Late Last Nite

Likely beginning before the development of the Indian Chaturanga in the 7th century and its evolution into the popular game of chess, military simulations throughout history have served many purposes – entertainment and military training being prominent among them. The more sophisticated and relatively obscure Kriegsspiel system devised by Lieutenant von Reisswitz in early 19th century Prussia is an early example of military simulation designed for training officers. It modeled human factors and the dilemmas generated by imperfect knowledge of battlefield conditions, while also illuminating some of the systematic limitations of what can be termed as traditional wargaming. While this paper provides a cursory analysis of both chess and Kriegsspiel to illustrate their characterizations of different paradigms in military simulation, we will also discuss modern, interactive simulations systems, particularly, those created with the aid of computer hardware and software.

Computer technology has since fundamentally altered the implementation of military simulations by removing cost and safety barriers to immersion in fictional and historically-based scenarios. The primary differentiation between entertainment and training in simulated conflict remains the observed effect of scale and complexity on ease of use and enjoyment. For the purposes of this paper, description of Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis, Virtual Battlespace Systems, and America’s Army will serve to characterize differences in intent and implementation in popular modern tactical simulations, while a short analysis of TacOpsCav 4 will demonstrate the continued evolution of the operational (strategic) simulation.

The strategic and tactical elements of modern chess have led to its widespread popularity as a game. While the traditional form of chess is an abstract simulation of the material and technological conditions of ancient times (and so is not directly relatable to any contemporary conflict or phenomenon,) as a game it nonetheless teaches critical thinking within the confines of a rigid system of rules (“Our Studies”). These simple rules governing piece movement, combat, and winning conditions make for a game simple enough for children to enjoy, yet sophisticated to the point that academic debate continues as to whether strongly solving chess is even possible (“Shannon Number”). In human terms, this means that beyond the tactical considerations of checkmate, there exist in the incomprehensible complexity numerous strategic and psychological elements related to consideration of things like piece position, player initiative, game tempo, and control of central squares. While aspects of these strategies can be generalized, the utility of such abstract and absolute simulation in modern military training would be generously described as ancillary– unequal forces, varying geographical conditions, human factors, and imperfect battlefield information are not modeled.

Reisswitz’ Kriegsspiel was designed in the wake of numerous attempts to engineer chess variants more effective for military training. Eschewing symmetry and absolute combat outcomes and increasingly detailed maps were employed as game boards in which military units of differing composition maneuvered and fought to achieve their objectives in simulated time. Perhaps most importantly, a trusted umpire position was created to implement orders, adjudicate combat results (either according to historical data or their own judgment,) and realistically reveal information to the simulated opponents (Leeson). While this system depended on the suitability of umpires in order to be an effective simulation of warfare, it was far more suitable for military training than chess because it allowed simulation of combat and maneuver that were true to the technology of the time being simulated (Caffery). Subsequent to the widespread adoption of Kriegsspiel by the Prussian military, General and Chief of Staff (and war-gamer) Helmuth von Moltke introduced another function of military simulation– prediction:

Periodically Moltke would take the entire student body of the War College and as much of his General Staff as he could spare and literally ride on horseback to one of the actual invasion corridors into Prussia. Moltke would then personally describe the situation he viewed the most likely first clash between invading and Prussian forces.

He would then turn to the most junior student present and ask for his plan of battle. He would then ask the second most junior, then the third until he would ask the opinion of the most senior General present . . .

By the end of the day the group would have arrived at a consensus battle plan. Yet the exercise did not end there. They then played a map-based war game. The entire group would retire to a local inn. Moltke would then name the senior ranking general (aside from himself) to command the invading forces. He then named the second ranking general to command the Prussian forces. He continued thus until the staffers and students were split into two equal teams . . . The Blue (Prussian) team would use the plan devised during the day. The team representing the invaders would develop their own plan.

This was sophisticated enough but Moltke was not done yet. The next day he would contact the local garrison. (This was an actual invasion corridor.) He would direct the garrison commander to march a few hundred soldiers where the plan called for thousands to march. This was done to test the marching times and other details of the plan. When all this was done the plan went on the shelf as the actual plan for an invasion along that corridor. (Caffery)

Officers trained by implementations of the Kriegsspiel simulation under Moltke’s direction are widely regarded to be responsible for Prussian military success in the latter half of the 19th century, leading to the Prusso-centric German empire extant before the First World War (Caffery). After the Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian war leading to German unification, many nations were quick to emulate Prussian military training methods; these included simulation.

By World War II, wargaming had become a widely-used military tool directly useful for the training of officers and predicting of enemy actions, with indirect utility in politics and lobbying (Caffery). That said, the legacy of Kriegsspiel was not solely military; the commercial sector had found that military simulations were also marketable to a civilian audience. Like chess, tabletop war-games have enjoyed persistent (albeit underground) popularity since their inception. With the advent of the personal computer in the late 20th century, immersive conflict simulation became possible at any level from near omniscient omnipotence to the immediate first person– this latter human scale being unique to the virtual medium (outside of expensive and abstract live-fire military exercises.) These new low level combat simulations (known as First Person Shooters or FPSs) found popularity in the burgeoning computer gaming market subsequent to the release of Wolfenstein 3D, a highly fictionalized military conflict simulation (“Wolfenstein 3D”).

As of the first years of the 21^st century, FPSs have become a central genre in computer entertainment. As a sub-genre, military-themed FPSs have become of popular in their own right. Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis is a representative example of a commercial FPS simulating modern tactical warfare with a high degree of realism (“Operation Flashpoint”). Its developers managed to repurpose the game engine in the creation of Virtual Battlespace Systems 1 and 2, tactical simulations intended to be used for military training. To that end, specific terrain packs were developed modeling current conflict zones, and standard convoy mission types were implemented with a high degree of detail (Milburn). The critical and commercial success of both the Operation Flashpoint and Virtual Battlespace Systems simulations (and their sequels) demonstrates the inherent utility and flexibility of the virtual medium in both entertainment and military training . Furthermore, the effectiveness and affordability of computer simulations (relative to traditional training techniques) has made virtual tactical simulation an essential element of military training for soldiers, rather than being useful only for those who make strategic decisions (Milburn). The repurposing of civilian technology to military ends is a continuing phenomenon, evident in what is perhaps the most promising military simulation in contemporary discourse: America’s Army.

From the first iteration of America’s Army released in 2002 to its present form, all development has taken place on successive generations of the Unreal engine developed by Epic Games (Davis, et al.). Billed as a public relations and recruitment tool, the game was made available as a free download to civilian players. Response was enormous, including requests from the Secret Service and Special Forces to develop derivatives suitable to their training and recruitment goals, respectively (McLeroy). With widespread adoption by gamers, government entities, and frequent news coverage, America’s Army has proved successful in every aspect of its intended function. This includes two well-publicized accounts of players using emergency medical training they acquired in-game to give effective first aid in the real world (Mezoff). Continued diversification is evident as schools adopt simulation-based curriculum using the America’s Army platform to teach physics and engineering (“America’s Army classroom”). As a simulation, America’s Army seems to have successfully blurred the distinction between entertainment and military training by creating a game bound by military doctrine, even as ever-more sophisticated and flexible simulations are implemented for higher-level military training.

The TacOpsCav series is representative of Kriegsspiel’s modern legacy in military training. Developed as a civilian war-game, it has been adopted as a training instrument ancillary to more complex and resource-intensive military simulations (Peck). Likewise, simulating modern combat conditions and leveraging networking capabilities to make large scale operations more feasible, TacOpsCav also allows for an umpire position similar to Kriegsspiel. Differences from older war-games include representation of irregular units and various non-combatants that play into operational objectives (“TacOps 4: Overview”). And although TacOpsCav is one of many simulations resulting from the long evolution of civilian and military war-games, it did not revolutionize military simulation. It is, nonetheless, successful at being both entertaining and functional in characteristic of modern war-games as a whole.

While many texts have been devoted to analyzing specific aspects of military simulators for the purpose of training, (ie, human factors, realism, effectiveness, etc), this paper provided a broad, historical overview regarding the origination of military simulation systems, the purposes for their creation, and their evolution into systems far superior to their original counterparts. Future research can provide more in-depth information regarding current, modern systems, as well as the development of newer future military simulators.

Works Cited

“‘America’s Army’ finds place in classroom.” Army News Service. 25 Sep 2008. Web. 19 Nov 2009. <http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2008/09/25/dod_news/dod6.txt>.

Caffrey, Matthew. “History of Wargames: Toward a History Based Doctrine for Wargaming.” Strategy Page. 6 Jan 2000. Web. 20 Nov 2009. <http://www.strategypage.com/articles/default.asp?target=WARGHIS2.htm&reader=long>.

Davis, Margret, et al. “Making America’s Army.” United States Army and the MOVES Institue. Jan 2004. Web. 18 Dec 2009. <http://gamepipe.usc.edu/~zyda/pubs/YerbaBuenaAABooklet2004.pdf>.

Jean, Grace. “Game Branches Out Into Real Combat Training.” National Defense. Feb 2006. Web. 20 Nov 2009. <http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2006/February/Pages/games_brance3042.aspx>.

Leeson, Bill. “Origins of the Kriegsspiel.” Kriegsspiel News. Web. 19 Nov 2009. <http://www.kriegsspiel.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=58>.

McLeroy, Carrie. “Leveraging ‘America’s Army’.” Soldiers. Sep 2008. Web. 21 Nov 2009. <http://lists.army.mil/soldiersmagazine/pdfs/sep08full.pdf>.

Mezoff, Lori. “Army Game Saves Lives. Army.com. 22 Jan 2008. Web. 21 Dec 2009. <http://www.army.com/articles/item/3497>.

Milburn, John. “Gaming maximizes Army training resources.” Army Times. 28 April 2008. Web. 19 Nov 2009. <http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap_skillstrainer_042708/>.

“Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 18 Nov 2009, 15:20 UTC. Web. 20 Nov 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Flashpoint:_Cold_War_Crisis&oldid=326546413>.

“Our Studies.” Kasparov Chess Foundation. Web. 20 Nov 2009. <http://www.kasparovchessfoundation.org/Studies/index.html>.

Peck, Michael. “Computer games helping to train commanding officers.” National Defense. 1 Dec 2004. Web. 19 Nov 2009. <http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Computer+games+helping+to+train+commanding+officers.%28Transforming…-a0125956021>.

“Shannon number.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 14 Jul 2009, 01:29 UTC. Web. 20 Nov 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon_number&oldid=301968366>.

“TacOps 4: Overview.” Battlefront.com. Web. 20 Nov 2009. <http://www.battlefront.com/products/tacops4/tacops4.html>.

“Wolfenstein 3D.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Nov 2009, 18:28 UTC. Web. 20 Dec 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfenstein_3D&oldid=327900341>.

The advent of new and interactive communication systems and computer applications has provided organizations the ability to create “virtual teams.” (Greenburg, 71)  Virtual teams are geographically separated teams of individuals or groups tasked with a common goal.  Such virtual teams take advantage of new and interactive communication technologies to complete a shared mission without the demand or need of direct face-to-face interaction.  This paper aims to determine a better understanding of virtual teams, specifically, how virtual teams can assist logistics systems and efforts, the pros and cons of virtual teams within the logistics application, and lastly, what technologies are available today to help with the management the collaborative tasks and communication related to virtual teams in logistics environments.
In their article, Chinowsky and Rojas state “…the decision to incorporate virtual teams should not be made without an understanding of the specific definition of a virtual team…” (99), and a better understanding of previously available communication technologies often used for coordination and cooperation of geographically separated teams.  For example, analog telephony allowed for oral communications and teleconferencing, facsimile (FAX) services allowed for the transmission of digital or analog written texts and images, and email allowed for the quick transmission of digital texts.  Each of these three technological examples (telephone, fax, and email) allowed for a form of communicative interaction.  Additionally, websites and similar online tools allowed for a repository to collect and share project data and information.
Rudimentary online white-boards, chat rooms, and discussion areas all allowed for further collaboration and asynchronous data exchange and communications archiving.  These examples (websites, discussion boards, online chats) allowed for asynchronous cooperation and archival repositories that could be called upon later as a means of data retrieval.  They also provide for asynchronous communication (such as fax or email), as well as synchronous communication (such as teleconference and real-time chat).  However, these technologies are geared more for communications and cooperation rather than immersion or project collaboration.  In fact, the central focus of these technologies is the ability for a group of individuals to asynchronously interact and manipulate project data. (Chinowsky, 99).  Although electronic communication has allowed for geographically dispersed teams to communicate effectively in an asynchronous manner, only recently have innovative technologies and applications allowed for truly synchronous, real-time, immersive communication and collaboration.  I contend that the latest technologies, the ones released within the past year, are the most effective tools available for virtual teams, allowing geographically separated organizations to effectively and efficiently reach their project goals without (non-mediated) face-to-face interaction.  This is especially valuable for supply chain and logistics management teams who are spatially dispersed and must transmit vital information to counterparts and/pr colleagues across town, or across the globe.
So how can project managers in logistics operations positions benefit through implementing virtual teams using computer-mediated communications tools?  To answer this questions, let’s first look at why organizations would want to implement new and interactive communications systems into their operations:
In issue 159 of the European Journal of Operational Research, A. Gunasekaran and E.W.T. Ngai argue “…companies are in the race for improving their organizational competitiveness in order to compete in the 21st century global market.  This market is electronically connected and dynamic in nature. Therefore, companies are trying to improve their agility level with the objective of being flexible and responsive to meet the changing market requirements.”  (Gunasekaran & Ngai,  269).  So if logistics managers are individuals (or team members) whose responsibilities include “integration of key business processes from end user through original suppliers…provid[ing] products, services, and information and hence add value for customers and other stakeholders,” (Lambert et al., 1998) then by all means they would want to increase their capabilities over their competitors by improving system-wide communications efforts, especially as companies are forced to compete in a more globally-connected market.  Specifically, Gunasekaran & Ngai list two particular benefits to incorporating information technology and new communications mediums into the management of supply chains and logistics operations:
“A supply chain-wide information infrastructure [can be] used to directly disseminate relevant market information throughout the chain as a whole, avoiding a loss of time,” and Information [can be] used for long-term innovation and enhanced customer  [support] relationship.” (Gunasekaran & Ngai, 279).
In other words, vital information about the market, organizational suppliers, or any pertinent areas of the supply chain/ logistical environment can be immediately communicated to counterparts, colleagues, suppliers, CMs, and 3PIs, etc., in detailed form, including not only audible communication, but also incorporating visual features such as charts, graphs, and other relevant visual media, including video or interactive slideshows.  The information can be archived for future reference, or to be transmitted to other individuals, teams, and/or partner organizations.  The possibilities created by using such new and interactive communications tools are nearly endless, especially when one considers the technological advances made within this realm.
Communications tools can not only help with positive strides within the logistics environment, but also with improving service levels to satisfy customer needs and expectations.  Although not a direct part of the logistics environment, customer satisfaction does ultimately affect the global (entire) supply chain model as the end user’s satisfaction can play a rather large role in a product’s vitality and continued/future profitability. Recent news articles have shown companies such as Bank of America, Comcast, and Verizon have all incorporated new communications mediums into the customer service capabilities, which they hope will ultimately increase customer demand for their products and services.  Such efforts incur relatively little upfront costs, but may increase profits as customers leave competitors for the promise and expectation of higher service levels.  However, the effective use of new communications mediums is still dependent upon the user’s skill level.  These tools are after all, just tools, and they require a proficient use to fully incorporate their features during deployment.
Older, more traditional logistics / operations / project managers might not approve of these new tools or like adapting to their incorporation into their toolbox.  Or, if they do accept their implementation, they may not have the proper training or support, and as such, these technologies may in fact hinder their ability to effectively communicate ideals critical to their mission objectives.  This can prove disastrous for not only the logistics behind the supply chain, but also for the service levels when attempting to use new technologies to provide customer support.  A minor error can lead to miscommunication and confusion, causing delays and/pr cost-overruns, potentially upsetting clients both up and down the supply chain.  The resulting bottlenecks could cause customers to rely on competitors, effectively ruining profits for a period of time, or ultimately, causing the business to collapse.  This – the incorporation of new communications technologies into a realm where there may be little to no training available for logistics engineers – may prove difficult, time consuming, and expensive for many organizations, leading them to steer clear of such new technologies.
Unfortunately, the introduction of novice users into the virtual management realm may produce a negative viewpoint, especially if such attempts by virtual teams have proven unsuccessful.   Recent studies have shown that there are certain contentions related to virtual groups, especially related to group dynamics and social constructs.  Penelope Greenberg’s review of Deborah Duarte and Nancy Snyder’s text, Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools and Techniques that Succeed outlines several issues prevalent to virtual group management.  She asserts influencing team members’ attitudes or encouraging cooperation may be more difficult when team leaders or logistics managers operate remotely (71).  Furthermore, relationships are much more informal and task-related (as opposed to social) due to the difficulty in building more non-work-related relations within the virtual team (71).  Greenberg reiterates there may be difficulties evaluating individuals as task-based performance may be hindered by poor communication or loss of technology service.  “Misunderstanding [may] arises due to cultural, organizational…[or] technological diversity” (71).  A lack on visible body language, eye contact, and an assumption (as opposed to vocal interpretation) tone may create a perception of hostility when sarcasm (or any other non-malicious communication) was the intended communication.  Although digital communication allows for virtual teams, it may also hinder the effectiveness of traditional efforts in communication, especially when virtual team members may have limited experience within such geographically separated team environments.  “In fact,” Chinowsky and Rojas contend,  “virtual team[s] require a combination of successful technical and managerial responses to ensure that the potential for success exists” (101).  They continue to assert that a lack of attention to either of these areas can significantly impact any logistical project in a negative aspect, potentially leading to frustration, cost overruns, or ultimately – the failure of the team’s mission.  A positive technique which may help in a successful virtually-team-managed project is to provide the resources virtual teams demand, one of which may be the empowerment to devise their own internal set of resources, many of which may be technologies outside the standard scope of communication and/or collaboration tools  “Highly empowered virtual teams were associated with significantly higher levels of process improvement and customer satisfaction than were less empowered teams (Gibson, 188).  In summary, it seems that many arguments attest that virtual teams need the both the proper human resources (such as understanding of communications technologies) and technological empowerment (such as ability to select collaboration tools, ISP, development environment, etc.) in effort to be more likely to succeed in their efforts.  Others, however, argue that success is also (and quite possibly more so) reliant upon team dynamics and effective communication, which they assert may be hampered due to limitations within new communication technologies.
37Signals is a “privately-held Chicago-based company [specializing in] web-based software products…with the least number of features necessary.” (37Signals) The company specializes in the creation of web-based applications specifically designed for virtual team collaboration, project/logistics management, and contact management.  They tout their flagship application Basecamp as an online logistics management suite with team-focused features such as task lists, file sharing, time tracking, contact management, and scheduling.  All features are designed with the notion and understanding that users will be geographically separated.  “Projects,” 37Signals explain, “don’t fail from a lack of charts, graphs, stats, or reports, they fail from a lack of clear communication.”  This declaration brings about an interesting debate:  do virtually-managed projects fail due to a poor digital translation of traditional project/ logistics management tools, or do they fail due to a reliance on traditional tools where new, more innovative and immersive tools are better suited for the tasks associated with such virtually- managed projects?  This question is better answered in a separate paper, but the question itself provokes thought regarding the matter.

References

A. Gunasekaran, E. W. T. Ngai, Information systems in supply chain integration and management, European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 159, Issue 2, Supply Chain Management: Theory and Applications, 1 December 2004, Pages 269-295, ISSN 0377-2217, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2003.08.016.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCT-49Y42B7-8/2/f9c034add133ec189bb297a74b667028)

Alex Iskold, “Software For Virtual Teams – ReadWriteWeb,” Read Write Web, February 28, 2007, http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/software_for_virtual_teams.php.

Ashok Chandrashekar, Philip B Schary. “Toward the virtual supply chain: The convergence of IT and organization. ” International Journal of Logistics Management  10.2 (1999): 27-39. ABI/INFORM Global. ProQuest.  14 Apr. 2009 <http://www.proquest.com/>

“Getting Real: The Book by 37signals,” http://gettingreal.37signals.com/.

Gibson, et al, “The Impact of Team Empowerment On Virtual Team Performance: The Moderating Role of Face-To-Face Interaction,” Academy of Management Journal 47, no. 2 (2004): 175-192.

Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., Pagh, J.D., 1998. Supply chain management: Implementation issues and research opportunities. International Journal of Logistics Management 9 (2), 1–19.

Panela Hinds and Kiesler Sara, Distributed Work (MIT Press, 2002), http://www.netlibrary.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/Details.aspx.

Paul Chinowsky and Eddy Rojas, “Virtual Teams: Guide to Successful Implementation ,” JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING (July 2003): 98-106.

Penelope Greenberg, “Book Review: Mastering Virtual Teams:
Strategies, Tools and Techniques that Succeed, 3rd edition,” International Journal of e-Collaboration, 3, no. 3 (September 2007): 71-75.

Robert Jones, Robert Oyung, and Lisa Pace, “Working Virtually” Challenges of Virtual Teams,” Journal of Product Innovation Management 24, no. 1 (2007): 95-97.

Recent advances in communications technology have allowed for greater interaction among people of greater geographic separation and differing cultures.   This not only includes communications among peoples, but also allows for a greater global marketplace where consumers and suppliers from all different walks can trade and barter with one another.  Online shopping allows for merchants to offer their wares to nearly any are of the modern world, often with minimal investment and effort.

Aside from access, there are two central obstacles in effectively reaching a global audience:

1)    Content, in terms of language and translations/interpretations; cultural differences; and how differing social norms may relate to the un/intended communication of information displayed or relayed to others,

and

2)    Design, in terms of usability and website structure; user interface; navigation placement and design; considering color within differing cultural norms; column width and layout; and finally – hardware and software capabilities of end users in relation to backend technologies required for proper display of content.

As you can see, there are several more items regarding design than content.  Of coarse, requirements will differ among projects and efforts.  You may experience a different comparison of needs when designing your project for a global audience.

This short text will outline four key areas to focus  when designing for a global audience.  I’ll provide examples to each focus area.

Capabilities

This is an often overlooked focus area which can result in a failed project or the need to perform extensive revisions on a mature project, resulting in greater costs and delays in time to market.

Prior to developing an online site – be it for communication of information (repository, news, blogging, community, etc) or consumerism (online marketplace, software as a service, single storefront), one must consider the software and hardware limitations of the end users.

Keep in mind certain technologies (especially software containing cryptography) are barred from export outside of North America.

Can your end user access Flash or other rich media plug-ins?
Example: you are considering a rich media introductory page for your website, but the free browser plug-in is only available for download in North America.

Will your audience have access to the latest versions of browsers in their language? Example:  You develop a website for the latest, most accepted technologies (Firefox, IE, and Safari).   Your audience resides in (and accesses) your website from Saudi Arabia.  However, only Safari and IE have the Arabic language pack available for  their latest versions.  The most recent version of Firefox does not (however, a previous build does).  Had you taken this into account early on, you would have asked your programmers to design in the latest applicable version of Firefox.

Is your site produced in Unicode so that fonts are reproduced without issues?  Unicode is recommended for international development as it allows computers to “consistently represent and manipulate text expressed in most of the world’s writing systems.” (Wikipedia, Unicode)

Taking your audiences’ capabilities into consideration will help you with the other focus areas.

Culture and Application

When considering content, one should take into account the cultural norms and taboos of different peoples.  For example, consider limiting pictures of women for sites targeting Islamic cultures.  Keep in mind that the Chinese expect a visual representation of the product on the outside packaging (especially of food items).   In other words, keep your content in line with what would be expected in your target audience’s local community.  Keep your content targeted and focused:  use neutral language and stay focused on your key communication or goods, diverting very little if needed.

