Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

14
HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context 1 Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context Mathew Hillier School of Accounting and Information Systems, University of South Australia 47-55 North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Tel. +61-8-83020912, Fax. +61-8-83020992, Email mailto:[email protected] Abstract This research in progress paper draws evidence from the anthropological, worldviews and systems design literature, to show how culture and context play a significant role in the way people perceive and approach their interaction with a multilingual e-commerce website. In doing so, this paper shows that a relationship exists between language, cultural context and usability. Some suggestions are provided for how the author might conduct useful research that will lead to some Argyris [1] style actionable knowledge, which designers can use as ‘rules of thumb’. This includes testing different groups of users for their responses to examples of ‘translated-only’ websites. The author is able to draw on Australian and Asian participants for this study. The demands of e-commerce website development need to be kept central, as it is likely to be uneconomical to cater for every user. Some degree of generalization from individuals into cultural groups seems inevitable. Keywords: multicultural, website design, usability, culture, context, e-commerce Introduction The problem of presenting multilingual websites to a range of audiences involves more than translating the text from one language to another (which itself is not a straightforward matter). As Hull [2] states “when we learn a language, we do so in the context of a culture”. Ito and Nakakoji [3] show that all levels of a communicative interaction are influenced by cultural factors, as in Hofstede [4]. Therefore, the designers of a website will have created the original website drawing on their cultural norms, of which the text will form a part of an integrated whole. If the text is then translated into another language, then the overall design may also need to be changed. This is because the usability of the site will also change. The usability will change due to the users of the new language having different culturally based expectations. This paper, therefore, argues that a relationship exists between language, cultural context and usability. Thus, when we design a multilingual website, the cultural context of the audience needs to be taken into consideration. This is particularly important in the light of global e-commerce efforts where success of business is dependant upon the successful interaction with a multitude of imagined audiences via electronic means. To begin our discussion, we will start by looking at the nature of multilingual websites.

Transcript of Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

Page 1: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

1

Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

Mathew Hillier

School of Accounting and Information Systems, University of South Australia 47-55 North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Tel. +61-8-83020912, Fax. +61-8-83020992, Email mailto:[email protected]

Abstract

This research in progress paper draws evidence from the anthropological, worldviews and systems design literature, to show how culture and context play a significant role in the way people perceive and approach their interaction with a multilingual e-commerce website. In doing so, this paper shows that a relationship exists between language, cultural context and usability. Some suggestions are provided for how the author might conduct useful research that will lead to some Argyris [1] style actionable knowledge, which designers can use as ‘rules of thumb’. This includes testing different groups of users for their responses to examples of ‘translated-only’ websites. The author is able to draw on Australian and Asian participants for this study. The demands of e-commerce website development need to be kept central, as it is likely to be uneconomical to cater for every user. Some degree of generalization from individuals into cultural groups seems inevitable.

Keywords: multicultural, website design, usability, culture, context, e-commerce

Introduction

The problem of presenting multilingual websites to a range of audiences involves more than translating the text from one language to another (which itself is not a straightforward matter). As Hull [2] states “when we learn a language, we do so in the context of a culture”. Ito and Nakakoji [3] show that all levels of a communicative interaction are influenced by cultural factors, as in Hofstede [4]. Therefore, the designers of a website will have created the original website drawing on their cultural norms, of which the text will form a part of an integrated whole. If the text is then translated into another language, then the overall design may also need to be changed. This is because the usability of the site will also change. The usability will change due to the users of the new language having different culturally based expectations. This paper, therefore, argues that a relationship exists between language, cultural context and usability. Thus, when we design a multilingual website, the cultural context of the audience needs to be taken into consideration. This is particularly important in the light of global e-commerce efforts where success of business is dependant upon the successful interaction with a multitude of imagined audiences via electronic means. To begin our discussion, we will start by looking at the nature of multilingual websites.

Page 2: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

2

Defining Multilingual Websites

A multilingual website is one that is presented in more than one language (to be concise, multilingual means more than two, while exactly two is bilingual). However, only the written component of a language will be considered in the discussion. This becomes significant when various spoken dialects are different, whilst the written language is common. One such example is Chinese – however, the distinction between traditional and simplified characters is made. Whether or not one considers differences to be significant between Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China as to warrant separate presentations, remains open for debate, and will likely depend upon such factors as task purpose - which is discussed later in this paper.

