64 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,

Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

Identifying, Measuring, and Implementing Cultural

Difference in Cross-Cultural User Interface Design
Jasem M. Alostath1, Laila R. Abdulhadi Abdullah 2
The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET), College of Business studies,
PAAET, Kuwait, P.O.Box 23167, Safat, 13092, Kuwait
1
jm.alostad@paaet.edu.kw
2
lr.abdullah@paaet.edu.kw

to decide between the alternatives (further details about the

Abstract: This paper introduces the Cross-Use experiment,
which aims to evaluate the mapping between website design
elements and cultural attributes using a user-in-context
evaluation approach. This is done by developing three UI
designs, and applying them to 63 local participants from the
case study cultures (UK, Egypt, and Kuwait). The
experiment was conducted using the developed prototypes,
which was able to classify cultures differently, and
highlighted those design markers that affects cultural
differences in the design of e-banking websites. This is
based on user preferences and usability. Finally, the cross-
cultural usability tool in a form of Pattern Language was
developed to show how the various forms of evidence
relating to cultural usability can be made more accessible
to designers.
Keywords: Usability, Cross-cultural design, Pattern Language,
User-Centred Design.
1. Introduction
CCD method see Alostath [9]).
2. Cross-cultural Design Claims
In our earlier studies [9], an HCI-oriented model was
developed based on the cultural four models of Hall [15],
Victor [16], Hofstede [17] and Trompenaars [18]. This
model was used with many design evaluation approaches to
interpret the results of many of the existing designs, such
those studies are conducted by Barber and Badre [5], which
uses Cultural Markers approach, or website audit approach
conducted by Smith et al. [8]. The results of both type of
design evaluation and the interpretation using the HCI
cultural model generates cultural design claims that was
scoped based on national culture [14][15]. These cultural
design claims are presented in a matrix structure called
Culture-user Interface Design Matrix (CIDM) as shown in
Figure 1, and an example of the actual cultural design
claims are presented in Table 1.

Many cross-cultural design evaluations use existing websites

designs in identifying cultural design differences. However,
these design evaluations are not supported with a cultural
model, or adopts cultural models that are not design
oriented in interpreting design based on culture [5]-[8]. In
our research of Culture-Centred Design (CCD) we have
conducted design evaluations based on the identified
subjective cultural attributes (CA) that characterize
similarities and differences within and between user groups
of different nationality of the cultural model that were
developed based on HCI design [9][13]. The most important
advantage of this new approach is that the results of the
analysis provide the designer with sufficient information to
generate new websites that are more sensitive to culture and
genre variability. However, the designs generated are not
guaranteed to be optimal. This is because: (1) the existing
websites that form the basis of the analysis may not have
been well designed from the cultural point of view, (2) the
claims from the cultural-design mapping from which
designs are generated may be insufficient to determine a
unique design decision, and (3) the design analysis that is
undertaken does not provide any important information on
design aspects such as usability [9]. Our solution to this
problem is in the CCD methodology [9], which uses the
quantitative design analysis results to develop a number of Figure 1. The CIDM matrix: different levels
possible prototype websites that will be culturally adapted to
some degree. Then a rigorous user testing approach is used
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 65
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

Figure 1 presents the four levels of the CIDM matrix. Level being tested is also included. This is done by exploiting the
1 presents culture using the HCI cultural model (HCICM), XML technology. XML usually used to display different
while level 4 shows the design level by presenting the data across different UI platforms (e.g. Computer UI, mobile
cultural design claims that show design variability across- interface and others). Here, it is used to display different
cultures. Any CA in level 1 will be linked to an abstract cultural data into HTML file, and this is based on users’
level of design in level 2 to show what UI aspect this CA is culture. For example, the website optimized for Kuwait
linked to. This can be achieved by the Cultural Profile (CP) contained a crescent moon image, which is a highly
results presented here when a new culture is introduced regarded religious symbol. In one of the alternative websites
[13]. The CP presents cultural differences based on CAs’ this crescent moon was replaced with a Christmas tree
values. These values help in predicting cultural design image, in this way we were able to produce a website
claims later in level 4. Then, the concrete mapping of optimized for Kuwaiti culture that could be meaningfully
culture and design is shown in level 3, at which level it shown to UK participants (see Figure 2, 3 and 4). This
shows the cultural design claims that are forming the links website differed from the website presented in design-C for
between culture and design. Each of these claims that the UK culture because in that design there were no
present the claim description, the associated CAs, and religious symbols. We thus generated a total of nine website
finally, the references and results that support the design prototypes, three of which are optimized for a given culture
rationale are presented in level four (see Table 1). The as shown in Table 2. The others were non-optimal culturally
references and design rationale column helps in keeping the but were meaningful to one of the cultures.
design dynamic by reporting all the evidence that was either
identified from the literature, obtained through design Table 2: The nine versions of UI designs
evaluation or user testing results. This makes the model Design
dynamic and not fixed to specific understanding with loose Design-A Design-B Design-C
Culture
connections to the context-of-use.
Kuwait AK BK CK
Table 1: Sample of the cultural design claims table UK AU BU CU
Claim Claim Description Associated References Egypt AE BE CE
Code Cultural (Rationale) Legend
Attributes K-Kuwait, U-UK, and E-Egypt
C1 Users from low [I1] Fogg, 2003;
verbal oriented1 Informatio Dormann
cultures need less n and
textual detail2 Amount*, Chisalita,
information than [I3] 2002;
high verbal Informatio Alexakis,
oriented1 cultures, n Speed 2001;
which are prone to Husmann,
presenting (or 2001; and
expected) higher Sasse, 1997.
need for textual2
detailed
information.
Legend
* Primary Cultural cause
1 Figure 2. Design AK, religious oriented model presented for
Cultural attribute variation
2 Kuwaiti participants
Related design change

3. Cross-Use Experiment: Method and Process

The experiment design involves three national cultures,
using three user interfaces for simple and complex tasks
(3*3*2 mixed design). The independent variables of the
cultural factors were manipulated using three designs and
are shown using the Latin Square design to counterbalance
order effects [1]. The prototype used in this experiment was
developed from scratch by the researchers based on the
results of the design analysis. The three websites developed
have one user interface design for each culture that
maximizes the cultural and genre attributes appropriate for
that culture (see Table 2 and Figure 2, 3, and 4). In addition,
for each of the interfaces developed design alternative with
content that is appropriate for each of the other cultures Figure 3. Design AU, religious oriented model presented for
UK participants
66
Figure 4. Design CU , neutral oriented model presented for
UK participants
The above three figures show design AK and AU, which are
presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 to show how religious
symbols, for example, vary across-cultures. Also design CU,
which is presented in Figure 4, shows how design-C is a
religiously neutral design.
3.1 Variables and Participants
84 user variables are measured in this experiment. Fourteen
variables are required to collect participants’ demographic
information. Of the remaining 70 variables, 58 are the
users’ subjective valuations of interface properties (e.g. text,
images, and others) that are thought to have a cultural
impact. The remaining 12 variables are used for evaluating
each group of tasks (simple and complex tasks). Each group
has six variables, of which four measure usability and two
measure culture and trust compliance. These six variables
are repeated for each task group. These 12 questions are
aimed at building a usability factor that can be used to
determine: (1) at the high level, the most usable design for
each of the studied cultures, and (2) at the lower level, the
design markers (DMs) that improve usability from the 58
DMs. The experiments were conducted with 21 participants
from each culture (Kuwait, UK, and Egypt). Participants
were selected based on their ability to use the computer,
internet, speak English and were given financial incentive.
3.2 Procedure and Materials
Figure 5. The procedure of Cross-cultural experiment
(Cross-Use)
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
The Cross-Use experiment procedure consists of seven
stages as shown in Figure 5. In the first stage, participants
were informed about the three experimental sessions,
objectives and procedure, and were required to sign the
consent form. This is followed by the second stage, where
each participant receives two 3-digit personal account codes
and a password that allows them to run the experiment
process and perform the online transactions required.
In the third stage, a questionnaire of 28 questions is
administered; each question included one or more images of
a DM relevant to one of the design claims being
investigated. The aim is to obtain an initial understanding of
the participants’ expectations before interacting with the e-
banking prototype. In the fourth stage (Task performance
evaluation), the participant starts to perform six tasks,
which are divided into two task groups (simple and complex
tasks). Each group contains three tasks, the first three are
for information inquiry and the other three are for
performing transaction tasks. During tasks performance a
think a loud method is applied to determine user perceptions
and expectations, and these with user's actions are recorded
using Morae™ recording tool. Upon completion of the three
tasks, a comparison questionnaire is administered to rank
the tasks. After each of the three tasks, participants answer
the six design comparison questions, which compare the
three designs in terms of usefulness, ease of use, frustration,
satisfaction, culturally related issues and the most trustable
design. The aim of this stage is to obtain the most usable
design and what are the DMs that make a design usable for
a particular culture. In the fifth stage, the participants were
presented with several design layouts, and transactions
processes necessary to explain the question, and were asked
design-specific questions to rank several cultural design
claims (30 questions presented in a forced-choice
comparisons as well as 5-point Likert scale questions). The
aim of this stage is to measure users’ experience after their
interaction with different interface designs and performing
different types of tasks. The final stages are used to wrap-up
the experiment by collecting participants demographic data
and ending with a thank you message.
The experiment uses a Pentium Centrino 1.5 MHz laptop
with 15” TFT screen, and regular mouse. The experiment
was executed from the local web-server running on the same
computer. In addition, a reasonable resolution (320 x 240
pixels) webcam was connected to the computer to record the
participants’ facial expressions using Morae™ tasks
recording tool (see www.techsmith.com). The Morae™ tool
records all users’ actions similar to an actual usability lab.
This local and remote evaluation technique allows
evaluating designs for more cultures and genres in a wider
context with less cost and time. In addition, this tool is able
to capture qualitative and quantitative data (see Figure 5)
that will enrich the analysis with a concrete evidences that
supports cross-cultural design decisions.
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 67
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

3.3 Objectives and Hypotheses The results of this analysis confirmed hypothesis H1 (see
The objective of the Cross-Use experiment is to substantiate Figure 6 and Table 3). This indicates the ability of the
the cultural design claims [9][12][14], which have been website designs that adopted the cultural design claims to
substantiated earlier in design evaluations approaches [9]. design for different cultures to capture users’ different
This experiment further substantiates these claims based on preferences. The DMs that cause the cultural preference
user-in-context evaluation, and aims to provide two types of differences among specific national cultures resulting from
results. These are related to the user preferences, and the above DA test are shown in Table 3.
usability for the selected design, and design markers. User
preferences refer to the results based on a comparison made Table 3. Partial summary table for the user preferences
by the user between two or more UIs or on specific aspects DMs
of those designs. In contrast, usability is assessed by
K E U Related
performing real tasks, and then both objective (e.g. time to CA Claim Design markers U G K Question
perform a task) and subjective (e.g. satisfaction with task) Relationship
outcomes are measured. The results of users’ preferences Metaphors
and usability are also useful in deciding whether the design R6, C16 Religious M M L B2a (*)
R7 Metaphors
preferences are a good indicator for usability. In order to test (Design A)
these objectives, several analysis methods were conducted, National M H M B2b (*)
to examine the validity of the following hypotheses: Metaphors
(Design B)
H1: When given a choice between a website designed for a Neutral H H H B2c
Metaphors
different target culture and one designed for their own target design (Design C)
culture, users will prefer the website designed for their own Navigation
culture. tools
T4 C21 Drop-down H M H A1a (*)
H2: Websites that have been designed for a particular target Menu (complex
culture (e.g. Kuwait, or Egypt, or UK) using the developed navigation)
Tree-view L M L A1b
cultural design claims will produce better usability results (complex
when tested by members of that particular target culture. navigation)
Sense of
H3: Using Discriminant Analysis (DA), it is possible to security
identify specific or aggregated DMs that are the main Legend
CA is refer to the cultural attribute code identified in the HCI-cultural
contributors to the observed user preferences and usability model [see 10]
improvement. - Low (L): <2.49; Medium (M)=2.50..3.49; High (H): >3.49
- (*) DM identified to be significant (p<.001) based on both the DA with
In this study, the DA and Chi-Square statistical analysis Univariate ANOVA tests
methods were used to analyse the questionnaire data, which - No sign indicates the DM was significant based on DA (p<.001) but not
involves a 189 observations -- 63 observations for 3 designs. significant across cultures based on the Univariate ANOVA test (p<.001).
- Claim (C16): High racial tendency oriented cultures (relationship) are
The DA is used to show the most important or interpretive expected to show high use of religious and/or national symbols in the design
independent variables, which discriminate the dependent more than low racial tendency oriented cultures, which tend to show neutral
variable or affect it [11], while the Chi-square is used to symbols.
determine whether the groupings of cases on one variable
are related to the groupings of cases on another variable [2].
10
Participant nationality
Kuwaiti
Egyptian
Egyptian UK

4. The Cross-Use experiment findings Group Centroid

The aim of the Cross-Use experiment is to present the

important DMs that were identified by users’ preferences,
Function 2

and usability. This can be determined by two analyses, 0

UK

which are concerned with the ability of the developed user

interface designs to classify the cultures differently, and the
identification of those DMs that play a significant role in -5

causing these differences. The key factors in this analysis Kuwaiti

are usability and preferences.

-10

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

4.1 Cross-cultural design preferences Function 1

Study hypothesis (H1) predicted that when creating designs
that are in accordance with cultural design claims [9], these
designs are able to generate culturally sensitive designs. The
data collected from the experiment were used in this
analysis to classify the three cultural groups of users
according to their preferences for the identified cultural
designs. DA was performed with national culture as the
dependent variable, and the DMs as independent variables.
Figure 6. Canonical Discriminant Functions plot: visualizing
how the two functions discriminate between cultural groups
by plotting the individual scores for the two functions.
4.2 ross-cultural design usability
In this section, an investigation of a good representative
score for the cultural usability factor is conducted. Then, two
68 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

types of analysis are performed. The first analysis uses a predicted that websites that have been designed for a
Chi-square test, and the second uses DA. The first analysis particular target culture (e.g. Kuwait, or Egypt, or UK)
tells whether or not there is a relation between national using the cultural design claims will produce better usability
cultures and design usability. The second analysis helps in results when tested by members of that particular target
classifying designs according to cultural usability and DMs, culture. Figure 7 shows a clear tendency for high usability
and identifying the DMs that are used to improve usability by Kuwaiti participants in using their cultural design
for each culture. (design-A), but there is an exception to the hypothesis for
Egypt and UK. Egyptian participants show high usability in
using design-A, while UK participants have a usability score
4.2.1 Culture and usability relation
that is split between design-B and design-C. To further
The aim of this analysis is to identify the design differences investigate the cause of this unexpected result, in the
affecting usability among the three cultures, based on the following section, the DA is used to identify which specific
usability factor. Here, attempts are made to find if there are variables were affecting usability scores for each of the
any relationships between national cultures and design cultures.
usability. If there are any, then the DMs that are affecting
usability across these cultures are investigated. The study
hypothesis (H2) predicts that when creating designs for 4.2.2
The classification of the three designs using
cultures based on the cultural design claims and design DA test
investigation results (presented in [9]), such as design (A) DA was performed with usability factor as the dependent
for Kuwait, design (B) for Egypt, and design (C) for UK, variable, and the studied CMs (58 variables) as independent
such designs are expected to show better usability results by variables. This test provides two types of result. The first
members of those particular cultures in their own cultural result is the classification of the three designs (A, B, and C)
designs. Based on study hypothesis (H2), two issues need to based on the usability factor for each case study culture to
be verified: the first issue is in determining whether a determine the usability level on different designs (see Figure
relation exists between culture and usability, which was 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10).
verified using a Chi-Square test. Then, the second issue is
determining the usability improvement that occurs Participant nationality: Kuwaiti
Usability Factor
frequently within the targeted cultural design, which was 20
Design B
design A

verified using a DA test. Design B

Design C
Design C Group Centroid

As for the existence of a relation between the design 10

Function 2

usability (represented by the usability factor) and the

national cultures, the following hypothesis was defined:
0

Hypothesis: There is a relation between national cultures

and designs’ usability (dependent) design A
-10

80.0%
76.2%
Design-A
70.0% -100 -50 0 50 100
P a rti c ip a n t c h o i c e (u s a b i l i ty fa c to r)

Design-B
61.9% Function 1
Design-C
60.0%

47.6%
50.0% Figure 8. Visual graphs showing the two functions used
40.0% 38.1% to classify three designs based on usability factor for the
Kuwaiti culture
30.0%
Participant nationality: Egyptian
19.0% 19.0% 19.0%
20.0% 80 Design C
Usability Factor
design A
14.3%
Design B
Design C
10.0% Group Centroid
4.8% 60

0.0% Design B
Function 2

40
Kuwaiti Egyptian UK
Participant Nationality
20

Figure 7. The distribution graph for the usability scores 0

according to culture and design design A

-20

A Chi-squared analysis shows that there is a significant -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Function 1
relation between national culture and design usability
(χ2=19.08, df = 4, Sig. < 0.001). In Figure 7, certain website Figure 9. Visual graphs showing the two functions used
designs are found to be more usable by certain national to classify three designs based on usability factor for the
cultures is shown. In validating hypothesis (H2), which Egyptian culture
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 69
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
Participant nationality: UK indicates that, based on usability, Kuwait and Egypt could
Usability Factor
60
design A
design A share design-A and that the UK site (design-C) should be
Design B
Design C redesigned to have cultural DMs from design-B, in addition
Group Centroid
to design-C DMs. Thus, study hypothesis (H2) is partially
40 confirmed for Kuwaiti culture. However, to be sure of this
conclusion we need to look at the DA results in more detail
in order to determine which particular design factors were
Function 2

20 causing these usability effects. This will enable us to

determine how to fine-tune the designs and modify the
identified cultural design. The specific details of the DMs
0
that affect these changes are identified and discussed in
Design B
Table 4.
Design C

-20
As can be seen from the summary DA results shown in
Table 4, there is a clear tendency to identify specific DMs
-50 -25 0 25 50 75

