A Heuristic Evaluation of Multilingual Lom ba rdy : Museums' Web Sites

(1)

Master

Reference

A Heuristic Evaluation of Multilingual Lom ba rdy : Museums' Web Sites

MINACAPILLI, Carmen Ambra

Abstract

The compliance with localisation standards and guidelines ensures the usability and suitability of web sites to multilingual and multicultural audiences. Considering the importance of cultural tourism in Italy, a web site that is usable and suitable to both local and international users can have a positive impact on visitors. From the general perception that localised versions present some limitations stems the decision to analyse and compare Italian and English home pages of museums web sites in one Italian region-Lombardy. The aim of this paper is to test whether Italian and English home pages respect usability guidelines and whether localisation has a negative impact on usability. Through the heuristic evaluation methodology, this paper presents a descriptive and critical analysis of aspects related to internationalisation, localisation, search in the web site, SEO and web accessibility in the two linguistic versions.

Results show that over half of the home pages respect most of the usability guidelines checked, with differences between the two linguistic versions.

MINACAPILLI, Carmen Ambra. A Heuristic Evaluation of Multilingual Lom ba rdy : Museums' Web Sites. Master : Univ. Genève, 2018

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:112073

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

Carmen Ambra Minacapilli

A Heuristic Evaluation of Multilingual Lombardy Museums’ Web Sites

Directrice : Lucía Morado Vázquez Juré : Paolo Canavese

Mémoire présenté à la Faculté de traduction et d’interprétation (Département de traitement informatique multilingue) pour l’obtention de la Maîtrise universitaire en traduction, men- tion technologies de la traduction.

Université de Genève Année académique 2017-2018

Août 2018

(3)

J’affirme avoir pris connaissance des documents d’information et de prévention du plagiat émis par l’Université de Genève et la Faculté de traduction et d’interprétation (notamment la Directive en matière de plagiat des étudiant-e-s, le Règlement d’études de la Faculté de traduction et d’interprétation ainsi que l’Aide-mémoire à l’intention des étudiants préparant un mémoire de Ma en traduction).

J’atteste que ce travail est le fruit d’un travail personnel et a été rédigé de manière autonome.

Je déclare que toutes les sources d’information utilisées sont citées de manière complète et précise, y compris les sources sur Internet.

Je suis consciente que le fait de ne pas citer une source ou de ne pas la citer correctement est constitu- tif de plagiat et que le plagiat est considéré comme une faute grave au sein de l’Université, passible de sanctions.

Au vu de ce qui précède, je déclare sur l’honneur que le présent travail est original.

Nom et prénom : Minacapilli, Carmen Ambra Lieu / date / signature : Varese, le 14 juillet 2018

(4)

2

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I offer my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Lucía Morado Vázquez, who has en- couraged me with her kindness through the learning process of this Master thesis and guided my work with her knowledge and expertise, whilst allowing me the freedom to develop my own research. Her engagement in localisation and her genuinely positive attitude towards students made me happy to be guided by her in the final accomplishment of my career as a student.

I would like to thank my co-supervisor, Paolo Canavese, for the time and dedication in reading and correcting my work, and Jeanette Pidanick on behalf of Nielsen Norman Group for allowing me to reproduce the figure from Nielsen (1993). My gratitude also goes to Violeta Seretan, for her precious help and guidance in both statistics and academic writing.

This Master thesis is heartily dedicated to my father Filippo and my mother Teresa, for their example of love, courage and hope. I do not have words to express my thank you for your unconditional support and caring attentions, despite all we have been through this year. Thank you is just a word to tell you that I truly owe you everything. If my thanks can be of any use, I would like to thank my dad for teaching me courage and optimism and my mum for teaching me hope and gratitude, however difficult life may seem.

In my daily work, I have been blessed with friendly and cheerful family and friends. My special thanks goes to my cousin Giada, because she makes everything seem possible, and my friend Sofia, because she constantly reminds me what dreams are made of.

I would also like to thank the international mobility office of University of Geneva and Moscow State Linguistic University for giving me the opportunity to study in Moscow, “a true moment of blissful happiness” in Dostoevsky’s words.

As conclusion, this work was written in the loving memory of my aunt Barbara, my first and most sincere friend, whose love taught me that trees must develop deep roots to let flowers grow.

(5)

3

Abstract

The compliance with localisation standards and guidelines ensures the usability and suitability of web sites to multilingual and multicultural audiences. Considering the importance of cultural tourism in Italy, a web site that is usable and suitable to both local and international users can have a positive impact on visitors. From the general perception that localised versions present some limitations stems the decision to analyse and compare Italian and English home pages of museums web sites in one Italian region—

Lombardy. The aim of this paper is to test whether Italian and English home pages respect usability guidelines and whether localisation has a negative impact on usability. Through the heuristic evaluation methodology, this paper presents a descriptive and critical analysis of aspects related to internationalisation, localisation, search in the web site, SEO and web accessibility in the two linguistic versions. Results show that over half of the home pages respect most of the usability guidelines checked, with differences between the two linguistic versions. The usability problems identified in this paper show that English pages present more errors than Italian pages. In both versions, there is room for improvement for what concerns the aspects studied.

Keywords

Localisation – usability – usability guidelines – heuristic evaluation – museum – web site – home page – Lombardy

(6)

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

In a world of instant global reach and immediate ability of interaction with consumers, web design of multilingual web pages plays a central role. In fact, a well-designed web site can help build trust and loyalty among users (Singh and Pereira, 2012, pp. 1–2). If users feel smart and comfortable on a web site, they tend to stick around. When users feel discomfort in using a web site, they will most likely interrupt the navigation. In other words, the success of a web site depends on its usability—“how quickly and how well users can get things done on Web sites” (Nielsen and Loranger, 2006, p. xix). This users-oriented perspective of web design is closely related to the objectives of web usability, “which examines the reception of websites by means of empirical studies whose findings result in guidelines for web development” (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 36). People expect a lot from web sites today, and they are less and less tolerant of difficult sites and bad design (Nielsen and Loranger, 2006, p. xvii): “Ten years ago the Web was exciting to people. Today it’s routine. It’s a tool. If it’s convenient, they will use it; if not, they won’t”

(Ibid., xv). In this context, usability has become more important than ever, as every design flaw may cause a negative impact on users and a lost business (Ibid.). In this Master thesis, I focus on the importance of usability and localisation in the domain of cultural tourism. More specifically, I analyse and compare Italian and English home pages of museums web sites in my region, Lombardy, Italy. In other words, I measure and evaluate the degree of usability and localisation in a sample of multilingual home pages.

The choice to address this research topic in my Master thesis comes from a personal experience. During my studies abroad, since I am an Italian native speaker, I was frequently asked from foreign friends, mostly Russian and Chinese, to help them plan a trip to Italy. Since their trips were mostly cultural, they used to ask me suggestions about the country’s cultural attractions, from the most famous ones to the less conventional, which remain off the beaten tourist track. However, when checking the web sites of Sicilian museums with two Chinese girls, it was extremely difficult to find user-friendly web sites with up to date design localised into English. The help of a native speaker was essential even to accomplish ordinary tasks, such as, for example, tickets purchase. Nonetheless, due to the bad and old design of some web sites, even I experienced difficulty orienting myself within the site. These facts made me curi- ous about the Italian cultural offer on the web and the level of web sites accessibility to foreign users.

From these first observations, I received a negative impact about the level of usability and localisation of some web sites. I therefore decided to investigate this aspect in my Master thesis. My initial idea was to measure and evaluate the degree of usability and localisation of Italian museums web sites. However, this idea was too general and I needed 1. to generate specific research questions to narrow down my topic; 2.

to develop a clear framework for examining the research problem. I decided to focus on museums web sites in my region, Lombardy, first because I know the territory and the cultural heritage of the region, and second because it was easier to reach tourism info-points for the data sample collection. Instead of

(9)

7 analysing whole web sites, I decided to focus on the home page. The reasons behind this choice are explained in Chapter 3 (Section 3.1). After defining the area of interest, I started reading about usability testing methodologies. The works of Nielsen (1993, 1995, 1995a, 1995b) provided me with knowledge about the discount usability engineering method (Chapter 2, section 2.3.2 and Chapter 3, section 3.2).

Among all the methods outlined by Nielsen, I chose the heuristic evaluation method, which “involves having a small set of evaluators examine the interface and judge its compliance with recognised usability principles (the ‘heuristics’)” (Nielsen, 1995a). In this Master thesis, I, acting as a single evaluator, exam- ined a sample of home pages and checked if they respect recognised usability guidelines. The heuristics on which my work is based are outlined by Andreu-Vall and Marcos in their article Evaluación de sitios web multilingües: metodología y herramienta heurística (2012). Hypotheses and research questions, as well as the theoretical framework of my analysis are explained in Chapter 3 (Section 3.1 and 3.5. See Table 2 and 10).

Localisation industry is engaged in producing an agreed set of standards. The importance of guidelines and standards in both usability and localisation does not have to be underestimated. Standards can be traced in ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) and W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), as well as in the existing literature. Guidelines ensuring usability allow users to easily and efficiently complete a task, and determine whether the web site succeeds or fails. Localisation, which is defined as the adaptation of digital contents and products for sale and use in another locale (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p.

17), ensures the effective reception of the product in the target market: “Establishing localisation guidelines can increase the quality, accuracy, and user-friendliness of the international product version. More- over, it can significantly reduce the cost of localising your application into different languages” (Mi- crosoft, 2017). Hence, the compliance with recognised standards, guidelines and conventions concerning usability and localisation improves comprehension, usability and satisfaction in multicultural audiences.

Given the importance of cultural tourism in the region, following these guidelines becomes crucial for users, who are most likely also visitors of Lombard museums. According to the statistics of MiBACT—

the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism, in the last four years, visitors of Italian state museums (inbound and outbound) have increased from 38 million in 2013 to 50 million in 2017. This means that visitors increased by 31% (12 million more in four years), which lead to a 53%

increase in earnings (70 million euro more). The proceeds are currently being used for scientific and didactic activities, as well as maintenance of museums collections (MiBACT, 2018). If we look at the regional figures, Lombard museums are the fifth most visited in 2017, after those of Lazio, Campania, Tuscany and Piedmont. Moreover, visitors in Lombardy have grown with a rate of +1.1%, from 1,830,495 visitors in 2016 to 1,850,605 in 2017 (Ibid). These figures are telling and show the importance of cultural tourism in both the country and the region.

(10)

8 In this Master thesis, I focus on 102 Italian and English home pages of Lombard museums web sites. My aim is to see if home pages respect the usability guidelines defined by Andreu-Vall and Marcos (2012), concerning internationalisation, localisation, search, SEO and web accessibility aspects. This Master thesis is organised as follows. In Chapter 2, I overview the state of the art about web localisation and usability. In Chapter 3, I introduce the research questions and present the research method and tool chosen for the analysis. In Chapter 4, I describe the process of sample collection and analyse the sample of home pages. I describe the emerging characteristics of the sample and critically analyse suitable and unsuitable items within home pages. I also focus on the error distribution, distinguishing between suitable and error- free home pages respecting usability guidelines and unsuitable home pages, presenting at least one error and not respecting the guidelines. In Chapter 5, I evaluate and discuss the results obtained. I also answer to my research questions and test the statistical significance of results. Eventually, in Chapter 6, I draw my main conclusions, considering the limitations and impact of my work.

(11)

9

Chapter 2: The Literature Review

The present chapter provides a theoretical framework to contextualise the web sites usability function test carried out in this Master thesis. This chapter overviews the existing literature about localisation and focuses on the discipline main aspects. Firstly, it provides a distinction between translation and localisation (2.1), by resorting to a description of localisation main components (2.1.1). In the attempt of de- scribing these components, it provides a comparison between different definitions of localisation, based on different perspectives and approaches to the subject — Translation Studies and localisation industry (2.1.2). It then focuses on web localisation (2.2), addressing to the dimensions of globalisation and internationalisation (2.2.1), as well as standardisation and customisation (2.2.2). It finally describes web usability and acceptability (2.3), focusing on usability definition (2.3.1) and studies on web usability testing (2.3.2).

2.1 From Translation to Localisation

2.1.1 Translation: Definition and Strategies

Before giving a definition of localisation, I would like to attempt a definition of translation to clarify why these two disciplines are different and why many hesitate to define localisation as a subset of translation.

Instead, they would rather define localisation as a different discipline.