The Problem of Translation

In translating text from one language to another, many concerns can arise (Nielsen 1990b [5]). Since it would take a weighty volume to cover all of these concerns, only a small sample will be provided here. Examples in the field includes work by: Biguenet and Schulte [6][7], Cole [8], Tan [9] and Gerding-Salas [10]. Indeed, in Australia Para-professional translators and interpreters need to undertake an examination for accreditation [11]. Some concerns surrounding text translation include:

• Agreement regarding the meaning of words. Even in English the same words can mean different things. For example, if you were to utter the phrase “please put the trunk in the boot” whilst talking to a taxi driver, one would get quite different reactions depending upon which country you were standing at the time. In Australia the taxi driver would know what to do immediately. In America the taxi driver would protest that it was impossible, and rightly so. Because to the Australian taxi driver a ‘trunk’ is a large box like suitcase for placing items in when moving, and the ‘boot’ is the luggage compartment of an automobile. But to an American taxi driver the ‘trunk’ is the luggage compartment of an automobile and a ‘boot’ is a shoe.

• Agreement on terminology, particularly for words of a technical nature [12] and agreed actions regarding slang and abbreviations, for example, in English the abbreviations of ‘No.’ and ‘#’ can mean ‘number’, but there are no such abbreviations in Chinese.

• Phrases and meanings, which cannot be translated. Some words have no equivalent in another language. For example, it is customary for Japanese to say “itadakimasu” (ee-tah-dak-kee-masu

) just before eating a meal. This word has no equivalent in English, but it is an expression of gratitude before meals (roughly translates to “Thanks for the meal” or “I humbly receive”).

• The direction of the text. For example, English is written horizontally from left to right, Arabic is written horizontally from right to left, while Chinese is traditionally written vertically from flowing right to left (although horizontal is now more common with older text appearing right to left and most recently text also appearing left to right).

• Formats of such things as dates, times and names. For example, in Britain and Australia dates are written in the format day/month/year, in America it is month/day/year and when written in Chinese they appear as year/month/day. In regard to people’s names, Anglo background people write them in the order of ‘given’ then ‘family’, but in Chinese they are written ‘family’ then ‘given’.

• Choice of spelling convention. For example, Australians and British spell ‘colour’ while in America it is spelt ‘color’.

Additional problems arise when translating text in computer based environments. This includes the size of text blocks on web pages or the field length in application software or databases. Kirkman [13] reports that translated text can expand by 40%. For example, a character in a Romanised language takes only one byte, while a character in Chinese takes two bytes. The issue of storage space is greatly reduced for HTML based web pages, however, physical space requirements need to be considered for layout and graphical buttons.

Current Practice in Presenting Multilingual Websites on the Web

Despite these difficulties, many websites are translated into more than one language, albeit with varying levels of readability and usability [14]. When considering the web presentation of an organisation, three broad types of websites have been found. These are: single home sites, multi home sites and separate sites, where each belongs to the same organisation (see Figure 1). The website types are explained in the following sections.

Page 3: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

Single Home Website Multi-Home Website Separate Websites

The minimalist approacThis type of website is links off the English lanlanguage. A small numautomatically translate btranslation of the text [8]

A multi-home website languages. In general, ea Some websites merely pwebsites from IBM are s

A?BA

A

B

B

B

w w w www.+++.co.th

h is madguagber

lock[15]

Fig

is loch l

reseuch

A BA B

A B

ww.+++.com

Figure 1 Three Broa

to present a single he up of more than oe pages. In general, of websites utilizes or entire pages of t.

ure 2 Altavista’s Au

cated under a singleanguage’s sub-site ha

nt a gateway to geneexamples (see Figure

ww.+++.com

3

d Types of Multilingual W

ome site with small partsne language, however, thethese sites translate only a third party services, sext (see Figure 2). The res

tomated Translation Tool ‘

domain name, with a ‘ss the same layout and desig

ric content, rather than a c 3).

AA BB

ww.+++.com.au

ebsites

translated into another language(s). translated sections often appear as limited amount of text into another uch as Babel Fish (Altavista), to ult is often a rough and rudimentary

Babelfish’

plash’ page presenting a choice of n (see Figure 4).

ustomised presentation. The country

A A B B

Page 4: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

4

Thailand Australia Figure 3 A ‘Products & Services’ Form Two Different Country Websites By IBM

Figure 4 A Website Presented in Two Language Versions, But Utilizing Identical Designs

Page 5: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

5

When different language versions of a site are presented separately, they usually have their own domain name (either a county level domain or a sub-domain). The level of variation in the design ranges from being the same to being quite different. This is possibly due to the level of decentralisation present in the organisation, or alternatively, represents an attempt at localisation. A quick survey of two well-known companies, Coca Cola and Pepsi (see Figure 5 and Figure 6) shows they have a practice of variation in design, although the familiar colour schemes are usually present. Conversely, a recent study by Robbins and Stylianou [16] looked at the web development practices of multinationals in the ‘Fortune Top 1000’ list of companies. The results of this study found little difference in the practice of large firms regarding in the manner in which they present their sites.

