Advertisement

Cultural Usability Tests – How Usability Tests Are Not the Same All over the World

  • Torkil Clemmensen
  • Qingxin Shi
  • Jyoti Kumar
  • Huiyang Li
  • Xianghong Sun
  • Pradeep Yammiyavar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4559)

Abstract

The cultural diversity of users of technology challenges our methods for usability evaluation. In this paper we report on a multi-site, cross-cultural grounded theory field study of think aloud testing in seven companies in three countries (Denmark, China and India). The theoretical model that emerges from the data suggests that the production of a usability problem list is multi-causal and subject to cultural variations. Even the way usability problems are experienced by test participants may be different. In the discussion we outline practical guidelines for a test that is more sensitive towards cultural usability.

Keywords

Usability test think aloud cultural usability field study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arcury, T.A, Quandt, S.A.: Participant Recruitment For Qualitative Research: A Site-Based Approach To Community Research In Complex Societies. Human Organization 58(2), 128–133 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnum, C.M.: Usability testing and research. Longman, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burawoy, M.: Global Etnography. California Press (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clemmensen, T., Plocher, T.: The Cultural Usability Project (CULTUSAB): Studies of Cultural Models in Psychological Usability Evaluation Methods, Invited contribution to a parallel session. In: HCI International, Beijing (July 25-27, 2007) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis. Verbal reports as data. Cambridge Massachusetts (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    German, T.P., Barrett, H.C.: Functional Fixedness in a Technologically Sparse Culture. Psychological Science 16(1), 1–5 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glaser, B.G.w.t.a.o.J.H.: Remodeling Grounded theory [80 paragraphs] Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social reseach [Online Journal] (March 4, 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Honold, P.: Cultural 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), 327–345 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.B., Als, B.S., Hoegh, R.T.: Is it worth the hassle? Exploring the added value of evaluating the usability of context-aware mobile systems in the field. In: Brewster, S., Dunlop, M.D. (eds.) MobileHCI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3160, pp. 61–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Law, E.L.-C., Hvanneberg, E.T.: Analysis of Combinatorial User Effects in International Usability Tests. In: CHI (Vienna, Austria 2004), pp. 9–16 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley & Sons, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rau, P.-L.P., Choong, Y.-Y., Salvendy, G.: A cross cultural study on knowledge representation and structure in human computer interfaces. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 34(2), 117 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trost, J.E.: Statistically nonrepresentative Stratified Sampling: A Sampling Technique for Qualitative Studies. Qualitative Sociology 9(1), 54–57 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torkil Clemmensen
    • 1
  • Qingxin Shi
    • 1
  • Jyoti Kumar
    • 2
  • Huiyang Li
    • 3
  • Xianghong Sun
    • 3
  • Pradeep Yammiyavar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Copenhagen Business SchoolDenmark
  2. 2.Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, AssamIndia
  3. 3.Inst. of psychology, Chinese Academy of Science, BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations