Towards a Toolbox for Intercultural User Interface Design

Rüdiger Heimgärtner

R&D HMI, Intercultural User Interface Consulting (IUIC), Lindenstraße 9, 93152 Undorf, Germany

Keywords: Culture, Human Factors, UX, Usability Engineering, Intercultural User Interface Design, Cross-cultural

Design, Toolbox, HCI Dimensions, HCI Indicators, Cultural HCI Indicators, Culture Dependent HCI Model,

Model, IUID, HCI, HMI.

Abstract: In this paper, a method-mix (cultural dimensions, intercultural variables, user interface characteristics and

human computer interaction (HCI) dimensions) for intercultural user interface design (IUID) is presented.

Based on a hybrid approach covering cultural contexts in human–computer interaction (HCI) design using a

model of culturally influenced HCI, this IUID method-mix represents the main constituent of a reasonable

toolbox for IUID. The IUID method-mix is exemplified by application examples to demonstrate and discuss

its benefit and limitations. The examples elucidate why and how cultural aspects play a role in HCI design

and usability/UX engineering. Cultural influence on HCI is described using cultural variables for user

interface design. The IUID method-mix serves to inspire HCI engineers in the requirement analysis phase as

well as HCI designers in the design phase. The readers are sensitized to the challenges of intercultural

usability/UX engineering and intercultural HCI design and will be equipped with relevant methodological

knowledge needed to actively derive design recommendations for user interface design for and in their desired

cultural contexts. Practitioners can prognosticate the ensuing effort and the expenditure for considering

cultural context in intercultural user interface design.

1 INTRODUCTION

Intercultural user interface design (IUID) is a

prerequisite for improving the intercultural usability

of software, which in turn is a prerequisite for global

sales opportunities (Heimgärtner, 2019a). Using

methods of intercultural usability engineering, further

design guidelines for IUID can be iteratively derived

from the results of the tests and the feedback of

potential users from all over the world. Hence, the

perception and consideration of the customs and

requirements of other cultures by the developers of

intercultural user interfaces is one of the main tasks

within intercultural user interface design. Based on

feedback from tutorials, workshops and courses on

IUID and the revised summary of the state of research

on IUID in (Heimgärtner, 2014), the author reviewed

the synopsis of well documented IUID methods to

come to a reasonable toolbox for IUID, consisting of

a IUID method-mix, which will be presented,

explained, exemplified and discussed in this paper

using an application example.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8647-0748

2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED

WORK

Differences between cultures can be found by

analysing critical interaction situations between

people (Thomas, Kinast, & Schroll-Machl, 2010).

(Honold, 2000) made this method available for

cultural differences in Human-Machine Interaction

(HMI): critical interaction situations that arise due to

problematic functionality of user interfaces must be

analysed. (Vöhringer-Kuhnt, 2002) found that e.g.

Hofstedes "Individualism Index" (cf. (G. H.

Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010)) is related to

user satisfaction and usability of the product and has

a significant influence on intercultural usability.

(Röse, 2004) proposed the "Method for Culture-

Oriented Design" (MCD), which integrates the

factors of new concepts of culture-oriented HCI

design and the knowledge of cultural differences into

existing concepts of HCI design. Relevant cultural

variables for intercultural HCI design must be

determined analytically based on literature and

requirement studies. Their values represent culture-

156

Heimgärtner, R.

Towards a Toolbox for Intercultural User Interface Design.

DOI: 10.5220/0008345201560163

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2019), pages 156-163

ISBN: 978-989-758-376-6

dependent variations that occur at all levels of HCI

localization (surface, functionality, interaction) and

that can be used for IUID. Similarly for culture-

oriented design, (Shen, Woolley, & Prior, 2006)

