Handling Cultural Factors in Human-Computer Interaction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Handling cultural factors in human-computer interaction Item Type Thesis or dissertation Authors Bourges-Waldegg, Paula Publisher University of Derby Download date 10/10/2021 04:09:18 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10545/310928 HANDLING CULTURAL FACTORS IN HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION PAULA BOURGES-WALDEGG A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the University of Derby for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy February 1998 1 FIGURE 7 AND APPENDIX 11 NOT SCANNED ON - INSTRUCTION FROM THE UNIVERSITY A Tata 2 OBJECTIVES The main objective of the research described in this thesis was t~ investigate and understand the origins of culturally-determined usability problems in the context of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) to develop a method for treating this issue, when designing systems intended to be shared by culturally-heterogeneous user groups, such as Computer Supported Co-operative Work (CSCW) systems and the Internet. The resulting approach supports HCI designers by providing an alternative to internationalisation and localisation guidelines, which are inappropriate for tackling culturally-determined usability problems in the context of shared-systems. The research also sought to apply and test the developed approach in order to assess its efficacy and to modify or improve it accordingly. 3 CONTENTS oBJECTIVES 3 CONTENTS 4 FIGURES AND TABLES (; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8 ABSTRA. eT 9 INTRODUCTION to CHAPTER ONE; CULTURA.L DIVERSITY AND HCI DESIGN ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••t6 1.1 INTRODUCTION _ 16 1.2 CULTURE, GLOBALISATION, AND DESIGN _ 17 1.2.1 DESIGN 17 1.2.2 CULTURE 18 1.2.3 GWBAliSATION 20 1.3 SYSTEMS SHARED BY CULTURALLY-DIVERSE USERS _ 24 1.3.1 APPROACHES DEAliNG WITH CULTURAL HETEROGENEITY 26 1.4 CUL TURALISATION 30 1.5 HCI LITERATURE DEALING WITH CULTURAL ISSUES 38 1.5.1 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES 38 1.5.2 CULTURALLY-DETERMINED USABIliTY PROBLEMS 42 1.5.3 GUIDANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERFACE DESIGNERS 43 1.6 CONCLUSIONS 44 CHAPTER TWO; UNDERSTANDING CULTURA.LLY-DETERMINED USABILITY PROBLEMS 46 2.1 INTRODUCTION _46 2.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY 46 2.3 THE EV ALUA TION _ 47 2.3.1 METHODS _ 48 2.3.2 PARTICIPANTS _ 50 2.3.3 PROCEDURE 52 2.3.4 TASK 53 2.4 BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS RESULTS 53 2.4.1 BREAKDOWNS IN USER-TASK INTERACTION _ 54 2.4.2 BREAKDOWNS IN USER-TOOL INTERACTION 55 2.4.3 BREAKDOWNS IN USER-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION 56 2.4.4 BREAKDOWNS IN USER-USER INTERACTION 57 2.5 INTERVIEW AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 60 2.6 DISCUSSION 66 2.6.1 REPRESENTATIONS 66 2.6.2 LANGUAGE _ 68 2.6.3 OTHER CULTURAL FACTORS 70 2.6.4 UNDERSTANDABIliTY, LEARN ABIliTY AND PREFERENCES _ 71 2.6.5 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN USERS _ 72 2.7 CONCLUSIONS 72 CHAPTER THREE; AN INTEGRA.TED HCI APPROACH TO DEALING WITH CULTURA.L DIVERSITY 74 3.1 INTRODUCTION _ 74 3.2 MEANING AS AN ANALYTICAL TOOL 75 3.3 MEANING IN MEDIATED ACTION (MMA) 77 3.3.1 MMA AND THE HCI DESIGN PROCESS 77 4 3.3.2 AIMS OF THE MMA APPROACH 80 3.3.3 HOW MMA WORKS 81 3.4 CONCLUSIONS 85 CHAPTER FOUR; REDESIGNING A WWW SYSTEM USING MMA •••••••••••••.••••••.•••..•.