conceptual metaphors for designing multi-cultural applicationsclarisse/docs/saldagoclihc... ·...

Conceptual Metaphors for Designing Multi-Cultural Applications

Luciana Cardoso de Castro Salgado, Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, Carla Faria Leitão SERG – Semiotic Engineering Research Group – Depto. de Informática

PUC-Rio Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

{lsalgado, clarisse, cfaria}@inf.puc-rio.br

Abstract—This paper proposes a set of conceptual metaphors for the design of multi-cultural systems. The work is part of a long-term study to adapt the International Children's Digital Library for use in a Brazilian context. Results from previous studies along with Semiotic Engineering concepts have led us to propose five multi-cultural design metaphors to guide different communicative strategies that affect both designer-to-user communication and user-system communication.

Keywords-cultural aspects in HCI; semiotic engineering; multi-cultural HCI design; conceptual metaphors

I. INTRODUCTION The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural

Diversity underlines the primacy of cultural heritage, and states that it “must be preserved, enhanced and handed on to future generations (…), so as to foster creativity in all its diversity and to inspire genuine dialogue among cultures” [32:7]. The Declaration points to the role of Information and Communication Technologies in the implementation of universal cultural rights: promoting linguistic diversity in cyberspace and encouraging universal access. Since then, considerable work has been devoted to taming cultural challenges in human-computer interaction.

Most of the work has focused on evaluating systems in order to tease out cultural differences that affect users with distinct backgrounds and heritage [2, 4, 8, 25]. A large part of current results is framed as a set of guidelines for internationalization (generic interfaces to be used by people from different cultures) and localization (specially-designed for every other culture).

Our work takes a different perspective and explores communicative issues in the conceptual design of multi-cultural applications. To us, multi-cultural computer applications are: systems used by people from different cultural origins; and systems that aim to raise the users' awareness of different cultures, or of how cultural dimensions of interaction can be manipulated to promote different use experience.

We propose five conceptual metaphors to inform the design of multi-cultural applications. They are the result of previous studies using Semiotic Engineering [10] to investigate cultural issues in HCI, in the context of a binational cooperation project [17]. The ICDL-Brasil Project aims to propose a cultural adaptation of the International Children’s Digital Library [18] to a Brazilian

use context. ICDL is a paradigmatic example of a multi-cultural system, because it has been designed with the purpose of exposing children from all over the world to different cultures through literature. In this paper, however, we are not going to discuss a re-design of the ICDL interface. We will concentrate solely on discussing the conceptual metaphors, which constitute a more general research result.

We begin with an overview of related work. We then present some key concepts in Semiotic Engineering. Next, we report our findings with ICDL-Brasil. Then, we explain the proposed metaphors and illustrate one of their practical applications. Finally, we discuss the benefits of our approach and point to future work in this project.

II. RELATED WORK A large part of HCI research about multi-cultural systems

has been focused on localization and internationalization. Recommendations for HCI design and evaluation procedures have been the most prominent kind of contribution [1, 11, 15, 24, 27]. For instance, Delgado proposes “questions that investigate the cultural metaphors, preferences, attitudes and impact of our products when they are introduced into cultures for which they were not specifically designed” [11]. Aykin and Milewski, in turn, argue about the usefulness of a “list of topics and potential problem areas as the top layer of internationalization in any cross-cultural design: graphics and icons, language, data object formatting, color and layout” [1].

Cultural differences resulting in usability problems have been identified by other authors. For example, Marcus states that “rarely can a product achieve global acceptance with a ‘one size fits all’ solution” [22]. New approaches to cultural issues in HCI design have been also presented. One of them is the Meaning in Mediated Action methodology proposed by Bourges-Waldegg and Scrivener [4]. Another is Shen, Wooley and Prior’s Culture-Centred Design perspective [31]. Unlike all previous work, ours is about conceptual metaphors for organizing multi-cultural communication, a key part of HCI design in a Semiotic Engineering perspective.