considered a simplified version a culture-centred HCI

design process while focusing on social and cultural

aspects in order to cover the value of the user’s

cultural context. Further methods are applying user

interface characteristics (Marcus, 2006) or cultural

markers (Badre & Barber, 1998). To make cultural

dimensions available for user interface design,

(Marcus, 2006) developed characteristic factors for

user interfaces and gave examples that can influence

user interface design (such as different colours or

behaviours). Cultural markers have been determined

by empirical studies (e.g., (Badre & Barber, 1998),

(Dormann, 2006), (Sun, 2001)), which are specific for

a certain culture and which are preferably used within

this certain culture (such as flags). Other approaches,

e.g. by (Castro, Luciana, Leitão, & Souza, 2013) or

(Pereira, Baranauskas, & Liu, 2015), are based on

semiotic theory. In semiotic engineering, HCI is seen

“as a two-tiered communicative process: one is the

designer-to-user communication and the other is the

user-system interaction. [..] HCI can only be achieved

if both levels of communication are successfully

achieved.” (Souza, Barbosa, & Prates, 2001): 55.

One of the most promising methods to discover

cultural differences in HCI is the comparative

observation and analysis of user interaction with the

system (cf. (Heimgärtner, 2012)). The results of

observations of cultural variables and their

manifestations serve as a basis for:

 cultural adaptation of user interfaces (cf.

(Heimgärtner, Holzinger, & Adams, 2008));

 guidelines for IUID (e.g. cultural interaction

indicators (cf. (Heimgärtner, 2012));

 a culture dependent HCI model (cf.

(Heimgärtner, 2013));

 culturally aware systems (cf. (Heimgärtner,

2018)).

3 PATH TO A IUID TOOLBOX

The path to an initial version of an IUID toolbox is

described as follows: First, the used concepts for the

toolbox are presented. Second the integration of the

combined use of the concepts within one hybrid

approach is explained. Third, the application of the

IUID method-mix as the main functionality provider

for the IUID toolbox is exemplified. The most

relevant aspects and important constituents deriving

recommendations for IUID using the IUID toolbox

are elucidated. Together with the application

procedure for the IUID method-mix, consisting of

steps of how to reasonably use the properly arranged

methods, the way to a toolbox for IUID is paved.

3.1 Concepts Used: IUID Method-Mix

The IUID toolbox uses a hybrid approach integrating

a combined use of the following concepts (“IUID

Method-Mix” for short) to derive cultural HCI

indicators relevant for the derivation of

recommendations for IUID:

 HCI dimensions;

 Cultural dimensions;

 Intercultural variables;

 User interface characteristics;

 The culture dependent HCI model;

 The method of culture-oriented design.

3.1.1 HCI Dimensions

HCI dimensions represent classes of HCI variables

useful for HCI design describing the behaviour of a

user (HCI style) with an interactive information

processing system (Heimgärtner, 2013). HCI

dimensions are expressed by information science

variables such as information density or interaction

frequency at the interaction level (Heimgärtner,

2012). In order to measure the parameters, the

characteristics of the HCI dimensions must be very

precise and concrete. Therefore, the HCI dimensions

are operationalized in many quantitative variables

(HCI indicators) in order to obtain a basic HCI

metrics. There must be at least one HCI indicator as a

measurement variable in order to represent the

characteristics of an HCI dimension. For real use,

however, several empirically proven HCI indicators

should be employed.

3.1.2 Cultural Dimensions

Cultural standards (i.e., orientation systems according

to (Thomas et al., 2010)) and cultural dimensions

(e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, uncertainty

avoidance, long term orientation and masculinity vs.

femininity from (G. H. Hofstede et al., 2010) or action

chain orientation, network density and context

orientation from (Hall & Hall, 2009)) serve to

describe and compare cultural systems. The

characteristics of cultural dimensions influence the

user experience and provide orientation for the

usability engineering process. Differences between

cultures can be found by analysing critical interaction

situations between people (Thomas et al., 2010). The

mental model of the user about the system depends on

Towards a Toolbox for Intercultural User Interface Design

157

the culture of the user, his expectations about the

characteristics of the system and his experience of

interaction with the system. The cultural aspects and

their manifestations can be empirically determined

using qualitative and quantitative methods.

3.1.3 Intercultural Variables

Cultural dimensions are too rough for IUID. For this

reason, additional cultural variables are necessary

which – in relation to user interface design – divide

the cultural aspects into smaller units (cf. (Röse,

2004)). Intercultural variables describe the

differences in HCI design with respect to the

preferences of users from different cultures. Direct

intercultural variables are most important because

they have a direct and essential influence on the HCI

design. "Visible" intercultural variables are

immediately perceptible at a certain time (font,

colour, window size, navigation, etc.). In contrast,

"invisible" (or "hidden") intercultural variables are

only recognizable over a certain period (such as

interaction speed, information display duration,

dialogue display frequency, use of the navigation

bar).

3.1.4 User Interface Characteristics

The user interface characteristics "Metaphor",

"Mental Model", "Navigation", "Interaction" and

"Presentation" can be linked to Hofstede's cultural

dimensions ((G. H. Hofstede et al., 2010), (Röse,

2004), (Marcus, 2006)). User interface characteristics

can be used in conjunction with empirical surveys on

their characteristics for the corresponding cultural

target context to derive recommendations for the

development of intercultural user interfaces.

3.1.5 Culture Dependent HCI Model

Cultural models and cultural HCI indicators, which

have been generated by the analysis of user

interaction, can be used to describe the needs of the

user in terms of the HCI depending on his culture as

well as to develop an explanatory model for culturally

influenced HCI and to improve the methods of

intercultural usability engineering. With the help of a

culture dependent HCI model, examples of different

culturally conditioned behaviour of users with

interactive systems can be explained. For this

purpose, the explanatory models must be determined

based on analytical considerations and verified using

empirical data and statistical methods. Successful

explanatory models can be applied to new examples

or application cases and thus verified, which in turn

allows predictive design recommendations to be

generated.

3.1.6 Method of Culture-Oriented Design

The "Method for Culture-Oriented Design" (MCD),

integrates the factors of culture-oriented HMI design

and the knowledge of cultural differences into

existing concepts of HMI design (Röse, 2004) (cf.

Figure 1).

Figure 1: Simplified version of the Method of Culture-

oriented Design (Source: (Heimgärtner, 2012): 66).

3.2 Connecting HCI to Culture

One important goal for intercultural HCI designers

and intercultural usability experts is to consider

fundamental cultural differences when dealing with

members of cultures interacting with machines.

Hence, the most important step is to bridge the gap

between cultural aspects (e.g. derived from cultural

dimensions) and HCI design by determining relevant

cultural parameters for IUID using analytical research

tools and doing evaluation by empirical studies. The

aim is to find the actual connection between HCI

indicators and their (postulated cultural) causes

represented by the relationship between cultural and

HCI dimensions (and their variables respectively). To

solve this, a structural equation model for the

relationship between HCI and cultural dimensions

has been generated (Heimgärtner, 2012). The

connections between cultural, information-related

and interaction-related dimensions were modelled

using cultural HCI indicators. Results found applying

this approach (Heimgärtner, 2012) led to the

conviction that it is justified and useful to use cultural

HCI indicators for intercultural HCI research in order

to obtain a reasonable explanatory model for

culturally influenced HCI (Heimgärtner, 2013). The

explanatory model is based on some of the best-

classifying cultural HCI indicators, indicating that the

CHIRA 2019 - 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

158

expressions of the HCI dimensions depend on the

cultural imprint of the users, which can be described

by the expressions of cultural dimensions: the higher

the relationship orientation (collectivism), the higher

the information density, information speed,

information frequency, interaction frequency and

interaction speed (and vice versa).

This supports the assumption that further

connections between cultural dimensions and HCI

dimensions and cultural interaction indicators can be

modelled and explained using structural equation

models as a basis for the application of the IUID

method-mix, which applies for the rationale to create

a IUID toolbox.

Figure 2 shows the content of the culture

dependent HCI model representing the hypothetical

relationships between cultural and HCI dimensions

(Heimgärtner, 2013).

Figure 2: Hypothetical Relationship Between Cultural and

HCI Dimensions (Heimgärtner, 2013).

The model contains the following rules

expressing the connection between the values of the

cultural dimensions and the values of the HCI

dimensions, thereby determining the denotation level

for culture and HCI (cf. for details (Heimgärtner,

2013)):

1) The lower (-) action chain orientation:

a) the higher (+) information frequency (IN-F).

b) the higher (+) information parallelism (IN-P) and

interaction parallelism (INT-P).

c) the higher (+) interaction frequency (INT-F).

2) The lower individualism index (IDV):

a) the higher information frequency.

b) the higher interaction frequency.

3) The lower uncertainty avoidance index (UAI):

a) the higher information frequency.

b) the higher interaction frequency.

c) the lower interaction exactness (INT-E).

4) The lower masculinity index (MAS):

a) the higher information density (IN-D).

b) the higher information frequency.

c) the higher interaction frequency.

5) The higher network density and context

orientation:

a) the higher information density.

b) the higher information and interaction parallelism.

c) the higher interaction frequency.

d) the higher interaction-speed (INT-S).

e) the lower interaction exactness.

6) The higher long-term orientation index (LTO):

a) the higher information frequency.

b) the higher interaction-speed.

7) And vice versa for all six rules (i.e., for Rule 1: the

higher action chain orientation, the lower

information/interaction frequency and parallelism).

According to the changed values of the cultural

dimensions on the left side of the model

(antecedences in the “production rules” in Figure 2),

the values of the HCI dimensions change on the right

side of the model (consequences in the “production

rules” in Figure 2). Therefore, this model does not

depend on nations or countries but can be used to

cover every cultural group (with at least 20 members,

if using Hofstede’s Values Survey Module (VSM)

(cf. (G. Hofstede, 1994)) to determine the cultural

characteristics of the group).

3.3 IUID Toolbox

Using the reasonably arranged and applied IUID

method-mix defined by a properly selected

integration procedure embodies the contents of the

IUID toolbox. The IUID toolbox applies the IUID

method-mix, which consists of a combined use of

cultural dimensions, intercultural variables, user

interface characteristics, HCI dimensions and the

model of culture dependent HCI in a systematic way

to derive IUID recommendations (Heimgärtner,

2019b).

3.3.1 Systematic Procedure for Deriving

IUID Recommendations

The hybrid approach integrating all the mentioned

concepts above by a systematic procedure to

analytically derive recommendations for IUID is

described in detail in (Heimgärtner, 2019b). The

procedure to derive IUID recommendations is as

follows: First, the application, main uses cases and

the desired target cultures are chosen. Depending on

the use case, the respective UI elements (e.g. layout,

buttons, text fields) have to be determined and

mapped to the category of the cultural variables

(direct, indirect, visible, hidden) as well as to the user

interface characteristics (presentation, interaction,

navigation, mental model and metaphor). Using this

information, the time and space related HCI

dimensions must be identified (such as information

Towards a Toolbox for Intercultural User Interface Design

159

density or interaction frequency). Via the rules of the

explanatory model of culture dependent HCI, the

related HCI dimensions must be connected to the

cultural dimensions to obtain relevant cultural HCI

indicators. Having the cultural HCI indicators in

hand, recommendations for IUID can be drawn

according to the designated culture of the user.

3.3.2 Exemplifying This Procedure

Table 1 shows the output of using the IUID toolbox

(i.e. the results obtained by systematically applying

the IUID method-mix).

Table 1: Results by Using the IUID Toolbox.