Belgium Japan

China Russia

Figure 5 Coca Cola Website Homepages Vary Between Countries

Page 6: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

6

Belgium Russia

China Japan

Figure 6 Pepsi Website Homepages also vary between countries

Having examined the current practice of presenting multilingual websites, we shall now move on to consider the relationship between language and culture.

Culture

In looking at language we need to realise that it does not exist in isolation. As Hull [2] states “when we learn a language, we do so in the context of a culture”. The process with which we learn language is both set within and influenced by social context [17]. Learning methodologies and thinking styles have been shaped by values and attitudes that have developed over many centuries [18]. Culture also influences the way we use languages, the meanings we associate with words (or phrases) and even the prioritisation we place on the perceived purpose of language itself i.e. as a status symbol, communications tool, conduit of emotion, or artistic expression. A study by Zahedi, Van Pelt and Song [19] produced some informative examples of language use for the purpose of fulfilling certain cultural expectations within the context of a website presentation. We can see this cultural context at work when we consider the case of bilinguals (those who speak two languages). Matsumoto [20] outlines a number of studies in the field of psychology by, Ervin [21], Hull [22][23][24], Dinges and Hull [25], and Matsumoto and Assar [26]. These studies have shown that people exhibit different personalities and emphasize different issues and opinions, depending upon which of their two languages that they were operating in at the time. These studies demonstrate the important role that language plays in everyday experience, and more importantly, the intertwining of language and the cultural context in which language is learnt. As mentioned before, language needs to be understood in the context of culture, it is therefore necessary that this research be located within the broader set of research on culture. In looking at culture as a construct, we run into some fundamental issues of definition. The problem being that there is no commonly agreed definition of culture. By the 1950’s over 300 definitions of the term had been identified [27]. Indeed as Kroeber and Kluckhohn [27] state, some sociologists and anthropologists deem the term so vague that they refuse to use it in scientific discourse. Despite this, the word ‘culture’ is widely used in the information systems literature,

Page 7: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

7

although usually without defining it, some examples include: Walsham and Sahay [28], Day [29] and Fisher [30]. Some acknowledge the complex nature of culture, such as, Evers and Day [31], and Corbett and Thanasankit [32]. Some researchers adopt a positivist frame regarding culture and treat it as a statistically measurable set of variables, most notably Hofstede [4][33], whose work is popular in the information systems literature. Others follow an interpretive approach, which is the norm in the sociological and anthropological literature. Matsumoto [20], in the conclusion to his book ‘Cross Cultural Psychology’, defines culture as “… the degree that people share attributes, values, beliefs and behaviours”. In psychology, culture is not associated with physical objects, but is a “functional entity”…inferred from “observations of human behaviour”. Culture is thus passed from one person to another by “language or observation”. Hofstede [33] states “culture is learned, not inherited. It derives from one’s social environment, not from one’s genes.” Hofstede offers culture as a construct of ‘human mental programming’ (not meant in the mechanical sense, but as a metaphor) that includes three components. These are: human nature, which is common to all humans and is inherited; culture, which is shared within a group and is learned by individuals from others in the group; and finally there is personality, which is specific to the individual and is both learned and inherited. Human nature consists of the basic parts of ‘mental programming’, such as the ability to feel anger, love, joy, sadness, the need for association, observation of the environment and the ability to communicate those observations to others. How one expresses these abilities is modified by culture. Thus culture influences our every thoughtful action, as apposed to automatic and subconscious actions like breathing. Culture also affects one’s perception of reality. This is relevant because we must perceive and interpret a website in order to use it. Allwood and Wang [34] states: “the cultural environment people live in is assumed to have a strong impact upon the way they conceptualise reality”. It could be said that our perception of reality is ‘coloured’, in part, by the cultural context in which we have been brought up. For example, LeRoux [35] outlines studies in psychology that demonstrate how culture influences visual perception. In other words, that perception is in part socially constructed. Although, this does not rule out that we might later learn other paradigms [33]. It remains almost impossible to unlearn what we have already experienced [36]. Since culture contributes to the way in which we see the world, we can conceptualise this influence as a lens (see Figure 7). The psychological literature offers a range of explanations that show the role of culture in the development of this lens, one such resource is Matsumoto [20]. Matsumoto provides an extensive look at many facets of the role of culture, ranging from cognition and learning to the expression of emotion and communication. For a fuller discussion of the lens concept the reader may refer to Hillier [37].

Figure 7 Our lens is made up of our experience and knowledge, parts of which are influenced by culture.

Having briefly looked at how culture influences our perception of the world, we will now look at how culture influences the way in which we interact with the world.

Tool Development and Use

It is through tools that we are able to interact with the world. These tools can include mental tools, such as concepts and heuristics [38] as well as physical tools such as a hammer or computer interface, such as, a web page. Honold [38] sees tools as being shaped by history and society. The development and use of a tool has an impact upon the mental development of the user and so impacts upon the society that created it via the sharing of experiences and ideas. Therefore, a recursive loop develops between the form of the tool, the society that gave rise to the tool, and the way in which its users conceptualise it and use it. An example of the impact of culture on tool conceptualisation and use can be found in Straub [39]. Straub, drawing on Hofstede’s [4] cultural paradigms, shows that certain cultural factors and preferred communication methods exist in Japanese society.

Lens

Page 8: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

8

These factors lead Japanese people to choose different technology tools, and hold different opinions about the usefulness of those tools, than did Americans. In looking to the development of artefacts, we can turn to the discussion held by Bijker [40] on the social construction of scientific invention (in this case Fluorescent Lighting). A broader discussion of social constructionism can be found in Brey [41]. Our discussion has so far drawn a link between language, i.e. the text of a web page, and cultural context. We have also linked culturally influenced perception to the creation and use of tools, such as a the user interface of a computer, in this case a web page. The user interface is defined as the point at which a user interacts with the system. The user interface can be made up of both hardware and software components [42]. Since we are now looking at the nature and use of user interfaces, we are firmly within the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and the study of usability. The following section places this paper within this field of research, particularly as it relates to web pages.

Human Computer Interaction and Usability

The usability of a user interface refers to the fluency or ease with which a user is able to interact with a system without ‘thinking’ about it. This implies they can do so ‘naturally’ or without feeling ‘discomfort’, either physical or mental. This is inline with the definition of usability offered by the International Organization for Standardization, which is: “The effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals in particular environments” [43]. Studies relating to the user interface of computers have been undertaken since the early 1960’s [42]. A vast range of studies has appeared in the specialist HCI journals. A tiny sample of recent work includes: Sutcliffe, Ennis and Hu [44], John and Kieras [45], Nielsen [46], and Shneiderman [47]. Research has also been published in general information systems journals, examples include work by: Davis [48], McKeen and Gumaraes [49], Etezadi-Amoli and Farhoomand [50], Doll and Torkzadeh [51], Gerlach and Kuo [52] and Doll et al [53]. The latter usually taking the form of user satisfaction. In recent years attention has turned to newer forms of information systems, such as, the Internet and World Wide Web. Some notable pioneers are, Nielsen [54], Shneiderman [55] and Mayhew [56]. Along with this research has come the realisation that not all users are created equal. This had led to research into the ‘internationalisation’ and ‘localisation’ of software. A parallel trend in ‘human centred systems development’ has also developed, as in [57]. To date efforts have largely resulted in the text ‘chunks’ and date formats of software, developed in America, being translated into another language or format. Until very recently, little attention has been paid to the suitability of the overall interface package that results. Some recent work includes: Evers [58], Turk [59], Nielsen and Del Galdo [60], and Corbitt and Thanasankit [32]. According to Trillo [61], current systems development methodologies stop short of taking culturally specific design to a deeper level. Doing so would require adapting usability design methodologies to non-western settings. An example of a study on a similar topic can be found in Wong and Gregory [62]. Interacting with a web page can be considered a communicative action, with each phase of this process being influenced by cultural factors [3]. The phases are [3]:

• ‘listening mode’, where the system presents information, the user forms a semantic association and which subsequently leads to some level of comprehension of the information presented and;

• ‘speaking mode’, where the user forms an intention, checks the applicability of the proposed action, as in trial and error, and then enacts the chosen plan.

Similarly, a study by Evers and Day [31] shows that differences exist in people’s interface acceptance, the process of acceptance and preferences for design features, when viewed through a cultural lens. The creation of the site itself is also influenced by culture, through the cultural context of the site developer. We can see the results of this influence in the designs of various websites. Gould, Zakaria and Yusof [63] demonstrates this in a study that analysed websites based on Hofstede’s cultural clusters. Another significant influence upon the effect of culture is the task purpose of both the site and the user (the site exists to fulfil a purpose – a purposive system, and the user undertakes purposeful action - Checkland [64]. Differing types of user interface elements and site structure will be required depending upon the task purpose of the site. A distinction should be made between a users purposeful action and site purpose, because in order to have a successful interaction, these need to be complementary. Turk [59] provides some categories of site purpose as follows: Information (educational material and news), Entertainment (games and gambling), Service (search engines, libraries and counselling), Commerce and Marketing (both between business and to consumers) and Communication (e-mail and discussion lists).

Page 9: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

The purposeful actions of the user could also include these categories. However, such purposes are usually more specific and not fixed over time, because users will have different purposes each time they utilise the web. For example, a user might be finding the cheapest copy of ‘The Lost World’ one day, then the next day be browsing the ‘new releases’ or paying their lay-by bill. It is proposed that the level of tolerance a user has to the context of language, given task purpose, will vary. This is due to the level of information or communicative content required in order to complete a task. For example, successfully conducting a banking transaction would rely less on the meaning in language than would the task of researching western philosophy. This level of complexity results in a volatile environment, where such actions as changing the language of the site can have unpredictable results, one of which is likely to be the reduction in the usability of the site.

Research in Progress

This paper has looked at the three main elements of importance in creating a successful multilingual website, these being language, cultural context and usability. We have seen that the way in which people perceive reality is in part socially constructed due to the influence of culture. Also that language is learnt and understood within this socially constructed reality and that people perceive and interact with web pages (as tools) through their perceptions of those objects. The influence of culture is also true for website designers. This influence leads them to produce a website in a certain way (design and text included). The question now arises - how do we know that a website is usable in terms of fitting into a cultural context? In broad terms this occurs when there is a ‘meeting of minds’ between the designer (through their creation) and the user. In terms of a website, this means the user is able to understand and comprehend the website implicitly, in that there are no ‘uncomfortable’ elements. This discomfort could be caused through inappropriate, offensive or misinterpreted elements. It is expected that a mismatch between the cultural context of the site design and a set of translated text would cause ‘inconsistencies’ and ‘uncomfortableness’ to arise in the mind of the user (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). The practical piece of advice that arises out of all this is that when one changes the language of the website, one should also re-consider the overall usability of the website. If we ignore the cultural context of the language when designing the website, we run the risk of having site with reduced levels of usability.

Figu

Given this, wwebsite in a which that la

Language A

Us

Us

Language A

Language A

Context ACultural Context A

er Designer

Cultural Context A

Figure 8 Language and Cultural Contexts Match

Language B Language B

Context A

Language A

Cultural Context A

er Designer

Cultural Context B

re 9 A

e can pgiven

nguage

?

Trans

rovidelangua is base

?

9

lated Only Website Results an a Mismatch of Language and Cultural Context

a ‘rule of thumb’ for website developers. It is expressed like so: ‘when we produce a ge, we should also ensure that the website conforms to the norms of the culture in d’.

Page 10: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

10

The Proposed Study

The aim of the study is to provide advice on how to design a procedure that tests the usability of a multilingual website. To do this, it will be necessary to appreciate a range of perspectives. These perspectives will inform us as to role of cultural context in the usability of multilingual websites. A mix of qualitative investigation and quantitative testing will take place. Methods employed will include:

• exploratory and semi structured interviews, with selected site users about their interactions with the test website(s), and interviews with other participants regarding their experience of websites in general;

• observing a range of users interacting with the test websites; • automated logging of user actions on the computer and; • surveys of the test site users.

Users will be asked to perform some typical task representative of the type of e-commerce site in question. Stage 1 of study will involve three categories of participants. These are;

• those who have English as their only language (Le), • those who have English as their first language, plus have a second language of the type O (Le+o) and • those who have language type O as their first language and English as their second language (Lo+e).

Possible choices for language type O include: Chinese (either traditional or simplified), Thai or Malay. Further investigation as to access to possible subjects and sample websites is required before the final decision. These participants will be asked to examine websites that fit into one of two categories. The categories are:

• sites developed within an English (‘Western’) cultural context, with written content appearing in English (Ee) and

• sites that were developed within an ‘Eastern’ cultural context (equating to the native environment of language O), with written content appearing in English (Oe).

It is acknowledged that in choosing websites, the researcher will have to be careful about such mediating factors as task purpose. To minimise this concern, websites will be chosen that seek to ‘solve the same problems’ (i.e. are similarly purposive). Please refer to Table 1 for the design of Stage 1. Initial observations will be conducted as a screening and pre-test (Xs). This will be used to gather information on the participants’ backgrounds, including experience with technology and the Internet, age, occupational affiliations, cultural and ethnic background, languages spoken, read and written, and general opinions regarding computers and the web. This data will serve two purposes, first, this will help us assign participants to the appropriate category, as outlined above, by looking at their language abilities; and secondly, it will provide a check as to other possible mediating factors, as in Davis [48] and Straub et al. [65]. Having divided participants into the three categories, they will then be randomly assigned to determine which category of treatment site they will view first. Participants will be then asked to examine the first treatment site, after which the first observation will be taken (X1). This will be in the form of a questionnaire that relates to the specific website in terms of website usability and satisfaction. Participants will then repeat this procedure with the second treatment site and observation (X2).

Table 1 Study Design of Stage 1

Screening Observation

Participant First Treatment

First Observation

Second Treatment

Second Observation

Xs Le Ee X1 Oe X2 Xs Le+o Ee X1 Oe X2 Xs Lo+e Ee X1 Oe X2 Xs Le Oe X1 Ee X2 Xs Le+o Oe X1 Ee X2 Xs Lo+e Oe X1 Ee X2

After the completion of testing, the results will be examined in a preliminary manner. This is to provide information that leads onto Stage 2. The results will be examined in greater detail, once Stage 2 is completed. Stage 2 will further investigate the findings of Stage 1. In this stage, we are seeking perspectives on the situation, so that they may inform us about the nature of the role of cultural context. From the participants of

Page 11: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

11

Stage 1, we will selectively ask some of them to a further interview. The focus of this interview will be to get to know the participant as an individual, with the intention of drawing out their ‘worldview’ [66]. We will also be seeking to explore any significant or unexpected results form Stage 1. At this point we shall briefly look at the acknowledged limitations of Stage 1, along with some suggested solutions. As the first stage of the study will be held within Australia, it is expected that a certain amount of ‘cultural contamination’ may occur [31]. Stage 3 will address this problem with tests conducted in other countries. Another limitation arises because the set of usability criteria by which participants will judge sites, was developed from a western cultural perspective. This is expected to influence the detection of cultural context. It is hoped that the latter stages will be able to utilise set of usability criteria developed from the same cultural perspective as language O (i.e. an ‘eastern’ perspective). Testing will be conducted in English. This may lead some participants to react differently and express different types of opinions, depending upon which language they are using at the time [20]. In Stage 3, the aim will be to look at sites that have been designed with the cultural context in mind for audiences of language E and language O. These sites will be tested with users of both language E and O in their own languages. Some of these tests will be conducted in the home country of language O. In this stage, users will be asked to evaluate each site against a relative set of criteria that has been modified to consider their own cultural context / norms. The criteria will be based on an appropriate body of literature. These criteria will also be cross-tested with users from the other cultural group. It is hoped that by utilising a set of user interface design guidelines that were created in a non-western context, a culturally accurate website evaluation can be produced. Ultimately this should lead to a set of design ‘rules of thumb’.

Anticipated Outcomes

In stage 1, it is expected a Le user will do better on an Ee site than an Oe site. This is because of the match between language and cultural context. It is expected that users in stage 3 will be more satisfied with their experience than in Stage 1. It is also anticipated that they will achieve their tasks more efficiently using Stage 3 websites than Stage 1 websites. This success is expected to be due to the better match between the cultural context of the user and the cultural context of the website. Furthermore, it is expected that a bilingual user will express different opinions, depending upon that language of the testing environment [20]. This effect, if present, will need to be considered in the evaluation of results.

Conclusion

This paper has argued the need for more research on the usability implications of translating websites. In doing so, the importance of considering cultural context in the process of multilingual website development has been highlighted, and a ‘rule of thumb’ for developers formulated.

References

[1] Argyris, C. (1993) “On the nature of actionable knowledge”, The Psychologist, (6:1), pp.29-32. [2] Hull, P. V. (1994) “Language and Language Acquisition”, in Matsumoto, D (1994) People. Psychology from a cultural Perspective, California, USA: Brookes / Cole Publishing Company. [3] Ito, M. and Nakakoji, K. “Impact of culture on interface design”, in Elisa & Nielsen, J. eds. (1996) International User Interfaces, New York, USA: Wiley. [4] Hofstede, G. (1980) “Culture's Consequences. International Differences in Work-Related Values”, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [5] Nielsen, J. (1990b) “Usability testing of international interfaces”, in Nielsen, J. ed. Designing User Interfaces for International Use, Amsterdam: Elsevier. [6] Biguenet, J. and Schulte, R. (1989) “The Craft of Translation”, USA: University of Chicago Press. [7] Biguenet, J. and Schulte, R. eds. (1992) “Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida” USA: University of Chicago Press.

