3

3.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CULTURE-ORIENTED HUMAN
MACHINE SYSTEMS:
SPECIFICATION, ANALYSIS AND
INTEGRATION OF RELEVANT
INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES
Kerstin Röse
ABSTRACT
This chapter is focused on the specification and integration of intercultural
variables for human machine systems and the description of content
analysis for these variables. Starting with basics of culture-oriented design,
these are followed by an approach to machine localization issues and a
cost model, then basics of the intercultural design and human machine
system engineering process, a definition and specification of intercultural
variables, a systematic treatment for their integration into the process,
and a description of how to use these variables in the process. Finally, an
example of an intercultural variables approach to “information coding” in
a human-machine system is presented for China and Germany.
Cultural Ergonomics
Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Volume 4, 61–103
Copyright © 2004 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3601/doi:10.1016/S1479-3601(03)04003-7
61
62 KERSTIN RÖSE
CULTURE AND GLOBALISATION

With the globalization process, there is a need for communication that goes
beyond the borders of countries and cultures. The global interaction between
different cultures involves sharing the values of all interaction partners and
sometimes, they define their own communication culture to interact (Honold,
2000). Bourges-Waldegg (2000) says: “. . . Design changes culture and at the
same time is shaped by it. In the same way, globalization is a social phenomenon
both influencing and influenced by design, and therefore, by culture . . ., both
globalization and technology have an effect on culture, and play a role in shaping
them.” It is therefore important to know more about the similarities and differences
in culture-influenced user philosophies, e.g. of European and Asian culture.
Some well-known and established theories in the field of cultural differences
have been introduced by Hall, Hofsteede, Victor and Trompenaars (see Hoft,
1995). Based on these theories, many studies have been conducted on various
special aspects of cultural differences, e.g. icon coding, recognition and usage,
and colour coding and usage (studies by Choong & Salvendy, 1998; Piamonte &
Ohlsson, 1999; Prabhu & Harel, 1999; Röse & Zühlke, 1999; Zühlke et al., 1998).
The results of the studies show that cultural influences need to be considered
above all in the area of information coding. The use of colors and pictorial
symbols are only examples of this.
The study results show that there are the following challenges for the future:
An increasing globalization requires a concrete consideration of other cultures.
The exploration of new markets is required in the area of ergonomic design
of human-machine-systems, also the consideration of culturally dependent user
habits.
Global markets are not automatically associated with global design. Often a local
design is necessary to obtain user-friendliness and to avoid operating mistakes at
an early stage. One could say that in times of globalization, user-oriented design
also means culture-oriented design (see also Fig. 2).
Are we fit for the challenges of the future? What do we know, and what do we
not know? How can we support culturally-oriented design in practice?
CULTURALLY-ORIENTED DESIGN
Culture as a User Variable
A useful way of thinking about product design is that it should be a message from
the designer to the user. The designer has to be able to convey to the user the
functionality of the system in a self-explanatory way.
The Development of Culture-Oriented Human Machine Systems 63
If we talk nowadays about user-oriented design, we must realize that in times

of globalization, culture-orientation is one essential component for successful
user friendliness and self-explanatory functions and design. Culture is both an
influence factor on user-interface design and also an element of user experiences.
Culture exercises an influencing factor on the user-interface design process. It
shows an effect on the designer and his theories, his thinking and working style,
and the design process itself; because each culture has its own style for product
development, and the design result is influenced from the culture-specific aim of
a development process (de Souza & Dejean, 2000).
In an age of globalization, culture orientation is one essential component for
successful user-centered design. Therefore, culture has the same importance as
other factors such as the user’s profession, choice of operating systems, learning
style and other elements. The following model of mono- vs. multi-cultural user,
based on Bourges-Waldegg and Scrivener (1998), is a good illustration (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1 shows the example of a mono-cultural user. A mono-cultural user stays
in his primary culture and has no experiences of other cultures. He is familiar
with a single culture and its special representational meanings. His interpretations
are based on representational forms known to him. If such a mono-cultural user
substitutes a representation form from his culture for a certain meaning, he may
not be able to find the correct interpretation. He is only familiar with one set
of meaning-representation-interpretations, where as a multi-cultural user knows
his primary culture experiences and other secondary cultures. He knows more
than one culture and their relevant representational meanings. He is able to find
an interpretation for the meaning which is based on more than one well-known
representation form. His interpretations are based on a number of different sets of
meaning-representation-interpretations.
Approach for Culture-Oriented Design
With the globalization process, there is need for communication that goes beyond
the borders of countries and cultures. The global interaction between different
cultures involves sharing the values of both interaction partners. The key problem
of intercultural design is how the designer can get his message across to the user
of another culture. This is not simply a question of language. The most important
fact is that the designer and the users of different cultures agree on the information
meaning and its interpretation. There must be a significant element of shared
meaning between the user and the developer. The importance of cultural differences
as opposed to just language factors is now widely recognized.
The area of culture-oriented design deals with the challenge of intercultural
aspects of product design. There are two established approaches for intercultural
64
Fig. 1. Mono vs. Multicultural User.
KERSTIN RÖSE
design: internationalization and localization. Internationalization describes a

basic structure with the consideration of future integration of culture-specific
requirements. This design concept takes into account some general culture-
specifics (format, language etc.) and is often designed for flexible switching
between user cultures. Localization focuses on one specific user culture. The
aim of this design concept is the best fitting product for a specific user culture.
In application areas like the aerospace industry and sometimes the car industry,
a third approach to intercultural design, global design (one for all), should be
required. But in areas of high individual user orientation, an international or local
design is necessary.
Another important aspect of culture-oriented design is cultural models. These
models are descriptive artifacts, which enable the separation of cultures, with
regard to specific cultural dimensions.
Culture Models and Their Application for User-Interface Design
To enable communication between individuals, certain rules have to be followed.

Interpersonal communication is based on cultural and social influences, and has
developed over millennia into many regional communication forms. In the same
way, human-computer(machine)-communication needs defined rules so that the
information displayed by the machine expresses the current state of the process in
an understandable way.
In previous research, we have classified user factors into the following
types:
objective factors e.g. gender, age, ethnic background, mother-tongue, these can
all be objectively identified for each user subject and used to categorize different
user groups,
subjective factors which cannot be directly measured or identified e.g. values,
beliefs and rituals that lead to patterns of behavior.
Some well-known and established theories in the field of cultural differences
have been introduced by Hofstede (1997), Trompenaars (1998) and Hall (1989).
All models organize human behavior into cultural dimensions. The dimensions
are called cultural factors and illustrate the dichotomies of user behavior. The
investigated human behavior (human-human-interaction) of each study decided
the cultural factor.
Geert Hofstede: determining patterns that form a culture’s mental program-
ming. Hofstede’s cultural factors: Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance,
Masculinity/Feminity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-Term/Short-Term.
66 KERSTIN RÖSE
Fons Trompenaars: determining the way in which a group of people solves

problems. Trompenaars’ cultural factors: Universalism/Particularism, Individual-
ism/Collectivism, Neutral/Emotional, Specific/Diffuse, Achievement/Ascription.
Edward T. Hall: determining the right response rather than sending the right
message. Hall’s cultural factors: Context – High/Low, Message – Fast/Slow, Time
– Polychronic/Monochronic, Information flow.
All factors describe behaviors of members of a specific culture. The cultures
are assignable between the poles of each dichotomy, the intensity that is shown
depending on behavior in this culture.
The study of Hofstede is unique in its dimensions. He has evaluated 116.000
questionnaires of IBM-employees in 50 countries and more than 20 languages.
The results of a factor analysis for 32 presented statements show five dimensions:
individuality, power distance, gender, uncertainty avoidance and time orientation.
Results of the evaluation can be found in Hofstede (1997) “Culture and Orga-
nization.” His study is used very frequently to interpret cultural differences of
interpersonal and personal-technical communication.
The application of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to user interfaces is not
simple. At first, a description of user interface features is needed as a descrip-
tive artifact to separate between the features. These interface factors, called
“characteristic user interface factors” are shown in Table 1.
These five factors are the essential descriptive features for a user interface. The
combination of Marcus’ characteristic factors and Hofstede’s culture dimensions
makes a new kind of cultural description for user interfaces possible (comp.
Marcus, 2001a). The result of the combination is called: cultural user interface
factors. These factors are the focus of the following section.
Based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions the following cultural user interface
(UI) factors are known: cultural UI-factor “Power distance,” cultural UI-factor
“Individuality,” cultural UI-factor “Gender,” cultural UI-factor “Uncertainty
avoidance” and the cultural UI-factor “Time orientation.”
An example of the UI-factor “Individuality” is shown in Table 2.
The cultural user interface factor is oriented on Hofstede’s dimension with the
two poles “individualism” and “collectivism.” In an individualistic culture, the
Table 1. Characteristic UI Factors (Marcus, 2001).

Metaphor Basic concepts of words, pictures, sounds, etc.
Mental model Organization of data, functions, tasks and rules
Navigation Movements trough the system, dialogs, buttons and the linking
Interaction Feedback, input-/output-technique
Presentation Visual, verbal, acoustic and tactile information presentation
Table 2. Cultural UI-Factor “Individuality.”

Individualism Collectivism
Metaphor Action-oriented Relationship-oriented

Mental Model Task- and product-oriented Rule-oriented
Navigation Rule-independent path Rule-dependent path
Individualistic path Group-specific path
Arbitrary choices Limited choices
Interaction Multiple devices Official devices
Keyword search Restricted choices
User-specific adaptability Role-specific adaptability
Presentation Figures of products and people Figures of groups and organizations
Low context-orientation High context-orientation
Countries France, Germany, USA, Italy, Costa Rica, Korea, Mexico, Malaysia,
Israel, Finland Brazil, Japan
individuality of a person is the most important and promotable skill. The society
is promoting the definition of a person as individual. In a collectivistic culture,
the status of a person, based on his group membership, is very important. The
rule definition within a group is the basis for the incorporation of a person into
the society.
Most activities of culture-oriented design are recorded in the area of web
design. Therefore Web Pages as seen in Fig. 2 are shown as an example. Both are
from the company Siemens. On the left side is an example for an individualistic
culture: task-oriented, Keyword-search, multiple choices for navigation and
action-oriented design. This page supports the individualized usage. The right
side of Fig. 2 shows the other way of design, an example for a collectivistic
culture like Malaysia. It shows a high context-orientation, rule-orientation and
restricted choices. This design offers the same manner of usage for each visitor to
this page.
Both examples for USA and Malaysia show only some features of the cultural
user interface factor “Individuality.” There is a wide range of possibilities between
the poles “individualism” and “collectivism.” Each culture fits between these
poles, but it also means that these cultures are not 100% “individualistic” or
“collectivistic.” The assignment of a culture to one pole is only an orientation
for the designer. It does not replace the empirical analysis of the specific culture-
dependent user requirement in the focused market for the designer.
The cultural user interface factors are a good help to describe cultural
differences for user interfaces. With that, an artifact for the description of
culturally-based differences in the area of user-interface is found. Therefore,
68
Fig. 2. Individualistic Culture, USA (Left); Collectivistic Culture, Malaysia (Right).
KERSTIN RÖSE
these factors are a good element for description, explanation and interpretation
of cultural differences in user-interface design. But these factors do not contain
a design guideline on “how to design for a specific culture.”
Developers of culture-oriented products need more information and better
support. At the moment, each approach of user-oriented design shows that “user
requirements” are the key to successful and ergonomic design. That is also valid for
culture-oriented design. User requirements include the analysis of user preferences
for specific tasks, products and cultures. Resulting from this, a culture-oriented
design is not possible without the empirical analysis of the user requirements in
each culture, and the product to be developed for the respective markets.
Culture models and factors are only an instrument for interpretation of empirical
results. It does not seem possible to create a model with a data bank of all culture
specifics for all tasks. With this in mind, it is useful to develop cultural models
and factors to promote the understanding of cultural differences, but they will
never be a complete substitute for empirical user analysis.
DESIGN ISSUES AND AN APPROACH

FOR CULTURE-SPECIFIC DESIGN
User-centered design issues for product localization have by now been directed
to the design issues within user interfaces. In the computer software industry, the
need for localization of these issues for the target market has been widely rec-
ognized. Many recent software products have already incorporated the localized
design features for their user interfaces. The much-concerned culture-specific
design issues within user interfaces have been listed by del Galdo (1990), and
Fernandes (1995), which include color, icon, symbol, date format, time format,
number format, language translation, etc. Other design issues such as menu
direction, interface structure, information flow, etc. are addressed by some other
recent researches (Choong, 1996; Dong & Salvendy, 1999).
In the area of the production automation industry, the localization of machine
user interfaces for the target market is much slower than in the computer software
industry. In the case of machine exporting to Asian countries, many Western com-
panies have only dealt with basic considerations of user interfaces (e.g. translation
for the target market). Other user-interface design issues such as the information-
presentation options and physical design of interface components, etc. have been
usually neglected. Often, the user-interface design standards for Western countries
are simply applied to the machines which are actually going to be used by
other user groups with quite different cultural characteristics. This will probably
result in many problems in human-machine interactions or even cause serious
70 KERSTIN RÖSE
Table 3. Design Issues for Machine Localization.

Design Issues Within User Interfaces Design Issues Beyond User Interfaces
Interaction concept Machine functionality

Menu structure Appropriate technology
Navigation, dialogue form Service model
Information coding Technical documentation
Help and diagnosis General machine design
Language
industrial accidents. However, as the competition in the target market increases,

many Western companies have now recognized the importance of localized
machine user-interface design to their business success in the market, and more
and more culture-specific user-interface design issues are being addressed in the
design process.
Furthermore, considering the actual requirements of machine localization in
the foreign market, many design issues which are “beyond” user interfaces but
are actually closely related to the user’s interaction with machines should be well
addressed in the design process. These issues include: machine functionality,
appropriate technology, service models, and some general machine design
issues, etc. In some Asian countries which have no high industrial development,
these functional design issues are often very important for the user. The main
culture-specific design issues for machine localization in the foreign markets are
summarized in Table 3.
Obviously, cultural requirements should be well addressed in machine local-
ization for the target market. There are still questions in practice about how the
designers could find out these requirements based on the analysis of the target
culture and then create a basis for the localized design. A good understanding of
culture could provide the designers with clues to answer their questions.
Culture can be defined as “learned behavior consisting of thoughts, feelings,
and actions” (Hoft, 1996). For the cultural studies, culture models have been
proposed to organize the cultural data with different international variables.
Hoft (1996) has reviewed some culture models which could help the designers
understand the features of culture and cultural variables. The meta-model from
Stewart and Bennett (1991) classifies culture into two layers: the objective culture
and the subjective culture, which correspond respectively to the visible portion of
a culture, such as its economic system, political structures, social customs, arts,
etc., and the psychological features of a culture, including assumptions, values,
and patterns of thinking. Other meta-models of culture also suggest that a large
portion of culture is “below the surface.”
For effective communications and interactions, the invisible portion of culture

is very important. Some tested culture models identify this unconscious portion
of culture and provide cultural information about the attitudes, behaviors,
problem-solving strategies, thinking patterns, etc. of the cultural groups with
some cultural variables (Hoft, 1996). (See the proceeding section.)
It is necessary to combine cultural variables and meta-models of culture to form
an approach of culture for application in culture-specific design practice. Consider-
ing the unique importance of the user’s requirements in the whole design process,
it is necessary to organize the existing cultural data into two distinct categories:
cultural mentalities and cultural environments. The cultural mentalities refer to
those cultural facets that are “within” a cultural group’s thought and behavior,
and the cultural environments refer to those cultural facets that are “around” them
(Fig. 3). These two categories correspond well to subjective culture and objective
culture but are clearer for designers seeking to understand their contribution
to designs.
The cultural mentalities that are especially important for user-oriented
design issues are shown in Fig. 3. They are determined by the cultural envi-
ronments and, in turn, determine the designs. Some of these mentalities are
also addressed by Plocher et al. (1999) as “the culturally determined user
characteristics.”
Fig. 3. An Approach to Culture-Specific Machine Design.

72 KERSTIN RÖSE
MODEL OF USABILITY ENGINEERING

COSTS FOR LOCALIZATION
Machine Localization Issues
For the purpose of successful machine localization, those user-oriented design

issues that are affected by cultural conventions should be well-addressed. The
localization issues are distinguished into two groups: issues within user interfaces
and issues beyond user interfaces, which are shown in Table 3.
Machine Localization Costs
Machine localization will involve additional costs to analyze, design, and realize
localization-design features for the target market. These costs will then cause an
increase in the total machine-development costs. However, for different machine
localization issues and different kinds of machine developments, the localization
costs could be quite different. If the localization is well organized from the
beginning of the machine-development phase, the costs could be significantly
reduced. The developers should also recognize the benefit (high user satisfaction,
lower error rate) of machine localization when they design their product.
One aspect of machine-localization cases will largely influence the localiza-
tion costs, i.e. the invariability of the localization cases for different machine
application cases, e.g. different machine types releasing the same product, etc.
(Röse et al., 2001). The localization case with high invariability is “fixed,” which
means that the design features for the case could stay unchanged for different
machine-application cases. The typical fixed case is fixed format such as time,
date, etc. They only need to be changed once and then could stay the same for the
design process of other machine application cases that follow. The localization
case with low invariability is “variable,” which means that the design features for
the case might be quite different for different application cases (not fixed item,
all releases need adaptations). The developers should apply different features for
different application cases. One typical variable issue is language translation.
This factor has largely influenced the localization costs for different cases.
Fixed localization cases usually require lower total localization costs than those
of variable localization cases. (In accordance with this separation, LCfix is used
for fix localization costs, and LCvariable is used for variable localization costs.)
The design features for them are easily transferable and the requirements of the
target users regarding these cases are normally not difficult to elicit (typically as
standards and norms). The developers only need to spend once for the needed
localization results of these cases and then can apply them in different application
cases. In comparison, the variable localization cases always need extra expense
for the localization features in the new application case and their total localization
costs are higher. The localization costs (LC) for one machine application case are
composed of two localization cost parts:
LC = LCfix + LCvariable (1)
The fixed localization cost will not occur for the subsequent machine application
cases, so the total localization costs for the developers for their whole range of
machine application cases can be expressed as:
n

LCtotal = LCfix + LCvariable (i) (2)
i=1
Localization Efficiency for Different Localization Levels
According to the localization difficulty and cost, the implementation of different

machine localization cases may be distinguished as three localization levels. These
levels are: surface level, interaction level and function level, as shown in Fig. 4.
The surface and function level are described as levels with an uncovered cultural
context and the interaction level with a covered cultural context.
The covered cultural context is difficult to measure. Figure 5 shows an approach
to the measurability of cultural behavior. Design issues on an uncovered level are
easier to measure and to identify with user analyses. Therefore, they have lower
localization costs.
Fig. 4. Machine Localization Levels.

74 KERSTIN RÖSE
Fig. 5. Measurability of Cultural Issues.
In practical operation, when the developers decide on the most suitable localiza-
tion range for their actual machine-application cases, besides the above mentioned
factors for localization costs, the localization efficiency of different issues should
also be taken into consideration. The localization efficiency (relationship of
localization cost and localization benefits) could then be analyzed in comparison
with localization cost (see formulas) and localization benefits for each level.
The estimation of the localization efficiency for different localization levels
is shown in Fig. 6. The issues on the surface level are mainly related to the
Fig. 6. Estimation of Localization Efficiency.

superficial cultural conventions, so the localization costs are not very high. They
are closely related to the user’s correct understanding of the machines, so they
are very important. These issues have the highest localization efficiency. The
issues on the function level are the prerequisites for machine application, so they
are also very important. However, the adaptation of some functional issues to
user’s requirements may involve major changes of machine functionality and will
increase the localization cost substantially. Therefore, machine localization in this
level is usually implemented only when the functional features of the machine
are not applicable without the adaptations. The issues on the interaction level are
related mainly to the covered cultural conventions. The localization costs are very
high, so these issues can not yet ensure high localization efficiency at present.
Costs for Machine Internationalization
For machine producers who must face up to different international markets at

the same time, another aspect of machine localization issues should be taken into
consideration to effectively control all machine internationalization costs. This
aspect is the sameness of the issues for different markets. The same issue has
identical design features for a machine for different markets, but dissimilar issues
have different design features. The careful organization of different machine
Fig. 7. Characteristics of Localization Issues.

76
Fig. 8. Hierarchical Cost Structure.
KERSTIN RÖSE
localization cases according to their characteristics of “fixed” or “variable”

and “common” or “uncommon” could surely help the machine developers to
effectively control their total international user-interface design costs according to
their own product and market spectrum. The localization cases with their different
characteristics are illustrated in Fig. 7. These postulated coherences have a strong
impact on machine localization and cost efficiency.
The following derivation of a hierarchical cost-structure is based on the
previous descriptions. The cost-hierarchy is built up in three levels. The first is
the level of user-interface issues, the second is the level of culture issues, and the
third is the level of product issues. All together make up a hierarchical structure
for cost estimation for one company. Figure 8 shows the level.
The localization costs for a company are relatively high at the first level and
decrease by the third level. These structure models take into account one company,
with several user-cultures and several products. If you look at this model, it is easy
to understand why localization costs are not as high as expected. If the developer
of a product localizes the fix and flexible variables of a user interface for one
user culture, than he has done 70–80% of the localization work for the next
years. Why?
If a user interface is localized for a culture (A), than the developer must look for
the cultural difference between the culture (A) he designed for and the culture (B)
he expects. Localization for the user interface for culture B will follow. The local-
ization costs depend on the cultural difference between culture A and culture B.
An increasing number of cultures do not automatically mean an increase of costs.
If the cultures have only few differences (e.g. color coding), the effect of culture-
oriented design is really satisfying for the user with low costs for the company.
Usually, it is possible in one company to transfer the user philosophy from one
product to another. The products have different functions, but the culture-specific
user requirements are often the same. There are only differences in a special area
or with special functionalities. Therefore, it is very important to start really early
with localization, because localization is a long-term investment with high cost for
user interface design in the beginning and good effects and low costs over several
user cultures, products and years. The effect will be 100% user-satisfaction.
CULTURE AND THE USER INTERFACE (UI)

ENGINEERING PROCESS
To understand how the cultural factors of interaction influence the development
of user interfaces, it is necessary to take a look at the entire user interface and the
system it is based on. The complete user interface development process must be
examined and a look taken at the user interface as a whole.
78 KERSTIN RÖSE
Fig. 9. Management of UI Engineering.
User Interfaces: An Integral View
Based on the model of the management for complex socio-technical systems from
Rasmussen (2000), a model for the management of UI-design was created, see
Fig. 9. The model for UI design in Fig. 9 shows on the left side the basic model
components of a human-machine-interaction. Centered are the system levels:
Platform, Data base, Structure, Presentation and Interaction. This is the order for
the chronology of the developing process, which started with the decision for a
system platform and ended with the interaction design.
The developing process is a heterarchical process, which is based on a hierarchi-
cal structure (see Hacker, 2000). That is the reason for defining it as a chronology
for UI development. In this way, the results from the platform level are technical
and system restrictions. The result of the data base level is the knowledge base
of the system. Based on this, next is the structure level. Results from the structure
level are the plan for the UI (structure for navigation, general layout). The results
from the presentation level are design features (e.g. information classes, color
coding, visualization technique etc.). Finally, the result of the interaction level is
the action design (e.g. dialog-basics-elements). All levels are strongly influenced
by and dependent on each other. There is interaction between them, forward
Table 4. Culture-Environmental Stressors.

System Level Environmental Stressors Culture-Environmental Stressors
Platform Changing platform Differences of preference and prerequisite

Software update Culture-specific Software Version
New processor/technology Culture-specific environmental conditions
(climate, reliability of power supply)
Data base Different knowledge High variances of user knowledge in different
cultures
New data (format) Culture-dependent data format (if new
implication, than for each cultural
software-version)
User group User group has cultural-dependent variances
Changing user-/ Cultural-dependent differences of the
system structure user-/system structure must be taken into
account
Structure Different user tasks Cultural influences variances of user knowledge
Changing functionalities Integration of translation and explanation in all
culture-specific software-versions
Changing structure Culture-specific differences of the developer and
user model must be coordinated, culture-specific
structure must be evaluated
New user group/ Evaluation of the culture-specifics for user
application area group/application area
Presentation New visualisation Culture-specific preferences, prerequisites and
technologies taboos
Different in-/output devices Anthropometrical specifics, production and
working conditions
New environment Culture-specific working conditions/structure
and environment
Changing surface Culture-specifics for color and icon usage and
taboos
Interaction Changing user group Cultural-specifics of working structure (training
system) and user-knowledge
Changing interaction mode Cultural taboos (esp. Assistants & Avatare) and
preferences
Changing dialog elements Evaluation of publicity and usability for the
specific culture
and backward (shown in Fig. 9). The UI engineering process is really complex,
because there are a lot of environmental stressors which one must manage (in
Fig. 9 shown on the right side and Table 4). Some environmental stressors are
influencing only one level, others more than one. This model for the management
80 KERSTIN RÖSE
of the UI engineering process takes into account “environmental stressors”

(shown on the right side), which influence the UI management. These stressors
are described for each system level of the process. The UI Engineering Process
is influenced from the cultural context of the current developer and the former
user. Therefore, it is really interesting to focus on them. Culture influences the
whole UI engineering process. As a result, management of intercultural usability
engineering is necessary.
Culture is a context variable and also an “environmental stressor.” Based on
these points, Table 4 lists the “environmental stressors” for an Intercultural UI
management process.
Culture-environmental stressors are shown as an application of the UI man-
agement model in Table 4. This section focuses especially on the intercultural UI
Engineering process and its management, because most studies and papers in this
field only concentrate on one specific variable of cultural influences, e.g. color
or icon usage. Culture is a context variable of the user. Intercultural UI design
implements the integration and coordination of the user and his cultural context.
This is the only way to design user-oriented UI in a time of globalization.
To be successful, the influence of culture on the complete management of UI
engineering must be realized and converted into an Intercultural UI management
process. Therefore, models – like those shown in this paper – must be created
as a platform for guidelines which one can develop through integration of the
current study results. The following model for the Method of Culture-oriented
Design (MCD) was developed first for the area of production technology and
considers, in particular, the special problems of developers in this area. However,
an expansion for general applicability is the real aim. In the following, the reader
will find some aspects of this new approach.
MODEL FOR INTERCULTURAL DESIGN

OF HUMAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS
The Idea of MCD
To support developers of internationally usable human-machine systems, the idea

for the Method of Culture-oriented Design (MCD) was developed. The MCD
integrates the aspect of culture-oriented design (see Coronado, Day & Hall, 2002;
Day, del Galdo & Prabhu, 2000; Day & Dunckley, 2001; del Galdo & Nielsen,
1996; Hoft, 1995) and established user-oriented design theories (EN ISO 13407;
Johannsen, 1993; Preim, 1999; Shneiderman, 1998) into existing concepts for UI
design. This method should help developers with the draft of the human-machine
interface. To realize this, the MCD has to consider the existing developer methods
for drafts of human-machine systems. The MCD must be based on an integral

approach, i.e. the knowledge about cultural differences must be integrated into the
developer’s existing methods of human-machine system design. As a basis for this
procedure of MCD, the existing concepts by Schneider (1997) and Wahl (1999)
for ergonomic user interfaces in production technology are used. Combined with
an existing concept (module-based combination) for user-interface design, it will
inform the developer about the relevant information for culture-oriented design
at the very moment when he needs this information. Culture orientation is only
one component of ergonomic UI design. Therefore, a complete new method is
not useful.
In order to be able to carry out this procedure, those modules of the existing
concepts which are relevant for a culture-oriented design have to be determined.
The culture-oriented factors must be integrated into these modules, after redesign
or adoption with models of UI management (see Fig. 10).
A MCD matrix will give the overview for integration, which contains all
relevant influences for the design modules derived from culture-oriented factors.
Only the integral approach is able to support the developer’s work, by enabling
him to work with well-known methods. He does not have to learn any new
method, making it possible for the developer to acquire new knowledge (about
culture-oriented design) in an application-oriented way.
Fig. 10. Integrative Approach of the Culture-Oriented Design.

82 KERSTIN RÖSE
The integration of intercultural variables into a standard method of user-oriented

design should make it possible for the developer to create user- and culture-
oriented products. In this case, the “intercultural design of man-machine systems”
is possible and should be named intercultural user-interface design (integration
of user and cultural specifics). The following method of culture-oriented design
(abbreviated: MCD) is based on this integrative approach.
To develop the MCD, the following steps were needed:
Analyzing and evaluating the developers’ requirements.
Definition of intercultural variables and factors.
Definition of docking places to the “normal” developing process of Human-
Machine Systems.
Making a systematic to identify and integrate the qualities of intercultural
variables.
Definition of application steps for the integrative design.
The developers’ requirements in the application area of production automation

were analyzed with a questionnaire and documented. Some selected results:
89% think globalization is a challenge (less than 42% think the globalization
problem is solved);
44% would like to adapt an existing user system to foreign countries (internation-
alization), 11% think they must develop specific user interface for the specific
user culture (localization);
more than 52% think support for intercultural design by developing guidelines
would be helpful;
the information sources with a growing meaning in the future would be: internet,
information on CD and support systems.
Detailed information on the developers’ evaluations are published in Röse and
Zühlke (2001) and Röse, Zühlke and Liu (2003). The next step is the definition of
intercultural factors and variables. Intercultural factors from Marcus (2001) (see
Table 2) could also be used for the MCD. Intercultural variables have as yet to be
defined. The definition of intercultural variables is described in the following.
THE MAKING OF INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES

Intercultural Variables
Relevant variables for intercultural aspects are extracted from the standard vari-
ables of a human-machine-design approach (see Wahl, 1999). These procedures
Fig. 11. Intercultural Variables for Human-Machine-Systems.
were carried out in the context of human-machine systems. As a result, there are
particular variables which must be taken into account for an intercultural design:
the intercultural variables.
These intercultural variables are divided into: direct and indirect design
variables. According to the idea of an integral approach, the frame variables
should be also taken into account. Figure 11 shows all intercultural main variables.
These are three main groups of intercultural variables. First are the direct
variables, which have an impact on usability and acceptability of an interface
design. Second are the indirect variables, which have an impact on applicability
and feasibility of a human machine system. Third are the frame variables, which
have an impact on utilizability of a system. Each system is embedded into an
environment. Based on a context-oriented design approach, this environment
must be taken into account in product engineering, and these contextual frame
considerations of usage and production are drawn in the frame variables.
The direct intercultural variables have an immediate influence on the design
of human-machine interaction. They determine quite fundamentally the usability
and acceptance of the final product (in accordance with the DIN ISO 66234,
part 8). These direct intercultural variables are:
Information presentation: time format, date format, standard unities, standard
format of tables and diagrams
Information coding: colors, symbols, labeling (incl. abbreviations),
(acoustic) signals
Dialog design: menu structure, dialog form (basic elements of
interaction), approximate layout
84 KERSTIN RÖSE
Interaction design: system structure, navigation concept,

anthropometric specifics, specific interface qualities
Language: reading-/writing direction, text sorting and
multilingual labelling, report, indication, searching
algorithm
The indirect intercultural variables have a mediating influence on the design
of human-machine systems. They determine essentially the applicability of
the system and the feasibility of the work task, especially user orientation and
functional availability. Other influential aspects are customer orientation and
customer satisfaction. Sole consideration of the direct intercultural variables
does not guarantee these aspects; the technical components are also important.
Only the consideration of all intercultural design variables allows successful user
orientation and customer satisfaction. The indirect intercultural variables are:
General machine design: machine construction, hardware design (including
color composition), packing, product and company
name
Machine functionalities: size of the functions, offer or implementation of
added features (specific functionalities),
configurability
Technical documentation: kinds of documentation and their content, structure
and layout (also consists of graphical descriptions)
and the translation quality
Service: maintenance offers and intervals, offers of tele-
service, availability of spare parts, training offers
Described above was a division of intercultural variables into three main parts:
direct, indirect and frame. The third part, the frame variables, is important for
the utilizability of a system. Physical components (like climate conditions) and
structural differences (e.g. working structure, working system) are described with
these variables. They envelop the usage situation like a frame. Indirect and frame
variables are a construct of context-oriented design and take into account the
usage context of a product. The frame variables are:
Environment factors: Climate, production conditions, production plants
Technical standard: historical development (and level) of technique,
energy fluctuations, technical operating conditions
(e.g. networking conditions for teleservice)
Work structures: hierarchical structure, number of user groups, access

rights, shared workspaces
Education system: user’s qualification level, technical pre-knowledge,
exploration behavior (problem solving strategies)
Political system: laws and regulations, cooperation policy, support on
the spot
Frame variables are also important for the design of human-machine systems.
In accordance with location conditions, they should be clarified before the
development begins. Marketing department or representations on the spot are
a good source for much of this information. However, for a good intercultural
human-machine system, all intercultural main variables should be considered.
Intercultural Variables and UI Engineering
All intercultural variables can be assigned to the levels of the approach for
human-machine system engineering. Such an assignment is shown in Fig. 12. For
the assignment, the model of culture-environmental stressors is used, and the in-
tercultural variables are assigned in relation to Table 4. Some variables could have
an impact on more than one level, e.g. machine functionality and work structure.
All previous system levels and subdivisions are useful for the specification of the
intercultural variables. However, Table 5 shows an integration of the direct, indirect
and frame variables into the system levels of human-machine system engineering.
Establishing the “docking places” for the intercultural variables is one of the
steps in developing the MCD. Culture-oriented design and intercultural variables
are one integrative part of user-oriented design. The docking places describe the
integration of the intercultural variables into the system levels of human-machine
system engineering. For that reason, Table 5 shows the integration positions for
the intercultural variables and enables a definition of the intercultural docking
stations for the process of developing human-machine systems.
Description Level for Intercultural Variables and Issues
Summarizing the previous descriptions, Table 6 shows the useful specifications of