Application(s)

Word processor on a mobile

phone

Use Case(s)

Sending a text message via SMS

Cultural

Dimension(s)

Power distance, individualism,

uncertainty avoidance

User Interface

Characteristic(s)

Presentation: text, character,

character set, layout, skin, edit

field, send button, receiver list

box

Intercultural

Variable(s)

Direct, visible, surface (language,

color, layout, skin)

HCI Indicator(s)

Number of pieces of information

per space, number of SMS per

day, number of saved contacts

HCI

Dimension(s)

Information density, interaction

frequency and speed, information

and interaction parallelism,

interaction exactness

Culture

Dependent HCI

Model

China (IDV low  IN-F high,

INT-F high; UAI low  IN-F

high, INT-F high, INT-E low),

Germany (IDV high  IN-F low,

INT-F low; UAI high  IN-F

low, INT-F low, INT-E high)

Cultural HCI

Indicator(s)

Number of pieces of information

per space, number of SMS per

day and number of saved contacts

vary from low to high

IUID

Implication(s) /

Recommen-

dation(s)

Adapt system memory; choose

appropriate input method editor

(IME) and sorting algorithms;

allow customization of the

number of entries in lists

Assume, a UI designer wants to identify design

recommendation for IUID for users from China or

Germany regarding an application with the use case

“sending a short text message via SMS on a mobile

phone”.

The first step is to identify the cultural dimensions

representing the highest cultural distance between the

target cultures. The value of the cultural dimensions

can be looked up in the literature of culture experts

(such as (G. H. Hofstede et al., 2010) or (Schwartz,

2004)). According to Hofstede’s cultural compass,

these are the power distance index (PDV), the

individualism index (IDV) and the uncertainty

avoidance index (UAI) (cf. (G. H. Hofstede et al.,

2010)).

The next step is to identify the UI elements (e.g.

text, characters, character set, layout, skin, send

button, receiver list box) that are concerned in the use

case and to relate them to the user interface

characteristics (e.g. presentation).

Now, the mapping of the UI characteristics to the

intercultural variables is to be done. Presentation

concerns direct, visible cultural variables on the

surface of the user interface (such as language,

colour, layout, skin).

Having the localization levels (surface,

interaction, functionality) and the intercultural

variables in mind, corresponding HCI indicators

(operationalized quantitative variables) such as the

number of pieces of information per space, the

number of SMS per day and the number of saved

contacts can be identified.

Consequently, similar HCI indicators can then be

grouped to the fitting HCI dimension. For example,

the variables “number of pieces of information” and

“number of saved contacts” can be related to the HCI

dimensions “information density” (IN-D).

The relationship between cultural dimensions and

HCI dimensions comes into play by following the

rules of the explanatory model expressing the

connection between the values of the cultural

dimensions and the values of the HCI dimensions (cf.

Figure 1). For instance, IDV is related to information

and interaction frequency and UAI is related to

information and interaction frequency as well as to

interaction exactness. If individualism in a culture is

low (e.g. for China in contrast to Germany according

to (G. H. Hofstede et al., 2010)), then information

frequency and interaction frequency tends to be high

(e.g. for China in contrast to Germany according to

(Heimgärtner, 2013)).

Furthermore, HCI dimensions are also related to

UI characteristics. For example, information density

is affected by the cultural presentation requirements

(cf. culturally different communication patterns,

(Lewis, 2000)). This different communication

behaviour can be expressed using adequate cultural

HCI indicators such as number of pieces of

information per space, number of SMS sent per day

or number of contacts.

This in turn leads to the following requirements

for system design and recommendation for IUID: The

CHIRA 2019 - 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

160

HCI system at hand needs to have enough memory

for storing contacts and sent short messages.

Furthermore, it needs an input method editor for the

different character sets in China and Germany in

order to quickly choose and select the desired receiver

name from an adequately sorted list. Moreover, the

user interface should be customizable to the number

of presented pieces of information, e.g., the number

of entries in lists or menus (cf. hierarchical versus flat

menu structure, (Gould, Marcus, & Chavan, 2006)).

The entire model consists of more than 300,

mainly quantitative, potential parameters that are

relevant for intercultural HCI design and, depending

on the culture, have been analytically established by

literature research (cf. for details (Heimgärtner,

2012)) and can be used to support analytic processing.

These reflections can also be used for culturally

adaptive systems (Heimgärtner et al., 2008) that can

automatically change the user interface

characteristics according to the cultural needs of the

user because they are already aware of them by design

or becoming aware of them by learning over time

(Heimgärtner, 2018).