In the early 1980s, Lakoff and Johnson introduced a new theory of metaphors. Metaphors, they said, are “pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action”. Their main point was that our conceptual system is fundamentally metaphorical in nature [20].

To appear in Proceedings of CLIHC'2009 4th Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

Mérida, Yucatán - Mexico November, 2009 1

Clarisse

Placed Image

Most of the HCI research on metaphors took place between the early eighties and the mid-nineties, aiming to facilitate the user’s learning process [e.g. 5, 12, 13]. Many authors advise about the importance of interface metaphors (e.g. “Designers of systems should, where possible, use metaphors that the user will be familiar with.” [14]), and their risks (e.g. “Analogy, used as literary metaphor, is effective for communicating complex concepts to novices. But analogy is dangerous when used for detailed reasoning about computer systems” [16]). Erickson [13] sums up that metaphor is important for designing interfaces precisely because Lakoff and Johnson showed it to be so pervasive in thought.

Thus, metaphors can also support the design process itself. Some design researchers view metaphor as a strategy (or a tool) for creative design. Schön [29, 30], for example, describes the value of metaphor and analogy in helping all kinds of designers to see things in new ways, gaining new perspectives on the world. Moreover, Madsen [21] and Mohnkern [23] argue explicitly that the benefit of metaphors could go beyond users and be experienced also by system designers. Blackwell adds that “the increasing understanding of HCI as a design discipline has led to recognition of the way that metaphor can function as a creative tool for designer.” [3] The author also talks about metaphor as a process of reification “by which an idea has become a design tool”.

Almost three decades later, the current view of metaphor is still influenced by Lakoff and Johnson [19]. The same applies to our own work, with an additional point. As will be explained in the next section, Semiotic Engineering views HCI as a special kind of computer-mediated communication involving designers and users. In it, designers communicate their vision, as well as their perception and understanding about the users’ needs and expectations. Thus, conceptual metaphors used in the design process will certainly be expressed (as such or after having gone through further elaboration) in the form of user interface signs.

III. THE SEMIOTIC ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE The Semiotic Engineering framing of HCI is a twofold

computer-mediated human communication process [10]. At the upper level, interactive systems interfaces constitute a designer-to-user performative message about what the system is, what can be done with it, and how. The message acts out its content, which is thus unfolded as users interact with the system. Such interaction constitutes the lower level of computer-mediated human communication, wherein the system serves as a proxy for its designer. It executes all and only the conversational paths that the designer thought would be necessary, convenient, interesting and pleasant for the users as they try to achieve an open variety of goals and tasks.

For a brief illustration, see a screen shot from Google’s entry page (Fig. 1). In it Google designers are sending various messages to Google users. To the authors of this paper (regular Google users) they are saying such things as:

We assume that you (users) are looking for information (“Google search”; “Advanced search”) in the Internet (this

is a web page, you are using a browser), and you want something quick and simple (little instruction, lots of empty space on the page, only a text box to jot in what you want, and two buttons to click – there is also links to more if you want more). We know you are in Brazil, so if you want you can “Go to Google Brasil”.

You can communicate with the system by just typing in what you want to find – no need for further instructions. Then press “Google Search” or play your chance pressing “I’m feeling lucky”. You’ll see what we mean. If you want to do something more elaborate and personalized, click on “Advanced Search” or “Preferences”. The system is also prepared to handle different languages. If this is important for you, click on “language tools”.

Figure 1. The core Google's entry page.

Notice that designers, users and system play a role in this complex communication. Designers are the senders of the performative message and users its receivers. Interactive systems represent designers at interaction time (actually delivering the interactive message) and are the conversational partners of users. By sending and receiving messages throughout interactive conversation, users and system enable and achieve the top-level designer-to-user communication illustrated with the Google’s example. Users interpret such communication, and react according to the possibilities and alternatives communicated through the interface. The interface tells users what the designer wants to say, and listens back to the users’ reaction, thus establishing a mediated conversation with (and about) the system.

The main difference between Semiotic Engineering and other theories of HCI is that in it the designers play an active role at interaction time. Semiotic Engineering proposes to support designers in constructing or selecting various communicative strategies to achieve their ultimate intent through computer-mediated conversation: to meet the users’ needs and expectations, and to allow them to have a pleasurable experience with the system. These strategies may range from reification (the designers present their proxy as a thing and communicate by reacting to direct manipulation) to anthropomorphism (the designers present their proxy as a humanoid that reacts emotionally to the users input), from a terse to a verbose style, from an intentionally cryptic (as is the case with some games) to a tutorial tone, and so on.

Because design metaphors play such an important role when designers are elaborating the system, they will certainly be present in the designers’ message to users. As



just said, this presence may be more or less obvious and direct. For example, reified designers’ proxies may express them differently than anthropomorphized proxies.

IV. THE ICDL BRASIL PROJECT ICDL-Brasil is a collaborative project centered on cultural

issues. The aim is to find alternatives for the cultural adaptation of ICDL so as to encourage Brazilian children to read more. We want to meet social and cultural needs of Brazilian children, parents, tutors and teachers.

Currently 1 the ICDL website interface supports the translation of textual content into various languages. Thus, for example, Brazilian users can choose Portuguese as their interface language and have the system ‘speak their language’. However, there is more to cultural adequacy than linguistic translation of textual interface materials.

In two of our previous studies [8, 28] we used Semiotic Engineering evaluation methods to inform aspects of the cultural adaptation of ICDL: the Communicability Evaluation Method (CEM) [26, 9] and the Semiotic Inspection Method (SIM) [7, 9]. The Communicability Evaluation study focused on how well the designer-to-user meta-communication is received, with an emphasis on communication involving explicit cultural elements (e.g. language, reading practices). Six adults participated in a lab test with ICDL. The test scenario required that they play the role of a teacher that wanted his class to learn about a completely new culture. Their task was to choose a book written in Persian or Farsi, which they would show to the students in class on the next day.

CEM results showed that there was an urgent need for cultural references to orient ICDL users as they move across cultural boundaries. The ICDL interface should present not only linguistic alternatives, but also cultural markers [2], and a cultural home (i.e. a familiar place that they can return or refer to in multi-cultural explorations). An illustrative instance of the kinds of breakdowns experienced by participants in our study is when they inadvertently changed the interface language from English (see Fig. 2) to Persian (see Fig. 3). When trying to find Persian books participants often switched the interface language instead of the book language. Then, in an attempt to undo the mistake, the most common behavior was to click on the home sign (first on top left), hoping that it would lead back to the original English interface. However, the home sign in this case did not mean a ‘cultural home’. It just meant ‘ICDL home page’; the mistaken interface language was not changed by navigating back to the starting point.

The Semiotic Inspection study [28] evaluated the emission of the designer-to-user meta-communication. This was achieved by identifying and evaluating how ICDL designers expressed their intentions through various kinds of signs. Three evaluators conducted the inspection with an

1 All statements about the ICDL interface refer to what was the case when this paper was written (June, 2009).

enriched scenario about a volunteer adult tutor visiting the ICDL website to explore books in Portuguese. The tutor's aim was just to learn more about the resources that the digital library has to offer, in preparation to volunteer work done later with children.

In spite of being a multi-cultural system and having the mission to “excite and inspire the world's children to become members of the global community”, SIM results suggested that the ICDL interface still poses a number of challenges to users for mainly three reasons.

Firstly, ICDL is not equally prepared to attend to the needs of its widely diverse intended audience: children ages 3-13, librarians, teachers, parents, caregivers and researchers interested in studying children's literature. This heterogeneity raises different cultural issues, experienced by children and adults, with considerably different perspectives on ICDL.

Figure 2. Simple Search Interface in English

Figure 3. Simple Search Interface in Persian

Secondly, the user’s experience is deeply affected by inter-related language issues. For instance, users can independently select different interface languages, different book languages and different keyword languages. Additionally, book metadata in the ICDL database is not always available in other than the default language, English. For instance, although a Brazilian user can choose



Portuguese as the interface language, the lack of metadata in Portuguese for most book catalog information (like summary, date, place of publication, etc.) causes that metadata to appear in English. Likewise, because in ICDL translation into various languages is not entirely done by professionals, standards are not clearly set and followed. So the quality of textual material in the interface is very heterogeneous.

