Re: Comments on Pronunciation Technical Approach

Notes from team (may need some rewrite/clarification before becoming
github issues)


   - Abstract should be about the document, not the TF, and more detail
   about why the doc exists.

No objections. Will correct.

   - In the intro, the paragraph beginning "This proposal represents a
   decision point..." is not clear, it seems to jump subject a lot.

Need to rewrite 3rd para. into a hanger and list or table/matrix.

   - I'm looking for, somewhere in the intro and possibly this para, a
   clear indication that there are two approaches being considered, but that
   at this point neither are explicitly on path to Recommendation, we actively
   want feedback on them in order to choose. I think this is more than a
   paragraph.

follow matrix with call to action requesting comments. to help move one of
these approaches to technical recommendation. feedback from implementors
and authors. (can or can't implement)

   - The section "Background on Pronunciation" has only three sentences.
   That is not enough to justify a section. I think the section is needed, so
   it should have more content. While there are links, it would be important
   to summarize the content of the links so a reader can a) be introduced
   without having to follow links and b) understand why they might want to
   follow those links for more detail.

hanger and a list here. TLDR each doc.

   - I find myself completely disoriented starting to read the section
   Multi-attribute Approach. I can't tell what it is, and how it relates to
   the introductory material I've already read. Partly the Intro needs
   expansion, but partly this section needs more than a paragraph at the top.

Link to the section from the intro. Repeat some of the intro in this
section to help re-iterate/contextualize.

   - Jumping straight into a code example also threw me off. Not having
   read the section yet, I couldn't tell what parts of the example to focus
   on, nor what I might learn from it prior to reading the rest of the section.

more exposition about the code example(s) to help the reader understand the
significance and techniques. Maybe a pros/cons and summary distinctions
following both technical descriptions. Not just a visual presenation,
affects aural presentation. Show the stanza. Comparison TTS and natural
reading of the text. (need human dramatic performance)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/23901/mp3/23901-01.mp3

   - Most of the sections describings specific attributes, or whatevers the
   subsections are in the single-attribute approach, need content explaining
   what the feature does. Saying they exist and a value template is not enough
   information for people to understand their role in the model.

maybe visually diagram the SSML and/or table of what the functions do. link
to SSML 1.1 specification.

   - There should be a pros / cons section, either one in each approach, or
   a section following them comparing them and giving pros and cons as we
   understand them.

borrow heavily from previous documents (explainer).
*--*
*Paul Grenier*
*[image: github] <https://github.com/AutoSponge>**[image: twitter]
<https://twitter.com/AutoSponge>**[image: linkedin]
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/pgrenier>*


On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:03 AM Roy Ran <ran@w3.org> wrote:

> FYI, Comments from Michael.
>
>
> -------- 转发的消息 --------
> 主题: Comments on Pronunciation Technical Approach
> 重新发送日期: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 22:22:21 +0000
> Resent-From: group-apa-chairs@w3.org
> 日期: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 17:22:18 -0500
> From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> <cooper@w3.org>
> 收件人: group-apa-chairs@w3.org <group-apa-chairs@w3.org>
> <group-apa-chairs@w3.org>
>
>
>    - Abstract should be about the document, not the TF, and more detail
>    about why the doc exists.
>    - In the intro, the paragraph beginning "This proposal represents a
>    decision point..." is not clear, it seems to jump subject a lot.
>    - I'm looking for, somewhere in the intro and possibly this para, a
>    clear indication that there are two approaches being considered, but that
>    at this point neither are explicitly on path to Recommendation, we actively
>    want feedback on them in order to choose. I think this is more than a
>    paragraph.
>    - The section "Background on Pronunciation" has only three sentences.
>    That is not enough to justify a section. I think the section is needed, so
>    it should have more content. While there are links, it would be important
>    to summarize the content of the links so a reader can a) be introduced
>    without having to follow links and b) understand why they might want to
>    follow those links for more detail.
>    - I find myself completely disoriented starting to read the section
>    Multi-attribute Approach. I can't tell what it is, and how it relates to
>    the introductory material I've already read. Partly the Intro needs
>    expansion, but partly this section needs more than a paragraph at the top.
>    - Jumping straight into a code example also threw me off. Not having
>    read the section yet, I couldn't tell what parts of the example to focus
>    on, nor what I might learn from it prior to reading the rest of the section.
>    - Most of the sections describings specific attributes, or whatevers
>    the subsections are in the single-attribute approach, need content
>    explaining what the feature does. Saying they exist and a value template is
>    not enough information for people to understand their role in the model.
>    - There should be a pros / cons section, either one in each approach,
>    or a section following them comparing them and giving pros and cons as we
>    understand them.
>
> Michael
>