Huijuan Wu
Anthony Norcio
A. Ant Ozok
Department of Information Systems, UMBC
1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD, 21250
Mobile phone market has become a global scale and the products are distributed all over the world under various cultural context. The user interface in mobile phones unavoidably faces cultural difference, which requires the interface to suite to each cultural trait. Many studies have established in cross-cultural user interface design and some researchers focus on user interface of mobile phones. This article discusses culture impact on user interface design, approaches to cultural issues in user interface design and cross-cultural mobile phone interface design.
Keywords: user interface design, culture, mobile phone
In an increasingly global marketplace, Human Computer Interaction (HCI) practitioners are faced with the challenge of offering usable products and services to a high variety of users (Khaslavsky 1998). Numerous factors may contribute to differences in these user’s requirements, including tangible factors, such as language and infrastructure, and cultural factors (Ford 2003). Many studies have been done on these cross-cultural issues in user
1

interface design, especially in website design and desktop PCs. And the research methodology has been established to some extent.
Mobile phone as one of the most distributed and daily used devices, has been said that it has become an integral part of human everyday life (Lindholm et al. 2003). Mobile phones are being used without any training in every place and every situation, even on the move. This makes it essential that mobile phone interface be built to be intuitive and usable to users from different cultural backgrounds. Cultural issues influence the adoption, acceptance, usage of mobile phones.
In this article, culture impact on user interface design, approaches to cultural issues in user interface design and cross-cultural mobile phone interface design are discussed.
Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes a group of people from others (Hofstede 1991). People from different cultures are different in their perceptions, cognition, thinking styles and values. Culture binds itself not only to the visible aspects of a group, but also to a wider range of intangible aspects that includes thoughts, values, and behavior (Choi 2005). Marcus (2002) argues that in a global business, difference may reflect worldwide cultures and “the impact of culture on the understanding and use of technologies should be taken into account”.
Amongst well-known models of culture, especially, in cross-cultural research into technologies, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions appear frequently. During 1978-83, the
2

cultural anthropologist Geert Hofstede conducted detailed interviews with hundreds of
IBM employees in 50 countries. Through standard statistical analysis of fairly large data set, he was able to determine patterns of similarities and differences among the replies.
He formulated his theory of five fundamental dimensions of all world cultures, which are power-distance, collectivism vs. individualism, femininity vs. masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term vs. short-term orientation (Marcus 2001, 2003). Although he recognizes his western bias toward research on culture it seems to be difficult to say that his five dimensions equally represents the aspects of culture from all of 50 countries (Cha
2005). Such cultural variables are known to be helpful to understand cultural difference.
For example, westerners have tendency to think in analytic, abstract, imaginative and linear ways. But the thinking style of Easterners is synthetic, concrete, relying on periphery and parallel (Rau 2004). Culture also has a strong effect on what users look for in a system’s interface and how they interpret such interface. The elements of a user interface appropriate for one culture may not be appropriate for another (Hiltunen 2002).
Some concepts stemming from the culture impact on the user interface design involve globalization, internationalization, localization (Marcus 2003), glocalization (Friedman
2000), culturalization, etc. Khaslavsky (1998) claimed that conceptual localization that snugly fits a user’s culturally specific mental model of the software with its functionality, feedback and support for learning is much more effective way to design software for international use. Marcus and Gould (2000) applied the intangible cultural dimensions suggested by Hofstede to website design, finding that cultural elements are embedded in user interface as a set of contextual and social cues that facilitate use. They also
3

suggested that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be mapped to specific user interface components such as metaphors, mental models, navigation, interaction, and appearance.
This mapping procedure allowed them to suggest guidelines for website user-interface design that were based on the cultural dimensions laid out by Hofstede.
Honold (2000) defined culture for the purposes of human–computer interaction as distinct from members of other groupings. Culture creates an orientation system and a field of action for these members. Culture manifests itself in cultural models. Cultural models may differ in their scope and therefore in their significance to a culture. Cultural models are acquired through interaction with the environment. Culture does not determine the behavior of individuals but it does point to probable modes of perception, thought, and action.
Given the impact that culture has on people’s behavior, truly intuitive international software should reflect the cultural orientation of its users and not just be a translation of an American interface.
Human-computer interaction researchers have established many methods to apply in the user interface design, in cluding qualitative methods and quantitative methods.
Qualitative research aims to achieve an in-depth understanding of a situation. Related techniques include: interviews, thinking aloud, observation, focus groups, case studies, contextual inquiry etc. During analysis, the qualitative researcher uses content analysis of written or recorded materials drawn from personal expressions by participants, behavioral
4

