Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Previous Semiotic Research in IS
Several researchers have taken a semiotics approach to analyzing various issues related to infor-
mation systems. For example, Nadin (1997) introduces using the semiotic paradigm for designing
information systems and argues that regardless of whether or not system designers know it, they
are in fact using various concepts of semiotics from designing user interfaces to programming.
Yet, when attention is only given to the various parts of a system rather than the whole system,
various interactions between the parts might fail. Nadin (1997) states, “Creating a coherent semi-
otic strategy is like creating a meta-program that unites program, data flow, I/O performance, con-
nectivity, process and human interface, cultural and social acceptance, learning, and satisfaction.”
Connolly and Phillips (2002) present another example of applying the semiotic paradigm to IS-
related issues. In their research, Connolly and Phillips concluded that user interfaces should ide-
ally be defined on the pragmatic and social layers, whereas the remaining four layers would be
used for automating the design. Connolly and Phillips also conclude that special attention should
be given to defining relationships between the different levels of the semiotic ladder. In other
words, after the various layers of the semiotic ladder are identified for a particular design, further
analysis should be conducted to identify how each layer affects the other. These relationships
between the layers could further reveal deep-rooted issues that could add enrichment to the design
experience.
Other recent works that apply the semiotic paradigm to IS-related issues include those of
Anderson (2001), Liu (2002), and Sjöström and Goldkuhl (2003). Anderson (2001) discussed the
role of semiotics in user interface design and stated that semiotics is helpful for positioning the
design of computer systems in a broader theoretical and philosophical context. Liu (2002) argues
that as a result of the inability of users to understand the meanings of words and the inability of
analysts to understand user requirements, a method with an emphasis on semantics is needed to
clarify meanings. And Sjöström and Goldkuhl (2003) presented a socio-pragmatic and semiotic
concept of user interfaces and argue that conceptualizing user interfaces by using the semiotic
paradigm allows for understanding IS use as social action and understanding how IS artifacts can
be seen as communicative instruments in such social action.
SECURITY ISSUES IN THE CONTEXT OF HCI
As mentioned above, the purpose of this paper is to propose a semiotic approach for discovering
and interpreting the deep-rooted issues that deal with security in the context of HCI. Before this
approach can be introduced, general issues that pertain to security in the context of HCI must be
identified. To uncover these security issues, this section will use already established general secu-
rity frameworks as a basis for studying HCI.
Of course, general security of IS has been a topic area that has been well researched. Previous
research has identified a range of security principles, mainly to ensure the technical security of
systems. Such principles have related to managing the confidentiality, integrity, and availability
(CIA) of information. However in recent years a number of social and organizational factors have
also been considered important for managing IS security. Dhillon and Backhouse (2000) term
these the RITE principles—principles that address issues related to responsibility structures,
integrity of roles, trustworthiness of people, and general ethical conduct. Although it is important
to understand the origin and scope of a range of security issues and principles, it is clearly beyond
the scope of this paper. A more thorough review of CIA (Bishop, 2003) and RITE can be found
in Backhouse and Dhillon (1996) and Dhillon and Backhouse (2001).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search