AreaAudit

Which languages each generator says it supports, and where

Why a single language score cannot be built

Combining interface, document and voice coverage into one language score requires a weighting. No weighting is defensible, because the readers who care about each column want different vendors at the top. As of 2026-09-12.

Why combining three columns produces a figure for nobodyEach column is decisive for a different reader. Weighting the interface heavily describes a company buying software to work in; weighting voices heavily describes a distributor; weighting them equally describes nobody, and the weighting would be invisible in the output.Which column should a combined score weight?The interfaceA score for aworking teamRanks a translatededitor above adocumented voiceinventory.The voicesA score for adistributorRanks a dubbing serviceabove a tool anyonecould work in.EquallyA score for nobodyAverages three differentunits into a figure novendor published.Three columns and no ranking is the only honest arrangement
Fig. 1 The units do not match either, so the objection is formal before it is a matter of taste.
What each column would contribute to a combined score, and for whom. Recorded 2026-09-12.
ColumnMatters most toMatters least to
Interface languagesA team buying a tool to work inA studio dubbing a catalogue
Document languagesA non-English production crewA single-language studio
Voice languagesAnyone releasing in several marketsA subtitle-only release
All threeNobody in particularNobody in particular

Inclusion rule. The three columns, with the reader each one is decisive for. The last row is the combined score, which is decisive for nobody. Order. Cheapest column first.

1The columns are filled by different companies

Among the vendors read for this atlas, the group with the longest interface declarations and the group with the longest voice lists overlap on very few companies. Half the field fills one and not the other.

So a combined column would not smooth out noise; it would put the wrong vendors at the top for either question. A reader with a specific question would get a worse answer from the combined figure than from either column alone.

2Any weighting encodes a buyer nobody is

Weight the interface heavily and the score describes a company shopping for software to work in. Weight voices heavily and it describes a distributor. Weight them equally and it describes nobody at all.

The weighting would also be invisible in the output. A reader seeing a single number has no way to know which buyer it was built for, which is worse than a table that makes them choose a column.

3The units do not even match

One column holds counts of declared pages. One holds a rule. One holds sets, counts and lower bounds in at least three different units. Adding them would produce a figure in no unit at all.

That is a formal objection rather than a taste one. Before a score can be argued about, the quantities have to be commensurable, and these are not.

4What replaces it

Three columns, most cells empty, no ranking, and a reader who has to decide which question they are asking. That is less convenient than a ranked list and it is the only arrangement that does not mislead.

A reader arriving from a ranked comparison will find it frustrating before they find it useful. Saying so up front is better than pretending the table answers a question it does not.

An explainer about method and structure, not a count. No vendor number appears here that is not also in the register. The sourced material is on the register. Related: Check one yourself, Regions nobody addressed.