On 7/11/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
That assertion, and assertions similar to it, are made
fairly often.
I'm not sure it's valid as a response here on two fronts:
1) I don't know that it's actually *accurate*: do you have user
studies that back it up?
2) Who said that computer program user interfaces *ought* to be
"natural", whatever 'natural' quite means?
I would tend to agree. Certainly in the case of speed, reading is
much *faster* than listening, for anyone comfortable with reading.
Does it require, e.g., more attention or whatever? Maybe, I don't
know. But essentially everyone using a computer uses a completely
graphical/text interface if at all possible, despite the existence of
voice control and screen readers. That implies to me that for most
people, it's superior, whether or not it's "natural".
Of course, for things like OLPC or the blind, users might not be able
to read. Then synthesized voice becomes useful. And certainly it's
useful for games and so on, for immersion. It's likely more
comfortable for communicating with one or two real people (witness the
continuing popularity of telephones despite the prevalence of IMs).
On the other hand, sound is intrusive: you have to wear headphones to
stop others from hearing it, and even those often don't work properly.
It's slow, which is bad by itself and I suspect amplified
considerably for multitasking. You can't easily skim through it to
get to the relevant parts (although that might be somewhat rectified
with appropriate interfaces). It can't convey spatial information.
Also, did I mention it's slow?
For general-purpose automated provision of information to those able
to read, you just have to look at the evidence: nobody uses it. Sound
appears to be considerably inferior to text in that regard, if perhaps
nice as an occasional alternative. People have voted with their feet,
so to say. I'd have to say I'm skeptical of there being any mileage
in an information service being primarily rather than secondarily
sound-based. But that's me.