Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Jamie Owen

Jamie Owen — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:38 GMT

Though this is a good idea, it does not involve multi-cultural or intercultural perspectives for your personas. At best the resulting product may be ineffectual. Or it may simply confound those users from a target culture that you had not represented responsibly. At worst, the technique may bring to life or perpetuate negative elements (i.e. stereotypes) offensive to that culture.

In addition, if that other culture is not as advantaged as the one represented by your enterprise, you may complicate or endanger relationships to a degree greater than the depth of your site/product/etc.

Do you have any related activities that include a more global perspective?

Jamie Owen — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:38 GMT

I know it’s been a while since anyone has commented here, but I launch in regardless:

There is enough catalyst here for reams of commentary on my part—I’ll pick two overarching themes.

The first thing we need to do when practicing our profession cross-culturally is to leave the imperialism of western-centric thinking back in the states. Because the west generally was/is leading the technological ubiquity (thought sheer wealth of resources alone, if not brain power), because of this we take many aspects of out culture for granted. One example (of hundreds) is our linear way of thinking; eastern cultures are more circular. We think in terms of step one, then two, then three…then I have accomplished my goal. Eastern cultures think not so much about the next step but rather ALL possibilities related to a choice or action. In addition, they think not solely about their goal, but about how their goal impacts all those around them (boss, family, etc)

This kind of sensibility needs to live onscreen for these users. Think about those crowded Taiwanese interfaces that numb the American mind. Take another look and see what features or options are immediately surrounding a landing point on the page. You may find that features are loosely related, not ordered toward a western style of logic.

Second – a lot of what Adam is talking about (both successful and lessons learned) can be framed constructively using the idea of an “ecosystem” onscreen. You can read much more on this from Adruid Kerne (http://www.cs.tamu.edu/people/faculty/andruid) and Jodi Forlizzi from Carnegie Mellon (http://goodgestreet.com/). Culturally-responsible design and the onscreen ecosystem are closely related. Here’s how: essentially, Kerne defines culture as the tangible manifestations of a way of life, the behaviors, the rituals, and the social actions of a group of people—these are embodied aesthetics of that culture. Aesthetics are the way humans give form to the values of that culture.

Subsequently, aesthetics inform the ecosystem onscreen: the way that mutually interdependent elements make up a healthy “whole.” The onscreen artifacts of that culture make a user experience comfortable and concordant—thus effective—for members of that culture

If we IA our stuff (IA as a transitive verb!) to this aesthetic with the idea of creating an ecosystem onscreen, we’ll be much more successful in our cross cultural dealings. The sommelier issue is a perfect example, evidenced by the colloquial info provided in the comments that follow the article. What Adam thought was pretentious by American aesthetic was in harmony with the Japanese aesthetic.

Are there any models or techniques in someone’s IA arsenal that allows for an adaptive approach to IA-ing for another culture?

Jamie Owen — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:37:17 GMT

This is roughly related to how some cognitive processes rely on “cues” to jolt them from long-term memory to working memory. And I’d posit that dfferent people respond more less effectively to different types of cues. For example, a visual person responds to color or position cues, abstract thinkers respond to a cue’s place in a sequence of steps, etc.

Also consider that unfamilar cues would get in the way of effective cognitive processes—like an unannounced site redesign. Or like cultural references with which one is unfamiliar (or worse: one that a user finds offensive!).

Jamie Owen — Thu, 17 May 2007 17:11:24 GMT

Louise—

Without knowing the bank or seeing the layout, it’s hard to suggest what exactly did prompt the retrieval of your account details. It’s certainly fodder for a good old-fashioned quantitative study, eh?

Perhaps your cognitive tumblers aligning themselves was prompted by the position of the entry fields in relation to other elements on screen. Or perhaps your eyes tracked a familiar course over something that brought the info automatically/magically to your fingertips. Both of these might be related to mental processes similar to how I remember phone numbers: by the arrangement of numbered keys on a phone keypad (i.e. my number is across-jump-back-repeat-up-drop-over). It’s a pattern of sorts; we humans love patterns. If I have to change this visual processing to the verbal processing needed to recite this number to someone, it requires concentration focused on that mental translation from visual to verbal—it’s a chore for my working memory.

The color cues, the position cues, and the multiple steps you repeat each time you visit the pink website, all these combine to call up the final element in that familiar pattern: your pecking in the account info. A solution might be for you to close your eyes and visually imagine the pink bank visit when you’re at another bank’s machine. Another solution might be to practice reciting aloud the information so that it is also imprinted on your brain’s verbal centers (or inventing a rhyme/anagram/mnemonic). For example, it’s now easier for me to recite my phone number because I practiced saying it aloud—but I practiced reciting it with the area code and thus still struggle when verbalizing it WITHOUT reciting the area code first!

If you want more info on this kind of stuff, reference “dual-coding theory,” “cognitive load,” “Allan Paivio,” “Richard Mayer,” or “John Sweller.” Also, you may find Andruid Kerne’s ideas about the “interface ecosystem” interesting (interdependent onscreen elements).

Jamie Owen — Thu, 17 May 2007 17:50:59 GMT

“I can only surmise that Hoekman recommends a focus on activity because that is the most conscious of the interactive processes.”

I’d further this thought and suggest that by one’s being involved in the activity, he/she allows the elements of that activity to be blended into his or her own experiences and understandings. Perhaps it is the most conscious of the interactive processes, but it also provides the most value. For example, if you and I were both working on the same design team, you would interpret and digest the expereience of the activity differently that I would. (I know this as being labeled “scripting” and/or “schema.”) Then next time we are on a design team together or we are working on a similar project, we now have a more robust degree of experience to draw upon—experience and utility unique to each of us. (For example, as you wrote, we remember the story of activity from “Designing the Obvious,” not all the discrete concepts that were tied into it along the way: we experienced the same story but you remember some details, I remember others.)

Or using the glasses example, we understand the glasses-lost-in-a-bag scenario (scripting), we know what to expect from a search, and we anticipate one of two outcomes. But the next time you and I search for missing glasses, we may go about it differently. You may look systematically through the regions of your bag, I may dig around randomly; you may then decide to establish a permanent pocket or location for the glasses, I may continue to carelessly toss them in the bag. The point is we take what we’ve experienced and used it in ways relative to our own particular tastes, styles, habits, personalities, etc. The ‘activity’ mentioned in the quote embodies a degree of engagement unique to each of us.

It allows us to continually make the experience our own, fold it into who we are, and then use it or call it up the next time we encounter a new but similar experience…which we then make our own, fold it into who we are, and use it, etc. etc. THAT’S the Zen.

Jamie Owen — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:42:40 GMT

I might need some help on some of these concepts. My MO has always been to thoroughly investigate the culture and create an app/product/site suited as much as possible to that group of users.
I’m not being critical—I’m simply trying to figure out what I’m not getting.

You write “it can be said that one of the purposes of information architecture is to reduce context dependency in order to facilitate finding – and understanding – information in LC media.” and that “the tools that information architects employ…can be thought of as means to capture contextual information and collapse it into LC space.”

But in particular regard to cultural issues, why are we REDUCING and COLLAPSING context? Shouldn’t we match or nurture the context in which that the member of that culture is used to communicating? By doing so, don’t we help that user transcend the barriers that would interfere with a familiar communications style (be it LC or HC)? Put another way, in a culturally-familiar context, the user does not have to learn an interface or figure out how to interpret any distilled metaphors, processes or paradigms.

You write “These documents and methodologies define the “rules” that establish how communication will occur in an information environment.” The idea that you need to set up rules in the first place means you may be fixing something that may not have been broken in the first place.

Is the idea I’m not getting one of “standardization” across culturally different user groups?

Jamie Owen — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:14:48 GMT

Austin—

Thanks for your questions—I’m glad you called me out on these points.
I am thinking about looking further into issues of power and democracy inherent in the technology interactions. When designing for another cultural value system, I propose adjusting the practice of IA to incorporate a wider social perspective.

Granting ideas like “media imperialism” and “electronic colonialism” more agency than ever, what can we in the IA community do to ensure culturally responsible approaches to our work? In examining the nuances of Western culture and the elements we take for granted (even beyond the tactical Do’s and Don’ts’), how do we empower the user audience? How do we imbue their culture’s values and affordances in the technology being imposed by globalization? I feel it goes beyond methodological diligence. So to answer your questions: yes, perhaps we twist current methods; yes, we definitely involve users more and from square one. The primary consideration is to recognize our own cultural influence on our methods, standards, practices, and expectations—then move past them for a more user-influenced design.

(A quick related example of ideas—here, dealing specifically with race—Peggy McIntosh looks at conditions of skin color in daily life. An interesting list begins about a quarter of the way down the page. How would these types of considerations influence something you might be working on? Asked another way, how would the absence of some of these considerations debase or demoralize a technology user from another culture? see: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack )

I see it as cyclical. If a community of users steers the development of the technology with which they’ll be interfacing, it will be vetted to a greater degree and they’ll use it more—thus empowering more members of their culture to use the technology, to be involved with its creation, and to continue to influence its evolution within their culture. In light of globalization, even in small ways this increased agency may shift relationships of commerce, natural resources, human capital, etc. Andruid Kerne calls this a “mutually recursive network of processes” that addresses “the function of culture in human-computer interfaces and the function of human-computer interfaces as culture.”

Jamie Owen — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:41:02 GMT

Thanks for this article, David—it’s encouraging to be reminded that the human experience is at the heart of the design-centered disciplines you listed. Often the details of our workday obligations obscure that perspective (for me, at least).

Much like differing cultures have recognizable characteristics unique to their dance and their music, the “choreography and orchestration” of their interaction should also be designed as to their unique cultural characteristics. In short, the elements of the foundations are different culture to culture.

I think your orientation to foundations needs to be considered separately for each cultural audience of interactors we are designing for. And this may not necessarily be across national boundaries. Even the differing levels in a given society need to be considered.

You spent some time discussing “abstract,” for example. Different groups have different ideas of what abstract is—or have different levels of comfort with the abstract. An easy illustration of this is Asian cultures’ and Western cultures’ thinking patterns and how elements onscreen match these patterns (thinking patterns can also involve “pace” as well). And different cultures have differing ways of looking at time, color, language, and semiotics, too.

Your discussion of metaphor and your mention of aesthetic are tied together when considering multiculturalism within the interaction. Bluntly, unfamiliar metaphors violate a cultural aesthetic. The user may then grant less agency to the interaction out of resentment or confusion, rendering the design ineffective. This may be especially true when one of the two cultures is more powerful or somehow has an advantage over the other. For instance, as we become more globalized, we Westerners need to consider this agency as our human capital stores are more and more diverse (okay, I’ll say it: outsourcing). Indeed, we can’t slow down the bus of capitalism in order to accommodate each and every user group. But if we want members of those other cultures to be viable resources at our technological level, we need to meet them half way with that technology. At least related to my comments here, that halfway point means responsibly infusing their cultural aesthetic into the interaction.

As you’ve said, in order to behave, the tech-based products and systems need to respond to human stimuli—with an amazing cultural array of humans using the technology, “behave” can mean an array of different things.

Jamie Owen — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:26:55 GMT

Eric—

Your comments seemed on-base at first. Though in re-reading them, there seems to be a degree of proposition to your claims. Is there research that bolsters the ideas in your reminder?

I can understand that innovation and evolution happen when isolated from the large forces. But the very nature of the technology needs to be considered: one’s association with the larger group is not absolute state of existence, one is not locked in (Tron!). We can step away from our computers. Or we can belong to entirely different networks (indeed I may be “at the edges” in one and part of the “giant component” in another). What I do in my free time away from the network may inform my presence when I log back in—it may still contribute to innovation and evolution within that big group, no? My opinion is that we can have fresh blood without any devouring taking place.

Or have I misunderstood the ideas in your comment?

Jamie Owen — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:15:01 GMT

So what you’re saying is “form follows function”?

Jamie Owen — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:13:15 GMT

It’s always interesting when several simple things are brought together to create a unique and eloquent solution to something that otherwise stymies us! (“Eureka!”). And the familiar metro visuals make your content management approachable to a great number of folks.