intercultural variables. Three description levels are shown:
Impact of the design of a HMS (compare Table 5).
Context dependency and measurability (compare Figs 4 and 5).
Changeability during the product life cycle (compare Figs 7 and 8).
86 KERSTIN RÖSE
Fig. 12. Assignment of Intercultural Variables to Design Levels of the HMS Engineering.
From the description of intercultural variables in Table 6 and the definition of dock-
ing stations in Table 5, a systematic can be derived. The systematic of intercultural
variables will be described in the following section.
Systematic to Identify Intercultural Variables and to Integrate into HMS
For the construction of a systematic for intercultural variables a catalogue of all

intercultural variables is needed. The information about intercultural variables
from the previous section can be used for this catalogue. The described variables
could be different with regard to:
Impact of the design on human-machine systems (Fig. 11).
Docking places in the human-machine systems engineering process (Table 5).
Cultural context dependency and resulting measurability (Fig. 4), and methods
to identify them.
Table 5. Docking Places for Intercultural Variables.

System Level Intercultural Variables Categories of Intercultural Variables
Direct Var. Indir. Var. Frame Var.
Human-machine system (intern)

Technology Machine functionalities ∗
Technical standard
Data/Model Machine functionalities ∗
Work structure
Structure Education system
Work structures
Service ∗
Interaction Interaction design ∗
Dialog design ∗
Technical documentation ∗
Presentation Information presentation ∗
Language ∗
Human-machine system (extern); working/environmental conditions
General machine design ∗
Technical documentation ∗
Service/maintenance ∗
Education system ∗
Environmental factors ∗
Political system ∗
Stability factors for the variables and resulting care effort, and expected cost
factors (Figs 5 and 6–8).
The previous section described this information. The question is: how to catalogue
the intercultural variables?
Intercultural variable “x” can be assigned into the catalogue with the degree of
their influence on the human-machine system. Therefore, they could be system-
atized as direct, indirect or frame variable (see Fig. 11). A variable status can be
assigned to an intercultural variable. Furthermore, each intercultural variable has its
own docking place in the human-machine system engineering process (see Table 5).
Both parameters have a strong coherence with the human-machine system.
As described in the previous sections, variables can be different with regard
to the determination of cultural context. The possible distinctive features are:
covered and uncovered variables (see Fig. 4). A further parameter is derivable
from this, context dependency.
The analysis of the intercultural variables during the lifetime of a human-
machine system and in coherence with the product releases has been also
88
Table 6. Description Level for Intercultural Variables.
Description Level Specifications
Impact of the design Direct variable Indirect variable Frame variable

on HMS – Immediate influence on the HMS – Mediate influence on the HMS design. – Contextual influence on
design. the HMS design.
– Impact of usability and acceptance – Impact of the applicability and feasibility on – Impact of the utilizability
of the HMS. the HMS. of the HMS.
Context dependency Covered variable Uncovered variable
and measurability – High context dependency and deep – Low up to middle context dependency and
cultural determination. less deep (shallow) cultural determination.
– Bad accessibility and – Good up to not easily accessibility and
measurability. measurability.
Changeability in the Fix variable Flexible variable
product life cycle – High stability of appearance ability – Less stability of appearance during the
during the product life cycle. product life cycle.
– To define and integrate into the – To define and integrate in to the HMS design
HMS design once. several times (depend on product specifics).
KERSTIN RÖSE
Fig. 13. Systematic for the Description of Intercultural Variables.
presented in the previous section. Thus, the intercultural variables are describable
with regard to the complete lifetime of a human-machine system, and differen-
tiable in fixed and flexible variables. Stability factor is the fourth parameter for
intercultural variables.
For the description of intercultural variables in a catalogue, the following
parameters have to be used: variable status, docking place, context dependency
and stability factor. Figure 13 shows the catalogue systematic. The complete
catalogue with the description of all intercultural variables can be found in Röse
(2002). An application example will be shown in Fig. 16.
Figure 13 shows the systematic for the description of intercultural variables of
human-machine-systems. This grid allows the description of all variables from
Fig. 11. It is “cultureless” and only a structuring aid. With this systematic, no
design of an intercultural human-machine-system is possible as yet. Information
about the application culture and the culture-specifics of the user are needed.
The next step is the combination of the intercultural variable systematics
(Fig. 13) and the intercultural user interface factors, shown in Table 2. The
combination of both is presented in Fig. 14.
After selecting a specific user culture, the description of cultural user-interface
factors can start. Based on the cultural user interface factors (see Tables 1 and 2;
also Hofstede, 1997; Marcus, 2001) the definition of the user culture is carried
out. The description of a user culture starts with the assignment of cultural
dimensions: power distance, individuality, gender, uncertainty working and time
orientation, and ends with the definition of resulting effects for: metaphor, mental
model, navigation, interaction and presentation with regard to the intercultural
user-interface factors (see Marcus, 2001).
90 KERSTIN RÖSE
Fig. 14. Combination of Cultural Factors and the Intercultural Variables Systematics.
To determine the cultural difference between the target user culture and
the existing developer culture, this procedure must also be carried out for the
developer’s culture. This cultural difference has a direct impact on the interna-
tionalization effort for a human-machine system. Therefore, a “reference culture”
must always be defined. The advantage of this approach is global usability.
There is no specific reference culture, and therefore, this approach is usable for a
developer in India, U.K., U.S. and so on; the first step is always the definition of the
reference culture.
After the definition of the cultural difference between reference and user
culture, the changes for the intercultural variables can be determined. However,
the cultural user interface factor must be taken into account for the definition
of the intercultural variables. The change effort for the internationalization of
a specific human-machine system in a specific culture is determinable as result
from the cultural difference and with regard to the stability factor of the changing
for these intercultural variables.
The combination of cultural factors and the intercultural variable systematic

is an important element in the method of culture-oriented design (MCD).
The following section describes the method of culture-oriented design and its
application.
MCD: APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

In this section, the step by step procedure of the MCD is explained. For the
explanations in this section the following prerequisites apply:
The catalogue of the intercultural variables is available (see Röse, 2002).
Complete definition of intercultural user interface factors is available (see
Marcus, 2001; Röse, 2002).
The target user culture is defined.
The explanations are based on the systematic for human-machine-system
engineering of Wahl (1999), see also Fig. 9. Adoption of other procedures and
systematics is possible for 99% of all other “normal” engineering approaches.
The general concept (use, purpose, and general product specifics are known) of
the human-machine system exists.
It is really important to remember that MCD is only a systematic for data analysis,
data preparation and data integration. MCD does not substitute for the empirical
analysis of user requirements in the corresponding user culture, especially in
the case of product localization. Figure 15 shows an overview of the method of
culture-oriented design of human-machine systems. This figure also serves as the
application overview for the MCD.
What follows is the 10-step procedure of the MCD:
(1) Definition and description of the user culture.

