Measuring the Usability of an International User Interface: Culture and
Design Representations
Dania Bilal
Professor, University of Tennessee
College of Communication and Information, 1345 Circle Park, Knoxville, TN 37996
Email: dania@utk.edu
<This is a refereed paper that was presented at the ASIS&T 2006 Annual Meeting, HumanComputer Interaction Symposium>
Introduction
The Web has made it possible for users worldwide to negotiate various interfaces in their native
and other languages. Much research has addressed cultural variability in international Web
interface design to accommodate users of various cultures and backgrounds. This paper reports
the results of one segment of a two-part study that assessed the utility of the International
Children’ s Digital Library (ICDL; www.childrensbooks.org) interface design to Arabicspeaking children as a culturally diverse group.
Culture is ‘‘the collective mental programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of
one group or category of people from another’’ (Hofstede, 1991, p. 5). The patterns of thinking,
feelings, and acting are the mental programs that a group of people has acquired and learned
throughout a lifetime. Culture includes norms or patterns of life, values, heroes, rituals, and
symbols (Hofstede, 1991). Del Galdo (1990) notes that these cultural elements can be
implemented in international interface design - from character sets (e.g., the Latin alphabet) to
icons, colors, menu accelerators, and documentation. In describing cross-cultural elements of an
international interface, Smith et al. (2004) refer to the ‘‘cultural attractors’’ such as colors, icons,
navigation controls, and other visual cues that create the ‘‘look and feel’’ that match the user’s
expectations of the local culture. As Callahan (2005) states, the ‘‘look’’ of the interface is the
uniform representation of information, whereas the ‘‘feel’’ is the interaction with the various
elements of the interface.
In the Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) field, the implementation of cultural variability in
interface design is based upon internationalization and localization. Internationalization centers
on the core functionality of the software and excludes cultural elements such as language,
character sets, and culturally meaningful icons, among other things. Localization focuses on
customizing an interface for a particular culture through integration of various cultural elements.
Bourgess-Waldegg & Scrivener (1998) argue that internalization-localization is inappropriate for
assessing the usability of an international interface to culturally diverse users. They state many
reasons, including tendency to stereotype the users and insensitivity to bi- and multilingualism
and other forms of cultural heterogeneity. In addition, they note that since icons, symbols, menu
accelerators, language, taste, and other visual communication reside in the ‘‘cultural variability’’
of system representations, as advocated by Del Galdo (1990) and Fernandes (1995), an
international interface should be grounded in “representations” and “meaning”. Based on this
approach, language is accounted for only when it becomes a barrier to understanding
representations and their meanings.
1
Studies of children’s interaction with the ICDL as an international interface have centered on
users’ characteristics (Druin, 2005), book selection and searching behaviors (Reuter & Druin,
2004), and on the design and evaluation of its subject hierarchies (Hutchinson et al., 2005). No
study has examined children’s understanding of the ICDL design representations (e.g., icons,
buttons, search and browse features, and other visual cues) and their meanings, particularly in
relation to children whose English is a second language and who do not reside in the United
States.
The research question that guided this study was: How appropriate is the ICDL interface design
to Arabic-speaking children as a culturally diverse group?
ICDL interfaces
The design of the ICDL interfaces has evolved over the last two years. The default interface at
the time of the study (December 2004) is illustrated in Figure 1, and the retrieval interface for an
Arabic book search is shown in Figure 2.
Fig. 1. ICDL default interface
Fig. 2. ICDL Arabic book page
Method
This study employed a qualitative inquiry method and elicited children’s understanding of the
ICDL system design representations and their meanings by asking them to identify each of the
representations (icons, buttons, search and browse features, and other visual cues) of the ICDL
interface options (Simple, Advanced, Keyword, and Location).
The final sample consisted of ten Arabic-speaking children, ages 6-10, who resided in
Alexandria, Egypt and who were regular users of Bibliotheca Alexandrina (Bib. Alex.) where the
study took place.
Data were collected in December 2004 and spanned over two days. One each day, a group of
five children came to Bib. Alex. to participate in the study. After parental and children’s consents
were secured, children were introduced to the ICDL and asked questions about each of its design
representations and their meanings. Children’s responses were transcribed on paper and later
coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics.
2
3
Usability measure
Assessment of the usability of the ICDL interfaces to Arabic-speaking children as culturally
diverse group was grounded in “representations” and “meaning”, a notion advocated by
Bourgess-Waldegg & Scrivener (1998). In measuring the appropriateness of an international
interface, the authors consider that if 98% of these users understand that interface representations
and their meanings, then these representations are deemed appropriate for them. However, they
also stated that if 87% of the users do not understand these representations and their meanings,
then the interface could be inappropriate for them. Since these percentages are arbitrary and are
not based on a definite measure, they were not employed in this study. On the other hand,
Neilsen (1996) note that if 80% of users succeed in using an interface, then this interface is
appropriate for these users. Due to the variability in these percentages (from 80-98%), a new
measure was developed to assess the appropriateness of the ICDL interfaces to Arabic-speaking
children (Bilal & Bachir, 2006a). This measure is considered a middle ground between what
Neilsen (1996) and Bourgess-Waldegg & Scrivener (1998) advocate as appropriate and
inappropriate. This measure is as follows:
If 95–100% of the children recognize and interpret the meaning of an icon (or any other design
representation) correctly, then the icon is judged as highly appropriate for this user group.
If 90–94% of the children recognize and interpret the meaning of an icon correctly, then the icon
is judged as moderately appropriate for this user group.
If 85–89% of the children understand and interpret the meaning of an icon correctly, then the
icon is judged as appropriate (or average) for this user group.
If 84% or below of the children understand and interpret the meaning of an icon correctly or
incorrectly, then the icon is judged as inappropriate for this user group (Bilal & Bachir, 2006a).