Function 1
that are the main contributors to the observed participants’
usability. Hence, H3 is confirmed for identifying the DMs
Figure 10. Visual graphs showing the two functions used to for usability. This indicates the ability of the DA to identify
classify three designs based on usability factor for the UK culture the DMs that affect usability. These DMs are used as user-
in-context based evidence in supporting or contradicting the
cultural design claims. Reviewing the complete list of the
Table 4: Partial summary table for cultural usability DMs usability DMs (see [9]) indicates that the shared DMs and
cultures based on the cultural usability factor shows that
KU E UK
there are more shared cultural usability DMs between
CA Claim Design marker G
Kuwait and Egypt, followed with Kuwait and UK. However,
Relationship between Egypt and UK, there are no shared DMs. Again
Metaphors this confirms the relation between Kuwaiti and Egyptian
R6, C16 National Metaphors H† cultures discussed earlier in sections 4.1 and 4.2.1. In
R7 (Design B) addition, the DMs related to preferences and usability levels,
Navigation tools the analysis shows that the identified DMs for preferences
T4 C21 Drop-down Menu H† H† are higher than usability (see [9]). Furthermore, some
(complex usability markers appear to be different from preferences
navigation) related DMs.
Tree-view (complex L†
navigation)
Drop-down field H† H†
(complex
5. Extending the Cross-Use evidence-based
navigation) guidelines with pattern language
Free-search H† The above sections provided evidence-based guidelines that
(complex are usable by cross-cultural users. However, there is clear
navigation) evidence that cross-cultural User-Interface designers are
Legend
† This symbol indicates that this DM affects usability for this particular
seeking more concrete design examples that capture the user
culture (presenting a cultural-usability design). The result of this indicator context to guide their work [19]. As a result, pattern
is determined by performing DA. language [20]-[24] is adopted in this research to model user
experiences and provide a common language between
multi-disciplinary design team members, to make available
The second result is in identifying the DMs, which cause more concrete and situation dependent solutions [25][26].
usability improvements among specific national cultures as This can be achieved by integrating pattern language into
shown in Table 4. The DA results shows that the total the Cross-Use tool to capture proven successful design
validity of the proposed model is 100% for observations, knowledge in terms of the problem context and situation
which indicates that all cases were adequately categorized in [27]. The Cross-Use tool can be used to support these
all cultures. In addition, the visual graphs produced by the patterns, and the patterns are delivered to designers, which
DA [9] show a divergence between the design type centroid guide them to design for cross-cultural user interfaces.
points (see Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10), which
primarily discriminate between UK, Kuwaiti and Egyptian In the following section, the adopted Pattern Language
cultures. However, the design classification based on model is described and presents the way integrated with the
usability factor across cultures shows that design-A seems Cross-Use experiment results. In addition, the developed
not to discriminate between Kuwaiti and Egyptian cultures. tool to communicate pattern language to designers is
This confirms the results shown in Figure 7, which stresses described and a working example is shown.
that at the cultural usability level, Kuwaiti and Egyptian
participants show some similarities in usable DMs. This
70
5.1 Cross-cultural User-Interface Design Pattern
Template
The use of pattern design differs in different study fields
[20]-[22] . However, in HCI, there is consensus on the three
main fields of a pattern template. These are: problem,
context and solution, without any one of which pattern
cannot be constructed [28][23]. The purpose of the pattern
language use in HCI is deliver a usable example of user
interface design and within this research scope is to deliver
usable solutions for multiple cultures design [24]. As a
result the developed pattern model described in the next
section have 11 fields on the top of the three main fields
adopted to meet the objectives of this research.
Each of the developed patterns will have the following
fourteen fields and is described as follows:
Title: Meaningful, easy to remember, and unique name for
the pattern.
Rank: Pattern design degree of confidence. the Evidence-
based Theory ranking system was adopted. This ranking
system is based on six levels, where level five has the
strongest evidence level and zero has no evidence (see
http://www.usability.gov/guidelines/3 for more details).
Culture/Country: National culture or country the pattern
solution intended to develop or tested for.
Genre: Application domain.
Problem: The problem statement of the pattern in a question
format that needs to be resolved.
Context: Description of the context of use, user, task being
performed and environment of pattern being applied.
Usability Principle: Usability principle used in the UID
solution considered by this pattern, to help designer to
understand the usability concept used by this pattern
[25][26].
Forces: The conflicting interests as opposing.
Solutions: Captured design solution that balances the
various interests (or forces) in a useful way.
Rationale: “This section describes how pattern actually
works, why it works, and why it is good” [25] based on
usability. (How and Why the usability is improved).
Diagram: Illustration of the solution using a diagram or any
illustration tools.
Empirical result and test scenarios: The test scenario
process of the empirical study and its results are reported in
this field, which will provide with a rationale method
describing how the decision of the solution was made.
Known uses (Examples): This section show the pattern has
been used successfully in an application.
Result Context: show pattern links with other patterns that
will solve sub-problems related the one in the same pattern.
The design pattern framework is adopted to develop the tool
that will help cross-cultural designers. This is presented in
the following section, where the structure of the Cross-Use
tool is shown and described.
5.2 The structure of the Cross-Use tool
The Cross-Use tool is based on the Compendium tool (See
www.compendiuminstitute.org for more information about
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
the tool). Compendium was developed to support the QOC
method [29]. Compendium is designed to help capture
actual design questions (Q) asked during design meetings.
This design question is associated with options (O) of
alternative solutions to the design question. Finally, the
Criteria (C) are generated, which represents the strengths
and weaknesses of each option based on a set of criteria (Dix
et al., 1998, 2003). The Compendium tool represents the
QOC concepts using a graphical representation of typed
nodes and arcs [30][31]. In some cases, there are designs
that show different evidence. This leads to an argument
node, which extends the QOC concept.
This QOC concept is adopted to link culture and design
variables. This link is represented in the form of questions
that show different design options arising from the cultural
design claims. These claims generate different design
options depending on the cultural differences described by
the claim. For every culture, the CP study [9] provides the
initial evidence in support of the various design options.
Then, several CM , Website Audit (WA) [9], and Cross-Use
experiment (see section 3) provide additional evidence
which is added to the visual representation (see Table A-1 in
appendix A). The evidence can support (Pros) or oppose
(Cons) the initial design claim. Furthermore, on some
occasions, different results show contradictions, and in this
case, the contradiction is represented using the argument
node.
The outcome of the Cross-Use tool is presented in a map
shown in Figure 10. This map shows the visual
representation of the Culture-Centred Design (CCD)
method [9][14] used to link the concepts of culture and
design. This map presents an example that is used here to
illustrate the tool’s structure.
In Figure 10, the first level presents the culture attributes
concepts of this research. Each culture attribute has relations
with user interface design aspects of the UI language,
Metaphors, Mental Models, Navigation, Interaction and
Appearance as shown in level 2. This relation is presented
in the form of a design claim such as the C16 node. Each
design claim shows the design options for each of the case
study cultures as shown in level 3, where the expected
culture design is indicated by the link supported by the CP
results. For example, for Kuwait design option 1 is the
predicted design as indicated from the CP, while design
option 2 is the predicted design for UK. In level 4, the
results of the studies conducted in this research are
represented by three types of evidence. These are: pros
indicated by ‘+’, cons indicated by ‘-‘, and argument
indicated by ‘+/-‘. The pros indicator represents a response
in favour of a design option, the cons indicator represents a
response against a design option, and finally argument
represents a general argument, usually in response to a
design option. These results represent the supporting or
opposing results to various design options provided.
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 71
Figure 10. The visual map showing the relation between culture and design concepts (This figure is for illustration only and
not based on real data)
As shown in Figure 10, the CA and UI design aspect, and
how these two factors affect each national culture are
represented as question nodes as follows:
Q1. CA node question: “How does the Religious
Relationship Symbols (R6) CA affect the User-Artefact
relationship for the selected design or function?”
Q2. Metaphor node question: “What is the effect of the
Religious Relationship Symbols (R6) CA on the selection of
the design metaphor (text or images)?”
Q3. Culture (KU) node question: “What is the effect of the
religious metaphors on the Kuwaiti culture users?”
Then, the possible answer to Q3 will provide different
design options for design claim C16. For example, the
Kuwaiti (KU) culture in level 4 shows design option 1
representing the expected solution for claim C16 as
indicated by the CP results. In this example, the CM and
WA results show some argument in which some results
appear to be in favour of the selected design, but some
others are against the selected design. This argument needs
more robust evidence on which design should be chosen.
Here, the Cross-Use experiment (Exp.) results present this
robust evidence, which in this example supports the
expected design indicated by the CP. This support makes
this design claim become an evidence-based guideline for
the Kuwaiti culture based on the guideline process.
However, if the evidence contradicts the design claims, the
guidelines are compared with the existing websites to
identify their shortcomings. These are then represented as
design recommendations.
Figure 10 shows another scenario for the UK culture, where
design option 2 is the expected design. However, the design
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
evaluation of CM and WA and the user-in-context
evaluation are all supporting design option 3, these results
are shown as opposing evidence presented by the cons sign
to the predicted design option. In this case, design option 3
is adopted to develop the guideline and redesign the original
claim. The new claim becomes C16* as shown in Table A-1
by the redesign claim arrow. Figure 10 also shows that each
design claim as shown by C16 could be linked to many CAs.
The map presented in Figure 10 shows the basic structure of
the developed tool, which is presented here as one
hierarchal structure level to help illustrate the example.
However, the actual structure of the map comprises many
maps that are hyper-linked. The following section shows a
real example of the developed tool.
5.2.1 The Cross-Use Tool Example
The developed tool presented in the previous section
presents the culture and design relation in a visual
representation using the Compendium tool. An example of
the developed tool is presented diagrammatically in Figure
11, 12, 13 and 14, which shows the visual representations
for the Cross-cultural design tool, with the results of the CP,
CM, WA and Cross-Use data.
Figure 11. The high level visual representation of
Authoritativeness (R12) CA for the case
72 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