observations, and debriefing of observers, as well as the study of artifacts and trace evidence from the physical environment.
Quantitative research, on the other hand, attempts precise measurement of something. It usually measure user behavior, knowledge, opinions or attitudes. Such methodologies answer questions related to how much, how often, how many, when and who.
Questionnaire survey and user test are considered as a dominant techniques in user interface design, especially for the evaluation purposes.
These techniques are integrated into different design models, which address cultural issues in the user interface design including Meaning in Mediated Action, Culturability,
Cultural User Interface, Culture-Centered design, etc.
MMA approach (Bourges-Waldgg, Scrivener 1998) is to determine contexts shared by the members of a culturally heterogeneous user group which can be used as a base to design representations (Figure 2.1). It employs both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment of representations, focusing on the user’s understanding of intended meaning.
The meanings are rooted in culturally specific contexts. It can be carried out in four basic steps: observation, evaluation, analysis and design. The main tools used in these stages are rapid prototyping and structured interviews.
5

Figure 2.1 The MMA stages
The term ‘culturability’ was suggested by Barber and Badre (1998) by combining the words culture and usability. They developed a systematic usability method by inspecting hundreds of Web sites to identify specific culture and genre design elements by using
‘cultural markers’ such as religion, language, customs, color, metaphors, icons and flags to facilitate user performance. The result shows that patterns are emerging that reflect cultural practices and preferences in Web sites, influenced both by country of origin and genre.
Yeo (1996) proposed a strategy to solve usability problems by localizing the software through a CUI for each of the target cultures. A CUI is a user interface that is intuitive to a particular culture, aiming to take advantage of the shared or common knowledge of a target culture that could be defined by country boundaries, language, cultural conventions, race, shared activities or workplace. The processes of CUI include: identify all the elements (which include all the overt and covert elements of the user interface) that need to be localized to a particular culture; identify the target culture and the level of breakdown of cultures, which determines where to set the cultural boundaries, for example at a national level or language level; select the target culture experts to work with user interface designers and decide what sort of elements will go into CUI; conduct usability tests to the CUIs, evaluated and modified until the target culture is satisfied with the CUI.
6

Culture-centered design was introduced by (Shen, Woolley, Prior 2006), which needed to address a series of issues including the conveyance of cultural identity, language, visual communication, and research on target user group related to cognition and usability
(Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 The simplified Culture-Centered Design Process
The CCD model consists of two parallel planes projecting towards an interface (Figure
2.3). The CCD cultural filter consists of the designer’s filter
and the end user’s filter
.
The upper filter plane represents the designer, who approaches the design of the interface on the basis of personal experience, knowledge and ideas derived from a particular sociocultural background. All this is projected on to the interface design through the designer’s own cultural filter. On the first level of the filter, the role of the designer is to select the target group, collect relevant cultural data, and check the available technical requirements such as usability and evaluation tools. On the second level of the filter, the designers
7

create a ‘fact book’ of their target culture including language, logical thinking patterns and social taboo issues, for building up an appropriate interface for the target users. The lower plane represents end users who would observe the product interface through their own cultural filter. On the first level of the filter, the users understand an interface through a cultural filter. Theoretically, it is possible that elements within the design of an interface would be noticed by users of one culture and remains unnoticed by users of another, because of different forms of awareness and perceptions.
Figure 2.3 Graphical representation of the Cultural Filter
Researchers have established empirical and practice-based studies with in the field of culture and user interface design. However, most of the studies on the cultural issues and the user interface design are focused on Website or desktop PC. Mobile phone as another world wide distributed product and service has not been given thorough investigation concerning culture issues.
8

