![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
Abstract
This study investigated performance and preference differences for three different extensible Auditory Progress Bar (APB) designs. Four durations (30 s, 60 s, 120 s, 240 s) of the three APBs (Sine, Cello, and Electronic) were used in the study. There were 105 participants who listened to all durations of a single-stimulus type and were asked to determine the length of time they had listened to the stimulus and to rate the stimuli on aesthetic quality. Participants were significantly worse at time estimation with the Electronic APB. The Sine APB was preferred significantly less than either the Cello or Electronic APBs. Regardless of the stimulus, time estimation was more variable and more accurate as the duration of the APB increased. The results indicate that although they were originally envisioned as a supplement for the visual progress bar, APBs can be effective when used alone. Further, it was found that, even within the small design space presented here, APB design can influence the performance of listeners.