Discussion - Cross-Cultural Human-Computer Interaction and User Experience Design - page 77

5 Discussion
In Part I, we presented a semiotic approach to HCI/UX. From defining the basic
semiotic theories that might used for such a purpose we then shifted to discuss the
different elements of interaction language. We also presented semiotics as an analytic
method especially in its most complex dimension—pragmatics. Pragmatics stands in
the design process at the beginning because it forms the strategy and purpose of the
developed UI. In the sign context, pragmatics leads the meaning interpretation—what
semantics will be assigned to which syntax elements. Not only is this a process of
interpretation, but also the whole UI development strategy is subject to a HCI ideology
to a large extent. Such HCI ideology acquires its specific form in the UI. For the
purposes of developing new UIs, and also for interacting with the UIs already in place,
it is important to know the ways in which pragmatics, as an interpreting principle,
is coded and mediated. We can then counter the ideologies by proper education and
analysis.
A solution of how to leverage such a situation is therefore, on one hand, maximizing
one's competence in terms of coding forms and medialization that has a big impact
on the creation of UI. On the other hand, there is a need to develop methods analyzing
the influence of such UI on the society, the creation and modification of meaning, and
human relations that would be able to uncover the design behind every design. This
is in line also with Fogg's suggestion:
One useful approach is to conduct a stakeholder analysis, to identify all those affected
by a persuasive technology, and what each stakeholder in the technology stands to gain
or lose. By conducting such an analysis, it is possible to identify ethical concerns in a
systematic way.
(Fogg, 2003, p. 233)
In the UI corpus (Section 3.3) we presented the transcript of interaction sentences
forming language games, that served together with the actual UI as a basis for HE
evaluation and SA analysis. Moreover, the transcript served as an input for defining
the different elements involved in the interaction language.
And, in the case study we applied the semiotic and linguistic theories to an UI
corpus of graphic manipulation applications. At the same time we analyzed the corpus
using heuristic evaluation.
The SA provided the expected kind of data (e.g., conventions, connotations, com-
binations), that gathered a wider context than those from HE. That said, SA can be
used to complement the widely used expert evaluation methods, but could possibly
be defined to have a higher overlap with HE. In the latter case, SA would need to be
evaluated hand in hand with the interaction sentences.
In summary, our study demonstrated the depth of investigation and breadth of
insight that SA can achieve in HCI and how this could enhance the current UX
practice. Both methods could be merged to provide a best-of-both solution.
77