4 DISCUSSION

In the following, considerations applying the culture

dependent HCI model and evidence for the proper

application of the IUID method-mix are discussed

elucidating why and how cultural aspects play a role

in HCI design and usability/UX engineering thereby

showing the strengths and weaknesses and possible

alternatives regarding the approach, usefulness and

limitations of the IUID toolbox.

4.1 Strength of the Scientific Basis

The results so far serve to reveal a basis and some

proven facts that are useful for the acquisition of

general recommendations for trends in intercultural

HCI design (cf. (Heimgärtner, 2012)) and culturally

adaptive systems (cf. (Heimgärtner, 2018)). The

“Intercultural Interaction Analysis Tool (IIA-Tool)”

(Heimgärtner, 2008) served to record and analyse the

user’s interaction with the system to identify culture

dependent variables such as colour, positioning,

information density, and interaction speed as well as

their values, which enabled the verification of parts of

the culture-dependent model of HCI as well as

preliminary design rules for intercultural HCI design

(Heimgärtner, 2012). With the right combination of

cultural HCI indicators it is possible to get HCI

differences that are purely culturally imprinted

(Heimgärtner, 2012). Therefore, the cultural

differences in HCI found are quantitatively

measurable by a computer system using special

combinations of cultural HCI indicators represented

by cultural HCI patterns (cf. HCI style in sections

3.1.1 and 4.2) depending on the culturally imprinted

behaviour of the user with an interactive system. This

means that the analysis (recognition and

classification) of cultural HCI patterns and cultural

differences in HCI can be achieved purely

quantitatively (Heimgärtner, 2012) - a handful of

cultural HCI indicators is enough for this purpose,

which also serves for culturally adaptive and aware

systems (cf. (Heimgärtner, 2018)). Cultural HCI

patterns representing the cultural differences in HCI

and the derived cultural HCI indicators are

sufficiently statistically discriminating to detect them

and to relate the users to a certain cultural imprint (cf.

(Heimgärtner, 2012)).

4.2 Usefulness of the IUID Toolbox

The results so far led the author to the concept of

intercultural HCI style scores, which can be

computed for the designated cultural group from

Hofstede’s indices in order to estimate the

development expense for new IUID projects. The

intercultural HCI style score expresses the average

degree of information density and frequency as well

as interaction frequency and speed the members in the

designated cultural group expect according to the

culture dependent HCI model (Heimgärtner, 2013).

From Hofstede’s data, one can infer, for example, that

the cultural distance between China and Germany is

high in contrast to Austria and Germany, which is

also reflected in the HCI style score and therefore in

the behaviour of the user interaction with the system.

Although cultures are constantly changing, at least for

a product life cycle of a few years, trends can thereby

be determined, and for special cases of application

even selective parameters can be determined, which

serve IUID projects.

4.3 Limitations of the Approach Today

Many aspects must be considered simultaneously to

obtain possible cultural explanations for their effect

on HCI. One cannot predict how the single parts of

the cultural puzzle will fit together (cf. (Hall & Hall,

2009)). This has implications for the methods used in

intercultural HCI design and in intercultural usability

engineering (cf. (Nielsen, Bødker, & Vatrapu, 2010)).

For example, the localization of hidden intercultural

variables is very difficult to realize because the

Towards a Toolbox for Intercultural User Interface Design

161

contextual relation to the cultural background as well

as to the product is very strong for interaction and

dialogue design. However, it is precisely this

culturally distinct context and consequently the

cultural dependency thereupon that these patterns and

non-visible intercultural variables are so important

for information architecture as well as for interaction

design and, hence, for the resulting dialogues (Röse,

2004).

Parallel to extensive research literature, empirical

investigations regarding intercultural user interface

characteristics are necessary, more specifically by

comparing several systems of different cultures

(benchmark tests) as well as usability evaluation

(usability testing). For example, the separation degree

of intercultural variables and cultural HCI indicators

must be improved by future research (e.g. by

extending the number of considered cultural

dimensions and related cultural HCI indicators).