If we decide to read the novel “One Hundred Years of Solitude” (Cien años de soledad) by Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Márquez, we can reasonably expect to find it translated from Spanish into our language on the shelf of every bookshop and library in our city. What we do not expect is the story of the Buendía family to be moved from Colombia to another country. We can read the novel in a language different from Spanish, but we cannot find the story adapted to the cultural context we live in (Microsoft, 2015). Translation is the process of converting written text to another language. It requires the full meaning of the source text to be rendered in the target language “with special attention paid to cultural nuance and style” (Esselink, 2000, p. 4). The translation of a text is not a univocal process, as different strategies and techniques can be applied by the translator. Applying different techniques means obtaining different versions, hence different translations of the same text, depending on historical constraints, audience ex- pectations, and editorial requirements. In any case, the final product of a translation is something different from the original, since “translation is the most obviously recognisable type of rewriting” — as stated by Belgian linguist André Lefevere (Lefevere, 2017, p. 7). In fact, the image we get of an author heavily depends on the translation made of his work. For example, as Professor Hewson stated during the course

“Critique des traductions”, we think to read Kafka in French, but what we read is only one of Kafka’s French versions (Hewson, 2018).

(12)

10 In his work “The Translator’s invisibility” (1995), the American theorist and translator Lawrence Venuti identifies two translation methods: foreignisation and domestication. Domestication is the strategy of making a text closely conform to the target culture, which may involve a loss of information from the source text (target-oriented translation). Foreignisation is the strategy of retaining information from the source text, deliberately breaking the conventions of the target language to preserve its meaning in the source culture (source-oriented translation).

2.1.2 Localisation: Components and Definitions

Since localisation was born, discussions about its definition and delimitation have interested both scholars and professionals. Different parties with an interest in its definition (developers, industry experts, translation scholars, computational linguists and professional translators) have tried to define this term, that is why its definition varies depending on the context and perspective used (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 11).

In the following paragraphs, by referring to those elements proper of localisation, I discuss the notions of adaptation, locale, distribution and localisation process. Furthermore, I overview the definitions of localisation that mostly reached consensus among experts.

Adaptation: A Domestication Strategy

Adaptation is a specific feature of localisation. In a very broad sense, localisation can be defined as “the adaptation and translation of a text to suit a particular reception situation” (Pym, 2004, p. 1). I started this chapter mentioning Marquez’s novel: the text can be translated in different languages, while the context remains untouched. And yet, examples of context adaptation and cultural transposition of content can be found in translation as well, showing that adaptation certainly is a specific feature of localisation, but, as it concerns translation as well, it cannot be considered alone an element to distinguish between the two disciplines.

For example, the most famous translation of Lewis Carroll’s novel “Alice in Wonderland” into Russian is the one made by Vladimir Nabokov in 1923. For his translation of “Alice in Wonderland” (Anja v strane čudes), Nabokov opted for domestication strategies, realised in the text in the form of substitution and adaptation, which led to an almost complete russiﬁcation of Carroll’s novel. Its young Russian readers could then identify themselves with the story and understand the complex world created by Carroll (Vid, 2008, p. 220). For example, the name of the main character, Alice, is rendered with Anja, a typical Russian name for little girls. Cultural references like “tarts” are substituted with typical Russian pies, “pirožki”;

the flower daisy is substituted with dandelion, apparently a more typical Russian field flower (Vid, 2008, p. 224). Another example of cultural adaptation of this novel for a different public is the one made by the Catalan poet Josep Carner in 1927. For his Alícia en Terra de Meravelles, Carner’s as well recurs to domestication strategies, so much that Wonderland is not a foreign land, but Catalunya itself. In the

(13)

11 illustrations of the book by Lola Anglada, the Catalan Mediterranean landscape is soon recognisable, as well as the Spanish seeds of the cards — goblets, coins, sticks and swords instead of hearts, diamonds, spades and clubs (Chaparro, 2010, pp. 20–23; 26–27).

Both Nabokov and Carner’s works could be considered examples of localisation of the novel. They cannot be regarded as mere target-oriented translations, as they are both a transposition of language and context into another linguistic and cultural environment.

When defining localisation, the term “adaptation” is the most pervasive in both Translation Studies (TS) and localisation industry (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 15). In fact, industry definitions focus on “adapting the ‘look and feel’ of non-translated products so that they are accepted as local productions by users”

(Ibid., 18). On the other hand, TS as well identify adaptation as “the performative action of the localisation process” (Ibid., 15).

The use of an extreme domestication strategy is certainly one of the main traits of localisation. We can state that “[l]ocalisation is therefore conceptualised as a target-oriented translation type” (Ibid., 18).

However, localisation can be distinguished from an extreme domesticated translation for other reasons:

the reception situation, the type of product distributed, and its process-based nature.

Locale: The Reception Situation

The reception situation is usually referred to with the term “locale”, from which the word localisation comes from. In general terms, we can state that translation involves languages (even if it cannot be considered as a study of mere language problems), while localisation involves locales. However, the term

“locale” does not simply indicate a combination of language and culture. This term, spread by the localisation industry, denotes a particular variety of language, used in a particular geographical area, with its local conventions regarding currency, date and hour setting, presentation of numbers and symbolic col- our coding (Pym, 2004, pp. 1-2).

The borders of a locale are not easy to draw, as it is hard to define where one locale ends and another starts. According to Pym, (2004, pp. 22-23), the concept of locale is especially empirical:

From this empirical perspective, the limits of a locale can be defined as the points where texts have been (intralingually or interlingually) localised. That is, if a text can be adequately be moved without localisation, there is no new locale (Ibid., p. 22).

Therefore, according to Pym, locale show up only under certain circumstances: the need of a new localisation, due to the resistance to some process of distribution. Hence, localisation depends on distribution.

(14)

12 Pym (2004, p. 13) refers to the term “distribution” in the way it is used in marketing. For these reasons, neither “language” nor “community” can provide sufficient criteria to denote the kinds of places involved in distribution. This is the reason that explains the need to recur to the term “locale”. In fact, languages alone are insufficient to describe the places involved in localisation, as there are no natural borders be- tween languages (Ibid., pp. 21-22).

Moreover, considering that a language can be spoken in more than one country, texts can be distributed from one community to another and yet not require localisation, because that language is able to find its appropriate receivers (Ibid., p. 21). In conclusion, the concept of “locale” cannot be equated neither to the concept of “language”, nor to the concept of “community”, “culture” or “state”. As afore-mentioned, localisation is not approached in social or political terms, but firstly in economic terms, recurring to the concept of distribution:

Distribution and localisation concern situation of contact and exchange, not lineal separations. Instead of using preconceptions about locales in order to form preconceptions about localisations, we can now use facts about distribution in order to describe contacts and differences between locales (Ibid., p. 23).

