Cultural Dimensions and Global Web User-Interface Design

This paper introduces dimensions of culture, as analyzed by Geert Hofstede in his classic study of cultures in organizations, and considers how they might affect userinterface designs. Examples from the Web illustrate the cultural dimensions. Introduction The Web enables global distribution of products and services through Internet Websites, intranets, and extranets. Professional analysts and designers generally agree that well-designed user interfaces improve the performance and appeal of the Web, helping to convert "tourists" or "browsers" to "residents" or "customers. " The userinterface development process focuses attention on understanding users and acknowledging demographic diversity. But in a global economy, these differences reflect world-wide cultures. What impact might these cultures have on the understanding and use of Web-based communication, content, and tools? This paper contributes to the study of these complex and challenging issues by analyzing some of the needs, wants, preferences, and expectations of different cultures. A few simple questions illustrate the depth of the issues. Consider your favorite Website. How might this Website be understood and used in New York, Paris, London, Beijing, New Delhi, or Tokyo, assuming that adequate verbal translation were accomplished? Might something in its metaphors, mental model, navigation, interaction, or appearance confuse, or even offend and alienate, a user? Consider what year this is. Is it 2000? In some other counting systems, it is 4698, 5760, or 1420. Even to refer to the counting system of another culture might confuse or alienate people used to their own native system. Let us not forget that Hindu-Arabic numerals, which Western society now takes for granted, were once viewed as the work of the devil by Christian Europe, and educated people for hundreds of years blocked their introduction into European society. Whether imports from other cultures are viewed as delightful gifts or poisonous viruses is often a matter of socio-political context. Consider the order in which you prefer to find information. If you are planning a trip by train, do you want to see the schedule information first or read about the organization and assess its credibility. Different cultures look for different data to make decisions. In most projects, Web user-interface and information visualization designers seek to resolve the complex interplay of user, business, marketing, and engineering requirements. Their development process includes iterative steps of planning, research, analysis, design, evaluation, documentation, and training. As they carry out all of these tasks, however, they would do well to consider their own cultural orientation and to understand the preferred structures and processes of other cultures. This attention would help them to achieve more desirable global solutions or to determine to what extent localized, customized designs might be better than international or universal ones. Cultures, even within some countries, are very different. Sacred colors in the Judeo-Christian West (e.g., red, blue, white, gold) are different than Buddhist saffron yellow or Islamic green. Subdued Finnish designs for background screen patterns (see Figure 1) might, or might not be suitable in Mediterranean climates, in Hollywood, USA, or Bollywood, India. These differences go deeper than just appearance; they reflect strong cultural values. How might these cultural differences be understood? Many analysts have studied cultures thoroughly and published classic theories; other authors have applied these theories to analyze the impact of culture on business relations and commerce (see Bibliography). Few of these works are well known to the user-interface design community. This paper introduces the work of one theorist, Geert Hofstede, and applies some of his cultural dimensions to Web user interfaces. Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture During 1978-83, the Dutch cultural anthropologist Geert Hofstede conducted detailed interviews with hundreds of IBM employees in 53 countries. Through standard statistical analysis of fairly large data sets, he was able to determine patterns of similarities and differences among the replies. From this data analysis, he formulated his theory of five fundamental dimensions of all world cultures (although admittedly hissubjects were constrained to one multinational corporation's world-wide employees, and thus to one company culture.). He also maintained that there is a dominant culture for each country. In the 1990s, Hofstede published a more accessible version of his research publication in Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind [Hofstede]. His focus was not on the definition of culture as refinement of the mind (or "highly civilized" attitudes and behavior) but rather on essential patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting that Hofstede asserted were well-established by late childhood. These cultural differences manifest themselves in a culture's choices of symbols, heroes/heroines, rituals, and values. Hofstede identified five dimensions and rated 53 countries on indices for each dimension, normalized to values (usually) of 0 to 100. His five dimensions of culture are the following: • Power-distance • Collectivism vs. individualism • Femininity vs. masculinity • Uncertainty avoidance • Longvs. short-term orientation Each of Hofstede's terms appears below with an explanation, implications for user-interface and Web design, and illustrations of characteristic Websites. Power Distance Power distance (PD) refers to the extent to which less powerful members expect and accept unequal power distribution within a culture. High PD countries tend to have centralized political power and exhibit tall hierarchies in organizations with large differences in salary and status. Subordinates may view the "boss" as a benevolent dictator and are expected to do as they are told. Parents teach obedience, and expect respect. Teachers possess wisdom and are automatically esteemed. Inequalities are expected, and may even be desired. Low PD countries tend to view subordinates and supervisors as closer together and more interchangeable, with flatter hierarchies in organizations and less difference in salaries and status. Parents and children, and teachers and students, may view themselves more as equals (but not necessarily as identical.). Equality is expected and generally desired. Hofstede notes that these differences are hundreds or even thousands of years old and may not disappear quickly from traditional cultures, even with powerful global telecommunication systems. He also notes that there are interesting indicators of power distance: low PD countries tend to have higher geographic latitude, smaller populations, and/or higher gross domestic product (GDP) per capita than high PD countries. Based on this definition, power distance may influence the following aspects of user-interface and Web design: • Access to information: highly (high PD) vs. less-highly (low PD) structured. • Hierarchies in mental models: tall vs. shallow. • Emphasis on social and moral order (e.g., nationalism or religion): significant/frequent vs. minor/infrequent use. • Focus on expertise, authority, experts, official stamps, or logos: strong vs. weak. • Social prominence: leaders vs. citizens, customers, or employees. • Important security, restrictions/barriers to access, use of certificates,: explicit, enforced, frequent restrictions on users vs. transparent, integrated, implicit freedom to roam. • Social roles used to organize information (e.g., a managers’ section obvious to all but sealed off from nonmanagers): frequent vs. infrequent These PD differences can be illustrated on the Web by examining university Web sites from two countries with very different PD indices (Figures 2 and 3). The Universiti Utara Malaysia (www.uum.edu.my) is located in Malaysia, a country with a PD index rating of 104, the highest in Hofstede's analysis. The Website from the Ichthus Hogeschool (www.ichthus-rdam.nl) and the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (www.tue.nl) are located in the Netherlands, with a PD index rating of 38. Note the differences in the two groups of Websites. The Malaysian Website features strong axial symmetry, a focus on the official seal of the university, photographs of faculty or administration leaders conferring degrees, and monumental buildings in which people play a small role. A top-level menu selection provides a detailed explanation of the symbolism of the official seal and information about the leaders of the university. The Dutch Website features an emphasis on students (not leaders), a stronger use of asymmetric layout, and photos of both genders in illustrations. This Website emphasizes the power of students as consumers and equals. Individualism vs. Collectivism Individualism in cultures implies loose ties; everyone is expected to look after one’s self or immediate family but no one else. Collectivism implies that people are integrated from birth into strong, cohesive groups that protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. At work, individualistic cultures value personal time, freedom, challenge, and such extrinsic motivators as material rewards. In family relations, they value honesty/truth, talking things out, using guilt to achieve behavioral goals, and maintaining self-respect. Their societies and governments place individual socialeconomic interests over the group, maintain strong rights to privacy, nurture strong private opinions (expected from everyone), restrain the power of the state in the economy, emphasize the political power of voters, maintain strong freedom of the press, and profess the ideologies of selfactualization, self-realization, self-government, and freedom. At work, collectivist cultures value training, physical conditions, skills, and the rewards of work itself. In family relations, they value harmony more than honesty/truth, silence,