Cultural and Linguistic Variables in Usability Testing: A Canadian Evaluation of International Students

by Joanie Ouellet, Jin Kang, Audrey Girouard

Peer-reviewed Article

pp. 121-147

Abstract

More than 1 in 5 Canadians are immigrants. While industries and public services in the country interact with users of diverse backgrounds, it is unclear how the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of users influence their perceived usability of services. We conducted a usability test of the website of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to explore cultural—Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance—and linguistic variables with English-speaking international students from China, India, and Nigeria and French-speaking international students. We found that second-language participants were more comfortable with the website’s language, and Chinese and Nigerian participants criticized the interface more than Indian participants. Our work suggests that researchers should recruit and understand participants from multiple cultural and linguistic backgrounds to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of usability test results and protocols.

Keywords

Usability, cultural variables, linguistic variables, English, French, website evaluation

Introduction

In usability studies, the cultural background of participants can impact their behaviors and responses during interviews, probe testing, and surveys (J.-J. Lee & Lee, 2007). For instance, the cultural background of a participant may influence their willingness to offer criticism (J.-J. Lee & Lee, 2007) and also their attitude, trust, and adoption intention toward a product (Rufín et al., 2014). Similarly, cultural variables can impact how participants respond to usability measures (e.g., extreme response style: choosing/avoiding extreme anchors on Likert scales; acquiesce response style: providing answers to please researchers; Duh & Chen, 2007), as well as how they interact with a moderator during a testing session (Sun & Shi, 2007).

Another factor that can influence the behaviors and responses of participants is their spoken language versus the language in which the usability test is conducted (Hillier, 2003). Research indicates that multilingual people adopt different personalities when speaking different languages, and each personality is associated with different preferences (Hillier, 2003; Singh et al., 2005). These differences can impact the perceived usability of interfaces (Nantel & Glaser, 2008).

These past cross-cultural studies rest on Hofstede’s (1980; et al., 2010) renowned work on cultural dimensions where he identified five dimensions that can describe and predict attitudes, behaviors, and emotions of people in different cultures. These dimensions are Collectivism/Individualism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Time Orientation, and Masculinity/Femininity (Hofstede et al., 2010). Researchers have used these dimensions in the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) to explore cultural and linguistic variables in different contexts (Dell et al., 2012; J.-J. Lee & Lee, 2007; S.-G. Lee et al., 2013; Shi & Clemmensen, 2008; Vatrapu & Pérez-Quiñones, 2006; Wallace et al., 2013). Yet, we found little work exploring the impact of cultural and linguistic variables in usability testing.

Study Objective

Against this background, we sought to understand the role of cultural and linguistic differences in usability testing, with the objective of helping to inform researchers and practitioners on how to account for them in their work. More specifically, we posed the following research question:

How do cultural and linguistic backgrounds of users influence their answer tendencies during usability testing?

To address this research question, we designed a usability test for the Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) website. We collected responses from current international students studying in Canada and discussed their experience with the website. The IRCC website was a perfect medium to explore our research question because the website is available in English and in French, which are the two official languages of Canada, and this affordance allowed us to understand the usability experiences of both English-speaking and French-speaking international students. The Canadian government requires that all documentation and communication from its agents and online be written in English that a grade 8 student or lower could understand (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2020).

We first conducted a usability test in English to understand the influence of cultural background with English-speaking international students from China, India, and Nigeria. We recruited students from these three countries for two reasons: They scored differently across Hofstede’s dimensions (1980), and they also have different English linguistic backgrounds. Then, we conducted a second usability test in French with French-speaking international students. This was done to investigate the influence of linguistic background where we compared the results obtained from this population against the results obtained from English-speaking participants from China, India, and Nigeria.

This work contributes insights to how cultural and linguistic backgrounds influence participants’ answer tendencies during usability testing. These findings can inform researchers and practitioners who prepare and conduct usability testing sessions with users of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, so that they can minimize possible cross-cultural biases when developing their study methodologies. In what follows, we provide relevant literatures on the role of culture and language in usability testing and then outline research methods and present and discuss our findings. Most importantly, we suggest mitigation strategies that can reduce cultural and language biases when designing and conducting a usability test.

Literature Review

Achieving a fully representative set of users, tasks, and environments is challenging for researchers because there are many factors that can introduce biases to results. The following sections discuss the potential elements that can influence the results of a usability test.

Biased Results in Usability Testing

We can divide the types of factors that influence the results of usability testing into two main categories: methodological bias and socio-demographic bias. Methodological biases include the location of the test (Karusala et al., 2018; Molich & Dumas, 2004; Sauer et al., 2019), the number of participants recruited (Lewis, 2007; Spool & Schroeder, 2001), participants’ previous exposure to usability testing (Clemmensen & Qingxin, 2008; Schirra & Allison, 2018), and prior feedback given by the public before the test (Dell et al., 2012; Grimm, 2010; Vashistha et al., 2018). Examples of socio-demographic biases are common elements of comparison in usability testing such as age (Rose et al., 2018; Sonderegger et al., 2015), gender (Kim et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2017), culture (Wallace et al., 2013), and language (Hillier, 2003). In this research, we focus our attention on the socio-demographic bias that stems from culture and language.

Cultural Variables

As suggested by McCrae and Terracciano (2005), we remind readers that drawing conclusions about personality traits and behaviors of members of different cultures has to be done respectfully. We should be mindful of the range of individual differences that can be found within each culture.

According to Hofstede et al. (2010), countries can be compared on five dimensions: Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Time Orientation, and Masculinity/Femininity. We base our research on his work because these dimensions are the only national cultural classification used to evaluate users’ preferences (Reinecke & Bernstein, 2013). Hofstede assigned an index score for each of the dimensions to countries, with a score of 50 (out of 100) serving as the threshold between low (below 50) and high (above 50) scores. Below are definitions of the five cultural dimensions:

Individualism/Collectivism (IND) is the extent to which members of a society are integrated into groups.
Power Distance (PD) is the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) is the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations.
Time Orientation (TO) is the extent to which people focus on future or present goals.
Masculinity/Femininity (MF) is the extent to which men and women within a country have distinct or overlapping emotional gender roles.

While Hofstede’s (1980) work has mostly examined cultural dimensions in the workplace (e.g., comparing answers from IBM employees across the world), his research has been applied in the field of HCI, for instance, to understand user adoption of technology (S.-G. Lee et al., 2013). However, there are only a few studies that explored these variables in the context of usability testing, including our study. In our study, we examined the impact of Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance. We did not consider the dimension of Masculinity/Femininity, as Dumetz and Cadil (2018) have demonstrated its lack of predictive validity for many cultures. We also did not consider the dimension of Time Orientation; our pilot study with two international students, one from Guatemala and one from India, indicated that this dimension was not relevant to our interested participant groups. In the following sections, we discuss examples of researchers who applied Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance to usability testing.

Cultural Variables in Usability Testing

Lee and Lee (2007) used three research methods—probe, usability tests, and focus groups—to compare the influence of Individualism/Collectivism in these contexts with participants from two countries: Korea (collectivist) and the Netherlands (individualist). They found that participants from the Netherlands showed greater engagement and elaborated more in their responses during the usability test and the focus group than participants from Korea. Moreover, participants from the Netherlands were more open to criticize the probe than participants from Korea, who did not complain but instead put the blame on their lack of experience. Wallace et al. (2013) examined correlation between Hofstede’s dimensions and usability attributes. They surveyed 144 participants from four countries—New Zealand, Philippines, Taiwan, and the USA—and asked about the importance they placed on the three usability attributes of cell phones, specifically effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. They found that the five cultural dimensions were significantly correlated with efficiency and satisfaction but not with effectiveness. Participants’ preference for efficiency was influenced by the Power Distance index, and the attribute of satisfaction was preferred by the groups with short-term Time Orientation and weak Uncertainty Avoidance.

