Cultural Viewpoint Metaphors

  • Luciana Cardoso de Castro Salgado
  • Carla Faria Leitão
  • Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

More than ever before, today one of the challenges for interaction design is the development of systems aiming to attend to the needs and expectations of people with different cultural and social backgrounds. The most widely used perspective in cross-cultural design is internationalization-localization. The result of internationalization and localization is to conceal or neutralize cultural differences among different user communities and contexts of use. We are, however, interested in another situation: one where the design intent is virtually the opposite, to expose and explore cultural diversity. This chapter presents and discusses Cultural Viewpoint Metaphors, an epistemic tool to support the elaboration and evaluation of metacommunicative discourse about cultural diversity.

Keywords

Starch Lime Hunt Tapioca Metaphor 

References

  1. 1.
    Aykin, N. (2005). Usability and internationalization of information technology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber, W., & Badre, A. (1998, June 5). Culturability: The merging of culture and usability. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on human factors & the web. Basking Ridge: Online publication. Available at http://www.research.att.com/conf/hfweb/proceedings/barber/index.htm. Last visited in January, 2012.
  3. 3.
    de Souza, C. S. (2005). The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Souza, C. S., & Leitão, C. F. (2009). Semiotic engineering methods for scientific research in HCI. San Francisco: Morgan and Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Del Gado, E., & Nielsen, J. (1996). International user interfaces. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fernandes, T. (1995). Global interface design: A guide to designing international user interfaces. San Diego: Academic Press Professional.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hunt, B. C., Jr. (1976). Travel metaphors and the problem of knowledge. Modern Language Studies, 6(1), 44–47. Online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3194392. Last visited on February, 2012.
  8. 8.
    Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marcus, A. (2001). International and intercultural user interfaces. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), User interfaces for all: Concepts, methods, and tool (pp. 47–63). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nielsen, J. (1990). Usability testing of international interfaces. In J. Nielsen (Ed.), Designing user interfaces for international use. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russo, P., & Boor, S. (1993). How fluent is your interface?: designing for international users. In Proceedings of the INTERACT93 and CHI93 conference on human factors in computing systems, (CHI ‘93). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 342–347.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salgado, L. C. C., Souza, C. S., & Leitao, C. F. (2009). Conceptual Metaphors for Designing Multi-cultural Applications. In: Web Congress, 2009. LA-WEB ‘09. Latin American, vol., no., pp.105–111, 9–11 Nov. 2009. doi: 10.1109/LA-WEB.2009.17.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciana Cardoso de Castro Salgado
    • 1
  • Carla Faria Leitão
    • 1
  • Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Informatics Semiotic Engineering Research GroupPUC-RioRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations