How HMI solutions can be culturally adapted

Author: Dr.-Ing. Peter Rössger, Founder, beyond HMI

Contribution – Embedded Software Engineering Congress 2015

This paper discusses intercultural differences in the perception and evaluation of human-machine interfaces (HMIs). Cultural background significantly influences users' expectations of technological artifacts (Rößger & Rosendahl, 2002; Heimgärtner, 2010). Approaches, problem-solving strategies, information processing, and the association of colors, symbols, and icons differ markedly between cultures (Marcus et al., 2003; Honold, 2000). Rößger (2014) discusses this topic using the example of infotainment systems in vehicles.

Definition of culture

Early definitions describe culture as a complex whole that includes, among other things, knowledge, beliefs, moral values, arts, laws, and customs (Scupin, 2011). This is a definition in the sense of high culture. It was introduced and used to distinguish it from so-called cultureless savages.

Later, culture was defined as identity-forming for groups and group processes (Hall, 1976). Today, culture is the collective mental programming of people who belong to a group. Unlike earlier definitions of culture, this also includes everyday objects, actions, and values, and not just traditional high culture. Culture is considered learned and not genetically determined (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2009).

When considering humans as cultural beings, the base of an imaginary pyramid is human nature, a set of genetically determined parameters that is the same for all people. At the top of the pyramid is individual personality, which distinguishes each person from all others. In the middle layer are learned cultural values. These apply to groups of people (Figure 1, see Figure 1). PDF).

At the heart of every definition is a shared set of values, actions, and views that distinguishes one group from another. Without differentiation from other cultures, without distinction, a distinct culture is inconceivable.

Culture is strongly determined by geographical differences. However, cultural differences can also exist within a region, for example, determined by hobbies, preferences (e.g., fan culture), or level of education (e.g., working-class culture). This text uses the geographical definition of culture: European compared to Asian, and compared to American.

Statements about culture never describe reality (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2009). They are always stereotypes that arise from looking at groups. This leads to simplified perception and action, but never considers the individual.

Examples of intercultural differences: scripts and character sets

Cultures are determined and represented by the language they use (Gardt, 2001). Different character sets are used for writing words, depending on the language. Most European languages use the Latin character set, although special characters such as German umlauts may be added. When implementing HMIs, it is important to ensure that the character sets used allow for the representation of the corresponding letters.

Within Europe, some languages use Cyrillic letters; Greek and Georgian have their own character sets. In Asia, other writing systems are in use, which, unlike European letters, represent more complex content such as syllables. To complicate matters further, for example, approximately 20,000 characters are used in China (Karlgren, 2008). Words vary in length across different languages. English is a relatively efficient and short language; German and French generally use more letters. Finnish has extremely long words. Asian writing systems allow for the representation of a great deal of content with very few characters. This must be taken into account when designing HMIs, particularly regarding the field size for words.

Examples of intercultural differences: colors and symbols

Beyond their purely aesthetic effect, colors carry information. Green often signifies a state of "good," "okay," or "non-critical," while red signifies the opposite. Further connotations between colors and meanings are also known, such as white for innocence or purity and black for mourning or elegance. These associations are culturally determined and not identical across all cultures. For example, in Asia, red is not necessarily associated with critical situations, and in some parts of China, white is the color of mourning (Table 1).

	Black	White	Red	Yellow	Green
USA	authority Death/Grief infinity sin style	Heaven luxury Wedding purity Truth	Danger Trouble courage excitement heat Love/Eroticism Passion	cowardice energy Fun Joy Peace Expulsion of evil	Luck growth envy Nature Security
Germany	Death/Grief style luxury design	purity cleanliness Wedding innocence virtue	Danger Trouble heat Love/Eroticism Speed	envy lie Falsehood Sun Summer Joy	Organic/Natural envy Environment
China	Joy party Power Money Ponder	purity Truth Death/Grief	Wedding fertility Luck Success happiness	Health Quiet Power Money respect kingdom	growth Life Expulsion of evil
India (Hindi)	sin Fury Money	Truth Death/Grief intelligence Peace	eroticism heat Passion Wedding energy	God Illness Personal energy Expulsion of evil	Life sympathy The evil Attention religion Love

Table 1: The meaning of colors in selected cultures (Russo & Boor, 1993; McCandless, 2010)

The different connotations of colors across cultures have consequences for the design of HMIs. Different colors carry different meanings. This can lead to misinterpretations, for example, when displaying critical conditions. The use of colors can evoke emotions that are inappropriate for the given context.

Misunderstandings can also arise when using symbols (icons) in HMIs. Icons are often simplified representations of real-world objects. This simplification, in itself, creates room for (mis)interpretation. The choice of objects used as a basis can be inappropriate. The selection of gestures as the basis for icons can be particularly confusing. Gestures have a very strong culturally determined meaning (Ege, 2013; Broschinsky-Schwabe, 2011). Political symbols such as stars or crosses also have different meanings internationally. For example, the swastika represents the far-right political spectrum in Europe; in India, the almost identical-looking swastika is a symbol of good luck.

The political-religious dimension

The disregard for intercultural phenomena also has a political and religious component (Goldschmidt, 2009). Tensions between countries can, for example, influence the presentation of navigation maps. Vehicles traveling to China should depict Taiwan as a province of China, while within Taiwan it should be shown as an independent country. The same applies to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in Israel and Arab countries, respectively.

In Arab countries, green and purple are religiously connoted colors; they should not be used in the design of HMIs. Due to the prohibition of alcohol in many Islamic countries, icons should not depict alcoholic beverages. This also applies to the depiction of human limbs (Goldschmidt, 2009).

Globalization, internationalization, localization

Localizing an HMI means creating multiple HMI variants that adapt to local cultural customs. Internationalization means adapting an HMI for many cultures or laying a foundation that allows for this. Globalization is creating an HMI that works globally (Figure 2, see...). PDF) (Goldschmidt, 2009; Sikes, 2009).

The decision whether to attempt an HMI solution for multiple markets (internationalization) or to localize an internationally offered system should be made very early in the development process. Later changes to the strategy are expensive and lead to suboptimal results. True globalization, i.e., one HMI for the entire world, is only suitable for very simple systems.

The 3-Layer Approach

The literature (Goldschmidt, 2009) identifies five main aspects that must be considered when localizing HMIs and products:

1. Technical problems
2. Language problems
3. Cultural problems
4. Political problems
5. Aesthetic problems

Goldschmidt (2009) proposes addressing the five main aspects of localization in a 3-layer approach (Figure 3, see PDF)

Layer 1 lays the technical groundwork for localization. This involves selecting appropriate tools and processes and defining suitable data formats for localization. Layer 2 handles the "hard" localization, such as correct data formats, units, and fonts. Layer 3 involves the cultural and aesthetic adaptation of the HMI. This includes, for example, user tastes, technological affinity, and habits.

Summary

Cultural differences in the perception and use of technology must be taken into account through appropriate HMI design. Fonts, colors, data formats, and the meaning of icons differ between cultures. Early in HMI development, a decision should be made whether to internationalize, i.e., develop one HMI for many cultures, or to pursue localization, i.e., one HMI for each culture. Goldschmidt's 3-Layer Approach helps with the localization of HMI solutions.

literature

Broschinzky-Schwabe, E. (2011). Intercultural communication: Misunderstandings – Understanding. VS Verlag.

Ege, A. (2013). The 10 most common gestures and their international meaning. Internet (19.08.2013) .

Gardt, A. (2001). Does language influence our thinking? An overview of positions in linguistic theory.. In: Andrea Lehr et al. (eds.): Language in Everyday Life. Contributions to New Perspectives in Linguistics. Dedicated to Herbert Ernst Wiegand on his 65th birthday. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter

Goldschmidt, D. (2009). Arabic HMI Workshop. Internal Presentation.

Hall, ET (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books.

Heimgärtner, R. (2010). Towards a Model of Culturally Influenced Human Machine Interaction. IWIPS 2010, Proceedings.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, GJ (2009). Local thinking, global action. dtv Verlag.

Honold, Pia (2000): Culture and Context: An Empirical Study for the Development of a Framework for the Elicitation of Cultural Influence in Product Usage. In: International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 12 (3) pp. 327-345.

Karlgren, B. (2008). Chinese writing system and language. Springer.

Marcus, A, Baumgartner, V. J. & Chen, E. (2003). User interface design vs. culture. Evers et al (eds.): Designing for Global Markets 5, Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Internationalization of Products and Systems.

McCandless, D. (2010). The picture book of useful and useless knowledge. Knaus.

Roessger, P. and Rosendahl, I. (2002). Intercultural Differences in the Interaction Between Drivers and Driver Information Systems, SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-0087.

Rößger, P. (2012). Designing for World Markets: HMI and Cross Cultural Usability. Presentation at the Automotive Cockpit HMI conference, September 26, 2012, Bonn.

Rößger, P. (2014). Intercultural HMI solutions: Internationalization vs. Globalization. ATZ Elektronik, February 2014, pp. 56ff.

Russo, P. & Boor, S. (1993). How fluent is your interface? Designing for International Users. Proceedings of the 1993 International Conference ACM CHI. S 342ff.

Scupin, R. (2011). Cultural Anthropology: A Global Perspective. Prentice Hall.

Wikipedia (query 1410.15). Date format.

Sikes, R. (2009). Localization: The Global Pyramid Capstone. Multilingual Magazine, April 2009.

Download the article as a PDF

---

Implementation – our training & coaching

Do you want to bring yourself up to date with the latest technology?

Then find out more here MircoConsult offers training courses/seminars/workshops and individual coaching on the topic of implementation/embedded and real-time software development.

Training & coaching on the other topics in our portfolio can be found here. here.

---

Implementation – Expertise

Valuable expertise in the field of implementation/embedded and real-time software development is available. here Available for you to download free of charge.

To the specialist information

You can find expertise on other topics in our portfolio here. here.