Vatrapu and Pérez-Quiñones (2006) explored the effect of Power Distance on participants’ responses during website usability testing. In this study, Indian students were assigned to one of the two groups. One group was interviewed by a local Indian interviewer and the other by an American interviewer. They found that participants provided more feedback and responded more freely when the interviewer was from their cultural background than when the interviewer was not from their cultural background, supposedly the cultural common ground mitigated the effect of Power Distance between participants and interviewers. Dell et al. (2012) also studied the response bias caused by the moderator. They found that participants preferred products more when the moderator was a foreign researcher rather than a local researcher. Lastly, Shi and Clemmensen’s (2008) study observed that participants from a low Power Distance country cared more about the nationality of moderators compared to participants from a high Power Distance country.

Cultural Variables in Other Research Methods

Some researchers have studied the role of these cultural dimensions in other research contexts. For instance, Figueroa et al. (2014) conducted a survey to compare the perception of ease of use and usefulness, compatibility, and trust and adoption intention toward e-government services between Spain and the United States. They found that Individualism did not affect the adoption of e-government and that Uncertainty Avoidance and Power Distance influenced trust toward e-government services. Spain scored a higher rank on these dimensions and showed greater trust toward e-government services than the United States. Similarly, Sonderegger and Sauer (2010) found a positive relationship between the aesthetics of a prototype and participants’ preference of a prototype: the more aesthetically pleasing a prototype looked, the more participants preferred a prototype. Lastly, Alexander et al. (2017) recruited people from three countries—Australia, China, and Saudi Arabia—to examine how culture influenced people’s preference for website design elements (e.g., layout, navigation, links, multimedia, visual representation). They found that countries with high Uncertainty Avoidance preferred clear navigation paths with limited interruptions and participants’ Collectivism/Individualism and Power Distance scores influenced their preference for a website’s visual representation.

Language Variables

Past literatures have also demonstrated the critical role a user’s linguistic background plays in shaping answer tendencies during usability testing. In the following sections we discuss some of these literatures.

Linguistic Variables in Usability Testing

Sun and Shi (2007) observed differences in the interactions between participants and moderators depending on the language spoken during the usability test. They tested different pairs of bilingual Chinese moderators and participants. When the moderator and the participant were speaking Chinese, the moderator took more time to introduce the project and gave more help and encouragement to the participants. When both were speaking English, the moderator and participants would make eye contact to make themselves understood, and the moderator would be more careful of the task list.

Singh et al. (2005) examined the role of linguistic variables in influencing preferences for interface designs. They found that preferences toward the level of white space, the number of hyperlinks, and the length of text varied between countries with different national languages. An explanation for this finding is that language is said to form an individual’s personality and opinions (Chen & Bond, 2010), which can powerfully influence their perceived usability of interfaces (Nantel & Glaser, 2008). This is why Hillier (2003) suggested that an interface should be built by a designer who speaks the same language as its users.

An interface with a translation feature can certainly be built by a designer who speaks different languages. This approach seems practical given that many leading companies are globalizing their services to attract users worldwide. However, most users are reluctant to use a translation feature on a website for various reasons. For instance, Vashistha et al. (2018) explored this matter in India and found that even when an interface provides tools to translate the settings and keyboard into their native language, the majority of users preferred to keep the interface in English. One reason was that some users did not know how to change the settings due to their low experience with the interface. Additional reasons were some users wanted to practice their English and found translation and keyboard tools too cumbersome to use. Other users stated that some English technical terms for mobile devices were considered standard, and they did not like how they were translated in their native language (e.g., “brightness” and “settings”). Some users thought they were losing the meaning of particular words once translated into their own language, and they feared missing out of important information. Calvet (2013) has explained this common situation with the term of vehicular language where individuals change language depending on a given context. Beyond the potential loss of a given word’s essential meaning, users who use a translation feature can suffer from many technical issues (e.g., inconsistent translation of words across different platforms), which severely deters their online experience (Majrashi et al., 2016). Hence, the ideal situation to foster positive user experience on a website would be to match the language spoken between a designer and a user, so that users do not lose access to key resources and services essential for their well-being and self-improvement (EF Education First, 2018).

In addition to website design, researchers who speak the same language as their users should develop survey questionnaires. Behr (2018) noted survey questionnaires usually come to a translator without any context. Words can have different meanings in different languages and, without context, the translator cannot appropriately translate questionnaires to obtain the expected answers. In support of this view, Finstad (2006) found that usability testers used words in a System Usability Scale (SUS; a popular measure to assess a user’s perception of a system’s usability) that were unfamiliar to second-language speakers. For instance, many non-native English speakers did not understand the word “cumbersome.” Furthermore, Yammiyavar et al. (2007) demonstrated that non-verbal cues displayed during usability testing (e.g., hand gestures) can have different meanings for users of different cultural backgrounds.

Altogether, these past literatures suggest that a user’s cultural and linguistic backgrounds can significantly influence how they respond and behave during research participation, with possible introduction of bias in interpreting study results and developing a study protocol. We now outline our study methods to explore our research question in context of usability testing.

Methods

To answer our research question, we designed a usability test to evaluate the Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) website, specifically the application process for a postgraduate work permit. We grouped our participants based on their cultural backgrounds (China, India, and Nigeria) and also based on the language they used for the test (English or French). We presented them with a copy of the website and asked them to do some tasks, such as looking for links and navigating on a page. We conducted semi-structured interviews to talk about their experiences and asked them to complete a survey consisting of System Usability Scale (SUS; Finstad, 2006) and demographic information.

We conducted usability testing sessions between March 29, 2019 and May 23, 2019 and between September 24, 2019 and October 31, 2019. The first author (a white French-Canadian woman and fully proficient in English and French) conducted all sessions. The study lasted 30 minutes: Participants interacted with the website for the first 15 minutes and spent the last 15 minutes participating in a semi-structured interview and a survey. They received $10 (Canadian) as compensation for their time.

Participant Recruitment

We required participants drawn from populations with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds and recruited international students who were studying in Canada—international students from China, India, and Nigeria. They were the residents of countries in which they have different relationships with English, which was an important factor to help determine the linguistic group for our participants. In Nigeria, English is an official language. In India, English is not recognized as official, but it is spoken in many academic and professional institutions (Omidvar & Ravindranath, 2017). In China, English was recently institutionalized, and it is not as often spoken compared to Nigeria and India (Bolton & Graddol, 2012). According to the EF English Proficiency Index (EF Education First, 2018), which evaluates non-native English speakers’ English abilities, India and Nigeria have a moderate proficiency ranking of 28^th and 29^th while China has a low proficiency ranking of 47^th. Moreover, these countries received different index scores in Hofstede’s dimensions for Individualism/Collectivism and Uncertainty Avoidance. However, they have a similar index score for Power Distance (Table 1). Nigeria has a higher Uncertainty Avoidance index score than the other two countries. India is more individualist than China and Nigeria (Hofstede et al., 2010). In addition, these international students were likely to have a similar experience with the IRCC’s website, having had to obtain a study visa, although our experiment tasks were unrelated to student visas. This similar experience can facilitate the same level of immersion from all participants to our study scenario. To explore cultural variables, we first conducted the study in English, focusing on international students from China, India, and Nigeria. To explore linguistic variables, we conducted the same usability test in French and thus recruited French-speaking international students but did not specify their country of origin.

Table 1. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Scores for China, India, and Nigeria

	India	China	Nigeria
Individualism/Collectivism (IDV)	48	20	20
Power Distance (PD)	77	80	77
Uncertainty Avoidance (UA)	40	30	54

We recruited participants from two local universities and through social media (e.g., an international student group website). We asked participants, graduate administrators, and faculty to share the study’s recruitment materials with Indian, Nigerian, and Chinese international students and French-speaking international students. IRCC also sent out an email invitation to all local international students who fit our criteria.

