On Oct 12, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Daniel Weck wrote: > On 11 Oct 2011, at 20:25, Janina Sajka wrote: >> 2.) voice-volume: silent; >> >> The spec should give an example of expected appropriate usage of this value. >> Because this generates a period of silence equal to the length of the >> would-be-spoken content, most listeners will just assume speech output has >> prematurely stopped. In radio terms, this is "dead air." How do you expect this >> value to be useful? >> >> Despite the at-risk status of this property, we believe it would be extremely >> useful for conveying context, particularly in situations such as two-party >> dialogue. > > 'voice-volume' is not marked "at-risk". Can you clarify what you mean please? > Cheers, Daniel It appears that a line was inadvertently deleted when the feedback was combined. Here's that section from the original draft, which clarifies that the sentence was referring to voice-balance, not voice-volume. voice-volume: silent; The spec should give an example of expected appropriate usage of this value. Because this generates a period of silence equal to the length of the would-be-spoken content, most listeners will just assume speech output has prematurely stopped. In radio terms, this is "dead air." How do you expect this value to be useful? voice-balance: Despite the at-risk status of this property, we believe it would be extremely useful for conveying context, particularly in situations such as two-party dialogue. Cheers, James
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 17:50:40 UTC