The rules developed within the model presented

above represent tendencies describing the

relationship between cultural dimensions and HCI

dimensions. Until these assumed connections are not

completely empirically verified, the model is not very

resilient. Therefore, much research effort is still

necessary because of the number and complexity of

the relationships in HCI determined by culture.

For example, the average HCI style score of the

designated cultural group can be computed from the

model represented only by those rules for which

Hofstede’s indices are known. Factor analysis to

statistically cluster Hofstede’s indices according to

their HCI style should refine the currently assumed

rules that describe the relationship between cultural

imprint and HCI style of a group.

To avoid the evaluation effort of culture

dependent HCI models, the revised principle of

culturally adaptive HMI (cf. (Heimgärtner, 2012))

could be applied abstaining from cultural

categorization at all - as already required by (Rathje,

2003). This principle suggests, instead to use cultural

dimensions, to detect just the pure HCI style of the

user and adapt the HCI accordingly. However, both,

the culture dependent HCI model as well as the

revised principle of culturally adaptive HMI must be

extended and empirically validated.

5 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

The IUID Toolbox represents a hybrid approach

integrating several cultural methods and applying

them systematically. Using the hybrid IUID method-

mix is a reasonable approach towards an IUID toolbox

integrating the methods and the explanatory model of

culture dependent HCI. Areas such as intercultural

usability engineering and intercultural user interface

design (IUID) can benefit to the extent that the model

is further developed and empirically validated to be

successfully applied to new applications, use cases

and products allowing predictive recommendations

for IUID.

Even if not all aspects of the approach to the IUID

Toolbox and the resulting IUID recommendations

have been empirically proven yet, it is very

reasonable (or even necessary to have first

hypotheses) for further development and research to

consider some rules of thumb. On the one hand, they

must be regarded provisional and should therefore

still be treated with the greatest possible care. On the

other hand, they provide an informative basis for new

IUID projects and serve to estimate the development

expense of them in advance.

The final version of the IUID toolbox should

enable the derivation of IUID recommendations

based on the current state of research in IUID.

Integrating the IUID method-mix and the systematic

procedure for its use into an application for

developers of intercultural user interfaces can be the

basis for an empirical evaluation of the IUID toolbox

and its features for the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank all persons who supported me in working on

the topics presented.

REFERENCES

Badre, A., & Barber, W. (1998). Culturabilty: The Merging

of Culture and Usabilty. In Proceedings of the 4th

Conference on Human Factors and the Web. NJ, USA:

Basking Ridge.

Castro, S., Luciana, C., Leitão, C., & Souza, C. (2013).

Semiotic Engineering and Culture. In A Journey

Through Cultures (pp. 19-42): Springer London.

Dormann, C. (2006). Cultural Representations in Web

Design: Differences in Emotions and Values. In T.

McEwan, D. Benyon, & J. Gulliksen (Eds.), People and

Computers XIX - The Bigger Picture (pp. 285-299).

London.

Gould, E. W., Marcus, A., & Chavan, A. L. (2006).

International usability evaluation SIG: issues and

strategies. Paper presented at the CHI '06 Extended

Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

CHIRA 2019 - 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

162

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (2009). Understanding cultural

differences : Germans, French and Americans. Boston,

Mass. u. a.: Intercultural Press.

Heimgärtner, R. (2008). A Tool for Getting Cultural

Differences in HCI. In K. Asai (Ed.), Human Computer

Interaction: New Developments (pp. 343-368). Rijeka:

InTech.

Heimgärtner, R. (2012). Cultural Differences in Human-

Computer Interaction – Towards Culturally Adaptive

Human-Machine Interaction (Paperback B: Einband -

flex.(Paperback) ed. Vol. 1): Oldenbourg Verlag.

Heimgärtner, R. (2013). Reflections on a Model of

Culturally Influenced Human Computer Interaction to

Cover Cultural Contexts in HCI Design. International

Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.

Heimgärtner, R. (2014). Intercultural User Interface

Design. In K. Blashki & P. Isaias (Eds.), Emerging

Research and Trends in Interactivity and the Human-

Computer Interface.