In the end, we had a total of 53 international students in Canada: 39 were English-speaking, with 12 from China, 14 from India, 13 from Nigeria, while 14 were French-speaking. Either language could be spoken as a first or second language, and our recruitment materials indicated that participants must be comfortable in the language. French-speaking participants were from France (5), Morocco (3), Belgium (1), Brazil (1), Cameroon (1), Haiti (1), Mauritius (1), and Senegal (1). Throughout the rest of the paper, we refer to the English-speaking participants by their country of origin and the French-speaking participants by their language.

Table 2 lists the participants’ socio-demographic information.

Table 2. Participants’ Socio-Demographic Information

	Male	Female	Mean Age	English/French First Language	English/French Second Language
India (n=14)	8	6	24.79	0	14
China (n=12)	3	9	24.58	0	12
Nigeria (n=13)	8	5	23.23	6	7
French (n=14)	7	7	22	7	7

Usability Test: Procedure

Participants came to a study lab on their scheduled day and were seated in front of a computer. We instructed participants to navigate through the IRCC’s website from a home page[1] and guided them through different links. All participants received the same set of instructions and tasks where they had to fill out a questionnaire assessing eligibility for the work permit.

We gave the same scenario to participants that described a fictive persona named Anika, a student who was finishing her master’s degree at a Canadian University. We changed the persona’s nationality to match the nationality of our participants. This was done to make the scenario closer to what our participants would experience in real life, so participants would identify and adopt the persona’s goal as their own (Lazar et al., 2017). We provided participants with Anika’s information that was needed to complete a post-graduate work permit application (refer to the Appendix to view specific pages on the website visited by participants).

We introduced several provocations in our study scenario for two reasons: to elicit criticism of the website from our participants to better explore the dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance and to add an element of realism to the application experience. Our provocations included giving participants an incorrect link (student work permit instead of postgraduate work permit) and making participants go through an eligibility test for “Express Entry” for a future migrant (vs. eligibility for the work permit). In the eligibility test, participants navigated through a series of pages that asked eligibility-related questions (e.g., a type of language test that was taken in past, language scores), and they filled in Anika’s information (e.g., language scores on IELTS) provided by researchers. The eligibility test revealed Anika was not eligible for Express Entry and provided a few suggestions to improve her eligibility (e.g., “You may try to improve your language score or gain a higher level of education,” and “You may also consider applying directly to provinces and territories through the Provincial Nominee Program”). Afterwards, participants participated in a semi-structured interview and answered questions on a survey.

Usability Test: Survey

Participants completed a survey that had two parts: (a) socio-demographic questions including gender, age, education, nationality, languages spoken, and proficiency in English/French and (b) the System Usability Scale (SUS; 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree; Finstad, 2006). We used the SUS to explore how participants’ cultural backgrounds influenced their answer tendencies on a Likert scale. We modified the original wording on the scale (i.e., “system” to “website”) to better reflect our study context. We excluded five questions from the scale (Q1, Q3, Q5, Q8, and Q10 on the original scale) because they did not apply to our specific study context. For instance, Q1 stated, “I think that I would like to use this system frequently.” However, international students do not use the IRCC’s website frequently, and this question was deleted, as it did not accurately reflect the normal experience of Canadian international students.

Usability Test: Semi-Structured Interview

We also conducted a semi-structured interview and asked participants nine questions. We developed each question to elicit comments related to three cultural and two language themes (which were developed a priori). We consulted a linguistic anthropologist professor and a woman and gender studies associate professor to develop these questions (see Figure 1 for all questions that researchers asked study participants). Interviews were audio-recorded.

Figure 1. A list of questions asked in the study. Note: IDV = Individualism/Collectivism, PD = Power Distance, UA = Uncertainty Avoidance, Interpretation = Language Interpretation, and Ease = Language Ease.

Results

The following sections discuss results for analyzing the data in regards to the themes related to cultural and linguistic variables.

Data Analysis Approach: Themes Related to Cultural Variables

The first author manually transcribed the audio-recordings of participants’ responses from semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were anonymized before data analysis, and all identifying information was removed and changed. We conducted thematic analysis; we first developed our themes a priori using Hofstede’s theoretical framework (Hofstede et al., 2010). We then operationalized each theme based on his theoretical definitions and in the context of specific questions designed for each theme. The first author in consultation with the third author reviewed and revised the initial operationalization of themes by repeated readings of the transcripts and coded the transcripts accordingly using NVivo12 (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2019).

For the theme Individualism/Collectivism (IDV), we examined participants’ responses to Q7 and coded for Individualism, Collectivism, and Both. We coded Individualism when participants mentioned they preferred to navigate and do similar application processes online by themselves. We coded Collectivism when participants mentioned they would require and/or prefer assistance. We coded Both when participants referred to both concepts.

For the theme Power Distance (PD), we examined participants’ responses to Q6 and coded for high PDI and low PDI. We specifically adopted action coding techniques (Saldaña, 2016) where we first coded for verbs that were used by each participant in their responses. We then grouped the verbs that were meaningful and relevant to the study into the following four categories:

“Follow instructions” where participants used verbs to indicate they would follow IRCC’s instructions (e.g., verbs such as “follow instructions” and “improve English score”).
“Improve Skills” where participants used verbs to indicate they would take actions to improve their skills as suggested by IRCC (e.g., verbs such as “apply to a job” and “find job”).
“Research” where participants used verbs to indicate they would do extra research using outside sources (e.g., verbs such as “read more” and “search information using Google”).
“Ask” where participants used verbs to indicate they would ask for assistance (e.g., verbs such as “ask”).

We coded high PDI when participants used verbs that belonged to the first two groups (i.e., “Following instructions” and “Improve Skills”). We coded low PDI when participants used verbs that belonged to the latter two groups (i.e., “Research” and “Ask”).

For the theme Uncertainty Avoidance (UA), there were three codes: strong UA, weak UA, and Neutral. We coded strong UA when participants mentioned positive comments about the IRCC’s website; we coded weak UA when participants mentioned negative comments about the website; we coded Neutral when participants first mentioned a negative comment but immediately followed by a positive comment.

Data Analysis Approach: Themes Related to Linguistic Variables

Similarly, we operationalized themes and codes to capture participants’ experiences with language that was used in a usability test in response to four questions (Q1, Q3, Q4, and Q5). After the initial operationalization, the first author coded, refined, and elaborated themes and codes in the context of the data in consultation with the third author. For the theme Language Interpretation, we developed three codes—Opinion, Emotional, and Description— based on the three definitions of the verb “feel” (more details in the Results: Language Interpretations section).

For the theme Language Ease, we developed three codes: Easy, Comfortable, and Difficult. If participants commented that the language used in a usability test was easy to understand and did not have to reread words/sections, we coded them “Easy.” When participants commented that the language was hard to understand but did not have to reread words/sections, we coded them “Comfortable.” We also coded participants “Comfortable” when they found the language easy to understand but had to reread words/sections. Lastly, we coded “Difficult” for participants who mentioned the language was difficult to understand and had to reread words/sections. Table 3 lists each theme’s theoretical definition and each code’s description.

We adopted the interpretative view of reliability in coding (vs. a positivist view of reliability). Within this qualitative framework, coding is an evolving and organic process where there is no single objective truth in data. In contrast, a positivist framework, often adopted by quantitative researchers, views coding as the process of finding one accurate reality from a data set and thus defining reliability in terms of stability of findings across time and contexts (i.e., inter-rater reliability). In alignment with the qualitative framework, we define reliability in terms of the rich description of analytic procedure and plentiful descriptions of raw data obtained from study participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Yardley, 2000).

Table 3. A Summary of All Themes and Codes

Themes	Codes	Theoretical Definition	Code Description
Individualism/ Collectivism (IDV)	Collectivism	Interdependent self – High level on the IDV dimension.	When a participant commented they preferred to navigate and do similar application process online by themselves (in response to Q7).
	Individualism	Independent self – Low level on the IDV dimension.	When a participant commented they would require or prefer assistance (in response to Q7).
	Both		When a participant mentioned both previous concepts simultaneously (in response to Q7).
Power Distance (PD)	Large PD	Subordinates are expected to be told what to do.	When a participant followed the instructions and suggestions given by IRCC at the end of the navigation (in response to Q6).
	Small PD	Subordinates are expected to be consulted.	When a participant chose their own course of action (in response to Q6).
Uncertainty Avoidance (UA)	Strong UA	Citizen protest should be repressed.	When a participant expressed positive comments about the IRCC’s website and the navigation process (in response to Q1-Q3, Q8, Q9).
	Weak UA	Citizen protest is acceptable.	When a participant expressed negative comments about the IRCC’s website and the navigation process (in response to Q1-Q3, Q8, Q9).
	Neutral		When a participant expressed a negative comment, followed by a positive comment (in response to Q1-Q3, Q8, Q9).
Language Interpretation	Opinion		When a participant expressed an opinion toward some aspects in usability testing (in response to Q1, Q3).
	Emotional		When a participant expressed an emotion toward some aspects in usability testing (in response to Q1, Q3).
	Description		When a participant described a situation in usability testing (in response to Q1, Q3).
Language Ease	Easy		When a participant found the level of English used on the IRCC website easy to understand and did not have to reread a word/section (in response to Q4, Q5).
	Comfortable		When a participant found the level of English used on the IRCC website hard to understand but did not have to reread a word/section or when they found the level of English easy to understand but did have to reread a word/section (in response to Q4, Q5).
	Difficult		When a participant found the level of English used on the IRCC website hard to understand and had to reread a word/section (in response to Q4, Q5).

Results: The Influence of Cultural Background

In what follows, we present our findings for each of the three cultural dimensions analyzed. For each dimension, we present the themes in which we coded our references and compare the results between the three countries. From this comparison, we can identify which cultural groups have a higher or lower level for the dimension.

Individualism/Collectivism (IDV)

As can be seen in Figure 2, a higher percentage of Indian and Chinese participants expressed preference for assistance during a similar application process while a higher percentage of Nigerian participants preferred to do so on their own.

Figure 2. Percentage of individualist and collectivist participants, by country.

When asked whom they would like to review the process with, most participants indicated they would like assistance from someone who has more expertise using the website. P8 mentioned, “I will get a person who has experience, previous experience on here because maybe that person can help me to do something quickly.” Similarly, P7 mentioned, “I would first ask the person who’s already been through this, not to do it with them because I better learn things by myself… But I would ask for their suggestions and then I would consult it first and then maybe save it as a draft …”

This gives us insight into the usability of the IRCC’s website because our Indian and Chinese participants mentioned a need for assistance for the application process, referring both to the current real-life simulated experience and prior experiences like their student visa application. Participants who speak English as a second language may not be as confident to navigate the website on their own compared to native English-speaking participants (e.g., Nigerian participants), and our results highlight the need to address the user experience of this part of the IRCC’s website. A suggestion could be to improve guidance for users on how to navigate the website, available both in English and other languages, so that they can avoid the need for assistance. IRCC could consider incorporating a chatbot agent to fulfill their role as an expert who can guide users throughout the process.

Power Distance (PD)

In Figure 3, we compared the action coding between the three countries (see Table 3 for code descriptions). Indian participants indicated they would follow the instructions to a greater degree than Chinese and Nigerian participants, who said they would try alternatives during the application process such as searching for additional information on Google or social media. We observed that participants took different actions when given the same instructions on how to improve eligibility for Express Entry (e.g., “You may try to improve your language score”). While some followed the specific instructions given by IRCC, others did not follow these instructions: A few participants mentioned they would ask an agent to obtain additional assistance and stated they would try to get a job to obtain a higher score for their profile. For instance, P30 indicated they would follow the instructions given by the IRCC website, “I’ll use what they told me here to apply online. And I would use the reference code that was given here. I would also check for IELTS exams and how to improve my score.” In contrary, P14 expressed they would do extra information search on their own, “I don’t know like honestly like just go online and read more and like figure out what that federal program is with the provincial program.” This tells us that users should be given clear instructions on what they should do when they are not eligible so that they can pursue the application process with ease.

Figure 3. Percentage of participants who would follow instructions or choose an alternative, by country.