Today a locale is defined as “the combination of a sociocultural region and a language in industrial setting” (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 12). In software engineering, the term “locale” indicates the local market requirements where the product will be distributed, and it can be expressed as a language-country pair:

e.g. French-Canada is one locale, French-France is another (Dunne, 2015, p. 551)

Definitions of the term focus on cultural conventions such as date, time and currency formats. Jiménez- Crespo (2013) provides another definition of locale, focusing on ISO language and country code:

A locale is expressed by the combination of the language code included in the international standard ISO 639, followed by the country code as stated in the standard 3166 (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 13).

ISO 639 is the international standard for language codes. Each language has a two-letter (639-1) and three-letter (639-2 and 639-3) code, designed as a lowercase abbreviation of the language (ISO, 2010).

“The language codes are open lists that can be extended and refined. The job of maintaining these standards has been given to bodies known as Registration Authorities” (Ibid.). ISO 3166 is the international standard for country codes, designed as an uppercase abbreviation of the country name:

Using codes saves time and avoids errors as instead of using a country’s name (which will change depending on the language being used) we can use a combination of letters and/or numbers that are understood all over the world (ISO, 2013).

For example, de–DE means German of Germany, while de–AT means German of Austria.

(15)

13

Cross-cultural Digital Product: The Object of Distribution

The concept of distribution and the definition of market places are used by Pym to create knowledge about localisation and its definition (2004, p. 29). We have seen so far that localisation is the adaptation of a product, so that it can be distributed in another locale.

Among the many definitions of localisation, it should be mentioned the one given by the Localisation Industry Standards Association (LISA),¹ born in 1990:

Localisation involves taking a product and making it linguistically and culturally appropriate to the target locale (country/region and language) where it will be used and sold (LISA 2003, cited in Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 13).

This definition also focuses on the notion of “locale”, but it refers to a product, and not text. In fact, the object of localisation is a material product that is being moved, or transferred (Pym, 2004, p. 13).

The kind of product that is distributed is better specified in the definitions given by Schäler (2010) and Dunne (2015):

[Localisation is] the linguistic and cultural adaptation of digital content (Schäler, 2010, p. 209).²

Localisation is an umbrella term that refers to the processes whereby digital content and products developed in one locale are adapted for sale and use in one or more other locales (Dunne, 2015, p. 550).

Adaptation is seen as the “additional component that localisation provides, as opposed to the textual or wordly nature of translation”. Another element that helps us distinguish between localisation and translation is the nature of the product analysed, as localisation addresses “non-textual components of products in addition to strict translation” (LISA, 2007, p. 11).

Furthermore, as localisation concerns digital products, even textual elements differ from the static concept of text. The text is not printed, but shown on a screen, it can be defined then as an “interactive digital text” (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 37). Consequently, the product is localised to be used and not only to be read. The receivers shift from being readers to being users.

[In web environments,] research has shown that reading slows down by 25% to 50%, and users do not read web text but rather scan the pages in search of the information that might draw their attention (Nielsen 2001, cited in Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 37).

1 LISA ceased to exist in 2011.

2 Schäler also refers to localisation industry’s requirements to deliver multilingual and cross-cultural digital content (2008, p. 195).

(16)

14 The web site success is measured by its so called ‘stickiness’: “the ability to attract new and repeat visitors and keep them on a site” (LISA 2004, cited in Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 35).

In this sense, localisation is certainly a multi-modal process, as it operates at different levels.

Localisation Process: The GILT Cycle

In both the afore-mentioned definitions (Schäler 2010, Dunne 2015), localisation refers to digital content and products. Moreover, in other definitions, localisation is referred to a series of processes, which is another important element to take in consideration when defining localisation.

Localisation, in fact, involves different activities, as it “does not exist in isolation, but forms part of a much wider complex of interrelated processes known as GILT (Globalisation, Internationalisation, Localisation and Translation)” (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 24).

In the 1980s, localisation could be considered as subset of translation where a domestication approach was applied. In fact, initially it was mainly a “translation on the computer for computer” (Van der Meer 1995, cited in Dunne, 2015, p. 550), “a matter of translating software” (Dunne, 2015, p. 550) for international markets, using an extreme domestication strategy (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 14).

The practice of translation remained relatively unchanged from the dawn of writing until the commoditiza- tion of the PC and the advent of mass market software ushered in the digital revolution in the 1980s (Dunne, 2015, p. 550).

With the growth of the Internet and the emergence of personal computing and software programmes (late 1970s – early 1980s), US software publishers started to widen their horizons, and target international users to grow sales abroad. Many US-based companies (e.g. Sun Microsystems, Oracle and Microsoft) had already become popular in domestic markets, and wanted to distribute their products in other countries, providing software programmes in languages other than English. They targeted Japan and Europe as their next major markets, and they firstly focused on the so-called FIGS countries (France, Italy, Ger- many and Spain). However, for these products to be accepted in the international market, software programmes had to be translated and adapted for the new users (Esselink, 2000, p. 5; Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 8; Dunne, 2015, p. 550). As Dunne explains, it was necessary “to convert the software, so that users saw a product in their own language and firmly based in their own culture” (Dunne, 2015, p. 550). How- ever, “it soon became clear to practitioners that this work was related to, but different from and more involved than, translation” Lieu 1997 (cited in Dunne, 2015, p. 550).

(17)

15 Translation is only one of the different activities that form the localisation process. In addition to translation, localisation process include adapting icons, symbols, converting date and time formats, as well as currencies, expanding spaces for translated text and modifying navigation bars.

[Localisation is] the process by which digital content and products developed in one locale (defined in terms of geographical area, language and culture) are adapted for sale and use in another locale. Localisation involves: (a) translation of textual content into the language and textual conventions of the target language, (b), adaptation of non-textual content (from colours, icons and bitmaps, to packaging, form factors etc.) as well as input, output and delivery mechanisms to take into account the cultural, technical and regulatory requirements of that locale. In sum, localisation is not much about specific tasks as much as it is about the processes by which products are adapted […] (Dunne 2006a, cited in Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 7).

Thus, localisation can ultimately be defined as a series of processes by which an object (digital product) is adapted (in all its parts – textual and not textual elements) to be distributed in another locale (a geographical area defined in terms of language, culture and industrial setting). Dunne’s definition refers to all the components discussed in this chapter (type of object, domestication approach, locale identification, industrial distribution, and the process-based nature of localisation, known as GILT. Localisation emerges then as part of a wider complex of processes, where each stage refers to different activities.