Page 12: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

12

[8] Cole, R. ed. (1996) “Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology”, Center for Spoken Language Understanding, USA: Oregon Graduate Institute, Online access: http://cslu.cse.ogi.edu/HLTsurvey/ 12 April 2002. [9] Tan, J. (1998) “In Search of Context and Perspective”, Translation Journal (1:2) Online access: http://accurapid.com/journal/ 12 April 2002. [10] Gerding-Salas, G. (2000) “Teaching Translation: Problems and Solutions” Translation Journal (1:2) Online access: http://accurapid.com/journal/ 12 April 2002. [11] NAATI (2002) “National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters” Online Access: http://www.naati.com.au 7 April 2002. [12] Chengzhao, L. (1992) “Translating English Scientific and Technical Terms into Chinese: Comparing the Practice in Mainland China and Taiwan”, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (35:1), pp.19-23. [13] Kirkman, J. (1988) "How 'Friendly' is Your Writing for Readers Around the World?" in Barret, E. ed. Text, ConText, and HyperText: Writing with and for the Computer, MIT Press Series in Information Systems, pp.343-364, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [14] Oudet, B. (1997) “Multilingualism on the Internet”, Scientific American, March, USA, Online access: http://www.sciam.com/0397issue/0397oudet.html 12 April 2002. [15] Tractinsky, N. (2000) “A theoretical framework and empirical examination of the effects of foreign and translated interface language”, Behaviour and Information Technology (19:1), pp.1-13. [16] Robbins, S.S. & Stylianou, A.C. (2002) “Global corporate websites: an empirical investigation of content and design” Information & Management (In press). [17] Emmitt, M. and Pollock, J. (1999) “Language and Learning”, Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. [18] Chan, S. (1999) “The Chinese learner – a question of style” Education and Training (41:6/7), pp.294-304. [19] Zahedi, F., Van Pelt, W.V. and Song, J. (2001) “A Conceptual Framework for International Web Design”, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, (44:2), pp. 83-103. [20] Matsumoto, D. (1994) “People - Psychology from a cultural Perspective”, California, USA: Brookes / Cole Publishing Company. [21] Ervin, S. M. (1964) “Language and TAT content in bilinguals”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68, pp.500-507. [22] Hull, P. V. (1987) “Bilingualism: two languages, two personalities?” Resources in Education, Educational Resources Clearinghouse on Education, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [23] Hull, P. V. (1990a) “Bilingualism: two languages, two personalities?” Unpublished Thesis (Doctoral dissertation in Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, May 1990). [24] Hull, P. V. (1990b) “Bilingualism and language choice”, in Proceedings of the Annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, USA [25] Dinges, N. G. and Hull, P. (1992) “Personality, Culture and International Studies” in Leiberman, D. ed. Revealing the world, an interdisciplinary reader for international studies, Dubuque, IA, USA: Hendall-Hunt. [26] Matsumoto, D. and Assar, M. (1992) “The effects of language on judgments of universal facial expressions of emotion”, Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour (16), pp.85-99. [27] Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1963) “Culture – A critical review of concepts and definitions”, New York USA: Vintage Books, (Originally Published as: Volume XLVII Number 1, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, USA: Harvard University 1953). [28] Walsham, G. and Sahay, S. (1999) “GIS for District-Level Administration in India: Problems and Opportunities”, MIS Quarterly, (23:1), pp.39-66. [29] Day, D. (1996) “Cultural Bases of Interface Acceptance: Methods” Proceedings of the Second Americas Conference on Information Systems, 16-18 August, Phoenix, USA. [30] Fisher, J. L. (1996) “Communicating Internationally with Users: Cultural and Language Implications for Translating Electronically Delivered Information”, IEEE International Professional Communications Conference, pp.72-84, USA. [31] Evers, V. and Day, D. (1997) “The role of culture in interface acceptance” in Howard, S., Hammond, J. and Lindegaard eds. Human Computer Interaction, INTERACT’97, London, UK: Chapman & Hall. [32] Corbett, B. and Thanasankit, T. (2002) “A model for culturally informed web interfaces” in Haynes, J. D. ed. (2002) Internet Management Issues: A Global Perspective, Hershey, USA: Idea Group Publishing. [33] Hofstede, G. (1994) “Cultures and Organisations – Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival”, London, UK: Harper Collins. [34] Allwood, C. & Wang, Z. M. (1990) “Conceptions of computers among students in China and Sweden”, Computers in Human Behaviour (6), pp.185-199. [35] LeRoux, J. “Perception” in Matsumoto, D (1994) People. Psychology from a cultural Perspective, California, USA: Brookes / Cole Publishing Company.

