Save Address
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:18:19 -0600
To: stlwebdev@stlwebdev.org
Subject: Re: STLWEBDEV: Sound Clip???!!
Reply-To: stlwebdev@stlwebdev.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Karen Stewart asketh:
> A client of mine wants a sound byte to load with their home page
(they
> won't be talked out of it!).
Charge them double. Then triple. At least get paid handsomely for
losing
your pride in this usability loser of a site.
At some point stupidity loses to business sense.
> I recorded it as a wave file, but a 32 second clip is 6MB!
Subjecting visitors to a 6MB download *definately* creates a bad
impression.
They're probably not too inclined to buy whatever that website is
selling either. If they ever return. And if they don't tell anyone
else
that the site is a dog to load and there's no added value.
Where's the beef? is what the users will be asking after hearing this
opus.
The problem with sound file downloads is that the browser is *forced*
to download the sound file before playing. You could charge them
exhorbitantly for installing an entire media streaming system, say,
a RealNetworks server or Microsoft Media Server just so they can have
their pretty sound play while the user is frozen in awe over the
sights
and sounds of this amazing web site - so much so that they want to
buy
whatever you are selling on the spot. You'll need to convert the .wav
into the streaming media format, and pray all of your users have the
plugin for that format.
You need to ask your client if the design element of the music is
_really_
necessary to the purpose of the website? Is it going to make or break
the deal? It absolutely has a chance to break the deal by its
presence.
Is that chance greater by its absence? (Lesser of two evils
approach.)
If you need professional support for pitching the ditching of the
sound,
here's some helpful pointers:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/evilsplash.html
Or Jakob Nielsen at:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530_comments.html
Audio is Intrusive
Alistair Nicholson, Principal Consultant with e-strategists, writes:
Those designers that play a sound file without choice immediately a
page
is displayed lose traffic from every worker in an office situation
with an
advanced workstation with speakers. If my computer starts playing
music,
those around me are likely to assume that I am just playing games. At
the
very least, it lowers the credibility of the information, and in the
increasingly common cubicle "farms" is disruptive to those around me.
I
immediately back out of such a site, and then consider if it seemed
so
valuable that I should adjust my sound level and re-enter, or just go
somewhere else. The situation is quite different when a click is
required to
fire a sound file off, and I can make a choice.
Jakob's reply: Auditory interfaces differ from visual ones in many
ways,
including the fact that the ears are "always on," whereas the eyes
may be
directed elsewhere (not at the screen). This property makes sounds
good for
alarms and for subtly communicating progress on background tasks.
Sound
waves also have much further reach than screen images which can be
used to
interface with users who are in a different part of the room than the
computer. All good things that should be employed more in user
interfaces.
But these same fundamentals of sound also make it highly annoying and
intrusive when played in a multi-person environment. The current use
of
sound files attached to Web pages typically has very little
communicative
value and I advise designers to take Alistair Nicholson's comments to
heart
and think of the poor cubicle-dwellers.
[end quote]
-- Anonymous, March 21, 2001