Findings
This study assessed the usability of the ICDL interfaces to Arabic-speaking children. The
guiding research question was: How appropriate is the ICDL interface design to Arabic-speaking
children as a culturally diverse group? Children were asked to identify the ICDL representations
and their meanings from its interfaces. The findings revealed differences between younger and
older children’s understanding of the representations and their meanings.
Assessment of the ICDL default interface
The default interface offers these search and browse options: Simple, Advanced, Location, and
Keyword searching. Children were asked to identify each of these options and describe their
meanings. The Keyword search option was found as highly appropriate for older children but
inappropriate for younger ones (rating = 100% vs. rating = 0, respectively).
As to the other options (Simple, Advanced, and Location), none of the children recognized them,
although each option was also represented by an icon appearing next to it. These representations
were judged as inappropriate for the children (rating = 0). Although ‘‘language’’ could have
been a barrier to the children’s understanding of the meaning of these representations (only few
children possessed basic English language skills), the icons that represent them should have
facilitated their understanding.
4
Assessment of the ICDL Simple interface
The Simple interface included four navigational icons that are located on the left side of the
ICDL top navigation bar: Home (to return to main screen), a question mark (to seek help), a back
arrow (to return to a previous screen), and a trash can (to start over). Older children identified
three of these icons correctly and recognized their meanings and, therefore, the representations of
these icons were judged as highly appropriate for this group (rating = 100%). As to the ‘‘trash
can’’ icon, older children interpreted its meaning as deleting files which is, indeed, based on its
universal meaning (Marcus, 1996), whereas the intended meaning was “to start over.”
The Simple interface also embedded twenty additional icons for searching books by theme (8
icons), size (3 icons), age (3 icons), and color (6 icons). Older children recognized these icons
and understood their meanings, but younger children did not (rating = 100% vs. rating = 0,
respectively). Overall, younger children had difficulty understanding all the representations
including the visual ones.
Discussion and conclusion
This study revealed that the most of the ICDL representations were more supportive of older
than younger children’s understanding. The fact that younger children did not recognize any of
textual or visual representations and their meanings may be attributed to lack of experience in
using the Internet and GUI-based systems such as the ICDL, combined with absence of basic
English language skills. Younger children’s difficulty in using the ICDL, in general, was also
found in a study by Druin & Reuter (2004). System designers should develop interfaces that are
geared towards younger children’s cognitive developmental ability, level of understanding of
GUI-supported interfaces, and information seeking.
Although older children were more successful than younger ones, they did not recognize the
three textual and iconic options (Simple, Advanced, Location) from the default interface.
System designers should consider improving the design of these options to make them more
meaningful to children. Designing more adequate visual representations of search and browse
options may facilitate all children’s interaction with the ICDL, including those whose English
language is skills are minimal or lacking.
Due to voluntary participation in this study, only ten children were included. Despite this small
number, the findings establish a strong basis for further research with a larger sample of children
of various cultures. The additional results that were revealed in the two-part study on which this
paper is partially based (Bilal & Bachir, 2006a; Bilal & Bachir, 2006b) assessed the usability of
the ICDL navigation controls, provided insights into Arabic-speaking children’s navigational
behaviors, information seeking and needs, as well as their affective experience. In addition,
children’s recommendations for system design improvements could be helpful to system
designers who are interested in developing meaningful interfaces to meet these children’s
information needs.
The measure by which Arabic-speaking children’s understanding of the ICDL system design
representations and their meanings was effective and its use in future research is recommended
to establish its validity with larger groups of culturally diverse children.
5
Recently, versions of the ICDL have become available in over six languages. Children’s
interaction with the ICDL interfaces in their native languages is a fruitful area of research to
undertake.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by a research grant from the University of Tennessee Faculty
Development Research Awards.
References
Bilal, D., & Bachir, I. (2006a). Children’s interaction with cross-cultural and multilingual digital
libraries. I. Understanding interface design representations. Information Processing &
Management, 43 (1). Forthcoming.
Bilal, D., & Bachir, I. (2006b). Children’s interaction with cross-cultural and multilingual digital
libraries. II. Information seeking, success, and affective experience. Information Processing &
Management, 43 (1). Forthcoming.
Bourgess-Waldegg, P., & Scrivener, S.A.R. (1998). Meaning, the central issue in cross-cultural
HCI design. Interacting with Computers, 9, 287-309.
Callahan, E. (2005). Interface design and culture. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 39, 257-310.
Del Galdo, E.M. (1996). Culture and Design, in Elisa M. Del Galdo and Jakob Neilsen (eds.),
International User Interfaces. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 74-87.
Druin, A. (2005). What children can teach us: Developing digital libraries for children with
children? Library Quarterly, 75, 20-41.
Fernandes, T. (1995). Global Interface Design. London: Academic Press.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Hutchinson, H.B., Bederson, B.B., & Druin, A. (2005). Interface design for children’s searching
and browsing. Available: [http://hcil.cs.umd.edu/trs/2005-24/2005-24.html]. Accessed on
9/9/2006.
Marcus, A. (1996). Icon and symbol design issues for graphical user interfaces. In Alisa M. Del
Galdo and Jakob Neilsen (eds.), International User Interfaces. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
pp. 257-270.
Neilsen, J. (1996). International usability engineering. In Del Galdo, E., & Neilsen, J. (eds.),
International User Interfaces. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-9.
6
Reuter, K., & Druin, A. (2004). Bringing together children and books: An initial descriptive
study of children’s book searching and selection behavior in a digital library. Proceedings of the
67th ASIST Annual Meeting. November 13-17, Providence, RI, (pp. 339-348).
Smith, A., et al. (2004). A process model for developing usable cross-cultural websites.
Interacting with Computers, 16, 63-91.
7