Figures 11, 12, and 13 present a worked example of claim

C35 that relates to the Authoritativeness (R12) CA
identified in CIDM, which demonstrates the relationship
between this CA and metaphor design aspect. Figure 1
represents the high level question for the CA (R14). This
question is applicable to all three cultures. In Figure 12 and
Figure 13, detailed levels of the cultural design relation are
presented, which shows how Authoritativeness affects
design based on claim C35 [9]. Claim C35 affects the
Mental Model (MM) design aspect, which suggested two
design options. The first option was applicable to Kuwait
culture (see the rectangle in Figure 12), which indicates
high adherence to traditional designs, and the second option
was applicable to UK culture (see the rectangle in Figure
13), which indicates high adherence to novel or innovative
designs. These two design options at this level are supported
with CP and literature references as shown by using a book
metaphor inside the rectangle in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
The development of the WADT (see Table 5) and the results
presented in the above example show the ability of the
CIDM when placed at the centre of the evaluation process to
identify cultural design differences, which confirms the
prediction of H1.

Table 5: Partial example of the Website Audit Design

Template (WADT)
Cultural Associated
Figure 12. Visual representation for cultural attribute R12
Attributes Design Design
and claim C35 detailed level for Kuwait culture Claim(s) Marker Testing Method
Authoritative C35 Adopted Compare design
ness (R12) design layout in artifacts
layout design with
different design
layout of different
genre types to
determine what
the adopted
design layout type
is
Genre Search for the
design consistency of
consisten studied culture
cy artifacts with the
genre design
markers
identified in
cultural markers
study [9]

