Thoughts on i18n

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Thoughts on i18n

Heiko Braun


I am currently going through the console, preparing it for i18n.
Basically making sure everything is properly placed into bundles that can be translated.

There is one thing I need your feedback on: 
How are we going to treat strings that reflect technical terms? 

I.e. a log handler has an editable field name (speaking of the UI here) called "Auto Flush".
To me this represent a technical term that corresponds with other places like the XML schema, the CLI and the actual XML configuration files. As such, I objecting to translate those. "Log Level" is another good example. 

Now, to many native english speaking people, this might not be obvious, but once you start translating those things get pretty awkward. IMO technical terms should stay untouched and I expect people to incorporate those easily into their own language. As a result the web management interface would keep english terms for elements that derive from the XML schema or other API and provide localized description and help texts for anything else.


What are you thoughts on this?


--

Heiko Braun
Senior Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat






_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thoughts on i18n

Alessio Soldano
I see what you mean and think that this is often the reason for "not so
good" translations. For instance, it's happened to me many time to
prefer English version of documentation over Italian one because the
latter was trying to provide Italian translation for technical terms.
This said, however, I believe that any language is a special case here,
for instance French has accepted technical computer related words that
simply does not exist in Italian (the English version is adopted into
the language). So, if it was me, I'd provide bundles for everything in
the gui and expect translators to decide what to do for each of them.

Cheers
Alessio

On 01/10/2012 10:34 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:

>
>
> I am currently going through the console, preparing it for i18n.
> Basically making sure everything is properly placed into bundles that can be translated.
>
> There is one thing I need your feedback on:
> How are we going to treat strings that reflect technical terms?
>
> I.e. a log handler has an editable field name (speaking of the UI here) called "Auto Flush".
> To me this represent a technical term that corresponds with other places like the XML schema, the CLI and the actual XML configuration files. As such, I objecting to translate those. "Log Level" is another good example.
>
> Now, to many native english speaking people, this might not be obvious, but once you start translating those things get pretty awkward. IMO technical terms should stay untouched and I expect people to incorporate those easily into their own language. As a result the web management interface would keep english terms for elements that derive from the XML schema or other API and provide localized description and help texts for anything else.
>
>
> What are you thoughts on this?
>
>
> --
>
> Heiko Braun
> Senior Software Engineer
> JBoss by Red Hat
> http://about.me/hbraun
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev


--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thoughts on i18n

Nicklas Karlsson
In reply to this post by Heiko Braun
I prefer to use English everywhere (OS, telephone etc). I18N is fine for end-user interfaces but I consider the AS an "expert tool" so in 95% of cases, people who don't understand English probably aren't qualified to fiddle around with it ;-) Most languages have sucky translations for technical terms (and only people from the National Language Institute or whoever invented them use them)

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Heiko Braun <[hidden email]> wrote:


I am currently going through the console, preparing it for i18n.
Basically making sure everything is properly placed into bundles that can be translated.

There is one thing I need your feedback on: 
How are we going to treat strings that reflect technical terms? 

I.e. a log handler has an editable field name (speaking of the UI here) called "Auto Flush".
To me this represent a technical term that corresponds with other places like the XML schema, the CLI and the actual XML configuration files. As such, I objecting to translate those. "Log Level" is another good example. 

Now, to many native english speaking people, this might not be obvious, but once you start translating those things get pretty awkward. IMO technical terms should stay untouched and I expect people to incorporate those easily into their own language. As a result the web management interface would keep english terms for elements that derive from the XML schema or other API and provide localized description and help texts for anything else.


What are you thoughts on this?


--

Heiko Braun
Senior Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat






_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev




--
---
Nik

_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Thoughts on i18n

Andrig Miller
In reply to this post by Heiko Braun



From: "Heiko Braun" <[hidden email]>
To: "[hidden email] Development" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:34:17 AM
Subject: [jboss-as7-dev] Thoughts on i18n



I am currently going through the console, preparing it for i18n.
Basically making sure everything is properly placed into bundles that can be translated.

There is one thing I need your feedback on: 
How are we going to treat strings that reflect technical terms? 

I.e. a log handler has an editable field name (speaking of the UI here) called "Auto Flush".
To me this represent a technical term that corresponds with other places like the XML schema, the CLI and the actual XML configuration files. As such, I objecting to translate those. "Log Level" is another good example. 

Now, to many native english speaking people, this might not be obvious, but once you start translating those things get pretty awkward. IMO technical terms should stay untouched and I expect people to incorporate those easily into their own language. As a result the web management interface would keep english terms for elements that derive from the XML schema or other API and provide localized description and help texts for anything else.


What are you thoughts on this?

I think we should see what our translation team think about this, and how they handle it for things like RHEL.  I think you have a very good point, but I would like to see if we have any standard practices for other products first, just to see what the experience has been.

Andy

--

Heiko Braun
Senior Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat






_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev


_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev