# Design Dimensions of Co-Located Multi-Device Audio Experiences
## 4 Results  
The survey received 43 responses in total (including responses from the authors and those discovered during the literature search described in Section 3). All multiple choice questions and responses can be seen in Appendix B, and a full list of experiences in the dataset can be seen in Appendix C. Figure 1a shows the frequency of device types from the platforms and experiences described in the responses. An observable trend is that the occurrence of each type largely relates to the size and mobility of the devices, with mobile phones being the most common (33%), and TV/radio being the least common (8%). This result roughly reflects the relative market saturation of each type of device [33] but is also due to the increasing number of experiences created through specific multi-device audio production tools such as _Soundworks_ and _Audio Orclestrator_, which enable the easy inclusion of mobile devices. The 'Other' category, which received 23% of the selections, included Raspberry-Pi-based embedded audio devices and cassette players. Audio-only devices are far less common than those with a visual display. This can be attributed in part to integration challenges for these devices, where many of the modern experiences implement delivery through a web URL that can be typed or accessed via a QR code.  
The frequency of various interaction modes is shown in Figure 1b. Tactile input and touch interfaces are most common (63%), followed by motion-gesturing interaction (19%), both of which smartphones and tablets commonly possess. The 'Other' category includes, but is not limited to, proximity-based control through the use of RFID or Bluetooth technologies. Out of all 43 entries, 16% of them are labelled as non-interactive. The number of devices was reported to be variable in 84% of entries. The data collected from the responses to the question are insufficient to determine whether the experience could vary the number of devices _during_ or _between_ instances of the experiences. Despite this, the results still demonstrate the flexible nature of these experiences and tend to display configuration agnosticism, unlike traditional multi-channel audio experiences. Finally, in answer to the question about device importance, 58% of responses indicated that the devices were perceived to be equally important, whereas 26% reported some form of hierarchical device structure in the ecosystem.  
Through the thematic analysis process described in Section 3, 17 themes were generated (Table 1) which were captured under four parent themes: _devices, listeners, content_, and _other_. These themes were validated by a set of 300 non-expert codes, with 92% of the non-expert codes being represented within the 17 themes defined by the experts.  
Figure 1: Pie charts representing the frequency of types of devices and modes of interaction for the multiple choice response data. (**a**) The frequency of types of devices for all survey responses. (**b**) The frequency of modes of interaction for all survey responses.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Parent Theme** & **Theme** & **Description** \\ \hline Devices & Device position & The position of the devices \\  & Synchronisation & The existence of and the accuracy of synchronisation in use \\  & Device hierarchy & The existence of and the configuration of the device hierarchy \\  & Types of device & The types of devices in use \\  & Number of devices & The number of devices in use \\ \hline Listeners & Number of listeners & The number of listeners present \\  & Listener position & The position of the listeners \\  & Listener role & The role of the listener in the experience, including the extent of contribution \\  & Social interaction & The type and extent of social interaction during the experience \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The 17 themes generated from the thematic analysis of the free-text survey responses, their descriptions, and associated parent themes.