Thread Subject: Re: 2.2 If the Product has Speech OutputorThroughput

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Sep 29 2007 1:20 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Phill Jenkins: "Re: 2.2 If the Product has Speech Output orThroughput"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Good point.



The title was meant to be a limiting or scoping title.



However - we need to ask ourselves if this is sufficient. If it is - then
no editing is needed. If provisions must stand on their own, (and they
might - I don't know) then we need to include all scoping within each
provision and not rely on the titles.



I think this is a good EWG question.



Thanks for raising it.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Phill Jenkins
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:27 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] 2.2 If the Product has Speech
OutputorThroughput


Gregg, this was an editorial comment - that the text in the 2.2 provisions A
through F did not match the title - 'audio output' vs 'speech output'.
Because of the mismatch, I thought it applied to all audio output, but
apparently the title is correct and its the provisions A through F that need
editing to make it clearer. All the 2.2 provisions A through F say "audio
output", except 2.2-E uses "incoming voice signals", and 2.2-D explicitly
uses both:
Product Characteristics: Sound output - speech, Sound output (other
than speech)

So the text needs to be tightened up in the next editorial pass to avoid the
confusion.
I'm not suggesting it be broadened unless that was the intent of the
subcommittee.

http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Sept_14#2.2_If_the_Product_has_Speech_Outpu
t_or_Throughput

Regards,
Phill Jenkins





Gregg Vanderheiden < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

09/29/2007 12:37 AM


Please respond to
TEITAC Committee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To

"'TEITAC Committee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


cc




Subject

Re: [teitac-committee] 2.2 If the Product has Speech Output orThroughput











These provisions only apply if there is speech that comes out of or through
a product. If you change it to Audio - it will spread the need to apply
these to other technologies where it is not necessary.

Is there a reason you see to broaden the applicability of these provisions?

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____



From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Phill Jenkins
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3:46 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: [teitac-committee] 2.2 If the Product has Speech Output
orThroughput

Editorial comment: The heading of 2.2 sounds odd to me to use the terms
'Speech' and 'Throughput'. All the provisions 2.2 A through F seem to use
the term 'audio output', so I think it would make the standards more
intuitive to use the term 'audio output'. I suppose 'throughput' could stay
if that is left over from 255, and/or if we are including components that
process the audio. The TPs really only talk about the audio connections and
volume - nothing about microphones, inputs, or even the term throughput.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Phill Jenkins: "Re: 2.2 If the Product has Speech Output orThroughput"