Interest in the influence of culture on mobile phone user interface design has been growing as the world market is globalized. However, mobile products and services have been localized at the superficial level through checking text, number, date/time format, images, symbol and functionalities without reflecting any unconscious cultural effects.
Based on the cultural theories, it is important to thoroughly understand different cultural traits in designing interfaces for international mobile users, since mobile product has been already prevalent in our day to day lives. Nokia reports that Eastern cultures display different consumer preferences from Western ones (Lindholm, 2003).
Issac, Nickerson, and Tarasewich (2004) studied cell phone usage in social settings in two developed countries, United States and France. Their research focused on the cell phones used in social settings, the perception of the acceptable use of mobile phones in social settings. Their survey indicated significant differences between users in United
States and France when it came to using phones in public streets or while driving an automobile. French users had a significantly negative view of using mobile phones while driving, this may be attributed to the fact that it is illegal in France to drive and talk on a phone simultaneously. The researchers explained that, some of the differences may be attributed to cultural and legal differences between these countries, other factors such as age or the length of time that someone has used a cell phone may be important.
9

Like Russia and Bulgaria, China has also undergone profound political and economic changes in the late 20th century that have fostered mobile phone adoption and use (Yu and Tng, 2003). Increased privatization of the marketplace has given rise to an increase in personal space and personal choice. In addition, the Chinese have a tradition of developing guanxiwang or personal networks. In the past the Chinese have relied on these networks to secure goods and protection. In the new market economy, personal networks help the Chinese navigate social and economic changes. Fueled by privatization and the building of guanxiwang, ‘The mobile phone as an artifact of daily living has taken on a set of connotations that are specific to the larger socioeconomic processes occurring in China’ (Yu and Tng, 2003: 192)
In a comparison of Western European countries, Fortunati (2002) found significant differences in the degree to which the mobile phone was viewed as means for facilitating social relationships. Italians reported the highest scores for this attitude, followed by the
French, the British, the Spanish, and the Germans respectively. Fortunati also reported that, compared to other Western European countries, Italians, along with the French, tended to adopt the mobile phone more for personal reasons rather than work-related reasons.
In a comparison of a sample of Chinese and American mobile phone users, Caporael and
Xie (2003) found that Chinese participants regarded mobile phone calls from employers as acceptable during non-work hours. In contrast, the Americans found work-related calls during these times to be largely unacceptable and tended to screen these calls.
Additionally, the Chinese participants tended to turn their mobile phones off only during sleep, while the Americans turned theirs off at various times, such as while not calling
10

out or while charging the batteries. Caporael and Xie (2003) also reported cultural similarities. Most notably, both the Chinese and the American participants silenced their mobile phones in certain public settings, such as theaters, concert halls, churches, and some meetings.
In a cross-cultural comparison of perceptions of various portable technologies, Katz,
Aakhus, Kim and Turner (2003) found that Koreans viewed the mobile phone as more expensive, more stylish, and more of a necessity than did participants from the United
States. However, like Mante (2002), Katz et al. were more impressed by the similarities than differences in their comparison. Overall, attitudes toward mobile phone characteristics tended to cluster for participants from Korea, the United States, Namibia, and Norway. According to Katz et al. (2003), these findings may indicate an international mobile phone culture and/or universals or near-universals in the perceived role of communication in our lives.
Using focus groups, surveys, and usability testing, Honold (1999) found that while
German cellular phone users prioritized clearly-written and comprehensive user manuals,
Chinese cellular phone users cared more about the quality of pictorial information.
Nokia conducted a research in Indian to investigate the certain cultural end-user needs
(Lindholm, 2003). They tried to explore culture-specific factors, which could potentially affect user interface design. The study consisted of three phases: analysis of background information, an interview study in New Delhi, and, as the primary objective, user observations in Mombai. They explored the users’ physical, social, and cultural
11