(2) Determination of the culture UI-factors for the reference culture (developer’s
culture) and the user culture (product usage culture).
(3) Comparison of the cultural UI-factor profiles, concerning similarities and
differences of reference culture and user culture.
(4) Select the product relevant intercultural variables.
(5) Derivation of variable status from intercultural variables catalogue (for each
of the selected variables).
(6) Determination of the culture-context dependency, using the intercultural
variables catalogue (for each of the selected variables).
92 KERSTIN RÖSE
Fig. 15. Application Overview for the Method of Culture-Oriented Design of

HMS (MCD).
(7) Specification of the information to be analyzed in the user culture. Step 5

includes information about analysis content, and step 6 includes information
about the analysis methods.
(8) Analysis of the needed culture-specific information and user requirements
in the target user culture.
(9) Derivation of the docking place for the results integration; use of the
intercultural variables catalogue (for each selected variable).
(10) Integration of the user culture-specific information into the human-
machine system engineering process for the design of a culture-oriented
product/system.
(11) OPTIONAL: Cost calculation and cost estimation (see Figs 13 and 15). The
change effort resulting from the culture factor profile comparison (see step
2) and the stability factor of the selected intercultural variable.
Starting with step 4, this procedure must be carried out for each selected
intercultural variable.
What is the standard usage case, how does it look? As a standard case, the
developer inquires into the cultural factor profiles for the reference culture and
the user culture (steps 1–3). Following this, needed intercultural variables are
selected, and the analysis content and evaluation methods are then derived (steps
4–7). The result is a complete analysis and evaluation concept (variable-oriented
approach). Based on it, the culture-specific user requirements are analyzed (step
8). After execution of the analysis, all needed culture-specific information – from
the user for the specific product – is available. The analysis result will be prepared
for integration into the “standard procedure” in a variable-oriented way (step 9).
Finally, the intercultural variable information will be added to the appropriate
docking places into the HMS engineering process and will than be integrated
(step 10).
A developer now gets the culture-specific information exactly at that point
in the engineering process when he needs it. Hence the MCD is a simultaneous
procedure (or added procedure) of the standard HMS engineering procedure.
With such handling, it is possible to find out critical application differences
in the user culture, and this information can be integrated into the complete
system engineering process at an early point of development. Such a procedure
enables flexible (and module based) engineering of interactive systems with
culture-specific design for the international market.
MCD helps to avoid information loss in the engineering process. It supports the
developer during the development process and guides him during the procedure
of analyzing intercultural user information, completely from data analysis up to
information integration. With usage of the intercultural variables catalogue and
a user-oriented HMS engineering approach, the culture-oriented design will be
a soluble challenge for the developer of interactive products. Nevertheless, an
analysis of user requirements in each expected user culture is very important to
guarantee user-friendly and culture-oriented products.
The following is a description of an application of MCD. I used data from
a cross-cultural project to explain the handling of MCD. All data are from the
project Intops. Project Intops was carried out by the University of Kaiserslautern,
with the aim of making statements on the influence of culture on the design of
user interfaces for machines In order to clarify the question of whether European
industrial standards can be employed in other culture areas, or whether there
are peculiarities, project Intops was carried out. Within the framework of this
project, countries have been chosen that are of interest for exports from the
German engineering industry, including the following: USA, China, South
Korea, India and Indonesia. Four to five industrial sites were chosen in the
selected countries from the following sectors: automobile producer, automobile
supplier, plastics or synthetic manufacturer, or company with products reflecting
national priorities. The data in project Intops were ascertained without the
MCD; this method did not exist during the term of the project. Therefore, the
94 KERSTIN RÖSE
data analysis was not pre-structured with MCD, and it is possible that some
application problems were not found. The complete project data are published in
Zühlke et al. (1997).
APPLICATION OF THE MCD WITH

RESULTS FROM THE INTOPS PROJECT
The MCD was developed for the specific area of human-machine-system engi-
neering in the field of production automation. Project Intops (Zühlke et al., 1997)
was a cross-cultural study of user differences in the field of production automation.
User differences were analyzed in India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mainland China,
USA and Germany. All regions are relevant German export countries.
For the explanation of the MCD-handling, I chose mainland China. It is a
very traditional culture and an important export market for the German machine
tool industry. The MCD is based on the cross-cultural principles. Therefore, the
example shows a comparison between China and Germany. Explanation starts
with the definition of cultural factors, followed by description of the user-interface
characteristics for both countries and the example of a definition of intercultural
variables, and finishing with design recommendations.
Definition of the Cultural Factors
The first is the definition of the cultural factors. The user culture is mainland
China and the developer culture is Germany. The combination is optional. The
combination can change based on culture changing for developer or user. Table 7
shows a definitional description for both cultures. This description is based on
Table 7. Definition of Cultural Factors for China and Germany (Based on

Hofstede, 1997).
Culture Factors China Germany
Power distance High Low

Individuality Collectivism Individualism
Gender Feminity Masculinity
Uncertainty avoidance Uncertainty avoidance Uncertainty avoidance
Time orientation Long time orientation Short time orientation
Hofstede (1997). A complete definition for all cultural factors can be found in
Röse (2002) and Marcus (2001).
The description of Hofstede’s cultural factors shows a relatively great difference
between China and Germany. Four of five factors show differences. Only the
factor “uncertainty avoidance” is the same. These factors correspond with specific
user-interface features, like those shown in Table 2 and Marcus (2001). Table 8
shows the characteristics of user interfaces for China and Germany, based on
this approach.
The characteristics shown in the table above provide the possibility for general
design advice. There are some differences which could be directly integrated into
an international approach for human-machine interaction, like error messages or
choice possibilities, and profile basics. On the other hand, there are similarities
for the interaction design for China and Germany, like Input and Feedback, many
redundancies, and limited navigation options combined with simple controls.
These similarities are based on the factor agreement “uncertainty avoidance.” Both
cultures have the tendency to avoid uncertainty. These observations (information)
are helpful for a general design approach and to determine the general cultural
differences between China and Germany, but they are not detailed enough to
support the developer during his process of developing a human-machine system
for the Chinese market. The developer needs a description on the detail level of
intercultural variables.
As shown in Fig. 15 and described below, steps 1–3 are fulfilled successfully.
This must be followed by step 4: definition of intercultural variables.
Definition of the Intercultural Variables
For a complete description of all relevant intercultural variables, there is not enough
space in this section. Therefore, in the following example, a description of the MCD
application principle is shown for the intercultural variable “information coding”
(compare Fig. 11 and Table 5). The intercultural variable “information coding”
has several main areas: one is “color,” the others are “symbols,” “labeling” and
“signals.” Figure 16 shows one sheet from the intercultural variables catalogue, an
overview for the intercultural variable “information coding.”
With the catalogue sheet, the developer gets the following information:
“Information coding” is a direct variable and has an immediate impact on the
design of human-machine-systems.
The docking place for this intercultural variable is the system level “presen-
tation.” For the design of a Chinese human-machine system, this means that
96 KERSTIN RÖSE
Table 8. User-Interface-Characteristics for China and Germany.

China Germany
Metaphor Clear hierarchy Event orientation at tasks and tools

Relation and family-oriented Work-oriented, competition-oriented
Representation instead of abstraction Representation instead of abstraction
Traditional powerful structures Interchangeable roles and jobs
Mental model Referring to data without relevance Little structure data with relevance
order
Role-oriented Product-oriented, task-oriented
Social structures, relation-oriented Work and business structures,
aim-oriented
Simple mental models, clear Complex mental models, tolerance of
articulation ambiguities
Choice limited, binary logic Unclear (fuzzy) logic
Navigation Reduction of choice and navigation Open entrance, divisible paths,
areas individual paths
Predefined choices Arbitrary choices
Role-dependent navigation behavior Role-independent navigation
behavior
Multiple selection, non-uniform Limited selection, uniform
navigation navigation
Limited options and simple controls Limited options and simple controls
Tolerance for long ways, ambiguities Referring ways, taxonomies
Interaction Error messages as: “Entry Supporting error messages (With
forbidden,” “You are wrong” instruction to the remedying)
Wizards and Guides support the use Note maps
Restricted search possibilities Keyword search
Role profiles instead of user profiles User-specific behavior
Practical, function-oriented Game-oriented, level-oriented
Team- (cooperation-) oriented Individual-oriented
Input and feedback: exact, complete, Input and feedback: exact, complete,
detailed detailed
Face-To Face interaction preferred Distant communication accepts
Personalized news Anonymous news
Presentation Formal talk Informal talk
High context dependency Low context dependency
Feminine colors Masculine colors (many blue tones)
Terminology and pictures: simple, Terminology and pictures: simple,
clear, uniform clear, uniform
Many redundancies Many redundancies
Arrangement of intimacy and social Concentration on the task to be
group membership presented with or the product
Fig. 16. Information Coding Sheet from the Intercultural Variables Catalogue.
culture-specific information about user requirements must be taken into account

