Localization of digital technologies

While the preceding section addresses how we design (principles, processes, ethics), this section turns to localization–the negotiated ways designs are adapted, interpreted, and owned in specific contexts.

Much of the work on technology design, past and present, has focussed specifically on localization and the challenges of designing for diverse users. Our 2004 review argued that localization is shaped not only by technical affordances but by human choices, collaborations, and sociocultural contexts. Early “global electronic village” imaginaries (for example Rheingold, 1993) were shown to rest on culture-bound assumptions, reinforcing the need for more inclusive approaches. Case studies highlighted collaborative projects that expanded accessibility while pursuing standards that were “global without being imperialistic,” and pointed to political-cultural factors–such as metaphor interpretation and interface acceptance–that condition design, adoption, and use. In education, scholars called for cultural localization of online learning environments designed for multiple cultures rather than privileging one.

In more recent literature, localization is framed as an ongoing negotiation between customization and adaptation, encompassing vernacularization, creolization, and broader fit to local practices (see for example Abdelnour-Nocera & Densmore, 2017; Jin, 2021; Park & Wen, 2016; Perumal et al., 2021; Sydorenko et al., 2021; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2021). These processes often yield hybrid forms that merge Western digital influences with local traditions (Barendregt, 2012). Some research continues to deploy some of the older and essentializing cultural frameworks that we critiqued earlier (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1991) to analyze how platforms and content are tuned to distinct cultural logics (Ess & Sudweeks, 2006). Yet perceptions of localization remain ambivalent: users interpret and negotiate media within their own frameworks, sometimes in tension with what counts as “typical” local media (Seto & Martin, 2019). Beneath these debates lies concern about global inequalities in the production and ownership of technologies and services, and how such asymmetries shape access and agency (Wagner, 2019).

A recurring argument–echoing other sections of this review–is the need to move beyond Western-centric design: new media technologies and projects should attend to local ontologies and practices, rather than relying on singular, Western representations of knowledge (Srinivasan, 2013). This stance emerges from earlier worries about the homogenizing effects of global ICTs on local cultural identities (e.g., via foreign audiovisual content), a legacy that continues to shape contemporary development research and practice (Wagner, 2019).

Selected examples illustrate the range of approaches. Ess and Sudweeks (2006) show how university and multinational advertising sites adapt graphic elements in line with established cultural analyses. Seto and Martin (2019) trace how Australian audiences negotiate meaning across digital and traditional media, using shared content to build common ground while expressing distinctive cultural traits.

Overall, the recent literature treats localization as an ambivalent, negotiated process that mediates between global and local influences, generates hybridities, and foregrounds cultural sensitivity in design. Future research and practice should move past homogenizing or Western-centric paradigms to integrate diverse cultural perspectives, prioritizing local knowledge systems, practices, and needs in the evolving ecology of digital technologies (Srinivasan, 2013; Barendregt, 2012; Ess & Sudweeks, 2006; Seto & Martin, 2019; Wagner, 2019).

Infrastructures and design decisions are never neutral: aligning affordances, accessibility, and localization with diverse communities is a prerequisite for durable, equitable cultural participation.