Despite the popularity reached by LISA definition, I would like to conclude the section with the definition of localisation provided by GALA (Globalisation and Localisation Association), as it enriches the definitions so far discussed by listing all the different activities included in the localisation process:

Localisation (also referred to as “l10n”) is the process of adapting a product or content to a specific locale or market. Translation is only one of several elements of the localisation process. In addition to translation, the localisation process may also include:

 Adapting graphics to target markets

 Modifying content to suit the tastes and consumption habits of other markets

 Adapting design and layout to properly display translated text

 Converting to local requirements (such as currencies and units of measure)

 Using proper local formats for dates, addresses, and phone numbers

 Addressing local regulations and legal requirements

The aim of localisation is to give a product the look and feel of having been created specifically for a target market, no matter their language, culture, or location (GALA, 2011).

(18)

16

2.2 Web Localisation: Process and Tendencies

Localisation was originally born to localise software programmes. Nowadays it encompasses a wider range of digital products, such as web sites, videogames, smart phone apps, and web search engines.

Jiménez-Crespo (2013, p. 28) identifies five localisation types, ranked by business volume:

 Web localisation

 Videogame localisation

 Software localisation

 Small device localisation

 Multimedia localisation

This Master thesis focuses on web localisation. Web localisation could emerge some years after the in- vention of the World Wide Web (WWW), created by Tim Berners-Lee in the 1980s, thanks to technical innovations, such as Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML). Web localisation developed after years of significant efforts in software products, and in the early 2000s overcame the market share of software localisation (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, pp. 9–11).

2.2.1 The Web Localisation Process (GILT): Globalisation and Internationalisa- tion

As afore-mentioned about localisation in general, web localisation as well can be regarded a process, involving a series of steps, known with the acronym GILT (Globalisation, Internationalisation, Localisa- tion and Translation). As translation and localisation have already been defined, the other two components are analysed in the following section.

Globalisation

In general terms, globalisation is “the process by which a company breaks free of the home markets to pursue business opportunities wherever its customers may be located” (Esselink, 2000, p. 4). This process regards localisation industry as well. A definition of globalisation in localisation industry is the provided by LISA:

Globalisation addresses the business issues associated with taking a product global. In the globalisation of high-tech products this involves integrating localisation throughout a company, after proper internationalisation and product design, as well as marketing, sales, and support in the world market (LISA, cited in Esselink, 2000, p. 4; Pym, 2004, p. 30)

On the basis of this definition, we can state that there is one wide process called ‘globalisation’, of which

‘internationalisation’ and ‘localisation’ are parts (Pym, 2004, p. 30. In other terms, “globalisation covers both internationalisation and localisation” (Esselink, 2000, p. 4).

(19)

17 When the process starts, the aim is distributing a product globally (globalisation). First, the product needs to be rendered general (global). This process is what is called internationalisation. As next step, the product can be adapted to specific target markets, or locales. This process is what is called localisation (Pym, 2004, p. 30). With regards to web localisation, globalisation is referred to as

[…] the process of creating local or localised versions of a web sites, which we will refer to as “web site globalisation. Web sites globalisation refers to enabling a web site to deal with non-English speaking visitors […] (Esselink, 2000, p. 4).

Internationalisation

Despite the name chosen to indicate this process, nations have little to do with internationalisation. The conceptual focus remains the notion of locale (Pym, 2004, p. 30). Internationalisation is “the process whereby the culture specific features are taken out of a text in order to minimise the problem of later distributing that text to a series of locales” (Ibid., p. 31). It can be defined as the process of removal of all those cultural specific components in a digital product, in order to make it available for localisation and the subsequent distribution in target locales.

If internationalisation means generalising a product (leveraging) for locales distribution, then, as sug- gested by Pym (2004, 30), a better term to define it could be “interlocalisation (since locales would be the conceptual focus throughout)” or “delocalisation (since the processes basically involve the taking out of local elements).” In this sense, it may appear as a “decontextualization”, the opposite of localisation, or a “reverse localisation” (Schäler 2008c, cited in Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 32). This last term should be used with caution, as it can also be used to denote an increasing trend, “in which products developed in small markets are localised for sales in the U.S. and other traditional sources of localisation” (LISA, 2007, p. 35). The main reasons for internationalising products are the following (Esselink, 2000, p. 25; Pym, 2004, p. 30):

 Reduction of overall expenses, if the home product is first prepared for localisation

 Assurance of the product functionalities and acceptability in international markets

 Assurance of the product localisability

 Smoothness of localisation process

The main purpose of internationalisation is to make localisation faster, easier, higher in terms of quality, and more cost-effective (Cadieux and Esselink, 2004).

Internationalisation implies avoiding some problems during the localisation process, which is the reason why is frequently associated with the term “enablement”. Furthermore, it implies leveraging the product,

(20)

18 so that it can be exposed to foreseeable changes for every target locale. The problem is that the combination of internationalisation and localisation is usually just called localisation (Pym, 2004, p. 38). How- ever, as localisation is a cycle, it splits into globalisation, internationalisation, the actual localisation, where products are culturally adapted, and finally translation, where text is translated. To overcome ambiguities during the translation phase, the language must be as clear as possible. The bulk of localisation is performed in English, and this language must be somehow “controlled”, even if it is not easy for a writer whose native language is English to “write globally” (Esselink, 2000, p. 27). Nonetheless, “the text must be written with translation in mind” (Ibid.), creating what is called an “internationalised text” (Pym, 2004) or “writing for translation”, either known as “writing for the web”. As stated by Esselink (2000, p. 27), internationalisation has “international users in mind”. That is why language as well must be internationalised. Idiomatic expressions and jargon should be avoided, preferring a plainer and simpler language and style. On this matter, consistent phrases and terminology should be used, sentences should be clear and grammatical relations between words should always be explicit. Furthermore, images and symbols should be avoided, as well as references to religion, seasons, holidays etc.

Furthermore, translated text is about 30% longer when translating into languages that use Latin-based alphabets (Rockwell, cited in Singh and Pereira, 2012, p. 39). Translation agency Kwintessential reports that when translating from English into French or Spanish, text can expand about 15% up to 30%. When translating into Dutch or German, text can be even 35% longer (Kwintessential, 2018). Similarly, localisation company SDL recommends that is better to allow a large section of text to expand by 30% (Singh and Pereira, 2012, p. 39). On the other hand, Singh and Pereira (Ibid.) report that text can reduce to 10%

in size when translated from English into Chinese. If there are length restrictions, localisers will have to resort to shorter synonymous words, or adapt the size of the text. In ideographic languages, like Chinese and Japanese, vertical expansion may also be required. Similarly, Semitic languages, such as Arabic and Hebrew, may need bidirectional text and navigation bars moving from right to left.

2.2.2 Web Localisation Tendencies: Standardisation vs. Customisation Standardisation

As explained above, web globalisation includes both internationalisation and localisation. Further, it concerns other issues rather than mere language problems. Singh and Pereira provide a definition of both internationalisation and localisation:

Web site internationalisation is the process through which back-end technologies are used to create modular, extendable, and accessible global web site templates that support front-end customisation, and web site localisation is the process of the front-end customisation, whereby web sites are adapted to meet the needs of specific international target markets (Singh and Pereira, 2012, p. 7).

(21)

19 When we speak of web localisation, we generally focus on two tendencies: customisation of web sites for speciﬁc markets across the world, and standardisation of web sites to minimise cultural distance (Ibid., p. 5). These tendencies “coexist to varying degrees in every localised web site” (Canavese, 2017, p. 229), and one does not necessarily exclude the other.

Standardisation is the process of developing technical standards. Standards are “specifications for products, services and systems, to ensure quality, safety and efficiency” (ISO, 2018). International standards are “instrumental in facilitating international trade” (Ibid.).

Localisation industry is engaged in producing an agreed set of standards. Web designers should respect these standards to ensure the product usability and acceptability. However, standards are not always re- spected and, information about localisation standards is dotted around different organisations because of “the lack of a centralised steering authority” (Wright, 2006, p. 244). Localisation standards can be classified in different categories: content creation, terminology, locale specification, project management,

“as well as basic standards, such as those that govern language and character codes” (Ibid.).

Sue Ellen Wright (2006, 244-245) provides a clear categorisation of standards: industrial standards (such as product quality, consumer protection, interoperability of different types of products and consistency across international borders etc.), de facto standards (not promulgated by standards organisations or professional groups – e.g. Microsoft), and language standards. This last category is explained by Wright and McClure (Ibid.). They classify language standards into seven major groups:

 Base standards (SGML, XML, HTML, etc.),

 Content creation, manipulation, and maintenance,

 Translation standards,

 Terminology and lexicography standards,

 Taxonomy and ontology standards,

 Corpus managements standards,

 Language and locale-related standards.

For the usability function test conducted in this Master thesis, I refer to language and locale related standards, as well base standards to check if the content of elements and attributes in a sample of HTML documents complies with an agreed set of standards and guidelines. For example, I refer to the following ISO standard and W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) guideline on the use of character encoding: ISO

(22)

20 10646³, as explained in Wright (2006, pp. 541-542), and W3C (2008) guideline on Unicode. Standards and guidelines considered throughout the analysis are explained in Chapter 3.

Customisation

A number of studies during the years have tried to support the idea that web sites must be culturally customised, stressing the importance of web design in a world of instant global reach and immediate ability of interaction with consumers. Web design of multilingual web pages plays a central role. In fact, a well-designed web site can help build trust and loyalty among users (Singh and Pereira, 2012, pp. 1–2).

According to Singh and Pereira, cultural adaptation of web content and design positively affect navigation and rating of web sites. Providing empirical evidence, they state that “customers are more comfortable with, and also exhibit a more positive attitude toward, web sites that are consistent with their cultures and languages” (Ibid., 18).

The debate over standardisation versus customisation, started by Elinder in the 1960s and Levitt in the 1980s, has been complicated by the emergence of the World Wide Web, “as it is a global communication medium where technology makes mass customisation or adaptation possible, while forces of global inte- gration and the emergence of transnational web style […] justify the use of a standardised web marketing and communication strategy” (Ibid., p. 5):

The advocates of Standardisation approach” argue that, in the era of globalisation, “cultural distance will be mini- mised, leading to convergence of national cultures into a homogeneous global culture” (Ibid.). On the other hand, the advocates of Customisation affirm that “country-specific web content enhances usability, reach, and web site interactivity, leading to more web traffic and business activity on the Web (Ibid.).

An interesting attempt to shed light on the relation existing between standardisation and customisation is the study carried out by Canavese (2017), as he measures the degree of standardisation and customisation in a corpus of 49 web sites for the language pair Italian-German. He recurs to seven localisation categories to analyse the content of the “About us” page (from standardised content to adapted content), and to five localisation strategies to analyse the macro- and microstructure of the page (from adapted structure to standardised structure).

As shown by the above-mentioned study, web localisation could rely on both standardisation and customisation approaches. Further, one technique is not applied at the expense of the other, but they could coexist on different levels. As can be seen from his study, the coexistence of these two tendencies, standardisation and customisation, is reflected in his corpus in the attempt to localise content, but standardise structure, or vice versa, to varying degrees in every localised website.

3 ISO 10646 is the international standard for Universal Coded Character Set (UCS).

(23)

21 In practice, standardisation is an essential step to overcome localisation problems, whose fixing is costly and time consuming. In an email to the author (March 2018), Canavese clarified the usefulness of standardisation and why it tends to be more common than customisation. In order to ensure standardisation, web masters recur to content management systems (CMS), software programs used to create and manage digital content. CMS do not allow to modify the structure of a web page, language content does not exhibit special features, so that it can be easily rendered into another language. International companies and organisations can decide to standardise or localise web content to varying degrees and for different reasons. For example, a company can decide to make its product look “exotic” using a foreignisation strategy, or one may want to underline the origin of a product because it could help grow sales. It is the case, for example, of Italian food market. If a situation of business-to-consumer (B2C) occurs, it could bring more benefits to localise content, while in a business-to-business (B2B) situation, it may not be the case.

Taking all these considerations into account, and without forgetting that localisation activity heavily depends on time, human, economic resources and market audience (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 33), research- ers distinguish among different levels in the amount of customisation. For example, Singh and Pereira (2012) propose a classification of web sites in five levels, from absence of localisation to a “total immer- sion in target locale” (Ibid., 35): 1. Standardised web sites, 2. Semi-localised web sites, 3. Localised web sites, 4. Extensively localised web sites, 5. Culturally adapted web sites. Before this classification, Mi- crosoft distinguished into three different levels of localisation (Ibid., 34): 1. Enabled products, 2. Local- ised products, 3. Adapted products.

Highly customised web sites are usually related to big companies operating in the international market, as they have the resources to provide their web sites with a high level of localisation and customisation.

As people around the globe not only speak different languages, but have different visions of the world, according to Yunker (2003, p. 309), it is important to understand “the visual languages of the world — not only how people speak, but how they see”. In such a context, web design plays a major role. Accord- ing to Yunker, the prerequisite for any web site is to be usable and acceptable. The notions of usability and acceptability are explained in the following section.

2.3 Web Design: Usability and Acceptability

“Usability” is the term chosen by Nielsen in the early 1990s to indicate what is commonly denoted by the term “user-friendly”. Jakob Nielsen, principal of Nielsen Norman Group and “world’s leading expert on Web usability” (U.S. News & World Report, cited in Nielsen Norman Group 2018), believes the term

“user-friendly” to be inappropriate for two reasons: 1. The term is “anthropomorphic”, as “users don’t

(24)

22 need machines to be friendly with them” (1993, p. 23); 2. “It implies that users’ needs can de described along a single dimension by systems that are more or less friendly” (Ibid.).

Professionals have coined other terms in recent years: e.g. CHI (computer-human interaction), HCI (human computer interaction, preferred by those who want to put human first), UCD (user-centred design), MMI (man-machine interface), HMI (human-machine interface), UID (user interface design), HF (human factors), ergonomics, and others (Ibid.).

Among all these terms, Nielsen chooses to use the term “usability” and defines it, as “a quality attribute that assesses how easy user interfaces are to use. The word ‘usability’ also refers to methods for improving ease-of-use during the design process” (2012). Thus, web usability concerns “the reception of web sites by users by means of empirical studies […]” (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 36).

In Yunker (2003, p. 280) usability is defined in comparison with acceptability. Usability means that the web site has to be usable:

Before people around the world can use your web site, they first have to find your web site. And when they get there, the site has to be usable, no matter what language they speak or how sophisticated their web skills (Ibid.).

On the other hand, acceptability means that the web site has to be acceptable, hence culturally sensitive: “People have hard time accepting web sites that they don’t trust. The site itself may be usable, but if it isn’t culturally sensitive, it still might not get the sale” (Ibid.).

From Yunker’s perspective, usability and acceptability are the essential requirements for any multilingual web site. Usability concerns a web site availability on the Internet, its ability to quickly load on browsers and communicate an intended meaning through visual elements. Acceptability concerns a design being able to be culturally sensitive (thus, locally acceptable), and to create positive impression, credibility and trust.

Usability and acceptability appear to be two parallel and essential aspects of a web site, whose aim is to target users in other locales. However, Nielsen ascribe usability and acceptability in a wider paradigm, shown in the figure below.⁴

4 The permission to use this image from Nielsen (1993, p. 25) was accorded to me by Jeanette Pidanick (Project Coordinator at the Nielsen Norman Group) by e-mail (22 February 2018).

(25)

23

Figure 1. “A model of the attributes of system acceptability” from Nielsen (1993, 25).

Nielsen (1993, p. 24) describes usability as “a narrow concern compared to the larger issue of acceptability”.

Acceptability investigates “whether the system is good enough to satisfy all the needs and requirements of the users and other potential stakeholders, such as the users’ clients and managers” (Ibid.). Overall acceptability is a combination of a social dimension and a practical dimension.

Social acceptability concerns the audience attitude towards a web site feature, how people react to it, whether they consider a feature socially desirable or offending. While practical acceptability concerns different categories such as cost, support, reliability, compatibility with existing systems, and usefulness, described as an “issue of whether the system can be used to achieve some desired goal” (Ibid.). Usefulness splits in two categories: utility and usability. The first is “the question of whether the functionality of the system in principle can do what is needed”, while the second is “the question of how well users can use that functionality” (Nielsen, 1993, p. 25).

In Nielsen (2012) utility, which refers to the design’s functionality, investigates whether a design responds to users’ needs, while usability studies how easy and pleasant design features are to use. Usefulness of a web design is a combination of both utility and usability:

It matters little that something is easy if it’s not what you want. It’s also no good if the system can hypo- thetically do what you want, but you can’t make it happen because the user interface is too difficult (Nielsen, 2012).

Whether acceptability is seen as a superior or parallel category compared to usability, Yunker provides a definition of acceptability stressing the importance of what Nielsen calls social acceptability, and high- lights the role of user’s culture, which influences the perception of web design. On this matter, Singh and Pereira (2012) provide a method to test social acceptability and analyse design reception in different cultures. As afore-mentioned, they stress the importance of cultural adaptations. By recurring to Hofstede

(26)

24 (1980) and Hall’s (1976) classifications of cultural dimensions, they provide a cultural values framework for web design (Singh and Pereira, 2012, pp. 54–55). Five cultural dimensions (power distance, collectiv- ism vs. individualism, femininity vs. masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and low- vs. high context) have been used to study the user’s perception of web sites in different countries (Ibid.).

The role of cultural context in multilingual web site has been also analysed by Hillier (2003), highlighting the importance of considering cultural context in the process of multilingual web site development. Ac- cording to Hillier, “the usability of a user interface refers to the fluency or ease with which a user is able to interact with a system without ‘thinking’ about it. This implies they can do so ‘naturally’ or without feeling ‘discomfort’, either physical or mental” (2003, p. 9). Therefore, interacting with a web page is regarded as a “communicative action” influenced by cultural factors (2003, p. 10).

In broad terms usability occurs when there is a ‘meeting of minds’ between the designer (through their creation) and the user. In terms of a web site, this means the user is able to understand and comprehend the web site implicitly, in that there are no ‘uncomfortable’ elements. This discomfort could be caused through inappropriate, offensive or misinterpreted elements (Hillier, 2003, p. 11).

His study aims to provide evidence that a web site should conform to the norms of the culture in which that language is based.

Another study analysing the impact of language and culture on perceived web site usability is the one conducted by Nantel and Glaser (2008). They assume that translation creates cultural distance. In a web environment, they provide evidence that “perceived usability increases when the web site [is] originally conceived in the native language of the user” (2008, p. 112).

In conclusion, Nielsen’s definition of acceptability, and his distinction into social and practical acceptability (1993, 2012), allows us to focus, besides social and cultural references, on all those practical aspects

“of a system with which a human might interact […]” (1993, p. 25).

2.3.1 Web Usability: Definition and Components

[Usability is] a quality attribute relating to how easy something is to use. More specifically, it refers to how quickly people can learn to use something, how efficient they are at using it, how memorable it is, how error- prone it is, and how much users like using it (Nielsen and Loranger, 2006, p. xvi).

In Nielsen (1993, 2006, 2012), usability is defined by five components: learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction.

Learnability is the ability of users to perform basic tasks the first time they see a design (2012):

The system should be easy to learn so that the user can rapidly start getting some work done with the system.

[…] Learnability is in some sense the most fundamental usability attribute, since most systems need to be

(27)

25 easy to learn, and since the first experience most people have with a new system is that of learnability (1993, pp. 26-27).

Efficiency is related to the speed taken to cover these tasks, once users have learnt the design (2012):

The system should be efficient to use, so that once the user has learned the system, a high level of produc- tivity is possible (1993, p. 26).

Efficiency refers to the expert user’s steady-state level of performance at the time when learning curve flattens out (1993, p. 30).

Memorability is the ability of users to remember the design and re-establish proficiency, after a period of not using the web site (2012):

The system should be easy to remember, so that the casual user is able to return to the system after some period of not using it, without having to learn everything all over again (1993, p. 26).

Error “is any action that does not accomplish a desired goal, measured by counting the number of such actions” (Ibid., p. 32). This category takes into account the number and severity degree of errors made by users (2012):

The system should have a low error rate, so that users make few errors during the use of the system, and so that if they do make errors they can easily recover from them (1993, p. 26).

Ultimately, satisfaction indicates the degree of comfort and amusement of users when using the web site (2012):

The system should be pleasant to use, so that users are subjectively satisfied when using it; they like it (1993, p. 33).

Satisfaction is particularly important for non-work environment (e.g. creative painting, interactive fiction, games).

As afore-mentioned, we currently live in a world of instant global reach, where information and products can be reached by a simple click. In such a context, usability plays a major role in web design. As previ- ously explained, as web sites are conceived to be used, their success is measured by their ability of attract- ing new visitors (stickiness) and keeping them on the web site (Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p. 37):

If a website is difficult to use, people leave. If the homepage fails to clearly state what a company offers and what users can do on the site, people leave. If users get lost on a website, they leave […]. There are plenty of other websites available; leaving is the first line of defence when users encounter a difficulty (Nielsen, 2012).

(28)

26 As the web sites should be as clear as possible, I have stressed the importance of a simple and easy-to- translate language. Structural and design elements as well need to follow certain requirements to improve a web site usability. As afore-mentioned, the existing literature on web localisation offers guidelines on web writing (Esselink, 2000; Nielsen and Loranger, 2006; European Commission, 2016b), and so does with the more cultural aspects, providing publications on the role of cultural context (Hillier, 2003; Nantel and Glaser, 2008) and cultural conventions (Nord 1997; Krug 2006, cited in Jiménez-Crespo, 2013, p.

38). Guidelines and standards on more practical aspects, such as usability, are also largely provided by organisations (I mentioned standards and guidelines from ISO and W3C), as well as authors like Nielsen himself: “Current collections of usability guidelines typically have on the order of a thousand rules to follow and are therefore seen as intimidating by developers” (Nielsen, 1993, p. 19).

Nielsen (1993, p. 91) proposes a categorisation of guidelines, distinguishing between general guidelines (applicable to all user interfaces), category specific guidelines (for the kind of system being developed), and product specific guidelines (for the individual product).

The number of ways in which usability can be measured is also extensive. Usability is measured by having a number of test users (Nielsen, 1993, 1996a, 1996b, 2009). Such users can be distinguished in three categories: expert, casual, and novice (1993, p. 31). A casual user can be distinguished from an expert user or a novice depending on frequency use of a web site:

Casual users are using a system intermittently rather than having the fairly frequent use assumed for expert users. However, in contrast to novice users, casual users have used a system before […] (Ibid.).

Usability testing is therefore conceived by Nielsen with a focus on users. During usability testing on a web site, usability professionals are asked to measure the five above-mentioned categories. The following section is entirely devoted to a description of different methods to assess usability, where usability tests conducted on web sites are just one of these methods.

2.3.2 Usability Assessment Methods: Web Usability Testing

In his book “Usability Engineering”, Nielsen (1993, p. 17) explains that usability specialists often propose using “the best possible methodology”, in order to assess usability. However, according to the author, the best methods not necessarily provide the best results, as he believes that “better results can be achieved by applying more careful methodologies” (Ibid.). For this reason, he prefers focusing in achiev- ing good results “with respects to having some usability engineering work performed” (Ibid.).

He proposes what he calls a “discount usability engineering method”, based on the use of four techniques: user and task observation, scenarios, simplified thinking aloud and heuristic evaluation. User and

A Heuristic Evaluation of Multilingual Lom ba rdy : Museums&#039; Web Sites

Master

Reference

A Heuristic Evaluation of Multilingual Lom ba rdy : Museums' Web Sites

Carmen Ambra Minacapilli

A Heuristic Evaluation of Multilingual Lombardy Museums’ Web Sites

Directrice : Lucía Morado Vázquez Juré : Paolo Canavese

Mémoire présenté à la Faculté de traduction et d’interprétation (Département de traitement informatique multilingue) pour l’obtention de la Maîtrise universitaire en traduction, men- tion technologies de la traduction.

Université de Genève Année académique 2017-2018

Août 2018

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Keywords

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: The Literature Review

2.1 From Translation to Localisation

2.1.1 Translation: Definition and Strategies

2.1.2 Localisation: Components and Definitions

Adaptation: A Domestication Strategy

Locale: The Reception Situation

Cross-cultural Digital Product: The Object of Distribution

Localisation Process: The GILT Cycle

2.2 Web Localisation: Process and Tendencies

2.2.1 The Web Localisation Process (GILT): Globalisation and Internationalisa- tion

Globalisation

Internationalisation

2.2.2 Web Localisation Tendencies: Standardisation vs. Customisation Standardisation

Customisation

2.3 Web Design: Usability and Acceptability

2.3.1 Web Usability: Definition and Components

2.3.2 Usability Assessment Methods: Web Usability Testing

A Heuristic Evaluation of Multilingual Lom ba rdy : Museums' Web Sites