- From: Patrick Burke <burke@ucla.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 13:17:30 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 11:54 AM 5/17/99 , Peter Meijer wrote: I suppose that perhaps most US citizens would >indeed have the association of the US flag with the particular piece >of music that you mentioned, but in the rest of the world this may >already be different. Still, maybe my example was not a very good >one to make a point about generality. I sincerely sympathize with >using intuitive associations wherever possible, but I think it will >be very hard to always find associations that are culturally neutral >and unambiguous. Associations are known to work quite well with >limited image sets, such as the relatively small number of windows >controls and event types in a computer GUI, but for arbitrary images >I expect the scheme to break down for lack of suitable "multimedia >cliches" in the envisioned lexicographer's catalog. Actually the case of a national flag is relatively easy. The national anthem of each country is not only an associated sound within popular culture, it is a government-approved audio sign, a sonic icon equivalent of the flag. So an abbreviated version (a few notes maximum) should serve this purpose as well as anything. Even here, though, it wouldn't be easy to master the associations for 200 or so countries. Still, this wouldn't be that much different from learning the flags visually, I wouldn't think. Text giving the name of the country still necessary to solidify the association. >This is why the attempt arose to define a completely general and >unambiguous image sonification, being semantically neutral and >amenable to automatic processing. Still, I admit it has its own >share of disadvantages, particularly the interpretation burden on >the user. Learning a new language is never easy, so it had better >be a really powerful language to justify all the effort involved. These sonified images are certainly a strange experience for me (no vision since 1.5 years of age). Conceptually I would say it is like learning to read, learning that lines (or dots) on paper really can be associated with verbal sound. Another disadvantage of using natural sound, however, is that short sound clips (& they would have to be short to be used efficiently) can be easily confused. To take a stupid example: a few crackles could be rain falling or bacon frying. ... As for the Windows sound schemes, I can still only tell what half the sounds are meant to be by looking at the filenames! :-) Very interesting & fun topic, Patrick
Received on Monday, 17 May 1999 16:17:39 UTC