Comments on Information Architecture for Audio: Doing It Right

Todd ONeill — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:53:01 GMT

Jens
Great article. I’ve never read such a thoughtful piece on creating audio content. In the production business it’s usually about standards and levels and equipment.
I came to information architecture from a background in video and audio production. As a producer I’m the person raising their hand to say “Uh, but who is the audience for this? And why are we doing this anyway?” That attitude and approach made my transition from video to multimedia and online relatively easy. I’m creating a blog post about the piece at DoingMedia (http://www.doingmeida.net) I hope others will read it and take heed.
Todd O’Neill
DoingMedia

Andrew Peggie — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:16:00 GMT

Glad to see the question of audio coming up in terms of communication on the web. It’s very much the territory of Sound Strategies (http://www.sound-strategies.co.uk).

And Jens’s comments are spot on. But I think we need to be careful of describing the cognitive elements of processing speech in terms of the ‘linear’ organisation of semantic information. Speech (and music) is only ‘linear’ with respect to its presentation in the fourth dimension – time. But the ways in which we process audio information are anything but linear. They depend on a host of perceptual levels – referential, cultural, semantic, sub-textual, emotional – all of which come into play in different ways, not at all locked into the passage of clock time. Low level and high level processing, cognitive and affective processing, etc are all part of the mix of listening. Speech does a lot more than just impart a logical sequence of factual information, and the clever broadcaster/podcaster will also know how to exploit all the non-verbal elements to create maximum impact: tone of voice, phrasing, timing, pacing, emphasis, articulation, etc. It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it that’s important.

Christopher Johnson — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:46:50 GMT

This is an intriguing topic, one that cries out for more discussion and analysis—as does the related issue of IA for video content.

Coming from the world of Instructional Design, I find the suggestions under the “Educational Psychology” section not only compelling but also empirically valid, based both on my experience and the research that I have done. Repetition and simplicity are essential, but must be accomplished without condescension (it can be done!).

User control over audio content is also key, but is often difficult to achieve without the jarring effect of “scrubbing” the audio progress bar: speech is suddenly interrupted, as is the users attention. I recently (only last night, in fact!) saw a subtle and elegant solution to the problem of audio interruption during navigation; it was in the CD-ROM that accompanied a Verizon wireless card. Audio sections were indicated by graphic buttons, and you were free to jump from one to another as desired. The “jarring” effect was minimized by the inclusion of a looped musical “pad” or beat underlying all audio: its playback remained unbroken, flowing and throbbing along nicely while one audio section changed to another. I don’t recall if the individual sections were set to fade out upon navigating away from them, but that was certainly the effect.

For those who are interested, this was on the “Welcome” CD for the Verizon Kyocera 650 Wireless PC card.

Great post!

Jens Jacobsen — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:24:51 GMT

Patrick,
thank you very much for the link to the Archers’ site. This sounds fascinating. Especially because one of the things I think a lot about is how the future of radio/web/... programmes will look like.
But as far as I understand the tool that is described in the blogpost of the BBC is just for internal use, right? This is a pitty, I’d love to play around with it! Do you have even more info on this subject? I’m eager to learn more about it!
Thanks in advance!

Patrick C. Walsh — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:36:11 GMT

Really enjoyable article. I still think that many people still haven’t got their heads around what they need to do to make audio accessible in the internet.
Thought you might be interested in what the guys at the BBC are doing with audio. There is a long running radio soap called ‘The Archers’ in the UK and they are experimenting with segmenting each scene and attaching metadata so it would be possible for a user to create their own programmes based on a certain location or character or event etc. I find this quite awesome as it allows the user to decide what content they want to consume and also how the content is structured. In effect users can construct their own programmes – is this the future for all programmes whether audio or vision?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2008/08/archrs_an_ev…

Luke Rodgers — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:47:56 GMT

Great article—this is definitely something people need to think more about.

I would add: where possible, make audio available in multiple formats, e.g. both embedded Flash player (or something of the sort) and downloadable mp3.

Jamie Owen — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:52:45 GMT

Thanks for the article—I liked being reminded that designing a user experience acknowledges ALL senses involved in that experience. And that we have many of the tools already at-hand regardless of the modality being used in the experience. Adaptability is itself a tool.

Many of the details you discussed are ones I personally think of in terms of easing the users’ cognitive load. Of course paying attention to the limits of short-term memory is a primary gesture in accommodating the limits of cognitive load, but other elements you discussed are, too. For example, giving an overview of the structure before narrating segments of info helps with establishing or building on a listener’s personal schema/mental model. (This may be particularly important if the audio is not in one’s native language or the content is new to that person.) Providing “orientation from time-to-time” helps ease cognitive load, too, as does providing mental pictures and adjusting reading speed to subject matter.

Is suppose the long-and-short of it is that because there are so many parallels across design disciplines (i.e., different names for the same concepts and artifacts, similar design processes), we should not be timid about using what we know as we move into new or different territory. Thanks again for your multifaceted article.