••••87 4.1 IN1RODUCTION : M 87 4.2 DEFINING THE USER GROUP 87 4.3 APPLYING THE MMA APPROACH : 89 4.3.1 MMA OBSERVATIONS 89 4.3.2 MMA EVALUATION ·..·..· 92 4.3.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN GROUPS A AND B M 95 4.3.4 VARIABLES CONTRIBUTING TO PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING REPRESENTATIONS 101 4.3.5 MMA ANALYSIS 106 4.3.6 MMA DESIGN · · 118 4.4 CONCLUSIONS 126 CHAPTER FIVE; MMA EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE REDESIGNED REPRESENTATIONS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••128 5.1IN1RODUCTION M 128 5.2 MMA EVALUATION OF THE REDESIGNED REPRESENT ATIONS 128 5.3 MMA ANALYSIS OF THE REDESIGNED REPRESENTATIONS 129 5.3.1 BROWSER 129 5.3.2 WEBSITE 132 5.4 A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE MMA APPROACH 134 5.4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS , M 137 5.5 CONCLUSIONS 138 CONCLUSIONS ••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••140 REFEREN CES ••••••.•••.••••.•••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••144 BIBLIOGRAPHY •••••••.•••.•••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•••••••••••••149 GLOSSARY ••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••••.•.•••••••••••151 APPENDICES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••_.••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••..••.•••••••••••••.•••••••••••.154 APPENDIX 1: BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS 154 APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTIONS 166 FIRST INTERVIEW (SPANISH PARTICIPANT R) 166 SECOND INTERVIEW (GERMAN PARTICIPANTT) 169 THIRD INTERVIEW (CHINESE PARTICIPANT J) 170 FOURTH INTERVIEW (ENGliSH PARTICIPANT W) 172 FIFTH INTERVIEW (JAPANESE PARTICIPANT S) M 173 APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRES REVIEW 175 APPENDIX 4: QUIZ QUESTIONS 177 APPENDIX 5: PROTOTYPE 178 APPENDIX 6: MMA EVALUATION IN1ERVIEW 180 MMAEVALUATION 180 APPENDIX 7: CATEGORISATION OF SPECIFIC ROOT-CONTEXTS 183 APPENDIX 8: MMA ANALYSIS GROUP B (BROWSER) 185 SPECIFICITY OF REPRESENTATIONS IN GROUP B (BROWSER) 185 PARTICIPANTS' INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BROWSER'S REPRESENTATIONS (GROUP B) 186 APPENDIX 9: MMA ANALYSIS GROUP B (WEBSITE) M 188 SPECIFICITY OF REPRESENTATIONS IN GROUP B (WEBSITE) 188 PARTICIPANTS' INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WEBSITE'S REPRESENTATIONS (GROUP B) 188 APPENDIX 10: PROTOTYPE (REDESIGNED) 189 APPENDIX 11: PUBLISHED WORK 191 5 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SYSTEMS TARGETED FOR PARTICULAR CULTURES (A) AND SYSTEMS INTENDED TO BE SHARED . BY CULTURALLY-DIVERSE USERS (B) - 32 FIGURE 2. THE EVALUATION SETUP : 52 FIGURE 3. NUMBER OF 'CULTURAL' BREAKDOWNS 58 FIGURE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF 'CULTURAL' BREAKDOWNS BY USER 59 FIGURE 5. FREQUENCY OF CULTURAL BREAKDOWNS BY USER 60 FIGURE 6. TASK ACCOMPLISHMENT (NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED) 60 TABLE 1. EXAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWING HOW PARTICIPANT S (OF JAPAN), SCORED THE CLARITY OF THE WEBSITE COMPARED TO THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS - 62 FIGURE 7. THE STAR LIFE CYCLE (ADAPTED FROM HIX AND HARTSON BY PREECE, 1994) 78 FIGURE 8. THE MMA STAGES · ··· ·· - 81 TABLE 2. EXAMPLE OF INTERVIEW FORMAT: 82 FIGURE 9. THE MMA REDESIGN PROJECT - 91 FIGURE 10. DETAILS OF THE MMA EVALUATION 93 FIGURE 11. NUMBER OF PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING IN GROUPS A AND B (BROWSER AND WEBSITE) 96 FIGURE 12. NUMBER OF PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING (BROWSER AND WEBSITE) DETERMINED BY AN ENGLISH-SPECIFIC ROOT-CONTEXT IE., FAILURES IN UNDERSTANDING WORDS IN ENGLISH 96 FIGURE 13. NUMBER OF PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING (BROWSER AND WEBSITE) DETERMINED BY OTHER CULTURALLY-SPECIFIC ROOT -CONTEXTS - 96 FIGURE 14. RELATION BETWEEN PROBLEMS IN RECOGNISING WORDS (RW) AND PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING, E.G., LANGUAGE-BASED METAPHORS 98 FIGURE 15. FILE MENU 99 FIGURE 16. BOOKMARKS MENU - 99 FIGURE 17. DIRECTORYMENU · 100 FIGURE 18. WINDOW MENU 100 TABLE 3. RELATION BETWEEN VARIABLES AND PROBLEMS IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF INTENDED MEANING (1M) IN GROUP A (BROWSER AND WEBSITE). PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING 1M ARE SUB-GROUPED INTO THOSE DETERMINED BY AN ENGLISH-SPECIFIC ROOT -CONTEXT (ESRC) AND THOSE DETERMINED BY OTHER CULTURALLY -SPECIFIC ROOT-CONTEXTS (OCSRC) 102 TABLE 4. RELATION BETWEEN VARIABLES AND PROBLEMS IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF INTENDED MEANING (1M) IN GROUP B (BROWSER AND WEBSITE). PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING 1M ARE SUB-GROUPED INTO THOSE DETERMINED BY AN ENGLISH-SPECIFIC ROOT-CONTEXT (ESRC) AND THOSE DETERMINED BY OTHER CULTURALLY-SPECIFIC RooT-CONTEXTS (OCSRC) 102 TABLE 5. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN DIFFERENT USER VARIABLES (EXPERTISE, GENDER, CULTURE, FLUENCY, AND AGE), SPECIFIC ROOT-CONTEXTS (ESRC AND OCSRC), AND THE TOTAL OF PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING; (INCLUDES BROWSER AND WEBSITE) 103 FIGURE 19. DISTRIBUTION OF PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING (1M) WITH RELATION TO ENGLISH FLUENCY; (INCLUDES BROWSER AND WEBSITE) _ 104 FIGURE 20. DISTRIBUTION OF PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING (1M) WITH RELATION TO GENDER; (INCLUDES BROWSER AND WEBSITE) 104 FIGURE 21. CONTRffiUTION OF USER VARIABLES TO UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING; (INCLUDES BROWSER AND WEBSITE) 105 TABLE 6. SPECIFICITY OF REPRESENTATIONS IN GROUP A 106 TABLE 7. PARTICIPANTS' INTERPRETATIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIONS. SOME FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS ARE INCLUDED IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE 6 REPRESENTATIONS' INTENDED MEANINGS FOR THE READER. (Nil = NOT INTERPRETED) " 107 FIGURE 22. DIRECTORY BUTTONS 110 FIGURE 23. E-MAIL ICON II0 FIGURE 24. OPTIONS MENU " 112 FIGURE 25. VIEW MENU : " 113 FIGURE 26. SECURITY ICON 113 FIGURE 27. BROWSER'S MAIN BUTTONS : " 114 FIGURE 28. THE WEBSITE'S MAIN ITEMS 115 TABLE 8. SPECIFICITY OF REPRESENTATIONS IN GROUP A. 117 TABLE 9. PARTICIPANTS' INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WEBSITE REPRESENTATIONS 117 FIGURE 29. FAVOURITES MENU (REDESIGNED) 120 FIGURE 30. BROWSER'S DIRECTORY BUTTONS (REDESIGNED) 121 FIGURE 31. SECURITY ICON (REDESIGNED) " 122 FIGURE 32. E-MAIL ICON (REDESIGNED) 122 FIGURE 33. FILE MENU (REDESIGNED) " 123 FIGURE 34. WINDOW MENU (REDESIGNED) " 124 FIGURE 35. INDEX MENU (REDESIGNED) 124 FIGURE 36. WEBSITE'S MAIN ITEMS(REDESIGNED) " 126 FIGURE 37. NUMBER OF PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING (BROWSER) ........................................................................................•............................... " 130 FIGURE 38. NUMBER OF PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING INTENDED MEANING DETERMINED BY NON-LINGUISTIC ROOT-CONTEXTS