during the engineering of the subtasks at the system level “presentation.”
The context dependency of the intercultural variable “information coding” is
uncovered, and therefore good to measure.
Stability factor shows high stability of appearance. The definition of the features
for the variable must be undertaken once during the product life cycle.
An on-the-spot analysis is needed as an evaluation method.
The on-the-spot-analysis was carried out in the context of project Intops. Tests
were carried out on color coding and icon usage. Table 9 shows a summary of
results for the intercultural variable “information coding.” In Zühlke et al. (1997)
and several other publications, the detailed results are presented. With that, steps
4–8 are fulfilled successfully (see also Fig. 15).
During the human-machine system engineering for China, this information
must be taken into account in the system level “presentation.” In detail, the color
coding for China must be considered (in accordance with the project results: only
a safe differentiation between the color red = emergency/problem and the color
green = anything goes). Therefore, the redundancies of information presentation
should be clarified with additional coding (like flashing). In general, only simple
and pictorial icons (in coordination and checked with the cultural background)
should be used. Technical background knowledge of the user cannot be put ahead
of these considerations.
Generally, all used icons should have a relation to the user’s background.
Therefore the symbol/icon “sand clock” is not a good choice for China. A normal
98
Table 9. Culture-Specifics in China and Germany for the Intercultural Variable “Information Coding.”
China Germany
Color coding No differentiation between the operating states, “warning” and “emergency.” Color coding in accordance to DIN EN
Can not use the color yellow for warning states, this color were interpreting as the 60073 usable without any limitations.
state “emergency.”
The color black is required for the operation state “normal.”
Windows “standard” colors were accepted. A configurability with the option for
changing into a second “standard mode” with pastel tones should be offered.
Icon usage Pictorial icons have to be preferred. Their recognize ability must be checked and
coordinate with the cultural background (e.g. the sand clock – windows waiting
symbol – does never exist in China, therefore exist no mental model for this
symbol and its meaning).
DIN-Icons were only partly recognized. The developing of specific Chinese Icon In general there is a good recognition of
or labeling with Chinese letter and the coordination of these with the cultural the DIN-Icon. Is limited if the icons are
context would have a higher recognize ability. highly abstract.
KERSTIN RÖSE
clock would be much easier to understand in China and would transfer the
metaphor “waiting, process is going” to the mental model much better. Around the
world, all users have problems with the understanding of high technical abstract
DIN-icons. Simple use of these icons without testing should be avoided. The
combination of icons and user language is recommended. The labels must be in the
user language and should offer the possibility of change to other user languages
(e.g. via soft key usage). Applications for China should offer no icons, only labels
in Chinese. The Chinese language is a very complex and pictorially oriented
language. The use of icons would not support the understanding of icons or easier
learning. The icons are a second pictorial language for the Chinese user and
therefore require a new learning effort and no real support. Some circumstances
require the usage of icons, e.g. with a view to international adaptability and
trade-specific icon usage. In such cases, a good labeling with clear and easy
icons can be combined.
This information is only a little part of the complete intercultural variables cat-
alogue and the analyzed culture-specific user requirements. A lot more elements
must combine for the engineering of a complete human-machine system. Only
the completeness of all intercultural variable information is a basis for an optimal
human-machine system. However, with that information, steps 9 and 10 can
be executed.
Without reference to specific intercultural variables, here are some more
interesting features for a human-machine system for the Chinese market.
Restricted navigation and predefined choices, but most (various) choices on the
top navigation level.
Simple, clear structures with preferably binary choices.
Consideration of possibilities for teamwork and cooperation.
High context dependency for presentation and preference of feminine colors.
This information is based on the cultural factors and the user analysis. They are
presented mainly to explain the handling of the MCD. The Chinese market is
only an example, and therefore, the design information is not complete.
EVALUATION OF THE MCD

The information combination and information presentation carried out in the
previous chapter have shown, that a small amount of information could bring a
great input for design, if it is structured and easier for the developer to integrate
into the design and development process of a product. With the usage of MCD,
an early definition of the right and efficient analysis and evaluation methods
100 KERSTIN RÖSE
is possible, as well as the specification of needed information. MCD is a good

structuring tool for the developer of intercultural products.
Previous explanations have shown a brief application of the MCD. Hopefully,
the handling was recognizable. To be able to take statements concerning the
completeness of intercultural variables and handling problems, much more appli-
cation data must be collected. The author started with the collection of application
data. That is necessary to take the step from an approach to a real method.
Nevertheless, development is needed for the scales of intercultural factors
(individualism etc.). Rating scales with fixed points and more details are better
than polarized scales (see Osgood, 1975). More machine-oriented description for
the intercultural factors should be developed. Data analysis should be improved as
well. Actually there is only information about the kind of method such as: which
method should I use? How do I get information? Where did I get my information?
Who is the information key person? Based on the cultural structure? The next
step of method development will be the construction of an information matrix.
Valuable information should be: where did I get which information from which
person and what method should I use for an analysis. Some of this correlated
information already exists in the actual version of MCD. Missing components of
the information structure are actually in development.
Important for the quality of a culture-oriented human-machine system is an
extensive collection of cultural data for the developer. Actually there are not
enough culture-specific preferences collected; the high specification degree of
human-machine systems is one reason for it. Hopefully, with the development
of culture-oriented web sites, there will also be an increase of culture-specific
data which are partially useful for culture-oriented human-machine systems.
With MCD there exists a useful structuring approach for the integration of
these data.
SUMMARY
This chapter has shown one way to specify, analyze, and integrate intercultural
variables into human-machine system engineering. Based on traditional and
well-known approaches from the work of Hofstede and Marcus, an additional
treatment for human-machine systems was presented. The method introduced is
called the “method of culturally-oriented design” (MCD). It was explained and
its elements were derived over several sections, then combined. An example of
its application and general use were shown. This approach and further methods
represent only one possible way to design intercultural systems and products.
Of special importance is the definition and treatment of intercultural variables,
which are the result of an integral context oriented view of system engineering,
especially in an intercultural milieu.
EDITOR’S NOTE
As used by the author on pages 88–90, the term systematic refers to a plan whose
main tasks and steps are listed in a hierarchical order.
REFERENCES
Bourges-Waldegg, P. (2000). Globalization: A threat to cultural diversity? In: D. Day, E. M. del
Galdo & G. V. Prabhu (Eds), Designing for Global Markets 2, Second International Workshop
on Internationalisation of Products and Systems (pp. 115–124) (IWIPS 2000, Baltimore,
Maryland USA, 13–15 July). Backhouse Press.
Bourges-Waldegg, P., & Scrivener, S. A. R. (1998, February). Meaning, the central issue in
cross-cultural HCI design. In: Interacting with Computers: The interdisciplinary Journal of
Human-Computer-Interaction (Vol. 9, pp. 287–309). Elsevier.
Choong, Y.-Y. (1996). Design of computer interfaces for the Chinese population. Doctoral dissertation.
Purdue University. USA.
Choong, Y., & Salvendy, G. (1998, February). Designs of icons for use by Chinese in mainland China.
In: Interacting with Computers: The interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer-Interaction
(Vol. 9, pp. 417–430). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Coronado, J., Day, D., & Hall, B. (Eds) (2002). Designing for global markets 4. Proceedings of the
fourth International Workshop on Internationalisation of Products and Systems (IWIPS 2002,
Austin, Texas USA, 11–13 July).
Day, D., del Galdo, E., & Prabhu, G. (Eds) (2000). Designing for global markets 2, second international
workshop on internationalisation of products and systems (IWIPS 2000, Baltimore, Maryland
USA, 13–15 July).
Day, D., & Dunckley, L. (Eds) (2001). Designing for global markets 3. Workshop Proceedings of the
third International Workshop on Internationalisation of Products and Systems (IWIPS 2001,
Milton Keynes, Great Britain, 12–14 July).
del Galdo, E., & Nielsen, J. (Eds) (1996). International user interfaces. New York: Wiley.
de Souza, M., & Dejean, P.-H. (2000). Cultural influence on design. In: D. Day, E. M. del Galdo
& G. V. Prabhu (Eds), Designing for Global Markets 2, Second International Workshop on
Internationalisation of Products and Systems (pp. 69–84) (IWIPS 2000, Baltimore, Maryland
USA, 13–15 July). Backhouse Press.
Dong, J., & Salvendy, G. (1999). Designing menus for the Chinese population: Horizontal or vertical?
Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(6), 467–471.
EN ISO 13407 (1999). Human-centered design process for interactive systems (EN ISO 13407: 1999).
Fernandes, T. (1995). Global interface design: A guide to designing international user interfaces. Ap
Professional, Boston.
Hacker, W. (2000). Cognitive modeling of design problem solving. In: Ergonomics for the New
Millennium: Cognitive Ergonomics, Computers, and Communications (Vol. 1, pp. 620–622),
102 KERSTIN RÖSE
Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics association and
44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (San Diego, California,
USA, July 29 through August 4, 2000).
Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hoft, N. (1995). International technical communication. New York: Wiley.
Hoft, N. (1996). Developing a cultural model. In: E. M. del Galdo & J. Nielsen (Eds), International
User Interfaces (pp. 41–73). New York: Wiley.
Honold, P. (2000). Intercultural usability engineering: Barriers and challenges from a German point
of view. In: D. Day, E. M. del Galdo & G. V. Prabhu (Eds), Designing for Global Markets 2,
Second International Workshop on Internationalisation of Products and Systems (pp. 137–148)
(IWIPS 2000, Baltimore, Maryland USA, 13–15 July). Backhouse Press.
Johannsen, G. (1993). Mensch-Maschine-Systeme (Human-machine-systems). Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.
Marcus, A. (2001). Culture(s) in user interface design for the web and mobile computing. In:
D. Day & L. M. Dunkley (Eds), Designing for Global Markets (Vol. 3, pp. 23–32). Workshop
Proceedings of the third International Workshop on Internationalisation of Products and
Systems, IWIPS 2001, 12–14 July, Milton Keynes, UK.
Marcus, A. (2001a). Cross-cultural user-interface design. In: M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds),
Systems, Social and Internationalization Design Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction
(pp. 502–505). Volume 2 of the Proceedings of HCI International 2001, 5–10 August 2001,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Osgood, C. E. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana Chicago, London:
University of Illinois Press (p. 89ff).
Plocher, T. A., Garg, C., & Chestnut, J. (1999). Connecting culture, user characteristics and user
interface design. In: H.-J. Bullinger & J. Ziegler (Eds), Human-Computer Interaction:
Ergonomics and User Interfaces (Vol. 1, pp. 803–807). Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Munich, Germany, August 22–26, 1999).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prabhu, G., & Harel, D. (1999). GUI design preference validation for Japan and China – A case for
KANSEI engineering? In: H.-J. Bullinger & J. Ziegler (Eds), Human-Computer Interaction:
Ergonomics and User Interfaces (Vol. 1, pp. 521–525). Proceedings 8th International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI International ’99, Munich, Germany,
August 22–26).
Preim, B. (1999). Entwicklung interaktiver Systeme: Grundlagen, Fallbeispiele und innovative
Anwendungsfelder (Development of interactive systems: Basics, examples and innovative
application area) (pp. 55–74). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Rasmussen, J. (2000). Human factors in a dynamic information society: Where are we heading?
Ergonomics, 43(7), 869–879. Taylor & Francis.
Röse, K. (2002). Methodik zur Gestaltung interkultureller Mensch-Maschine-Systeme in der Pro-
duktionstechnik (Method for the design of intercultural human machine systems in the area
of production automation). Dissertationsschrift zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades,
Doktor-Ingenieur’ (Dr.-Ing.) im Fachbereich Maschinenbau und Verfahrenstechnik der
Universität Kaiserslautern, Fortschritt-Bericht pak, Nr. 5, Universität Kaiserslautern, 2002.
Röse, K., Liu, L., & Zühlke, D. (2001). Design issues in mainland China and Western Europe:
Similarities and differences in the area of human-machine-interaction design. In: M. J.
Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds), Systems, Social and Internationalization Design Aspects of
Human-Computer Interaction. Volume 2 of the Proceedings of HCI International 2001, 5–10

