The search for the elusive “killer app” of sonification has been a recurring theme in sonification research. In this comment, I argue that the killer-app criterion of success stems from interdisciplinary tensions about how to evaluate sonifications. Using auditory graphs as an example, I argue that the auditory display community has produced successful examples of sonic information design that accomplish the human factors goal of improving human interactions with systems. Still, barriers to using sonifications in interfaces remain, and reducing those barriers could result in more widespread use of audio in systems.
BrownL. M.BrewsterS. A.RamlollS. A.BurtonR.RiedelB. (2003). Design guidelines for audio presentation of graphs and tables. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (pp. 284−287). Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/50200
2.
DavisonB. K. (2012). Evaluating auditory graphs with blind students in a classroom. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 102, 4–7.
3.
EdworthyJ. (1998). Does sound help us to work better with machines? A commentary on Rautenberg’s paper “About the Importance of Auditory Alarms During the Operation of a Plant Simulator.”Interacting with Computers, 10, 401–409.
4.
FlowersJ. H. (2005). Thirteen years of reflection on auditory graphing: Promises, pitfalls, and potential new directions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (pp. 406-409). Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/50046
5.
FlowersJ. H.BuhmanD. C.TurnageK. D. (1997). Cross-modal equivalence of visual and auditory scatterplots for exploring bivariate data samples. Human Factors, 39, 341–351.
6.
FrauenbergerC.StockmanT.BourguetM.-L. (2007). A survey on common practice in designing audio in the user interface. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference (HCI 2007; pp. 184−194). Lancaster, UK: British Computer Society.
7.
HetzlerS. M.TardiffR. M. (2007). The three “R”s: Real students in real time doing real work learning calculus. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (pp. 396−402). Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/49914
KramerG. (1994). An introduction to auditory display. In KramerG. (Ed.), Auditory display: Sonification, audification, and auditory interfaces (pp. 1–78). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
10.
MansurD. L.BlattnerM. M.JoyK. I. (1985). Sound graphs: A numerical data analysis method for the blind. Journal of Medical Systems, 9, 163–174.
11.
NeesM. A.WalkerB. N. (2007). Listener, task, and auditory graph: Toward a conceptual model of auditory graph comprehension. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (pp. 266–273). Montreal, Canada.
12.
NeesM. A.WalkerB. N. (2011). Auditory displays for in-vehicle technologies. In DeluciaP. (Ed.), Reviews of human factors and ergonomics (Vol. 7, pp. 58–99). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
ScalettiC. (2017, June). Why sonification is a joke. Keynote address delivered at the International Conference on Auditory Display, University Park, PA. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0qdKXwRsyM
14.
SupperA. (2012a). The search for the “killer application”: Drawing the boundaries around the sonification of scientific data. In PinchT.BijsterveldK. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sound studies (pp. 249–270). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
SupperA. (2012b, June). “Trained ears” and “correlation coefficients”: A social science perspective on sonification. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (pp. 29−35). Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/50891
16.
WalkerB. N.CothranJ. T. (2003). Sonification sandbox: A graphical toolkit for auditory graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (pp. 161–163). Retrieved from https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/50200
17.
WalkerB. N.LindsayJ.NanceA.NakanoY.PalladinoD. K.DinglerT.JeonM. (2013). Spearcons (Speech-based earcons) improve navigation performance in advanced auditory menus. Human Factors, 55, 157–182.
18.
WatsonM.SandersonP. M. (2004). Sonification helps eyes-free respiratory monitoring and task timesharing. Human Factors, 46, 497–517.
19.
WatsonM.SandersonP. M. (2007). Designing for attention with sound: Challenges and extensions to ecological interface design. Human Factors, 49, 331–346. doi:10.1518/001872007X312531