Page 13: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

13

[36] Blandford, A. (2000) “Interactive System Design: Understanding Users in Context” Inaugural Lecture, Middlesex University, 7 June, UK, online access: http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/staffpages/annb/inaugural.pdf 12 April 2002. [37] Hillier, M. (2002) “Thinking about systems design problems using the T.O.P2 framework” in Proceedings of the 6th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems, 2-4 September, Tokyo, Japan, (forthcoming). [38] Honold, P. (2000) “Culture and Context: An empirical Study for the development of a framework for the elicitation of cultural influence in product usage”, International Journal of Human-computer Interaction (12:3/4), pp.327-345. [39] Straub, D. (1994) “The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-mail and Fax in Japan and the U.S.”, Information Systems Research (5:1), pp.23-47. [40] Bijker, W. (1992) “The Social Construction of Fluorescent Lighting, or How an Artifact was Invented in its Diffusion Stage” In Bijker, W. and Law, J. eds. (1992) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge: MIT Press. [41] Brey, P. (1997) “Philosophy of Technology Meets Social Constructivism” Society for Philosophy & Technology (2:3/4), pp.56-79. [42] Hewett, T. T., Baecker, R., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J., Mantei, M., Perlman, G., Strong, G. and Verplank, W. (1996) “Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction”, ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Curriculum Development Group, Association for Computing Machinery Inc., Online access: http://sigchi.org/cdg/index.html 10 April 2002. [43] ISO (1998) “Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) No 9241, Part 11: Guidance on usability”, International Organisation for Standardization. [44] Sutcliffe, A. G., Ennis, M. and Hu, J. (2000) “Evaluating the effectiveness of visual user interfaces for information retrieval”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (53:5), pp.741-763. [45] John, B. E. and Kieras, D. E. (1996) “Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (3:4), pp.287-319. [46] Nielsen, J. (1990a) “Traditional dialogue design applied to modern user interfaces”, Communications of the ACM (33:10), pp.109-118. [47] Shneiderman, B. (2000) “Universal usability”, Communications of the ACM (43:5), pp.84-91. [48] Davis, F. D. (1989) “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly (13:3), pp.319-340. [49] McKeen, J. D. and Gumaraes, T. (1994) “The relationship between user participation and user satisfaction: An investigation of four contingency factors”, MIS Quarterly (18:4), pp.427-452. [50] Etezadi-Amoli, J. and Farhoomand, A. F. (1991) “On end user computing satisfaction”, MIS Quarterly (15:1), pp.1-4. [51] Doll, W. J. and Torkzadeh, G. (1998) “The measurement of end user computing satisfaction” MIS Quarterly 12(2), pp.259-274. [52] Gerlach, J. H. and Kuo, F. Y. (1991) “Understanding human-computer interaction for information systems design” MIS Quarterly (15:4), pp.527-550. [53] Doll, W. J., Raghunathan, T. S., Lim, J. S. and Gupta Yash, P. (1995) “A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the User Information Satisfaction Instrument”, Information Systems Research (6:2), pp.177-189. [54] Nielsen, J. (2000) “Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity”, Indianapolis, USA: New Riders Publishing. [55] Shneiderman, B. (1997) “Designing information-abundant websites: issues and recommendations”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (47:1), pp.5-30. [56] Mayhew, D. (1999) “The Usability Engineering Lifecycle- A Practitioner's Guide to User Interface Design”, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. [57] Norman, D. and Draper, S. (1986) “User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction”, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Assocates. [58] Evers, V. (2001) “Cultural aspects of user interface understanding – an empirical evaluation of an e-learning website by international user groups” Unpublished Thesis (Doctoral dissertation, The Open University, United Kingdom, 2001). [59] Turk, A. (2000) “A world wide web of cultures or a ‘world wide web’ culture”, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication, 12-15 July, Perth, Australia. [60] Nielsen, J. and Del Galdo, E. M. eds. (1996) “International User Interfaces”, USA: John Wiley & Sons. [61] Trillo, N. G. (1999) “The Cultural Component of Designing and Evaluating International User Interfaces”, in Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5-8 January, Maui, Hawaii, USA.

Page 14: Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

HILLIER - Multilingual Website Usability: Cultural Context

14

[62] Wong, A. and Gregory, F. (1997) “The inapplicability of Western Models to Information Technology Development in Chinese Companies – The Case of the Hong Kong Newspaper Industry” Working Paper 97/06, Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, [63] Gould, E. W., Zakaria, N. and Yusof, S. A. M. (2000) “Applying Culture to Website Design: A Comparison of Malaysian and US Websites” in Proceedings of the IEEE Professional Communications Society, International Professional Communication Conference and ACM Special Interest Group on documentation conference, 24-27 September, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. [64] Checkland, P. (1981) “Systems Thinking, Systems Practice”, New York, USA: John Wily & Sons. [65] Straub, D., Keil, M. and Brenner, W. (1997) “Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study”, Information & Management (33:1), pp.1-57. [66] Aerts, D., Apostel, L., De Moor, B., Hellemans, S., Maex, E., Van Belle, H. and Van Der Veken, J. (1994) “Worldviews: From Fragmentation to Integration”, Brussels: VUB Press, Online access http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/pub/books/worldviews.html 12 April 2002.