[jallmann]

> The transition from primarily visual UX towards an auditorial UX is really powerful.

It's also less accessible. I'm sure auditory UI is useful in many cases, but it also seems to be more cumbersome in others. In any case, I hope that pervasive auditory UI doesn't become any sort of standard without an accompanying visual/physical interface.

> Try watching a scary movie with the sound turned off, it turns into a comedy

Allow me to be pedantic and say it is that being fully immersed in the context of the movie that really matters. You could probably achieve a similar suspenseful effect with silence+subtitles, although I'm sure the experience isn't identical. Otherwise, the deaf could never enjoy scary movies, including me.

[drzaiusapelord]

>It's also less accessible.

For whom? To the blind this would be a godsend. From a practical medical perspective, audio is superior because we have decades of experience with effective ear implants to help the hard of hearing and the deaf, but the visual equivalent still eludes us.

[zeveb]

> To the blind this would be a godsend.

Actually, I'd imagine that a good old-fashioned tty is pretty good for a blind person: it's TUIs and GUIs that get progressively more painful.

Source: am blind without my glasses; can imagine preferring ed to emacs, vim, Atom, SublimeText if I had to use an audio interface.

[jallmann]

> To the blind this would be a godsend

For sure. Different interfaces disadvantage different classes of people. There is no silver bullet; I'm trying to point out that an exclusively audio/voice-driven UI would not be desirable.

> we have decades of experience with effective ear implants

The problem is multi-faceted. Hearing loss, especially from a young age, often leads to difficulty speaking -- it is no use if a voice-driven system can't understand you in the first place.

And while cochlear implant technology has helped a lot of people, it is by no means a cure, and there are many, many others that don't benefit enough from assistive technology to achieve functional equivalence (which is the key phrase when talking about accessibility). I have a cochlear implant and haven't worn it in years, because it really doesn't help.

[tlrobinson]

> It's also less accessible

Well, I think blind people would disagree with you.

> I hope that pervasive auditory UI doesn't become any sort of standard without an accompanying visual/physical interface.

Any speech interface could be trivially translated to a text interface, right?

[jallmann]

> Well, I think blind people would disagree with you.

Answered downthread.

> Any speech interface could be trivially translated to a text interface, right?

Pretty much, which is why UIs should not be exclusively auditory, that is, delivered without an accompanying visual interface (text or otherwise). Ordering the Echo Dot verbally is a cute gimmick given its premise, but it would really suck if otherwise useful products and services were only usable through audio.

Hopefully the audio UI trend does not follow the obsession over touch screens: a rapidly adopted, de facto standard driven by tastemakers that leave little consideration for others that might prefer an actual keyboard or other physical affordances.

[AndrewUnmuted]

> Allow me to be pedantic and say it is that being fully immersed in the context of the movie that really matters.

I hope to not be a super pedantic ass for pointing out that the 'immersive' media in films is the audio, not the visual components.

[jallmann]

> the 'immersive' media in films is the audio, not the visual components

That's a non-falsifiable opinion, really (even if it does apply to the majority of the population). I'm living proof you can enjoy movies without the audio.

It's the sum of our experience that colors our perception -- almost irrevocably in this case, since I imagine it would be difficult for the typical person to really be able to enjoy something in complete and utter silence.

[AndrewUnmuted]

> I'm living proof you can enjoy movies without the audio.

I am not looking to equate immersion with enjoyment, and by no means do I intend to disrespect the manner by which you enjoy a type of media. My apologies for coming off that way!

When I refer to 'immersive media' I am referring to the 360-degree omnidirectional dispersion pattern of sounds and our similarly omnidirectional hearing of those sounds. This is 'immersive experience' as opposed to a 2-dimensional or stereoscopic experience, which is what we get with visual media. Television/film screens fire light directly at the eyes; even in iMax situations the film is never experienced behind us. That isn't immersive, whereas say a VR headset can potentially offer this type of immersion. But since this technology is still in its infancy I think it too early to call it fully immersive like audio is.

[jallmann]

> 'immersive media' I am referring to the 360-degree omnidirectional dispersion pattern

Then that is splitting hairs over a definition of immersion, and quite unrelated to how the word was used in my original comment. Had I instead said "fully engrossed," my point would still hold, and you would not have one.

I understand you were being "super pedantic," but if you're going to do that, then you should be super precise in the pedantry, otherwise you're arguing a strawman.