WWW/Internet - Portal do Software Público Brasileiro

IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2010SEMIOTICS OF BRAZILIAN E-COMMERCE SIGNSCayley Guimarães, Diego R. Antunes, Alice G. de Paula and Aléssio Miranda JrUniversidade Federal do ParanáABSTRACTSigns from Brazilian e-commerce sites were studied focusing on their intended meaning for the user to go about theoperations to be executed to perform desired tasks. It is shown a low mapping between the intended function in thesystem and the desired goal from the user. A better understanding of the Theory of Sign Production and SemioticEngineering Methods for sign re-design is recommended.KEYWORDSSemiotic Engineering. Sign Analysis, e-commerce, Communication ruptures.1. INTRODUCTIONDertouzos (1977) states the importance of e-commerce sites, widely used. Pictographic signs (e.g. shoppingcart) are used to communicate available functions. When the user is unable to determine the meaning of suchsigns, she may simply go to another site. In Carroll et al (1988) we find that metaphors are a good aid in theattibution of meaning to novelties, and can be used to represent a concept in a non-verbal manner. Such useof metaphors in the form of pictographic signs may be used with the purpose of designing a user-friendliersite. de Souza (2005) states that the elements of the interface serve to communicate to the user how and whyto use the system. This communication is obtained through the use of several types of signs.Pio & Guimarães (2007) analized signs used in Brazilian e-commerce sites and concluded that thesubjects had a great difficulty in atributting meaning to signs they encoutered. This research further analysesthe same set of signs using a semiotic approach in an attempt to try to elucidate the communications rupturesand interpretations (i.e. abductive paths) of users.2. SIGNSAccording to de Souza (2005), the “engineering of signs” is a rational process of choosing represantationsthat will be computationally codified and interpreted. The choices certainly make sense to the coder. It isexpected that they also make sense to the user: “The design of signs that can trigger converging semiosisaround its implemented meaning is the primary goal of HCI design in a semiotic engineering perspective”.According to Pierce apud de Souza (2005), a sign is defined as “anything that stands for something else, tosomebody, in some respect or capacity” and it is the basis of interpretation (what someone understands as themeaning of something). Pierce views signs as a triade composed by the object (referent), the representamen(representation) and the interpretant (meaning). The relation within the triade is that the representamenrepresents the object (referent) in a manner that creates the interpretant (meaning) in the mind of theinterpreter. Signs work as a process: there isn´t, necessarily, a conection between a representation and itsobject: meaning is always a mediatior between them.According to Pierce, signs can be classified, among others, in firstness, secondness and thirdness.Firstness is the category of undiferantiated qualitative experience (e.g. the cry of a child). Secondness is thecategory of strict association between two phenomenum, that happens through some common invariablebetween them (e.g. when the child cries, for the parents this cry is the secondness that something is wrong).Thirdness is the category of mediated relations (e.g. the thirdness occur when the parents attibute to thecrying the meaning that the child is hungry). Originally, Pierce´s classification referred to the how369