Thirdly, book language and publication country are two ways to locate books in ICDL. However, together, these two criteria may lead to considerable cultural confusion. For example, when searching books from Brazil, the user will find books written by Ana Maria Machado, a Brazilian writer, whose stories typically take place in Brazil. These books, however, are not all written in Portuguese. There are French, English and German translations. So, when looking for books from Germany, the user will retrieve some of Ana Maria Machado's books, which are not culturally identified with Germany. They were just published in Germany. Given the cultural exchange goals of ICDL, this factor may be very confusing and misleading. Inadvertent users might even get the wrong impression that Ana Maria Machado is a German writer, for example.

The results of both evaluation studies showed the complexity of multi-cultural design per se, and – given our particular framing of HCI – the complexity of organizing the designers’ discourse about multi-cultural experience with systems like ICDL. So, we devoted part of our research to thinking about how we should help designers face the difficulties of their task.

Because these studies were carried out by different research groups, and independently of each other, we revisited the cultural issues identified by empirical evaluation (CEM) in the light of findings produced by semiotic inspections (SIM). Among our findings, we saw that, for example, that the notion of having a cultural home (a homeland, so to speak) to return to when crossing cultural boundaries, was not clearly emitted by the designers. The semiotic inspection didn’t find any messages about a cultural reference of the sort in the designer-to-user communication through the ICDL interface.

However, as we looked at both studies side-by-side, we realized that although the independent semiotic inspections did not explicitly identify a specific class of signs consistenly used to express cultural markers, we did find relevant cultural markers among the metalinguistic, dynamic and static signs described by inspectors. The interface language, the book categories (the way books are classified as action books or funny books might vary across cultures), the different forms of reading books (from left to right or right to left depending on the interface language and the book language): all of these communicate cultural perspectives. Nevertheless, just as the first inspectors found, at a second look we did not see cultural marker signs associated to a book’s geographic origin (unlike in other multi-cultural systems like Google, YouTube, Wikipedia, and others).

Another interesting finding at this second stage has to do with signs that encourage or lead users to cross cultural boundaries and to be in touch with elements from foreign cultures. This happens right up front when the user enters the ICDL website. The default page is in English, but there are links to pages in Spanish and Mongolian. Likewise, when the user chooses an interface language, a book language or a book summary language from another culture, he gets in touch with linguistic material from other cultures. And there are yet other signs that open the door for foreign cultures, expectedly or unexpectedly, when the user: starts reading (or turning the pages of) a book in another language; accesses the reviews made by kids (all reviews are in English, which may cause a feeling of strangeness for users that speak another language); and chooses an interface language other than English, but the metadata is shown in English because of translation problems.

Our conclusion, after revisiting previous studies done for the ICDL-Brasil Project, was that cross-cultural encounters in ICDL bring about many exchange opportunities, but they are not always organized and, probably for this reason, experienced as intended. For example, some are the result of miscommunication side effects or current limitations in available translated material, whereas others may have other causes (e. g. only English-speaking children have published book reviews so far).

In the next section, we show how these learnings have led us to propose five multi-cultural design metaphors to guide different communicative strategies that affect both designer-to-user communication and user-system communication.

V. CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS FOR DESIGN Cultural experience enabled by ICDL is rich and varied.

For example, users can feel at home, when they find books from their own country (written in their own language). At the same time, they can experience cultural practices from foreign countries when they find books written in another kind of alphabet and encoded in the opposite reading direction, for example. Furthermore, users can feel like a foreigner in a very different culture if, for example, they switch the interface language to Persian.

All these possibilities occur in our real life when we are in touch with other cultures, traveling to other countries, watching foreign movies, listening to songs from a far-away country, and so on. When one watches a foreign movie with sub-titles, for example, only the language is translated; the foreignness of everything else about the movie is there. The audience gets in touch with another culture through the lenses of the film’s director, with translation support provided by sub-titles.

But, what determines the nature or intensity of cultural contact? It depends. When traveling, for example, one can use the service of a tourist guide, who speaks one’s language and can help bridge cultural gaps. Others might decide to explore the culture without intermediaries, having as much direct experience and exposure as they can.



We began to organize the whole range of the users multi-cultural exchange possibilities with ICDL by categorizing the kinds of cultural contacts they may have. Categorization was done in terms of the distance assumed when approaching another culture:

(i) No multi-cultural contact (maximum distance): the user’s culture prevails through the whole experience, so there is virtually no multi-cultural contact.

(ii) Telescopic contact (far): the user views another culture from a distance, immersed in his own culture.

(iii) Close contact (closer): the user makes a kind of guided tour in a culture with which he is not familiar (like when, for example, one is a guest in a foreign culture and is introduced to common expressions in the foreign language, typical food, typical social behavior in daily life, etc.). The users will know about the culture and feel comfortable during the visit, but will not have to figure out the culture by themselves.

(iv) Direct cultural contact ‘with sub-titles’ (closer yet): the users will have permanent access to linguistic translations of information available in the other cultures, but they may not be familiar with cultural practices and their meaning. No interpreter will be there to help them.

(v) Direct cultural contact ‘without sub-titles’ (minimal distance): the users have a non-mediated contact with the foreign culture, like an explorer in a foreign country. The culture may be very different from one’s own, and one may not know how to speak the country’s language, be unfamiliar with the local lifestyle. All is there to be explored and learned through direct observation and experience.

These organizing categories helped us to address one of the key design steps in the semiotic engineering of the designers’ message to users, namely choosing among different communication strategies getting their message across to users. The idea was to turn the organizing categories into organizing principles that may help designers make decisions about whether it is appropriate to expose users to direct contact with other cultures, to provide them different levels of cultural mediation, or – in extreme situations – to neutralize as many traces of foreign material as possible.

Further studies in Semiotics, itself, suggested that there was more to designing multi-cultural meta-communication than looking at the distance from which the user is supposed to approach different cultures. According to Danesi and Perron, for instance, culture is generally seen by semioticians as “a communal system of meanings that provides the means for human beings to translate their instincts, urges, needs, and other propensities into representational and communicative structures” [6]. Thinking of representation and communication, we then added two separate categories of signs in our analysis of multi-cultural discourse: language (in ICDL terms, the interface language) and observable cultural practices (in ICDL terms, the way of reading and manipulation books in Western and Eastern cultures, the way the children’s books are categorized, and so on).

This finally led us to define five conceptual metaphors to help designers build elaborate meta-communication for multi-cultural systems. Each one is the result of combining

alternative values and decisions regarding the following issues:

a) Design decisions about how the users would like to feel when in touch with material from another culture. We call it the ‘attitude of the first person of the experience’. That is, what the designer knows to be the case about the users’ behavior and their expectations.

b) Design decisions about two cultural variables, which typically promote or reinforce the ‘attitude of the first person of the experience’, namely:

i. Using the user’s native language versus the language from the other culture.

ii. Encoding the user’s own cultural practice versus that of the other culture.

TABLE I. MULTI-CULTURAL DESIGN METAPHORS

We expressed these assumptions about the user’s behavior and the choices of cultural variables with a corresponding conceptual metaphor. Table 1 shows the causal relationship between the assumptions about the user’s attitude and cultural variables with the following metaphors: located ‘at home’, telescope observer, close observer, foreigner ‘with sub-titles’, foreigner ‘without sub-titles’.

We believe that such metaphors can be used at design time as an epistemic tool. Inspired by Schön’s definition of epistemic design, we think that the metaphors “should help



designers in constantly producing and analyzing new knowledge that is directly related to design issues” [29].

In the next section we present these results in practice by reflecting about the possibilities and effects of designer-to-user metacommunication through cultural metaphors.