It seems to me that you could combine Visio elements and capabilities into all sorts of visual metaphors and inventions. One could indeed use your techniques on a traditional flowchart. Maybe you want to do something visual with less inherent linearity (like a metro map is), for example Dan Brown’s bubble diagram site map in which circles and distance indicate relationships (“Three Lessons From Tufte: Special Deliverable #6”). Or if the web site uses an interface that is itself is a metaphor for something, you could actually represent that metaphor in the hyperlinked sitemap—for example an interactive anatomy lesson in which the user clicks on a general region to learn about the systems in that part of the body. Machines or processes are also candidates for bringing the interactivity closer to the visual form it’s meant to provide content for. If nothing else, it may make it easier for the stakeholders to visualize the final form and understand the reasons behind the info organization.

Jamie Owen — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:33:13 GMT

What happens when someone in Terry’s position (as team leader) has members of different cultures on his team? How does one mediate the cultural influence on an individual’s contribution to the team? Do the differing values held by a multicultural team mean that there will by more internal conflicts to sort out? For example, does a team member of one culture dismiss the contributions of another (for whatever reason)? Or given the results of user research on a population whose culture is different from that of the design and development team, how does the design impact a business goal aimed at this audience?

Rhetorical questions, yeah—and I don’t have the answers. But I think they bring up realistic issues as technology shrinks the globe.

Jamie Owen — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:31:33 GMT

It seems that with such diversity across the globe, the range of experiences—and the lessons learned—would be just as diverse. I’m not sure if one article would be enough to cover any more than two or three ideas. Perhaps a series of 3-4 articles from various authors can give us a survey of aspects of multiculturalism realted to IA and IxD. People world-wide read and contribute to B&A so there’s bound to be a good pool to draw from.

Jamie Owen — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:37:00 GMT

Fun article! I love this kind of stuff.
As an inveterate (though currently lapsed) curbside trash-picker, I managed to find some amazing things easily repurposed to fill a college graduate’s first apartment. One thing my wife and I still have 20 years later is a highly ornate stone birdbath bowl and base. The bowl had a hole in the middle and was worthless for holding water…but with an inexpensive round glass top, it became our small breakfast cafe table! It’s just the right height and the designs around the rim are visible through the glass. It’s still in daily use in a corner of our kitchen.
Another “curbside inspiration” was using an old foot-powered cast iron sewing machine base I found and building a potting bench on top of it. It looks interesting and is never likely to tip over.

Jamie Owen — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:01:48 GMT

Seems to me that filtering the search results works sort of like the human brain. In an instant, we place objects or concepts (or experiences!) we encounter into a taxonomical hierarchy or context so that they make sense to us. Roger Schank’s ideas on schema work this way. Progressive disclosure simply forces us to categorize consciously (albeit using someone else’s taxonomy).
One advantage of progressive disclosure is that I may be exposed to options that I had not considered—relationships born of knowledge, experiences, or opportunities I’ve never had. This last facet may be particularly important as I purposefully explore new things, like buying one of a new generation of HD televisions, something I know next to nothing about.

I am cautious about Austin’s comment, though, concerning our rich interface literacy improving, especially regarding the functionality. Indeed this is true for technologically-advanced societies. But members of emerging economies or cultures different from our own may be confounded by much of the interactivity we take for granted. Simple navigation in a western-influenced onscreen environment may be a challenge, let alone the semantic nuance of how we’ve imposed our thought processes on the functionality. In other words, other cultures interact with one another and their environment differently that we do—and that interaction style may not translate to the onscreen search functionality we design/create.

On the plus side, it gives members from a differing or emerging culture a chance to explore and understand how we think about things, thus they are better able to take advantage of opportunities to interact with us. Admittedly, it’s technologically imperialistic on our part, though frankly a realistic trend. Perhaps in the mean time we should consider a middle ground for our presence within those countries or cultures: searches and filtering “implemented in a way that is more specific to the context” as Chris says. As the economic or cultural relationship evolves, we can, as Austin suggests, provide a progressive filtering responsive to 100% of the demographic. Moving through the search results is progressive—honing thoughts and ideas to an exact and purposeful result. Why not make learning about the nature of searching itself progressive, honing an exact and purposeful search process for a given demographic?