Towards a Hermeneutics and Typology of Sound for
Interactive Commodities
Daniel Hug
Zurich University of the Arts
Ausstellungsstrasse 60
8031 Zurich
Switzerland
daniel.hug@zhdk.ch
ABSTRACT
In this paper we aim at providing an overview of the rel-
evant fields for designing sounds for interactive commodi-
ties. We take the standpoint of the designer, whose aim is to
create a meaningful functional-aesthetic experience for the
user. We describe the fields of research that we consider rel-
evant for studying and understanding meaning-making pro-
cesses in which sound plays a central role and present their
application domains. We also propose an initial hypothetical
classification of interactive commodities as a starting point
for this research and propose future steps toward a better un-
derstanding of the hermeneutics of sound. This knowledge
helps to develop methods and strategies for successful sound
design, which so far seemed to depend mainly on intuition.
Author Keywords
Sound Studies; Sonic Interaction Design; Acoustic Commu-
nication; Soundscape; Product Design; Physical Computing;
Semiotics
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.1. Information Interfaces and Presentation: Multimedia
Information Systems - Artificial, augmented, and virtual re-
alities
H.5.2. Information Interfaces and Presentation: User Inter-
faces - Auditory (non-speech) feedback
INTRODUCTION
When we use physical artifacts the emerging sounds are di-
rectly related to the physical properties of the object and the
(electro)mechanical processes taking place during the usage.
Two elements of sonic manifestation of interaction can be
described: First, the use itself: Inclining, shaking, press-
ing of a button, turning of a switch, pulling of a lever, and
so forth. Second, the process triggered or controlled during
usage. The resulting sounds are often rich in structure and
variety, subtly connected to the process’s structure and vari-
ations.
We are witnessing an increase in connections of commodi-
ties with information- and communication technologies (ICT).
The phone turned into a pocket-sized computer, sport shoes
such as the Nike+1 communicate with the iPod, shopping
carts in the Future Store of the Metro Group2 remember the
1 4
http://nikeplus.nike.com/nikeplus
2 5
http://www.future-store.org
11
groceries a customer has bought on the last visit. Accord-
ing Bruce Sterling’s vision of the ”Spimes”[25] and Adam
Greenfield’s concept of ”Everyware”[14], in the near future
the world will be infused with objects that can be tracked
throughout their life-cycle, build ad-hoc networks, commu-
nicate with each other and process data.
As a consequence of this increasing computerization3 com-
modities more often endow functions that do not involve
physical movement and therefore are not audible. There-
fore sounds often are added artificially, be it because they
are indispensable for operation, because they are expected
by habit or because the possibility of visual displays are lim-
ited. However, there is very little knowledge about criteria
that could govern the design of such sounds, in order to de-
liver a specific meaning in a specific context while forming
an aesthetic unity with the object and its operation. While
research groups such as ”Tangible Media”4 or ”Things That
Think”5 are dealing with the possibility of merging tangibil-
ity or physicality with interactive technologies a systematic
examination of an adequate sonic design is rarely happening.
In the following we will clarify the domains we consider rel-
evant for sound design questions in this context.
RELEVANT DOMAINS OF RESEARCH
The knowledge emerging from the subsequently proposed
domains is relevant for design because it enables the de-
signer to proceed systematically in the design process by
providing conceptual and methodical tools without restrict-
ing creative freedom through overly strict guidelines and
recipes. Moreover, this knowledge broadens the range of
possibilities for responding to specific design questions. It
also helps to define how specific properties of operational
and functional processes can be related to sonic properties
and what resources for meaning creation emerge, thus facil-
itating the development of tools for both design and evalua-
tion.
Phenomenology of the Audible
The world of the audible has a few phenomenological prop-
erties which are of great relevance for design. In the fol-
3
For the sake of linguistic simplicity we will use the term ”interac-
tive commodities”. The notion of interactivity includes some kind
of input, processing and output of information in all involved ele-
ments of a process, thus computerization is an intrinsic prerequisite.
http://tangible.mit.edu
http://ttt.media.mit.edu
lowing sections we give a condensed overview over the most
important aspects, summarizing aesthetical and phenomeno-
logical reflections from [30] and [17], among others.
Pervasiveness
Hearing is almost constantly used. Sounds are omnipresent.
When we sleep, our hearing continues to register and inter-
pret acoustic events. Moreover, the ear cannot move or close
- it is impossible to ”listen away” as we might ”look away”.
Temporality
Sound events are temporary and always connected to a dy-
namic process. Because they are not static they largely elude
our understanding which is based on the visual paradigm of
analysis.
Multidimensionality
The ear is multidimensional, assembling a stream of many
simultaneous acoustic events in very short time and extract-
ing information from it.
Spatiality
This aspect of sound is directly related to its multidimension-
ality described above. Sounds give us information about our
environment holistically, taken in from all directions simul-
taneously. Factors like wind and the geographical properties
of the environment imprint themselves into sounds.
Sociality
Acoustic events connect people. A ”shared perception” cre-
ates a strong sense of belonging, as can be observed at gath-
erings as diverse as tribal dances and pop concerts. An event
that can only be seen by a few or by no one at all can still be
perceived by hundreds when accompanied by sound6 .
Emotionality
Another property of sound is its strong emotive power. In
film, the emotional context of a scene - a central aspect of its
meaning - can be totally altered by a different soundtrack.
But also everyday sounds arouse emotions - the often de-
scribed annoyance noise can cause shows this clearly enough
(see, for example, [20]).
Physicality
Last but not least, sounds are closely tied to physical move-
ment. We can potentially hear all physical events that cause
vibrations within our hearing range. Sounds are directly
connected to an artifact’s physical properties. Many stud-
ies have been concerned with the ability of detecting ma-
terial properties, shape and size through sound, as well as
processes of interacting materials (see e.g. [13] for a com-
prehensive overview). Nonetheless, many aspects of recog-
nition are still not completely understood, as most of these
studies deal with oversimplified sound events, such as mal-
lets hitting metal plates.
6
R. Murray Schafer has coined the term ”acoustic community” to
describe this phenomenon [24].
12
Typology of Listening
Before the meaning creation process through sound can be
analyzed we have to understand the role that the various
modes of listening play in it. From the point of view of
design, it is important to consider not only what the actual
stimulus is, but what the listener believes to hear. Thus the
perspective is not of a human as a more or less reliable ”per-
ceiving machine” but of a perceiving and interacting individ-
ual in his specific life-world, always looking for meaning.
Schaeffer has been among the first to extensively study and
describe the various modes of listening. He distinguishes
between ”listening to” (écouter), the basic psychophysical
process of hearing (ouı̈r) and a ”listening” which involves
the notion of selection and qualification of the heard (enten-
dre) (see [23] or for a summary [5]).
In general we can identify two interconnected and overlap-
ping approaches to understanding listening processes:
• Listening to a single, isolated sound event: In terms of the
individual sound event there exist two seemingly oppos-
ing approaches: On the one hand reduced listening, as it
has been defined by Schaeffer [23]. This mode of listen-
ing excludes aspects of origin or sound emitting process as
well as ”meaning” and describes the sound itself in a kind
of phenomenological époché. Gaver describes a compara-
ble listening mode which he calls ”musical”. In this mode
”the perceptual dimensions and attributes of concern have
to do with the sound itself, and are those used in the cre-
ation of music” [12]. On the other hand, Gaver stresses the
fact that we usually describe sounds in terms of the pro-
cesses and materials that cause them [12]. He calls this
mode ”everyday listening”. Schaeffer describes the same
listening mode as ”causal”, Chion differentiates this mode
further into ”figurative” listening [6]. In addition, he of-
fers the notion of ”coded listening”, which is a refinement
of the concept of ”semantic listening” already proposed
by Schaeffer. This is not to be confused with the general
notion of sound semiotics and refers to sounds like Morse
code or language.
• Listening to a soundscape, that is, a system of sounds in a
specific environment: In the context of soundscape stud-
ies listening modes have been suggested which put an em-
phasis on the sonic ”scene” in which many simultaneous
sounds occur [24]. Truax uses the term ”acoustic commu-
nication” to describe how the sound is mediating the re-
lationship between listener and environment. In order for
the listening modes to work the acoustic environment has
to be adequate. For this he uses two terms coined by Mur-
ray Schafer to describe this quality of the soundscape: hi-
fi and lo-fi. He also introduced the notion of listening-in-
search, citing as an example the cocktail party effectand
listening-in-readiness which is based on antecedent pro-
cesses of learning and memorizing, but also bases on be-
havioral patterns resulting from evolutionary processes,
such as the immediate reaction of parents to the scream
of their baby. Furthermore Truax identifies background
listening and the keynote sound, describing how certain
sounds which are faded into the ”background” of our per-
ceptive focus still can be of great importance for the sonic
identity of a place [26].
An essential additional hearing mode is what Chion calls
”ergo-audition”. This term stands for our self-perception as
creators of sound and the psychological impact this has, both
positively and negatively [6].
In a recent account of hearing modes Tuuri et al. comple-
ment some of the listening modes described above with the
notion of functional listening, inspired by the account of lis-
tening modes by David Huron. They suggest the categories
of reflexive, connotative, causal, empathetic, functional, se-
mantic and critical listening [27].
Sound and Meaning
Several levels of meaning-making with sound can be iden-
tified. As described, sound has a strong ability of being
”immediately” meaningful to us, e.g. in archetypical sounds
like thunder, rain, cries of animals or babies. This resonates
with the concept of knowledge and meaning being avail-
able directly through our being-in-the-world and the embod-
ied interaction with it, an understanding that e.g. Dourish
puts at the core of understanding interaction design rele-
vant issues, referring to phenomenologists such as Husserl,
Heidegger or Merleau-Ponty [7]. Based on phenomenolog-
ical insights mentioned above we can identify a mode of
meaning-making which is based on the immediate sensi-
tive experience of the connection between sound, object and
process. Evolutionary aspects are involved here as well,
e.g. in sounds signaling immediate danger. Also sounds of
certain physical processes, such as the filling of a recipient
with water are archetypical. According to Chion also the
”joy of hearing-oneself” (”plaisir de l’ergo-audition”) is an
archetypical sonic experience [6]. Also for describing and
categorizing sounds our physical existence plays a central
role. Van Leeuven proposes a link between the notion of
”high” and ”low” sounds and the fact that for producing high
tones we use the head-voice, for low sounds our belly [28].
Thus we are dealing here with an acoustical ”being-in-the-
world”.
From these immediate aspects of experiencing our sonic en-
vironment and making sense of it further meaning levels can
be developed. Thus the thunder, being experienced as pow-
erful, immeasurable and occurring without warning or obvi-
ous source, can be culturally developed into signifying e.g.
”divine anger”. This meaning still is connected intrinsically
with the experience of the phenomenon as such and cannot
be abstracted from it, as it is the case with images, which
phenomenologically always rest on the surface.
At a level of further abstraction, we can describe meanings
which are constructed through media. Early examples can
be found in poetry and music (thoroughly analysed e.g. in
[21]), such as the topos of shepherd sounds (see e.g. [24]) or
in ”imported sounds” becoming symbols for something the
importers associate with the place of origin.
By means of storage and repetition through electroacoustics
and audiovisual media new potentials for meaning creation
have arisen in the 20th century. Movies, TV-serials and
computer games are rich sources of media-culturally con-
structed, sonically communicated meanings. An extensive
framework for understanding the semantics of film sound
can be found for example in [8]. A more general account
on the semiotics of sound is described in [28].
13
The Functional-Aesthetic Application of Sound
The aim of this section is to point out existing applications
of sound design that can inform the sonic design of interac-
tive commodities. Industrial design, being an obvious start-
ing point for this analysis, seemed to be mainly dealing with
aspects of noise reduction for a long time, only since re-
cently the potential of sound for enhancing product quality
has been pointed out (see e.g. [29] or [18]). An exception
is the car industry which has recognized the importance of
sound design early [9]. Many examples of sound design in
industrial products are based on the manipulation of con-
structional properties, e.g. using damping elements or mod-
ifying the resonance [9]. But there is an increasing amount
of products where electroacoustic sounds are added, usually
to provide feedback to a user’s input. For instance, in cars
nowadays an electroacoustic sound replaces the clicking of
the blinker which used to be caused by an electromechani-
cal circuit. According to Özcan and Egmond [22] there are
two central aspects of design which are relevant for prod-
uct design: Firstly, the temporal and spectral structure of the
sound which influences our immediate sensations and, sec-
ondly, the cognitive judgement of the sound and its relation
to the product and the meaning resulting from this.
Beyond the immediate sonic properties of a product the field
of sonic branding looks for an adequate acoustical represen-
tation of a product and brand across all ”touch points” with
customers, be it in the shop, in TV advertisement or when
using the product (see e.g. [3]). This stresses the importance
of a holistic, experience oriented thinking about sound for
interactive commodities.
Film sound design is probably the domain where theories
about semiotics of sound have evolved the most. Of par-
ticular interest in the context of this research is the art of
Foley, which is the creation of sounds for film using ob-
jects of all kinds. Foley artist are able to use the sounds
in such a way that their origin is not identifiable and the
connection to the image shown on screen is fully accepted.
This relativizes the position, that the identified cause of a
sound is the most important aspect of its meaning potential
as argued by Gaver [12] and stresses the importance of con-
sidering abstract qualities in sound events that can be de-
and recontextualized. Another important lesson that can be
learned from film sound is how sound is used to substitute
haptic impressions and in general helps to ”physicalize” the
world displayed on screen. But the use of sound goes be-
yond this: Through layering of sounds, combining concrete,
identifiable sounds with more abstract ones, thus transferring
meaning potentials between them, film sound designers cre-
ate richer meaning potentials into seemingly simple sounds
[31]. In my opinion, this strategy offers great potential for
the design of sounds for interactive commodities.
Of particular interest for the subject matter of this research is
game sound because it lies at the intersection between sound
design for linear and interactive media. Due to the possibil-
ity of user action the potential for physicalization and char-
acterization through sound is even stronger in games than
it is in movies, as the player is performing an operation on
the interface (keyboard, joystick, gamepad or more exotic
controllers) and directly ”causes” the sounds. Often actually
sound serves to complement and extend the often simplistic
physical actions performed in a game (e.g. press of a mouse
button) into a complex process or series of actions in the vir-
tual game world (e.g. picking up and operating an object or
unlocking a door with a lock pick) [16].
Auditory display is another domain which offers valuable
knowledge for this investigation. A few important design
concepts have been formed here, e.g. Auditory Icons [10]
which base on everyday sounds and Earcons [2] which are
musical motifs with symbolic or metaphoric function. Fur-
thermore approaches for the dynamic sonification of data
have been developed (see e.g. [19]). With the use of phys-
ical modeling sonification can be linked to material prop-
erties which are well identified by listeners [11]. Meaning
in sonification is often created by mapping modifications in
a synthesizing model to changes in specific data vectors, a
procedure which is called ”parametric mapping”. Another
approach called ”model based sonification” has been intro-
duced by Hermann and Ritter. It proposes sonic systems that
can be explored very much like physical objects, supporting
the recognition of meaningful patterns and auditory gestalts
in a sonification [15]. This opens a connection to the notion
of musical instruments which is potentially very useful for
sonic interaction design related research issues.
TOWARDS A SOUND DESIGN ORIENTED TYPOLOGY OF
INTERACTIVE COMMODITIES
Based on and inspired by the fields of knowledge described
above we propose an initial typology of interactive com-
modities, describing their characteristics and how those could
inform their sound design. Two important analytical precon-
ditions have to be considered: Firstly, not the modality of use
(e.g. continuous manual control vs. triggering of automatic
processes) is at the center of attention but the experience of
the ”object-at-hand” and its assumed ”essential nature”, that
is, the object being used ”naı̈vely” without consideration of
its actual (technical) components and processes. Secondly
it is necessary to define the phenomenological limit of this
”object-at-hand” in question. For this purpose we propose a
notion of diegesis of objects which asks: what are the imma-
nent components of an object that are part of its phenomenal
existence and what are the symbolic, arbitrarily related enti-
ties that belong to its sphere of influence?
It has to be noted that this typology is merely an initial com-
ponent of an analytical system, excluding e.g. the study of
the relationships between action and sound and remains to
be discussed and adapted.
• Authentic commodities: These are simple objects that are
self-contained in terms of form and function and have an
essential identity that is not questioned, thus ”authentic”7 .
Such objects can be enhanced with electroacoustic sounds
in order to support their identity. Although some simple
sensors and processing abilities may be required for its
sonical enhancement, the object itself is normally not in-
teractive (however, of course, it might be used to control
interactive systems).
Example: The ”Mighty Mouse” by Apple is endued with
a small loudspeaker emitting a subtle noise which
7
The term is used neutrally.
14
seems to come from a small ball rolling over a grooved
surface, thus replacing the sound of a scrollwheel
normally associated with computer mice. Another
example is the blinking light in cars which is emitting
a - electroacoustically generated - sound, suggesting
an electromechanical process8 .
Sound design: In this case the sensible integration of
the added sound into the physical object is called for.
Freyman stresses the importance of creating a consis-
tent ”sonic image” [9]. Thus the goal of the design is
to render the actual sound producing process trans-
parent and create the actual experience of a physical
process e.g. of a scroll ball rolling over grooves. The
case of the blinking light is at the borderline of this
category, as it contains an indicative component.
• Extended commodities: Also this category describes more
or less self-contained objects, however they are endowed
with complex additional functionalities through interac-
tive technologies. In this case the physical objects are
mere ”supporting media” which in principle do not change
their identity but can be supplemented by more complex
levels of meaning.
Example: By adding a sensor and a connection with
an iPod the Nike+ jogging shoe mentioned earlier is
turned into a ”smart” jogging shoe. Essentially we
experience the shoe still as a jogging shoe, including
the sonic identity that goes with it, but an abstract
functionality has been added.
Sound design: In this case the sound of the object itself
remains unaltered. The sonic enhancement is taking
place on a purely symbolic or metaphoric level and
can be strongly oriented towards the design strategies
used in audiovisual media. The acoustical integration
into existing object-sounds is not necessary or should
even be avoided, in order to create a product in a class
of its own.
• Placeholders: These objects work as placeholders for many
kinds of meanings and functions and are inherently am-
biguous. They can - within the constraints of their appear-
ance and operation modality - be completely redefined
through sound. The object in its materiality and form be-
comes second to its function.
Example: A good example is the controller of the Wii
by Nintendo. It is a device looking like a simplified
remote control which in the player’s experience turns
into various virtual objects like swords, tennis bats or
fishing rods. From the computer mouse mentioned
8
This example clarifies the analytical criteria chosen: Firstly, al-
though the operation modality of the mouse and the blinking light
are different, the two cases are in the same category of first-order
commodities because they are ”objects-at-hand” with a ”static
essence” which is not questioned. If we would change the sound of
the object in a significant way it would lose this immediate ”obvi-
ous” meaning. Secondly, the mouse can be considered as ”objective
entity” as its relationship to entities controlled e.g. in a computer
game remains arbitrary and symbolic while the blinking light lever
and the blinking light system are one entity from the ”naı̈ve” per-
spective of the user.
 above it differs in that its operation and the gestures
performed are analogical to the simulated virtual ob-
jects.
Sound design: Here the physical properties of the place-
holder are connected with the more complex func-
tionalities. The sound is defined by the type of op-
eration of the simulated object and its functionality
respectively: usually sounds are used that relate to
the direct manipulation of objects, furthermore being
endowed with additional semiotic potentials, a strat-
egy we have already described above in the context
of film- and computer game sound.
• ”Omnivalent” commodities: The last category comprises
complex, multifunctional systems. The essence of these
devices lies in their communication abilities and the pro-
cessing of data and not primarily in their form and phys-
ical properties. Their multifunctionality and modifiablil-
ity and the resulting lack of identity makes these devices
comparable to personal computers, nonetheless they are
different in how they are used which usually is casual and
periferal. A further distinguishing characteristic is their
closenes to the body.
Example: An obvious example is the mobile phone and
the smartphone respectively, being at the same time
radio, camera, agenda, navigation device and tele-
phone.
Sound design: The requirements for the sound design
can be detached entirely from the device itself which
hardly disposes of any considerable acoustic com-
ponent or sonic identity as nearly all processes are
working non-mechanically. Often the sound design
tries to evoke the sonic identity of the original de-
vices replaced, e.g. the shutter sound of a mechanical
foto camera.