Example: Check out the difference in content between the following pages:
http://www.msn.com/ (standard, US version)
http://www.arabia.msn.com/ (Arabic audience, in English)
http://www.arabic.arabia.msn.com/ (Arabic audience, in Arabic)
http://cn.msn.com/ (Chinese audience, in Chinese)

Notice how the content differs among each version:
The Chinese version has much more pictures of women than any other version.
The Arabic versions contain completely different content on the front page.  Do you think this is an arbitrary move, or that Microsoft performs audience analysis to determine which content should be presented to different cultures?

Layout

Layout refers to the navigation structure and information architecture.   The designer may be accustomed to a top navigation and hierarchal architecture in his/her culture, but what about your target audience?

Browse over to a Norwegian or Chinese website and you’ll quickly notice a very different style of navigation and architecture.  Will your site incorporate columns ala “magazine style” (such as the NYT or WSJ), or will it be a traditional single column site?  Will your page be centered on the screen?

Again, take your global audience into account.

An audience reading from right to left will be accustomed to a right-sided pages rather than left-sided (which is what we Westerners are accustomed to).

Striving to create a neutral layout can be highly beneficial when designing for multiple audiences.  Take a look at this example from the Government of Dubai:

In the first example, we see the page is in Arabic:
http://www.dubaitourism.ae/Home/tabid/36/language/ar-AE/Default.aspx

In the second example, the page is in English:
http://www.dubaitourism.ae/

Did you notice the subtle changes in navigation within the maintained layout?  Had the layout not been centered on screen, the designer would have needed to produce two different versions of layout, one for audiences that read right-to-left, and one for audiences that read left-to-right.

Color

Color has very different and powerful meanings depending on learned interpretations due to cultural traditions and social norms.

For example: Green means “go” and relates to currency here in the U.S., but green is considered a holy color in many Islamic regions (think Hamas).  We might not think twice about the color green on Western sites, but an Islamic audience may favor the use of such color.

Another example: Japanese and other Asian cultures view red as a life-giving color where South Africa regards red as a color for mourning.  In China, red is the traditional color worn by brides.  Western cultures see red as meaning danger or “stop.”  And Europeans regard it as a color of passion and love.

The use of color can generate unforeseen reactions and interpretations from your global audience.  Taking color into account can greatly influence your audience and should be taken into great consideration in the planning phases.  Unlike other focus areas, there are no colors that must be avoided at all times.  However, certain audiences do not appreciate certain colors, and that should be taken into account.

Final example:  I’m a Florida State alumni/fan, and I like garnet and gold.  The Florida Gators are our rivals, and as such, I’ve grown a dislike for the combination of orange and blue.  Now, I like both green and blue as colors, but I may subconsciously feel upset or detached when I see them together.

Summary

Planning and designing for a global audience can have a positive impact on web-based communication efforts.  This does include content and design, and each project will require a certain level of effort be applied to each area.  Successful sites will take their target audiences’ cultures into account, providing an environment that is found both socially acceptable (norms) and culturally accessible  (language).

Four major focus areas to consider include users’ technological capabilities; their culture and application of content; the layout and design of information architecture, and use of color – all of which are equally important and reliant upon one another.

Works Cited/ Bibliography

Bradley, Red Keith. The Cultural Significance of Design on International Commun ication. 22 Oct 2008 <http://www2002.org/CDROM/alternate/679/>.

“Export Control Basics (Exporting 101).” 22 Oct 2008 <http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm>.

Jo, Christopher. “Web Design for a Global Audience – Colours.” 22 Oct 2008 <http://www.christopherajones.com/dga/colours.html>.

Kyrnin, Jennifer. “Writing Web Sites for a Global Audience.” 22 Oct 2008 <http://webdesign.about.com/od/writing/a/aa080800a.htm>.

Ragle-Davis, Robin. “Digital Web Magazine – Design Decisions vs. Audience Considerations.” Design Decisions vs. Audience Considerations 20 May 2008. 22 Oct 2008 <http://www.digital-web.com/articles/design_decisions_vs_audience_considerations/>.

“U. S. Bureau of Industry and Security – Notification Requirements for “Publicly Available” Encryption Source Code.” 22 Oct 2008 <http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/pubavailencsourcecodenofify.html>.

“Unicode – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” 22 Oct 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode>.