Optimal Alarm Sound Design: New Design Process for Noticeable, but Pleasant Sounds
Optimal alarm sound design:
New design process for noticeable, but pleasant sounds
Author 193
Track 3: what the beep?
ABSTRACT
The goal of this research is improving alarm sound design, focusing on the paradox of noticeable versus pleasant sounds. The characteristics of annoying sounds correspond in large extend to the characteristics of noticeable sounds. Therefore it is difficult to design an alarm sound, which is noticeable, but not annoying. A lot of studies are conducted along aspects which make sounds annoying and several guidelines are described for designing noticeable alarm sounds. However, no data is conveyed about the combination of these characteristics linked to sound design. In this study an existing design process for alarm sounds is adjusted regarding to pleasantness and noticeability of sounds. Hereby methods to analyze and test pleasantness and noticeability of sounds are added to the process. As a result this paper suggests a new design process which can be used to design an alarm sound considering these aspects.
Keywords product sound design; alarm sound; annoying sounds; noticeable sounds; design processes
INTRODUCTION
Most of the time alarm sounds are not optimal designed, because in the majority of cases the context of the user is not taken into account. Edworthy (2006) found that in consequence alarms are often too badly designed resulting in annoying, not effective sounds. Schmidt & Baysinger (1986) pointed out that a pleasant sound to report a complication can be more effective during an emergency. However, the alarm sound should still be clearly noticeable, so that it cannot be missed.
Annoying sounds
The perception of annoyance may be very personal and subjective, but research has shown that there are some characteristics of sounds that influence this perceived annoyance. (Steele & Chon, 2007). The research of Steele & Chon (2007) found that loudness is the most important determinant of annoyance in
New design process for noticeable, but pleasant sounds
Author 193
Track 3: what the beep?
ABSTRACT
The goal of this research is improving alarm sound design, focusing on the paradox of noticeable versus pleasant sounds. The characteristics of annoying sounds correspond in large extend to the characteristics of noticeable sounds. Therefore it is difficult to design an alarm sound, which is noticeable, but not annoying. A lot of studies are conducted along aspects which make sounds annoying and several guidelines are described for designing noticeable alarm sounds. However, no data is conveyed about the combination of these characteristics linked to sound design. In this study an existing design process for alarm sounds is adjusted regarding to pleasantness and noticeability of sounds. Hereby methods to analyze and test pleasantness and noticeability of sounds are added to the process. As a result this paper suggests a new design process which can be used to design an alarm sound considering these aspects.
Keywords product sound design; alarm sound; annoying sounds; noticeable sounds; design processes
INTRODUCTION
Most of the time alarm sounds are not optimal designed, because in the majority of cases the context of the user is not taken into account. Edworthy (2006) found that in consequence alarms are often too badly designed resulting in annoying, not effective sounds. Schmidt & Baysinger (1986) pointed out that a pleasant sound to report a complication can be more effective during an emergency. However, the alarm sound should still be clearly noticeable, so that it cannot be missed.
Annoying sounds
The perception of annoyance may be very personal and subjective, but research has shown that there are some characteristics of sounds that influence this perceived annoyance. (Steele & Chon, 2007). The research of Steele & Chon (2007) found that loudness is the most important determinant of annoyance in
References: 1. Aures, W. (1985). Berechnungsverfahren für den sensorischen Wohlklang beliebiger Schallsignale. Acustica, 59: 130-141 2 3. Botteldooren, D. and Verkeyn, A. (2002). Fuzzy models for Accumulation of reported community noise annoyance from combined sources, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 112(4): 1496 – 1508 4 5. Edworthy J. and Meredith C. (1997). Influence of verbal labelling and acoustic quality on the learning and retention of medical alarms. Int J Cogn Ergon; 1: 229–43 6 7. Gabrielsson, A. (1979). Dimension analyses of perceived sound quality of sound-reproducing systems. Scand. J. Psychol. 20: 159-169 8 11. Philip, E. (2009). Evaluation of medical alarm sounds. Doctoral thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology. 12. Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design, fundamentals and methods. (Lemma BV, Den Haag.) 13 14. Schmidt S.I., Baysinger C.L. (1986). Alarms: help or hindrance? Anesthesiology, 64: 654–5 15 17. Ulfvengren P. (2003). Design of natural warning sounds in human-machine systems. Doctoral thesis, Stockholm Institute of Technology.