environments and how they are affected by other users’ activities, roles, and values. The research result shows many culture rooted design issues. For example, The Indian families have a joint experience of mobile phone usage rather than strong individual opinions, so that mobile communication tools are shared between friends and family members. Typical users in the Indian mobile phone environment are upper-middle class and wealthy males. Possession of a mobile phone is significantly related to higher education, English speaking, and the use of high technology. Indian cities are very noisy.
Traffic, chatter, yelling, hawking and car horns make the environment difficult for phone usage. People shout into the phone, cover their other ear with their free hand to block out noise, and cover the space between the mouth and the phone to protect the microphone from background noise. Hot weather, monsoons, humid conditions, dust and bright sunlight followed rapidly by dark and unlit spaces require the phone should be moisture- and dust-resistant, and the screen should be viewable in both very bright light and neardarkness. The study also shows the cultural need to integrate the function of adding Hindi greetings or religious symbols to a message. This adds a great deal of emotional value to short message service. The scalability and variability of the whole product to suit different cultures is a basic requirement for cultural adjustment (Konkka 2000).
Kim (2005) investigated the ways cultural differences might affect mobile phone performance of users with different cultural background, and to develop ways to design appropriate interfaces to accommodate cultural difference. They based on four phases of interaction between users and system in terms of user’s cognitive activity, which includes perception, navigation, execution and confirmation (Figure 3.1).
12

Figure 3.1 Related UI elements in each interaction phase
Five UI elements were identified to form the cultural difference hypothesis, including
‘Icon style’, ‘Highlight’, ‘Feedback abundance’, ‘Menu structure (depth)’ and
‘Description manner’. Menu icons which are used in current mobile phones in Korea and
America were gathered and classified depending on their metaphor and how well they present the icon referents. They were grouped into three types: abstract, semi-concrete and concrete (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 The three sets of mobile phone menu icons
13

For a pilot study, 20 subjects (10 subjects each from America and Korea) participated in the icon recognition test. The test parameters were task completion time, recognition rate, preference. The results show that Korean subjects performed significantly better in the set of concrete icons while American counterparts showed quite the opposite tendencies
(Figure 3.3). No significant differences in preference according to icon style were found.
The results suggest a possibility of cultural impact on icon recognition according to the level of abstraction.
Figure 3.3 Icon preference of each group (Left – Korean, right - American)
Mobile phone market has widened to a global scale and consequently distributed throughout the world. The user interface in mobile phones inevitably confronts cultural difference. However, many studies on cultural issues in user interface design are focused on website design and desktop PC. There have been some studies on cross-cultural user interface design for mobile phone, which illustrate mobile phone usage and interface
14

design to some extent. There is still large research space in the field of cross-cultural mobile phone user interface design. Future research may concern user patterns, research methodology, development process, metaphor design, ways of interaction, etc. under different cultural context.
15

1.
Barber, W., and Badre, A. "Culturability: the merging of culture and usability.,"
Proceedings of the fourth Human Factors and the Web Conference, 1998.
2.
Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-centered systems Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1998.
3.
Blom, J., Chipchase, J., and Lehikoinen, J. "Contextual and cultural challenges for user mobility research," Communications of the ACM (48:7) 2005, pp 37 - 41
4.
Bourges-Waldegg*, P., and Scrivener, S.A.R. "Meaning, the central issue in crosscultural HCI design," Interacting with Computers (9) 1998, pp 287-309.
5.
Caporael, L.R., and Xie, B. "Breaking Time and Place: Mobile Technologies and
Reconstituted Identities," in: Machines that Become Us: The Social Context of
Communication Technology, J. Katz (ed.), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
NJ, 2003, pp. 219-232.
6.
Cha, H., Oshlyansky, L., and Cairns, P. "Mobile Phone Preferences and Values: The
U.K. vs. Korea," IWIPS '05 Int. Workshop on Internationalisation of Products &
Systems, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2005.
7.
Choi, B., Lee, I., and Kim, J. "A qualitative cross-national study of cultural influences on mobile data service design," Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems ACM Press, Portland, Oregon, USA 2005, pp. 661 -
670
16

