Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!sics.se!ifi.uio.no!nuug!ugle.unit.no!ugle.unit.no!haltraet From: haltraet@gondle.idt.unit.no (Hallvard Traetteberg) Newsgroups: comp.human-factors Subject: Re: Audio feedback from GUI's Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 91 09:20:45 GMT References: <1991Jun13.165447.13058@fwi.uva.nl> <1991Jun13.220557.3075@cbnewsl.att.com> Sender: news@ugle.unit.no Organization: /home/loke/b/haltraet/.organization Lines: 34 In-Reply-To: spf@cbnewsl.att.com's message of 13 Jun 91 22:05:57 GMT In article <1991Jun13.220557.3075@cbnewsl.att.com> spf@cbnewsl.att.com (Steve Frysinger of Blue Feather Farm) writes: haltraet@gondle.idt.unit.no (Hallvard Traetteberg) writes: > 2.Sound (as opposed to speach) is *not* useful for communicating > information. Wow. This is a pretty strong statement. Do you have evidence? You see, I've spent about 10 years quantifying the ADVANTAGES of sound for pattern recognition in multivariate time series, and I know of several other investigators doing similar work for other types of quantitative exploratory data analysis. To put it simply, the experimental evidence in the literature contradicts your assertion rather embarrassingly. I've included a brief bibliography below, but there are others I know of not represented here. Good science puts inquiry ahead of speculation. In fact I am a bit embarrassed, but more because I used the wrong words than said the wrong thing (is that a contradiction?). What I meant was that: 1. I want sound to give me signals to direct my attention to a source of information. 2. I don't want too many signals and thus information given this way. I did not intend to say anything about our ~ability~ to use sound as an information source, only my ~willingness~ to do so. If there still is evidence that I should change my mind about this I would be glad to be told so. :-) -- - hal