Uncertainty Avoidance (UA)

For this dimension, we discuss the number of references (i.e., the number of selections coded to a specific theme) as opposed to the number of participants; that is, a given participant’s responses can be coded multiple times for the same theme because they commented about the website in response to four different questions. As shown in Figure 4, Indian participants were the least critical of the IRCC’s website. They made more references coded for “No protest” than references coded for “Protest” or “Neutral.” When they did criticize, they mostly rationalized their thoughts and tried to identify a reason for this negative comment. For instance, P26 disliked how the website asked eligibility-related questions in separate pages but thought of a reason why IRCC might have designed the pages in such a way: “Features, I think what would I told in my first answer, what they can do, they can put all the formal questions in one page. That would save a lot of time. But I guess it’s because the next question depends on the previous answer that’s what I think, like it could be that. So that way they are doing this. What I like about this website is… I don’t know it’s not really I like something but it’s not really, but it was not bothering me.” On the other hand, Chinese and Nigerian participants were more critical of the website. They made more references coded for Protest than references coded for No protest and Neutral: “There’s a lot of stuff in there, but it’s like too much information for me so …” (P2).

Figure 4. Percentage of references coded for Protest, Neutral, and No protest, by country.

Summary of Cultural Results

Our results showed the presence of cultural variables between the three countries. Nigerian participants were more individualist, and Indian and Chinese participants were more collectivist. Additionally, Chinese and Nigerian participants more often criticized the IRCC’s website. On the other hand, Indian participants criticized the website less and were more likely to follow the IRRC’s instructions to continue the application process compared to Chinese and Nigerian participants, who indicated they would take alternative steps on their own.

Results: The Influence of Linguistic Backgrounds

To explore the influence of linguistic backgrounds on answer tendencies, we compared French-speaking and English-speaking participants on the dimensions of Individualism/Collectivism, Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance and also examined how different linguistic and cultural groups perceived the language used on the IRCC’s website.

Language Ease

We coded participants’ ease with the language used in the usability testing based on their answers to Q4 and Q5 (“How did you find the language?” and “Did you have to re-read a word or section to better understand it?”) and the three categories (Easy, Comfortable, or Difficult; see Table 3 for code descriptions). It was apparent in P27’s response that they found the language on the website hard to understand: “Like I know that initially like when we started entering information, I think it wasn’t as hard to like understand the language because it was kind of straight to the point although there were some parts like the NOC and stuff that I didn’t really understand.” P27 also had to re-read some parts: “I can’t really say on the top of my head but I’m pretty sure there were.” In contrast, P15 found the language on the website information easy to understand and did not have to re-read: “Yes, it’s like the normal people speaking English. It’s not so complex. Yeah, normal people can understand.” Lastly, P1, who was coded as Comfortable, found the information “easy to understand,” but they had to read again “for some questions … I couldn’t remember too many. Like maybe like how many years you’ve work experience or something like that. I think there is a very large section for explaining something. Like explaining the work experience so. It’s like pretty far away from the questions on the webpage so yeah it’s a little bit confusing.”

Figure 5 shows that participants who navigated the website in French had more ease in understanding the content than participants who navigated the website in English.

Figure 5. Language ease with website between countries and linguistic groups.

From these results, we see that linguistic variables can influence the results during usability testing. Indeed, we found that participants’ English and French proficiency did not necessarily indicate they would understand the level of the language used in the website and even in the study survey. When comparing Figure 5 with the language data from Table 2, we noticed the level of English based on participants’ first or second language did not correspond to their comfort level with the language used in the usability study. For instance, Indian participants, who all reported English as their second language, had more ease with English used by IRCC than Nigerian participants who reported English as their first language.

We observed the same pattern with non-native French speakers who had more ease with the French version of the IRCC’s website than our participants who reported French as their first language (Figure 6). These results indicate that researchers and designers cannot assume users coming from regions of high English or French proficiency would completely understand the language used during usability testing and the systems.

Figure 6. Ease of understanding French for native and non-native French speakers.