8.
Ford, D.P., Connelly, C.E., and Meister, D.B. "Information systems research and
Hofstede's culture's consequences: an uneasy and incomplete partnership," IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management (50:1) 2003, pp 8-25.
9.
Fortunati, L. "The mobile phone: Towards new categories and social relations,"
Information, Communication & Society (5:4) 2002, pp 513-528.
10.
Friedman, T.L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization Anchor
Books, New York, 2000.
11.
Hiltunen, M., Laukka, M., and Luomala, J. Professional Mobile User Experience IT
Press, Edita, Finland, 2002.
12.
Hofstede, G. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1980.
13.
Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Miind McGraw-Hill
International Limited, New York, 1991.
14.
Honold, P. "Learning How to Use a Cellular Phone: Comparison Between German and Chinese Users," Technical Communication (46:2) 1999, pp 196-205.
15.
Honold, P. "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) 2000, pp 327–345.
16.
Issac, H., Nickerson, R., and Tarasewich, P. "Cell Phone Use in Social Settings:
Preliminary Results from a Study in the United States and France," Proceedings of the DSI 2004 Annual Meeting., 2004, pp. 4791-4796.
17

17.
Katz, J.E., Aakhus, M.A., Kim, H.D., and Turner, M. "Cross-cultural Comparison of
ICTs," in: Mediating the Human Body: Technology, Communication, and Fashion,
J.K.a.R.R. L. Fortunati (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2003, pp. 75-86.
18.
Khaslavsky, J. "Integrating culture into interface design," CHI 98 conference summary on Human factors in computing systems ACM Press, Los Angeles,
California, United States 1998, pp. 365 - 366.
19.
Kim, J.H., and Lee, K.P. "Cultural difference and mobile phone interface design: icon recognition according to level of abstraction," Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices & services ACM
Press, Salzburg, Austria 2005, pp. 307 - 310
20.
Konkka, K., and Koppinen, A. "Mobile Devices-Exploring Cultural Differences in
Spearating Professional and Personal Time," Proceedings of IWIPS, Baltimore, MD,
USA, 2000.
21.
Lindholm, C., Keinonen, T., and Kiljander, H. Mobile Usability: How NOKIA
Changed the Face of the Mobile Phone McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.
22.
Manzini, E., and Susani, M. The Solid Side V + K Publishing, Philips Corporate
Design, 1995.
23.
Marcus, A. "Cross-cultural user-interface design for work, home, play, and on the way," Proceedings of the 19th annual international conference on Computer documentation ACM Press, Sante Fe, New Mexico, USA 2001, pp. 221-222.
18

24.
Marcus, A. "Mapping User-Interface Design to Cultual Dimension," Telematics &
The Mobile Interface, CHI 2002 Workshop and a paper prepared for Advanced
Visual Interfaces, 2002.
25.
Marcus, A. "Global and intercultural user-interface design," in: The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications
J.A. Jacko and A. Sears (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah,
New Jersy, 2003, pp. 441-461.
26.
Marcus, A., and Gould, E.w. "Crosscurrents: Cultual Dimensions and Global Web
User-Interface Design," Interactions (7:4) 2000, pp 32-46.
27.
Rau, P.-L.P., Choong, Y.-Y., and Salvendy, G. "A Cross Cultural Study on
Knowledge Representation and Structure in Humman Computer Interfaces,"
International of Industrial Ergonomics (43:2) 2004, pp 117-129.
28.
Ruuska, S. "Mobile Communication Devices for International Use-Exploring Cultural
Diversity through Contextural Inquiry," Proceedings of IWIPS, USA, 1999.
29.
Shen, S.-T., Woolley, M., and Prior, S. "Towards culture-centered design,"
Interacting with Computers (18:4) 2006, pp 820-852.
30.
Weilenmann, A., and Larsson, C. "Local Use and Sharing of Mobile Phones,"
Wireless World: Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age., Springer-
Verlag New York, Inc., 2001, pp. 92-107.
31.
Yeo, A. "Cultural user interfaces: a silver lining in cultural diversity," ACM SIGCHI
Bulletin (28:3) 1996, pp 4-7.
19

32.
Yu, L., and Tng, T.H. "Culture and design for mobile phones for China.," in:
Machines That Become Us: The Social Context of Personal Communication
Technology, J.E. Katz (ed.), Transaction Publisher, New Brunswick, NJ, 2003, pp.
187-198.
20