seeks to achieve compared to the system-centered approach:

In a user-centered approach to technology, users are active participants in the design, development, implementation, and maintenance of the technology. This is not meant to imply that users are the sole or dominant forces in technology development. Rather, they are allowed to take part in a negotiated process of technology design, development, and use that has only rarely been practiced. Users are encouraged and invited to "have a say," in other words, and thus they are physically or discursively present in the decision-making processes of technological development. Invited to become actively involved with the technology in a greater, more integrated fashion, users become members of a team, but not just token members as they are in many usability approaches that merely invite users in at the end of the development cycle to validate a product. Because the users are involved with decision making in the user-centered model, they have power that historically has been concentrated solely in the province of the designers of technology (or in the province of the technological artifact itself, if you adhere to a strong determinist stance). (p. 32)

This definition of the user-centered approach to technology touches on a couple of important points:

First, in a user-centered approach to technology, users' active participation is an important part in the life cycle of technology, from the stage of design, through development and implementation, to maintenance. This is in contrast to some system-centered approach that involves the user only in some stages such as perhaps towards the completion of technology development for user testing, or as what Johnson calls treating users a kind of “token members” (p. 32). One example he points out is the user involvement in interface design: “The interface is crucial to the user of the technology, but more often than not this intimate connecting point between the technology and the user is relegated to the end of the development cycle—at a point where there is often little that can be done to solve any problems the user may have while operating the technology” (pp. 27-28). As the intermediate between the user and the system, the interface perhaps is the foremost familiar if not important part of the system to the user, and thus its development is more likely to involve the user than any other part. Relegating it to the end of the development cycle often means that users get involved in the development process only up to this point, which to Johnson is a serious problem.

Second, rather than the “dominant” agent in the process, the user takes part in the negotiation of the technology design, development, and use. In other words, the user is only one stakeholder in the process, who is allowed to voice her/his opinion and contribute her/his knowledge to the process. Johnson makes this point clear so that the user's knowledge from use will claim a valued position in a way that does not oppress others. From this point, we can also see the egalitarian view that guides the user-centered approach. By encouraging users claiming the “power that historically has been concentrated solely in the province of the designers of technology” (p. 32), the user-centered approach aims to decenter the power. It is in this sense that user-centered design should not only be conceived in an engineering perspective, but in a sociopolitical perspective.

Without being too reductive, one could argue that taking a rhetorical position, Johnson's description of user-centered approach to technology falls into the humanist camp of usability studies, which values complexity over reduction and which has strong political and emancipatory concerns.

Perhaps the biggest contribution of Johnson in this book is the user-centered rhetorical complex of technology he developed that can be used as a framework to analyze technology that centers on the user and the contextualized use. Borrowing I. A. Richard and James Kinneavy's rhetorical triangle metaphor, Johnson develops a triangle depicting a user-centered rhetoric (see figure below).

The triangle depicts an technological environment that consists of the user, the artisan/designer, the artifact/system, and user tasks/system actions with the user situated in the center. The elements in environment are essential for the interaction between the user and the system. Based on this triangle, Johnson further complicates the situation by surrounding it with three layers of context, or “pressures and constraints” in the surrounding contexts or situations, forming what he calls a user-centered rhetorical complex. The first layer consists of the user activities of “learning, doing, and producing” (p. 38). The second layer consists of “constraints that larger human networks place upon technological use,” which Johnson depicts as “disciplines, institutions, and communities” (ibid). Finally, the outer layer consists of “the factors of culture and history” (p. 39).

In relation to the user-centered rhetorical complex is another concept developed by Johnson, the user's situation. Johnson defines the user's situation as the activity “the user is engaged in and, in some cases, the moment in which this engagement occurs” (p. 31). Although he points out that the activities can be described specifically as learning, doing, and producing, the notion of user's situation should be understood in a broader sense. In other words, the user's situation is affected by all the elements in the user-centered rhetorical complex. For instance, when Johnson discusses the importance of localizing the user's situation in a specific context, he notes that it is important to understand the user's role in an organization. In the case of documentation, “[t]he specific nature of users' work, then, drives documentation that is customized to the context of use instead of generically explained to a universal user who is the construct of a writer's imagination” (pp. 129-130). In this case, Johnson is pointing out the importance of considering the second layer of the context of use in the user-centered rhetorical complex, namely institution and discipline and the user's relationship with them, when we trying to understand the user's situation.

The user-centered rhetorical complex is a very useful framework when we consider cultural usability of technology. Note here the complex and sometime confusing use of the term “culture,” which has multiple meanings depending on the specific context of use. Here in the user-centered rhetorical complex, Johnson seems to use the term “culture” in a narrow sense to denote the higher level of human actions and meanings as a society. However, later in the book, when he discuss computer user documentation, Johnson uses “culture” in a broad sense “to mean any community that might have common bonds due to context or practice: that is, workplace cultures, classroom cultures, and even electronic cultures such as those emerging from the use of the Internet or other computer networked arrangements” (121). The reason for Johnson to use a narrow meaning of culture in his discussion of the user-centered rhetorical complex is because used in broader sense, culture can include all the elements in the three layers (rings) of context. Therefore, using the term broadly cannot achieve any meaningful objective here. However, when speaking of cultural usability and cultural localization, we should not understand culture only in the narrow sense in terms of national cultures or other higher level cultures, but also consider the local cultures that the user resides.

Finally, it will interesting to compare Johnson's model to Sun's (2004) framework of cultural usability (see figure below) (p. 59). I will return to this topic in the future post on Sun.

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.

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.