August 2001, pp. 532–536. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Röse, K., & Zühlke, D. (1999). Design of global user interfaces: Challenge or frustration? In: H.-J.
Bullinger & P. H. Vossen (Eds), Adjunct Conference Proceedings, 8th International Conference
on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 268–269). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Röse, K., & Zühlke, D. (2001). Culture-oriented design: Developers’ knowledge gaps in this area.
In: G. Johannsen (Ed.), Preprints of 8th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium on Analysis,
Design, and Evaluation of Human-Machine Systems (pp. 11–16). Kassel, Germany, September
18–20, 2001.
Röse, K., Zühlke, D., & Liu, L. (2003). Intops 2: The machine user interface design for the Chinese
market. Final Report. Projektabschlußbericht des industriegeförderten Projektes, Design for
Mainland China’ im Zentrum für Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion, Fortschritt-Bericht pak.
Universität Kaiserslautern (in press).
Schneider, G. (1997). Entwicklung und Validierung eines methodischen Konzepts zur ergonomischen
Gestaltung von Bediensystemen in der Produktionstechnik (Development and validation of a
method for ergonomic design of machine user interfaces in the area of production automation).
Dissertation, Universität Kaiserslautern, VDI-Verlag: Düsseldorf.
Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer-
interaction (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
Stewart, E., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective.
Yarmouth, Maine: International Press.
Wahl, M. (1999). Systematische Entwicklung nutzergerechter Maschinenbedienoberfächen: Ein
Software-Werkzeug mit integrierten Ergonomie- und Gestaltungsregeln (Systematic develop-
ment of user-oriented machine user interfaces: Development of a software tool with integrated
ergonomic design guidelines). Dissertation, Universität Kaiserslautern, Fortschritt-Bericht
pak, Nr. 3, Universität Kaiserslautern.
Zühlke, D., Romberg, M., Eble, B., Röse, K., & Krauß, L. (1997). Intops: Anforderun-
gen außereuropäischer Märkte an die Gestaltung der Maschinenbedienung. Projekt-
Abschlußbericht (Request of non-european markets on the design of machine systems. Final
project report), pak.
Zühlke, D., Romberg, M., & Röse, K. (1998). Global demands of non-European markets for the
design of user-interfaces. (Proceedings of 7th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium, Analysis,
Design and Evaluation of Man-Machine-Systems Kyoto, Japan 1998 – 09 – 16–18). Kyoto:
IFAC, Hokuto Print: Japan, pp. 143–147.

3

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3.

CULTURE AND GLOBALISATION

If we talk nowadays about user-oriented design, we must realize that in times

Approach for Culture-Oriented Design

design: internationalization and localization. Internationalization describes a

Culture Models and Their Application for User-Interface Design

To enable communication between individuals, certain rules have to be followed.

Fons Trompenaars: determining the way in which a group of people solves

Table 1. Characteristic UI Factors (Marcus, 2001).

Table 2. Cultural UI-Factor “Individuality.”

Metaphor Action-oriented Relationship-oriented

DESIGN ISSUES AND AN APPROACH

Table 3. Design Issues for Machine Localization.

Interaction concept Machine functionality

industrial accidents. However, as the competition in the target market increases,

For effective communications and interactions, the invisible portion of culture

Fig. 3. An Approach to Culture-Specific Machine Design.

MODEL OF USABILITY ENGINEERING

For the purpose of successful machine localization, those user-oriented design

Machine Localization Costs

Localization Efﬁciency for Different Localization Levels

According to the localization difficulty and cost, the implementation of different

Fig. 4. Machine Localization Levels.

Fig. 5. Measurability of Cultural Issues.

Fig. 6. Estimation of Localization Efficiency.

Costs for Machine Internationalization

For machine producers who must face up to different international markets at

Fig. 7. Characteristics of Localization Issues.

localization cases according to their characteristics of “fixed” or “variable”

CULTURE AND THE USER INTERFACE (UI)

Fig. 9. Management of UI Engineering.

User Interfaces: An Integral View

Table 4. Culture-Environmental Stressors.

Platform Changing platform Differences of preference and prerequisite

of the UI engineering process takes into account “environmental stressors”

MODEL FOR INTERCULTURAL DESIGN

To support developers of internationally usable human-machine systems, the idea

for drafts of human-machine systems. The MCD must be based on an integral

Fig. 10. Integrative Approach of the Culture-Oriented Design.

The integration of intercultural variables into a standard method of user-oriented

The developers’ requirements in the application area of production automation

THE MAKING OF INTERCULTURAL VARIABLES

Fig. 11. Intercultural Variables for Human-Machine-Systems.

Interaction design: system structure, navigation concept,

Work structures: hierarchical structure, number of user groups, access

Intercultural Variables and UI Engineering

Description Level for Intercultural Variables and Issues

Summarizing the previous descriptions, Table 6 shows the useful specifications of

Systematic to Identify Intercultural Variables and to Integrate into HMS

For the construction of a systematic for intercultural variables a catalogue of all

Table 5. Docking Places for Intercultural Variables.

Human-machine system (intern)

Impact of the design Direct variable Indirect variable Frame variable

Fig. 13. Systematic for the Description of Intercultural Variables.

The combination of cultural factors and the intercultural variable systematic

MCD: APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

(1) Definition and description of the user culture.

Fig. 15. Application Overview for the Method of Culture-Oriented Design of

(7) Specification of the information to be analyzed in the user culture. Step 5

APPLICATION OF THE MCD WITH

Deﬁnition of the Cultural Factors

Table 7. Definition of Cultural Factors for China and Germany (Based on

Power distance High Low