CONCLUSION
As we have described above the causal listening mode in
which a sound stands for the causing event and the object
emitting the sound is a central concept for understanding
meaning creation processes in interactive commodities. How-
ever this fact has to be complemented by the insight, that in
design the ability to analyze and understand a sound as an
aesthetical object in itself (objet sonore) is paramount to the
core feature of sound design to transfer meaning between
contexts. The insights from the research domains described
in this paper strongly suggest that the possibility to transfer
abstracted properties of sounds to other sounds and contexts,
as it is widely used in film and game sound, also exists in the
sound design for interactive commodities even if they entail
few or no physical processes.
When designing electroacoustic sounds it has to be consid-
ered that in the process of recording, storing and reproducing
sounds they undergo a significant, often fundamental trans-
formation which impacts their potential for meaning cre-
ation. Moreover the potential meaning of an electroacoustic
sound can be altered by the sounds of the physical processes
involved in the operation of the interactive commodity as
well as by the actions executed. An example is what we call
15
”differential of power” which occurs e.g. when the pressing
of a small button results in an massive, powerful sound or
vice versa. These complex de- and recontextualisations call
for further investigations.
Next steps
Thus, the investigation of the role of context is at the core
of further investigations. In general my hypothesis is that
the often stated ”disturbing sounds” are actually the result of
the lack of consideration for various aspects of contextuali-
sation in design. For example the howling sound of a sports
car engine is a taboo in a suburban neighbourhood, being as-
sociated with rebellish and potentially dangerous behaviour
of a youngster subculture while the shouts of children are not
acceptable in a posh ”DINK”9 neighbourhood. This calls for
a notion of ”systemic sound design”. Context plays a role in
various forms, such as object (e.g. as described above as ty-
pology of commodities), spatio-temporal10 , social and psy-
chological (concerned with aspects of acoustic community
(”sonical belonging”) and ergo-audition) sonical (involving
aspects of soundscape design, composition and arrangement
as a functional-aesthetic system), and finally the sensoral
context, the mutual influence of the various sensorial chan-
nels.
It is also obvious that the second important field of study
for understanding the hermeneutics of sound in interactive
commodities is to understand the relationship of action and
sound. Often isomorphisms are looked for, however sound
and action are intrinsically not isomorph [6]. In order to
develop the understanding of how sound and action can be
linked meaningfully together an introspective case study has
been carried out in the kitchen as first analytical field work-
pilot. This will have to be refined and extended to produce
scientifically useful results. Possible source of knowledge
can also be found in the domain of musical interface de-
sign. But also the research on motor activities, kinetics and
robotics might offer relevant impulses. In this context also
the importance of the concept of ”ergo-audition” must be
considered. In order to facilitate interaction and qualitatively
satisfying experiences it is essential to create sounds that in-
vite for exploration and lead to a positive experience of one’s
own activity and agency. Much too often interactions fail be-
cause the sounds emitted seem embarassing or unwanted.
Looking at the complex and evasive nature of sound and the
aspects of hermeneutics described above it is clear that a
generalizable semiotic system of sounds is not attainable.
Apart from some archetypical sounds there are simply too
many variables involved in meaning-making through sound.
Already Truax has suggested how important the preferences
and attitudes of the listener are to understand the meaning
sounds have [26]. However, we can create sonic ”force fields”
which can contribute to the suggestion of specific meaning
in clearly defined contexts. To express this, we have used
the expression ”meaning potential”. It has to be empha-
sized that by reducing the variables of an experience we al-
9
”Double Income, No Kids”
10
Taking into account the interactions between sound, space and
time. An interesting account of such ”sonic effects” can be found
in [1].
ter it significantly and the resulting insight may be limited
or even futile. Therefore a method of research is called for
that endorses complexity and emergence of specific theories
instead of prematurely restricting the field through a biasing
hypothesis. Meaning creation is essentially a cultural pro-
cess and has to be studied accordingly. Therefore we pro-
pose to take on a standpoint of cultural studies in general
and, more specifically, using methods such as grounded the-
ory [4] for studying sound and its role and use for the design
of interactive commodities.
REFERENCES
1. Jean-François Augoyard and Henry Torgue, editors.
Sonic experience - A Guide to Everyday Sounds.
McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, 2005.
2. M. Blattner, D. Sumikawa, and R. Greenberg. Earcons
and icons: Their structure and common design
principles. Human Computer Interaction, 4(5):11–44,
1989.