VI. CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN PRACTICE We illustrate the potential of these metaphors in a re-

design activity by presenting only a partial ad hoc example of ICDL. We show how the proposed metaphors may increase our understanding of the problem, explore hidden implications, generate and compare alternative solutions.

The main functionality in ICDL is the Simple Search. It involves three interaction steps. In the first the user selects a book, as shown in Fig. 2, section 4. In the second the user sees catalog information about a selected book (see Fig. 4). In the third the user may browse book pages (see Fig. 5).

Even at a superficial glance, we see that the dominant metaphor in ICDL today is the foreigner ‘with sub-titles’. How would the interface look like if designed according to an alternative metaphor?

Figure 4. About this Book Interface in English

Figure 5. Book Overview Interface in English

So, let us explore the alternatives we would have with the close observer metaphor. The concept is that the presence of another culture is communicated through illustrations (i.e. aspects of cultural issues are presented, discussed and explained in the user’s language). Following the concept, with respect to cultural practices, we can include opportunities for the user to learn more about the foreign culture to which the book belongs. Signs that communicate

the idea appear in the ‘About this Book’ page (see examples in Fig. 6 and 7).

The close oberver metaphor also extends to important cultural practices supported in ICDL, namely the way books are read and browsed in Western and Eastern cultures. In accordance to our interpreation of the metaphor, we may display books in their original reading direction, as is already the case in the current interface, but also provide explicit explanations about different reading orders, allowing users to change it and learn more (see Fig. 8).

Figure 6. Explanations about the book.

Figure 7. More about the book language.

Figure 8. Explanations about reading orders.

Although these are only superficial examples of how the metaphors can guide and inspire designers while making their decisions, they serve to demonstrate the role of the proposed metaphors in the design process and to illustrate different directions in research and practice.

VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Over the years, research on multi-cultural issues has been

mostly concerned with localization and internationalization. In this work we turned our attention to naming and framing some elements in a multi-cultural HCI design space, focusing on designer-to-user metacommunication.

It must be emphasized however that this type of metacommunication is necessarily influenced by the designer’s own cultural values and orientation. There is no way to produce a cultural-neutral design [6].

Our metaphors might not only help designers think about their own cultural perspective, but also about how such perspective could be experienced in different ways. This epistemic exercise might be carried out in mirrored form, as designers ask themselves what difference it would make for them to experience or present a foreign culture according to different metaphors. For example, by trying to differentiate the design according to the telescope observer metaphor from that according to the foreigner with sub-titles, the designer would be naturally prompted to think about how to introduce a foreign culture to the user (and not only to translate linguistic material in it).

Re-design explorations with the ICDL interface suggest that we can produce different interfaces, following different

This book is a classic of world’s literature and well-read in the U.S. (learn more...)

Yiddish ( ééÄãéù yidish or àéãéù idish, literally "Jewish") is a non-territorial High German language of Jewish origin, spoken throughout the world. Unlike other Germanic

languages, Yiddish is written with the Hebrew alphabet as opposed to a Latin alphabet. (learn more at Wikipedia...)

The Yiddish language is written and read from right to left (learn more...). Try it!

You can change the reading order if you wish.



sets of metaphors, and test them in the targeted contexts of the ICDL-Brasil project.

Our next step in this research is, first of all, to evaluate our conceptual metaphors with others designers, because in this work the researches played this role. Then, our goals are to identify which metaphor(s) has the best chances of meeting the needs of targeted Brazilian users, to design and develop a fully functional prototype of a culturally-adapted ICDL interface, and to evaluate it with empirical and analytical methods. This should help us see more accurately the larger-scale impacts of using design metaphors on the design of multi-cultural systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research has been financially supported with different grants from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil, and was carried out in international cooperation with the ICDL research team at the University of Maryland, College Park. We would also like to thank the Research Foundation of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), Brazil, for the scholarship of Luciana Cardoso de Castro Salgado.

REFERENCES [1] Aykin, N, Usability and Internationalization of Information

Technology. Lawrence Erlbaum, NY, 2005. [2] Barber, W. and Badre, A. Culturability: The Merging of

Culture and Usability. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Human Factors & the Web, 1998.