Conducting the previous steps completes the design of the

Cross-Use tool, which at this level presents the concepts of
culture and design, the links between the concepts through
maps, the design claims with initial hypothesis, different
results to support or oppose claims, and the decision making
related to the context-of-use. Finally, using the publishing
technique of the Compendium tool, the developed Cross-Use
tool could be generated in the form of web-based design
guidelines presented as circles in Figure 14 .
Figure 13. Visual representation for cultural attribute R12
and claim C35 detailed level for UK culture
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 73
Figure 14. Snapshot of the Cross-Use tool in the form of
maps (shows the design claim C16 for the Egyptian culture)
The Cross-Use tool website is in process to be published.
This website presents the method, concepts, process and the
presentation of the Cross-Use tool. The final tool is currently
finalized and will be given to Cross-cultural designers for
evaluation. In the future research, the evaluation of the tool
will be reported.
6. Discussion and conclusion
The Cross-Use data analysis was presented through two
models. The first model is the cultural preferences model,
which consists of the high level classification and DMs of
cultural preferences (as shown in Section 4.1), and the
second model is the cultural usability model, which consists
of the high level classification and DMs of cultural usability
(as shown in Section 4.2). Both models have different
concepts that require various analysis techniques, which
produce diverse results and significance levels. The cultural
preferences model concept was to identify whether the
participants’ preferences for using the three designs are
different, where the experiment shows there are significant
differences. This proves that the experiment designs were
able to classify cultures based on participants’ preferences
for the DMs, which at one level substantiates the experiment
design and on the other level shows that there are cultural
design differences. In addition, this model shows that a high
number of the identified DMs are culturally preferred,
which indicates that most of the DMs can be differentiated
based on participants’ preferences.
The next challenge here was to see whether the usage of
culturally preferred DMs in local designs improves local
design usability. This led to the development of the second
model, which covers usability and was referred to as the
cultural usability model. The cultural usability model was
developed based on how the user performs the assigned six
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
tasks (see Section 2 and 3.1), where the usability factor was
developed to discriminate between the studied cultures.
Based on this model, several issues were identified. The first
issue shows that there is a high relation between culture and
design usability using the three designs. This indicates that
the three designs were able to identify a relation between
culture and usability, which shows that at the classification
level culture preferences are able to make usable designs.
However, based on the most usable design related to culture,
the results show that the Egyptian culture reflects design-A
as the most usable design compared to the earlier
expectation, which is design-B. In addition, the UK
participants shared both design-C and design-B as they are
the most usable designs (as shown in Figure 7). Therefore,
the cultural DMs based on usability are not the same as the
cultural design claims. These findings motivate the
investigation of cultural usability DM.
Earlier, design preferences and usability were discussed to
determine their differences. Then, during the experiment
evaluation, these two issues were tested using a process to
evaluate users. The question here is whether the websites
that have been designed based on user cultural preferences
are necessarily presenting usable design. The answer to this
question helps in recognizing the sensitivity of the approach
in collecting data that provides results to help in delivering
usable design. The study of Evers and Day [3] uses the
culturally extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),
which uses the usability variables such as usefulness, ease of
use, and satisfaction to determine the UI acceptance. They
use questionnaires to collect users’ preferences. Their study
indicates that design preferences affect interface acceptance
across cultures. In the Cross-Use experiment, the general
view of the design classification based on the usability factor
for each culture shows higher differences on cultural
preferences than usability (see [9]). This proves that
participants prefer design differently, but when they use the
design, it shows more differences in usability than originally
expected. This highlights the complementary usage of the
user-in-context evaluation in determining the usable cultural
DMs.
Many website developers and evaluators use methods that
assess user preferences aiming to create usable design. For
example, the Cultural Markers [5], Website Audit [8], and
user evaluation [10] using questionnaire based tools only are
not sufficient in understanding and identifying the
appropriate usability requirements. According to the results
of Cross-Use experiment, as can be seen from Table 3,
which presents user preferences CMs, and Table 4, which
presents usability CMs, the comparison between the two
markers indicates that the number of the identified markers
in each type is different, and the identified markers based on
preferences are not necessarily identified based on usability
and vice-versa. The cultural usability model identifies fewer
DMs than in the cultural preferences model. These prove
that not all of the preferred DMs are necessarily usable
DMs. Furthermore, the cultural usability DMs show that
there are some DMs that are not shown to be preferred by
the participants but are statistically proven to improve
usability (e.g. Tree-view navigation DM in claim C21, as
74 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
shown in Table 3 and Table 4). This suggests that research
based on design preferences does not necessarily present the
effects of usability as indicated by Constantine and
Lockwood [4]. As a consequence, the results of such studies
linking participants’ preferences to design can be doubted,
and this also affects the investigation of existing website
design, as both adopt the same results. Therefore, the results
obtained from users’ preferences and usability should scale
differently in supporting cultural design claims and in the
later stages of the development of cultural design guidelines.
This conclusion strengthens the research results as they are
obtained by evaluating both the cultural preferences and
usability DMs. For the future research a detailed inspection
method are expected to be used to analyse these results
together with results of earlier research studies, which aims
at developing evidence-based cultural design tool .
The final step to determine how the various forms of
evidence relating to cultural usability can be made more
accessible to designers. The Pattern Language framework
was developed with hyper-link patterns. Currently,
Compendium tool was used as the platform for the Cross-
Use tool because it is freely available on the internet and it
provides all of the features we required to capture and
browse the hyper-linked structure of the CIDM and the
developed patterns. The tool is in its early stages of
development to encapsulate the results of our studies of the
Kuwaiti, Egyptian and UK cultures, and further work is
required to make it more mature.
References
[1] S. MacKenzie (2002). "Research Note: Within-subjects
vs. Between-subjects Designs:Which to Use?"
[http://www.yorku.ca/mack/RN-
Counterbalancing.html]. Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
2002.
[2] J. Pallant, "SPSS Survival manual," New York, USA,
McGraw, 2005.
[3] V. Evers and D. Day, "The Role of Culture in Interface
Acceptance." Human-Computer Interaction,
Interact'97, London, 1997.
[4] L. Constantine and L. Lockwood, "Software for Use: A
Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-
Centred Design," New York, Addison-Wesley, 1999.
[5] W. Barber and A. Badre, Culturability: "The Merging
of culture and usability," proceedings of the 4th
Conference of Human Factors and the Web, 1998.
[6] A. Marcus, "User Interface Design and Culture.
Usability and Internationalization of Information
Technology," N. Aykin. Mahwah, New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 2005, pp 51-78.
[7] P. Bourges-Waldegg and S. A. R. Scrivener, "Applying
and Testing an Approach to Design for Culturally
Diverse User Groups." Interacting with Computers,
vol. 13, pp 111-126, 2000.
[8] A. Smith, L. Dunckley, et al., "A process model for
developing usable cross-cultural websites,"
Interacting with computers Vol. 16, pp 63-91, 2004.
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
[9] J. Alostath, "Culture-Centred Design: Integrating
Culture into Human-Computer Interaction," Doctoral
Thesis, The University of York, UK, 2006.
[10] V. Evers, "Cultural Aspects of User Interface
Understanding: An Empirical Evaluation of an E-
Learning website by International User Groups,"
Doctoral Thesis, the Open University, 2001.
[11] N. Brace, R. Kemp, and S. Rosemary. "SPSS for
psychologists: A guide to data analysis using SPSS
for Windows," Mahwah, N.J., L. Erlbaum Associates:
vii, p. 287, 2003.
[12] M. B. Rosson and J. M. Carroll, "Usability
Engineering: Scenario-Based Developement of
Human-Computer Interaction," USA, 2002.
[13] J. Alostath, J. and P. Wright, "Integrating Cultural
Models into Human-Interaction Design," Conference
on Information Technology in Asia (CITA2005),
Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 2005.
[14] J. Alostad and A. Khalfan, "Cross-Use: Cross-
Cultural Usability User Evaluation-in-context," 12th
International Conference, HCI International 2007.
Beijing, China, July 22-27, 2007.
[15] E. T. Hall, "Beyond Culture," New York, An Anchor
Book, 1989.
[16] D. A. Victor, "International business
Communications," New York, NY, HarperCollins,
1992.
[17] G. H. Hofstede, "Cultures and organizations: software
of the mind," New York, McGraw-Hill, 1997.
[18] A. Trompenaars and C. Hampden-Turner, "Riding
the waves culture understanding cultural diversity in
Business," London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing,
2001.
[19] S. Henninger,. "A methodology and tools for applying
context-specific usability guidelines to interface
design," Interacting with computers vol. 12, pp 225-
243, 2000.
[20] C. Alexander, "A Timeless Way of Building," New
York, Oxford University Press, 1979.
[21] C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-
King, and S. A. Angel, "A Pattern Language," New
York, 1977.
[22] C. Lawson and S. Minocha, "Guidelines versus
Design Patterns for Cultural Localisation,"
Proceeding of the Second British Computer Society
HCI and Culture Workshop on "Culture and HCI:
Bridging Cultural and Digital Divides", University of
Greenwich, 2003.
[23] D. K. Van Duyne, J. A. Landay, and J. Hong, "The
Design of Sites: Principles, and Processes and
Patterns for Crafting a Customer-Centred Web
Experience," Addison Wesley. 2002.
[24] M. J. Mahemoff and L. J. Johnston, "The Planet
pattern Language for Software Internationalisation,"
PLoP1999, 1999.
[25] M. V. Welie and H. Taetteberg, "Interaction Patterns
in User Interfaces," PLoP2000 Conference, 2000.
[26] M. V. Welie, G. C. V. d. Veer, and A. Eliens,
"Patterns as Tools for User Interface Design,"
International Workshop on Tools for Working with
Guidelines, pp. 313-324, 7-8, Biarritz, France, 2000.
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 75
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

