When pronunciation comes up, that would be good whenever possible; in this case, as a Left Ponder I would have liked to actually hear my fellow Yank's pronunciation, because part of the problem with transcriptions is that apart from IPA, there's no universal way; British and North American conventions of conveying speech sounds in writing are significantly different enough as to court confusion. In solely writing about pronunciation, neither of us can be expected to accurately hear what the other is trying to convey, at least not without some time spent at thinking about it and hoping one gets it right.
Here's a case in point: Around Shaka's time there was a personage by the name of Mboza Mboza, but since the Zulu language wasn't yet committed to writing, the British had to make do, so they phonetically rendered the name as "Bosomboser", according to their ear. That's a world of difference when you compare it to the Zulu spelling, but by British spelling convention the pronunciation comes close enough. Yet no American I know would pronounce that spelling in a British fashion unless prompted. Rather, we would automatically pronounce it as "Boozumbozer", and you must pronounce the R (well, most of us ). Nothing at all as the British would have intended. I don't know how we would have transcribed the name if we had been there in place of the British in those early days, but it would definitely have been different from the British version. That I can count on.
Then there are the French. In old renderings of Dakota names you will see an R used by the French instead of GH, KH, or their equivalents that we see now. And this is understandable. The famous name Mahpiyato (the H is pronounced, stress on the I, if you're keen to give it a try) would have been spelled in French fashion Marpiyato, and this no doubt causes confusion for the modern, uninformed Yank casual onlooker. Moreover there is no R (as English speakers think of it) in that language, and if you know that, it jars even more.