skip to main content
10.1145/1463160.1463195acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluation methods and cultural differences: studies across three continents

Published:20 October 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews issues and problems that arise in cross-cultural usability evaluations. It reports two separate empirical studies of a number of well-known techniques with UK, African and Indian users. The studies examine the effectiveness of methods based on think-aloud protocols, including the DUCE method, to elicit users' views. The results from all the studies show that these established Western methods are less effective with users from other cultures. It suggests that the reasons for this are the consequences of deep-rooted differences in personal interactions in different cultures. This paper provides evidence to guide choices for applications involving users from India and Africa.

References

  1. Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Dunckley, L. and Sharpe, H. (2007), An Approach to the Evaluation of Usefulness as a Social Construct International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 2007, Vol. 22, No. 1--2, 153--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Del Galdo, E. M (1996) Culture and Design. In E. del Galdo and J. Nielsen (Eds.) International User Interfaces. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 74--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Chavan, A. (2004), The Bollywood Method. in E. Schaffer,. Institutionalization of Usability; a Step-by-Step Guide. New York: Adisson Wesley. 129--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Dray, S. (2001) Usable for the World: A practical guide to International User Studies in D. Day and L. Dunckley (Eds.) Designing for Global Markets 3, Proceedings of IWIPS 2001, pp 154--155. IWIPS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunckley L, Smith, A & Howard, D (1999). 'Designing for Shared Interfaces with diverse user groups.' INTERACT 99, pp 630.636. Eds. M. A. Sasse, C. Johnson. Chapman & Hall. 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Evers, V. (2001) Cultural Aspects of User Interface Understanding: An Empirical Evaluation of an E-learning Website by International User Groups. PhD Thesis, Open University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Falzon, P (1990). Human-computer interaction: Lessons from human-human communication. In P. Falzon (ed.) Cognitive Ergonomics (pp 51--68). London: Academic Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Goguen, J. A. (1996), Formality and informality in requirements engineering, Proceedings of the second international conference on requirements engineering, (ICRE'96), IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 102--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hall, E. T. (1976) Beyond Culture, Doubleday, Garden City, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Henderson, R. D., Smith, M. C., Podd, J., Varel, A. and Alvarez, H. (1995) A Comparison Of The 4 Prominent User-Based Methods for Evaluating the Usability of Computer Software. Ergonomics, 38, 10, 2030--2044.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Herman, L. (1996) "Towards Effective Usability Evaluation in Asia: Cross-Cultural Differences," ozchi, p. 0135, 6th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCHI '96). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin, H. X., Choong, Y. and Salvendy, G. (1997), A proposed index of usability: a method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems, Behaviour and IT, 16 (4 and 5), 267--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Murphy, J. (2001) Modelling, designer-tester-subject relationships in international usability testing, in D. Day and L. Dunckley (Eds.) Designing for Global Markets 3 pp 33--44. IWIPS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Norman, D. (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith, A. & Dunckley, L. (2002) Prototype evaluation and redesign: structuring the design space through contextual techniques. Interacting with Computers. 14, DEC (6): 821--843.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith A, Dunckley L, French T, Minocha S, Chang Y (2004) A process model for developing usable crosscultural websites. Interacting with Computers, 16, (1): 63--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Smith, A., Gulliksen, J., and Bannon, L. (2005) Building usability in India: reflections from the Indo European Systems Usability Partnership, in T. McEwan, J. Gulliksen and D. Benyon (Eds.) People and Computers XIX - The Bigger Picture: Proceedings of HCI 2005 Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Suinn, R. M., Ahuna, C. and Khoo, G. (1992) The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: Concurrent and Factorial Validation. Educational & Psychological Measurement 52(4), pp. 1041--1046.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Vatrapu, R. and Pérez-Quiñones, M. A. (2006), Culture and Usability Evaluation: The Effects of Culture in Structured Interviews, Journal of Usability Studies, Issue 4, Volume 1, pp. 156--170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Wright, P. C. and Monk, A. F. (1991) A cost-effective evaluation method for use by designers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 35 891--912. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Yeo, A. (2000), Usability Evaluation in Malaysia. Proceedings of 4th Asia Pacific Computer Human Interaction Conference: APCHI 2000. Elsevier, pp 275--280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Yeo, A. (2001) Global Software Development Lifecycle: An Exploratory Study. In Jacko, J., Sears, A. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. and Jacob, R. (Eds.) CHI 2001: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, pp 104--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluation methods and cultural differences: studies across three continents

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        NordiCHI '08: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges
        October 2008
        621 pages
        ISBN:9781595937049
        DOI:10.1145/1463160

        Copyright © 2008 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 20 October 2008

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader