From: bkarr@carson.u.washington.edu (Brian Karr)
Subject: Re: PHIL: Meaning of "graphics" (Was Re: SCI: sound cues
Date: 3 May 1993 21:53:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle



In article <1s3jusINNt18@news.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@stein.u.washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes:

[much debate deleted ...]

>Back to the dictionary: sound is a "vibratory disturbance in a fluid";
>it is also the "mental impression conveyed" by the disturbance.
>Radiation is the "emission or propogation of waves or particles."  A
>fairly fine line separates the two, wouldn't you say?
>
>In fact, in designing for the built environment, we often discuss
>sound as if it radiated from sources.
>
>So what I'm saying is that physics, for all its power, does not define
>the meaning of experience nor the methods by which we can alter that
>experience.  The days of positivism are pretty well passed, on both
>sides of the Pacific.  One of the virtues of the virtual world is that
>it needn't conform to the laws of physics, although the things that it
>represents may often need to appear to do so.  We can have sound
>holography if we want it.

We are lucky enough to be involved in this technology from it's
infancy, which also places us in the position of using the language of
its parent technologies to best suit our methods.  The term holography
has visual connontations, regardless of its written definitions.  The
term 'holophonics' has been floating around for a few years now.
Being an audio researcher, I prefer to have a separate term, though I
see the technical argument that Bob presents.  Also, while I'm spewing
buzz words, it would be nice to see acronyms like AUI's (Owies, Audio
User Interfaces) used more often, and a consenses on which term to use
for audio representations of data: sonification, auralization,
audiographics -- which is it folks?

Brian Karr