TY - JOUR
T1 - Templates for Cross-Cultural and Culturally Specific Usability Testing
T2 - Results from Field Studies and Ethnographic Interviewing in Three Countries
AU - Clemmensen, Torkil
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - The cultural diversity of users of technology challenges our methods for usability testing. This article suggests templates for cross-culturally and culturally specific usability testing, based on studies of usability testing in companies in Mumbai, Beijing, and Copenhagen. Study 1 was a cross-cultural field study of think-aloud testing done by usability vendor companies in the three countries. The result was a grounded theory of cultural variations in the production of a usability problem list. Study 2 was a follow-up, ethnographic interview study of how the companies typically perform usability tests. The result was the construction of templates for usability testing. The culturally specific templates were in Mumbai “user-centered evaluation,” Copenhagen “client-centered evaluation,” and Beijing “evaluator-centered evaluation.” The findings are compared with related research, and the implications are pointed out. The templates can be seen as a simple and practical way to plan, compare, and improve the way usability testing is carried out in multiple, different cultures and countries.
AB - The cultural diversity of users of technology challenges our methods for usability testing. This article suggests templates for cross-culturally and culturally specific usability testing, based on studies of usability testing in companies in Mumbai, Beijing, and Copenhagen. Study 1 was a cross-cultural field study of think-aloud testing done by usability vendor companies in the three countries. The result was a grounded theory of cultural variations in the production of a usability problem list. Study 2 was a follow-up, ethnographic interview study of how the companies typically perform usability tests. The result was the construction of templates for usability testing. The culturally specific templates were in Mumbai “user-centered evaluation,” Copenhagen “client-centered evaluation,” and Beijing “evaluator-centered evaluation.” The findings are compared with related research, and the implications are pointed out. The templates can be seen as a simple and practical way to plan, compare, and improve the way usability testing is carried out in multiple, different cultures and countries.
KW - Cross-Cultural Studies
KW - Ethnographic Analysis
KW - Field Work (Research)
KW - Cultural Pluralism
KW - Sociocultural Factors
U2 - 10.1080/10447318.2011.555303
DO - 10.1080/10447318.2011.555303
M3 - Journal article
SN - 1044-7318
VL - 27
SP - 634
EP - 669
JO - International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
JF - International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
IS - 7
ER -