Heimgärtner, R. (2018). Culturally-Aware HCI Systems. In

C. Faucher (Ed.), Advances in Culturally-Aware

Intelligent Systems and in Cross-Cultural

Psychological Studies (pp. 11-37). Cham: Springer

International Publishing.

Heimgärtner, R. (2019a). Intercultural User Interface

Design: Springer.

Heimgärtner, R. (2019b). IUID Method-Mix: Towards a

Systematic Approach for Intercultural User Interface

Design (IUID). Journal of Computer and

Communications, 07, 162-194. doi:10.4236/jcc.2019.

77015

Heimgärtner, R., Holzinger, A., & Adams, R. (2008). From

Cultural to Individual Adaptive End-User Interfaces:

Helping People with Special Needs. In K. Miesenberger

& J. K. a. W. L. Z. a. A. I. Karshmer (Eds.), Computers

Helping People with Special Needs, 11th International

Conference, ICCHP 2008, Linz, Austria, July 9-11,

2008. Proceedings (Vol. 5105, pp. 82-89): Springer.

Hofstede, G. (1994). VSM94: Values Survey Module 1994

Manual. Tilberg, Netherlands: IRIC.

Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010).

Cultures and organizations: software of the mind (3.

ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Honold, P. (2000). Interkulturelles usability engineering:

Eine Untersuchung zu kulturellen Einflüssen auf die

Gestaltung und Nutzung technischer Produkte (Als Ms.

gedr. ed. Vol. 647). Düsseldorf: VDI Verl.

Lewis, R. D. (2000). Handbuch internationale Kompetenz:

Mehr Erfolg durch den richtigen Umgang mit

Geschäftspartner weltweit. Frankfurt/Main: Campus-

Verl.

Marcus, A. (2006). Cross-Cultural User-Experience

Design. In D. Barker-Plummer, R. Cox, & N. Swoboda

(Eds.), Diagrammatic Representation and Inference

(Vol. 4045, pp. 16-24): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Nielsen, J., Bødker, M., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). Culture and

(i)literacy as challenges to scandinavian cooperative

design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd

international conference on Intercultural collaboration,

Copenhagen, Denmark.

Pereira, R., Baranauskas, M. C. C., & Liu, K. (2015). The

value of values for HCI: an informed discussion beyond

philosophy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the

14th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in

Computing Systems, Salvador, Brazil.

Rathje, S. (2003, 05.08.2003). Ist wenig kulturelles

Verständnis besser als gar keins? - Problematik der

Verwendung von Dimensionsmodellen zur

Kulturbeschreibung. Interculture-Online. Retrieved

from http://www.interculture-journal.com/index.php/

icj/article/view/12/14, last access 07/30/2019.

Röse, K. (2004). 3. The development of culture-oriented

human machine systems: specification, analysis and

integration of relevant intercultural variables. In K.

Michael (Ed.), Cultural Ergonomics (Vol. 4, pp. 61-

103): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural

differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters,

& P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures, Dimensions of

culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43-73).

Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Shen, S.-T., Woolley, M., & Prior, S. (2006). Towards

culture-centred design. Interact. Comput., 18(4), 820-

852. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2005.11.014

Souza, C. S. d., Barbosa, S. D. J., & Prates, R. O. (2001). A

semiotic engineering approach to HCI. Paper presented

at the CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in

Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington.

Sun, H. (2001). Building a Culturally Competent Corporate

Web Site: An Exploratory Study of Cultural Markers in

Multilingual Web Design. Paper presented at the

Proceedings of SIGDOC, New York.

Thomas, A., Kinast, E.-U., & Schroll-Machl, S. (2010).

Handbook of intercultural communication and

cooperation. Basics and areas of application.

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Vöhringer-Kuhnt, T. (2002). The Influence of Culture on

Usability. (M.A. master thesis), Freie Universität

Berlin.

Towards a Toolbox for Intercultural User Interface Design

163