[27] J. Alostath and P. Wright. "Pattern Language:

Towards A tool for Cross-Cultural User Interface
Development," Conference on Information Science,
Technology Management, CISTM2004, Alexandria,
Egypt, 2004.
[28] L. Barfield, W. V. Burgsteden, et al, "Interaction
Design at the Utrecht School of the Arts," SIGCHI
Bulletin, 1994
[29] A. MacLean, R. M. Young, V. M. Bellotti, and T. P.
Moran, "Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements
of Design Space Analysis. Design Rationale:
Concepts, Techniques and Use," T. P. Moran and J.
M. Carroll. New Jersy, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
[30] B. Shum, "Hypermedia Support for Argumentation-
Based Rationale: 15 Years on from gIBIS and QOC,"
Rationale Management in Software Engineering. e. a.
Dutoit. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 111-132, 2006.
[31] Shum, S. B. and N. Hammond, "Argumentation-
Based Design Rationale: What Use at What Cost?"
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
vol. 40(4), pp. 603-652, 1994.

Authors Profile

Jasem M. Alostad received the B.S.

degree in Computer Science from Western
Kentucky University in 1990, M.S. degree
in Software Engineering from Manmouth
University in 1996 and PhD degree in
Human-Computer Interaction (Computer
Science) from The University of York
(UK) in 2007. Currently, he is assistant
professor in the Computer Science
Department at the College of Business
Studies (PAAET). His research interest is in cross-cultural user
interface design and usability.

Laila R. Abduihadi Abdullah received

the B.S. degree in Computer Science from
Richmond College, London ,UK in 1991
and M.S. degree in Computer Information
Systems from Bradely University, US in
1995. Currently, she is lecturer in the
Computer Science Department at the
College of Business Studies (PAAET). Her
research interest is in Adaptive
Assessment Systems in Learner Centered
Education, and Human-Computer Interaction focusing on usability
issues.
76 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

Appendix A
Table A-1. Claims and guidelines development process results for claim C16

1 Design Claim C16 CA R6, R7

2 Design Marker Artefact initial image Experiment Questions B2a, B2b, and B2c
Design (A) Show religious metaphors (B2a)
3 Design (B) Show national metaphors (B2b)
Design (C) Neutral design (do not present any religious or national metaphors) (B2c)
4 Cultural Hypothesis: High racial tendency cultures (e.g. Kuwait and Egypt) are expected to show higher
Profile (CP) use of relationship symbols than in lower racial tendency cultures (e.g. UK).
Expectations: Based on religious metaphors cultural attribute (R6) the Kuwaiti and Egyptian
participants are expected to show high preferences for religious metaphors (see design-A), and
UK participants are expected to show low preferences for religious metaphors (see design-C). In
the national metaphors related CA (R7), Egyptian participants are expected to show high
preferences for national metaphors (see design-B), and UK and Kuwaitis are expected to show
medium preferences for national symbols (see design-B).
5 Cultural The cultural markers study shows high use of religious and national metaphors in the Kuwaiti
Markers websites, low in Egyptian and rarely used in UK websites. Note that in this study the two items
(CM) of religious and national metaphors are treated as one design marker called religious and
national design marker.
6 Website KU: Frequent use of religious symbols and medium use of national symbols
Audit (WA) EG: Frequent use of national symbols with less use of religious symbols.
UK: Infrequent use of religious or national symbols.
7 Cross-Use Evaluating participants according to C16 scenario shows the following results:
Experiment
Design A* Design B* Design C
KU 3.14 3.28 (UK, EG) 4.04
EG 2.71 3.61 (KU) † 4.29
UK 1.23 2.47 (KU) 4.52
* identified to be significant (P<.001) based on a DA with Univariate ANOVA test based on user preferences
† indicates the use of the design marker in the associated culture and genre (e-banking) shows a usability
improvement (See Table 8-6).
8 Decision Comparing the experiment results with CP, CM and WA shows:
Making Religious symbols National symbols
CP CM WA Exp CP CM WA Exp
KU
(H)
(H)  (M) M .

(H)
(L)
(N/A) M KU  (M) --  (M) M
EG
 (L)  (N/A)  (N/A) L EG  (H) --  (H) H
UK
 Conforms with experiment result UK  (M) --
(N/A) M

Contradicts experiment result  Conforms with experiment result

Contradicts experiment result

9 Redesign Claim - Change the use of Religious metaphors to medium for both KU and EG national
C16* cultures.
10 Design - UK websites should include a medium level of national symbols (or metaphors).
Recommendations - A design recommendation to KU and EG designers to medium use of religious
metaphors.
Local Design View Global Design View
11 Religious Metaphors: Design-C
KU: Medium focus on religious metaphors (design-A)
EG: Medium focus on religious metaphors (design-B)
UK: Low (or no use) avoid using religious metaphors as possible (design-C)
National Metaphors:
EG: High focus on national metaphors (Design-B†)
KU: Medium focus on national metaphors (Design-A)
UK: Low focus on national metaphors (Design-C)
Legend
† This symbol indicates the use of the related design marker in the associated culture and genre (e-banking) shows a usability
improvement (using DA based on the usability factor)
KU: Kuwait; EG: Egypt; UK: United Kingdom; CA: Cultural Attribute; CM: Cultural Markers; WA: Website Audit; Cross-Use:
Cross-cultural usability experiment