User interfaces have become crucial in the use of computers. They are the primary medium in which we interact with computational devices, yet we spend very little time thinking of about them. This is of course, by design. Good interfaces make it seem effortless and easy. This is what we call “invisible design” and operates on exploiting our human assumptions and interpretations naturally.
But humans are funny creatures. Unlike robots, we are unique, interesting and diverse and that reflects on how we interact with interfaces and technology. If you give a human a user interface, they bring a lifetime of cultural baggage, habits, and perspectives to the screen. We don’t all see “the path forward” in the same way, and that diversity transforms a simple button into a complex cultural experiment.
The Geometry of Time
In many Western cultures, time is viewed as a linear horizontal axis. We “scroll” through our calendars from left to right, mirroring the direction of our scripts. In this mental model, the past is behind us (to the left) and the future is an open road ahead (to the right). This, to many, seem intuitive, and almost natural. But what if I told you it isn’t? Not to the rest of the world that is.
Change the geography, and the geometry changes too. In some East Asian cultures, particularly those with histories of vertical writing, time is often perceived as flowing downward, like a waterfall from the past into the present. Even more striking are cultures like the Aymara of the Andes, who perceive the past as being in front of them (because it can be seen and known) and the future as being behind them (because it is unknown).
Why This Crashes the Interface
An anecdote from an old professor of mine once described himself presenting at a conference on stage. He was given remote clicker to progress the slides, however, unlike normal mouse and clickers with one button, this clicker consisted of arrows. In his western upbringing, he had assumed that the next slide button would simply be done by clicking on the right arrow. He was wrong. Audience members suddenly tried to help by telling him which button to choose, but surprisingly, the audience was split. Some said to press left like he did, some said to press down and some even said to press up. These suggestions all seemed intuitive to each member of the audience which highlights a key finding; we often bake these invisible assumptions into the code. This leads to several “cultural collisions”.
To the users, like my professor, who claimed it was right. We view time progressing linearly as a horizontal axis. We start from the left, and end on the right, similar to how our language is written. In contrast, users who claimed that the down arrow was the correct button to press, view time differently. They come from East Asian cultures where their text is written downwards in books. Thus, viewing time on a vertical axis only comes natural to them, starting from the top, and ending at the bottom. Even more interesting however, were those who claimed that the up arrow was the correct button to press. They viewed time as an “experience” that we move forward through. This is similar to how we view ourselve in a 3rd person video game. Thus, progressing the slide was simply an act of “moving forward”, which when translated to a 2D arrow interface, the up arrow makes the most sense. All in all, these differences in interpretation of time highlight how cultural differences such as language and literacy affect how we perceive the world around us, and the interfaces we assume of.
After all this fuss, turns out the clicker was just broken.