[3] Blackwell, A. F. The reification of metaphor as a design tool. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 13, 4, 2006, pp. 490-530.

[4] Bourges-Waldegg, P., Scrivener, S. A. R. Meaning, the central issue in cross-cultural HCI design. Interaction with Computers 9, 1998, pp 287-309.

[5] Carroll, J. M., Mack, R. L., and Kellogg, W. A. Interface metaphors and user interface design. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. M. Helander, ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.

[6] Danesi, M., Perron, P. Analyzing Cultures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.

[7] de Souza, C.S., Leitão, C.F; Prates, R.O.; Silva, E. The Semiotic Inspection Method. Anais do VII Simpósio Brasileiro sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais, IHC 2006, Natal, 2006.

[8] de Souza, C. S., Laffon, R. Leitão, C. F. Communicability in multi-cultural contexts: A study with the International Children’s Digital Library. In: 1st IFIP Human- Computer Interaction Symposium HCIS-2008, Springer Boston, 2008, pp. 129-142.

[9] de Souza, C. S., Leitão, C. F. Semiotic Engineering Methods for Scientific Research in HCI. San Francisco: CA. Morgan & Claypool, 2009.

[10] de Souza, C.S. The semiotic engineering of human computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005.

[11] del Galdo E. M. and Nielsen J., Eds. International Users Interface, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1996.

[12] Dieberger, A. and Frank, A. U. A city metaphor to support navigation in complex information spaces. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 9, 1998, pp. 597–622.

[13] Erickson, T. D. Working with interface metaphors. In: The Art of Human-Computer InterfaceDesign. B. Laurel, ed. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990, pp. 65–73.

[14] Faulkner, C. The Essence of Human-Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1998.

[15] Fernandes, T. Global Interface Design: a Guide to Designing International User Interfaces. Academic Press Professional, Inc, 1995.

[16] Halasz, F. and Moran, T. P. Analogy considered harmful. In: Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, NY, pp. 383-386.

[17] ICDL-Brasil: Uma biblioteca internacional digital para crianças brasileiras. http://www.icdl-br.inf.puc-rio.br.

[18] ICDL – International Children Digital Library website, http://en.childrenslibrary.org/.

[19] Lakoff, G. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., A. Ortony, ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993, pp. 202–251.

[20] Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980.

[21] Madsen, K. H. A guide to metaphorical design. Commun. ACM 37, 12, 1994, pp. 57–62.

[22] Marcus, A. International and intercultural user interfaces. In: Stephanidis, C. (Ed.), User Interfaces for All: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001. pp. 47–63.

[23] Mohnkern, K. Beyond the interface metaphor. SIGCHI Bull. 29, 2, 1997, pp. 11–15.

[24] Nielsen, J. (Ed.) Designing User Interfaces for Intemational Use. Elsevier, New York, 1990.

[25] Nielsen, J. Usability Testing of International Interfaces. In Jakob Nielsen (Ed.) Designing User Interfaces for International Use. Elsevier, New York, 1990.

[26] Prates, R.O., de Souza, C.S., Barbosa, S.D.J. A method for evaluating the communicability of user interfaces. Interactions, v.7, n.1, 2000, pp.31-38.

[27] Russo, P., Boor, S. How Fluent is your interface?: designing for International Users. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam , 1993.

[28] Salgado, L. C. C., de Souza, C. S., Leitão, C. F. A Semiotic Inspection of ICDL. http://bib-di.inf.puc-rio.br/techreports/2009.htm.

[29] Schön D. A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, NY, 1983.

[30] Schön, D. A. Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In: Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed. A. Ortony, ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993, pp.137–163.

[31] Shen, S., Woolley, M. and Prior, S. Towards culture-centred design Interacting with Computers, Volume 18, Issue 4, July 2006, pp. 820-852.

[32] UNESCO - The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf.



conceptual metaphors for designing multi-cultural applicationsclarisse/docs/saldagoclihc... ·...

Documents