Cultural differences and design methods for user experience research: Dutch and Korean participants compared

ABSTRACT

As business competition globalizes, understanding user experience from various cultures plays a crucial role in design process. However, because most user research methods were developed in Western area, one may question if the expected result can be obtained when applying them to totally different culture. The paper explores cultural effects on the feedback collected in the process and result of user experience research conducted in two countries, the Netherlands and Korea. We presumed four factors which influence user research process: spontaneity of participation, uncertainty avoidance, tendency of problem criticism, and attitude within a group. After the two sets of user research in two countries, actual differences of results were revealed. Consequently, guidelines of user experience research in Korea were suggested based on discovered differences.

REFERENCES

• 1: Brown, P., Levinson, S. C.: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press (1987)
• 2: Chavan, A. L.: Another Culture, Another Method. HCI 2005 Conference Proceedings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (2005)
• 3: Bill Gaver , Tony Dunne , Elena Pacenti, Design: Cultural probes, interactions, v.6 n.1, p.21-29, Jan./Feb. 1999 [doi>10.1145/291224.291235]
• 4: William W. Gaver , Andrew Boucher , Sarah Pennington , Brendan Walker, Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty, interactions, v.11 n.5, September + October 2004 [doi>10.1145/1015530.1015555]
• 5: Hall, E. T.: The Silent Language. Anchor Books Editions (1981)
• 6: Hall, E. T.: Beyond Culture. Anchor Books Editions (1989)
• 7: Hall, M., de Jong, M., Steehouder, M.: Cultural Differences and Usability Evaluation: Individualistic and Collectivisitic Participants Compared. Technical Communication. vol.51 (2004)
• 8: Hofstede, G.: Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGRAW-Hill International(UK) (1991)
• 9: 9. Hofstede, G.: Culture's Comsequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and ORganizations across Nation. 2nd ed. Beverly Hills (2001)
• 10: Kaoulio, M. A.: Customer, Consumer and User Involvement in Product Development: A Framework and a Review of Selected Methods, Total Quality Management, vol.9, no.1 (1998)
• 11: Mike Kuniavsky, Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research (Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies) (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 2003
• 12: S. K. Puri , Elaine Byrne , Jose Leopoldo Nhampossa , Zubeeda B. Quraishi, Contextuality of participation in IS design: a developing country perspective, Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices, July 27-31, 2004, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/1011870.1011876]
• 13: Sanders, E. B.-N.: Design for Experiencing: New Tools. Proceeding of the First International Conference on Design and Emotion (1999)
• 14: Sleewijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., van der Lugt, R., Sanders, E. B.-N: Contextmapping: Experiences from Practice. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and Arts vol.1. no.2 (2005)
• 15: Ting-Toomey, S.: Intercultural Conflicts Styles. A Face-negotiation Theory. In Theories in Intercultural Communication, Ed. Y. Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst. Sage (1998)
• 16: Trompenarrs, F.: Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity, Irwin (1994)
• 17: van Rijn, H. et al.: Three Factors for Contextmapping in East Asia: Trust, Control and Nunchi, CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and Arts, Vol.2 No 3. Taylor and Francis. (2006) 157--177

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  A. General Literature
  A.0 GENERAL

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)