3. Kai Bronner and Rainer Hirt, editors. Audio-Branding,
volume 5 of Praxisforum Medienmanagement.
Reinhard Fischer, 2007.
4. K. Charmaz. Constructing Grounded Theory: A
Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.
Thousand Oaks, 2006.
5. Michel Chion. Guide des Objets Sonores - Pierre
Schaeffer et la recherche musicale. Buchet/Chastel,
Paris, 2nd edition, 1995.
6. Michel Chion. Le Son. Editions Nathan, Paris, 1998.
7. P. Dourish. Where the action is: The foundations of
embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 2001.
8. Barbara Flückiger. Sounddesign: Die virtuelle
Klangwelt des Films. Schüren Verlag, Marburg, 2001.
9. Raymond Freymann. Das Auto - Klang statt Lärm. In
Arnica-Verena Langenmaier, editor, Der Klang der
Dinge: Akustik - Eine Aufgabe des Designs. Schreiber,
München, 1993.
10. W. W. Gaver. Everyday listening and auditory icons.
PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego, 1988.
11. W. W. Gaver. Synthesizing auditory icons. In
Proceedings of INTERCHI, pages 228–235, 1993.
12. W. W. Gaver. What in the world do we hear? An
ecological approach to auditory event perception.
Ecological Psychology, (5):1–29, 1993.
13. B. L. Giordano. Everyday listening, an annotated
bibliography. In D. Rocchesso and F. Fontana, editors,
The Sounding Object, pages 1–16. Edizioni di Mondo
Estremo, 2003.
14. Adam Greenfield. Everyware: the dawning age of
ubiquitous computing. New Riders, 2006.
16
15. T. Hermann and H. Ritter. Model-Based Sonification
Revisited - Autors’ Comments on Hermann and Ritter,
ICAD 2002. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception,
2(4):559–563, 2005.
16. Daniel Hug. Game Sound Education at HGKZ -
Between Research Laboratory and Experimental
Education. In Proceedings of Audio Mostly 2007 - 2nd
Conference on Interaction with Sound, 2007.
17. Don Ihde. Listening and Voice: A Phenomenology of
Sound. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, 1976.
18. Ute Jekosch. Assigning Meaning to Sounds - Semiotics
in the Context of Product-Sound Design. In Jens
Blauert, editor, Communication Acoustics. Springer,
2005.
19. Gregory Kramer, Bruce Walker, Terri Bonebright,
Perry Cook, John Flowers, Nadine Miner, and John
Neuhoff. Sonification report: Status of the field and
research agenda. 1999.
20. Alexander M. Lorenz. Klangalltag - Alltagsklang. PhD
thesis, Philosophische Fakultät der Universität Zürich,
2000.
21. Leonard B. Meyer. Emotion and Meaning in Music.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1961.
22. E. Özcan and R. Van Egmond. Product sound design
and application: An overview. In P. M. A. Desmet,
M. A. Karlsson, and J. van Erp, editors, Proceedings of
the fifth international conference on desing and
emotion, Gothenburg, 2006. Chalmers University of
Technology.
23. Pierre Schaeffer. Traité des objets musicaux. Seuil,
Paris, 1966.
24. R. Murray Schafer. The Soundscape: Our Sonic
Environment and the Tuning of the World. Destiny
Books, New York, 2nd edition 1994 edition, 1977.
25. Bruce Sterling. Shaping Things. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 2005.
26. Barry Truax. Acoustic Communication. Ablex, 2nd
edition, 2000.
27. Kai Tuuri, Manne-Sakari Mustonen, and Antti
Pirhonen. Same sound – different meanings: A novel
scheme for modes of listening. In Proceedings of Audio
Mostly 2007 - 2nd Conference on Interaction with
Sound, 2007.
28. Theo van Leeuwen. Speech, Music, Sound. Palgrave
Macmillan, 1999.
29. Daniel Västfjäll. Emotion in product sound design. In
Proceedings of Journées Design Sonore, Paris, 2002.
30. Wolfgang Welsch. Auf dem Weg zu einer Kultur des
Hörens? In Grenzgänge der Ästhetik. Reclam,
Stuttgart, 1996.
31. William Whittington. Sound Design & Science Fiction.
University of Texas Press, Austin, 2007.