Re: L10n deserves to be systematized

Re: L10n deserves to be systematized

[Jean-Christophe Helary]

> Apologies Jean-Christophe. I did not mean to imply that I had learned nothing from the interaction on the list. It is clear to me that the usual translation of interface, etc, is beyond our current resources.

I was not suggesting that, don't worry :)

> This is what I was suggesting. A list focused on Emacs translation rather than coding. But like the github issue, we will need a GNU-approved host.

Not really. What we need is to have a process that produces good translations and then a way to deliver the translations that is compatible with the GNU project.

> From Eli:
> "Not sure why the mailing list is not in the CC."

In CC here.

> The Lisp reference manual is for programmers, and those usually have a much better control of English."

That's a common misconception.

Programmers rely first on ressources in their language and then try to make sense of the rest. In the case of the Emacs/Elisp manuals the rest is a very verbose set of files and is in fact quite difficult to make sense of when you're not a native.

> "I would propose to focus on the user manual.  

In fact, I'd suggest the opposite. Emacs has already a huge volume of introductory and advanced materials on the web and in print and is thus quite accessible for non English speakers.

The Elisp reference is simply not that widely available.

Also, as I mentioned in an earlier mail, translators are generally good proofreaders. They can find a lot of errors, inconsistencies, hard to understand parts, etc. and translation directly contributes to native's access to a better documentation.

But in the end, it really is up to the translators to decide what they want to work on.

> I am still not sure what I will be using. OmegaT uses Java, and being blind, I have had bad experiences with that in the past. So I will have to check and see if it is accessible. I will ask a blind translators list I heard of.

I've had a lot of exchanges with people on the Librté 0 list and it seems OmegaT is not very accessible. But there are other tools. Emacs and its po-mode are very basic, so it's better to look for other native tools for your platform.

> In any case, setting up the git repository and email list, and announcing it on the Emacs lists can attract some attention and possibly other translators.

Maybe. But I'd focus on the GNU/FOSS translations groups that already exist in the various languages.

Jean-Christophe

Re: L10n deserves to be systematized

[Jean-Christophe Helary]

> Apologies Jean-Christophe. I did not mean to imply that I had learned nothing from the interaction on the list. It is clear to me that the usual translation of interface, etc, is beyond our current resources.

I was not suggesting that, don't worry :)

> This is what I was suggesting. A list focused on Emacs translation rather than coding. But like the github issue, we will need a GNU-approved host.

Not really. What we need is to have a process that produces good translations and then a way to deliver the translations that is compatible with the GNU project.

> From Eli:
> "Not sure why the mailing list is not in the CC."

In CC here.

> The Lisp reference manual is for programmers, and those usually have a much better control of English."

That's a common misconception.

Programmers rely first on ressources in their language and then try to make sense of the rest. In the case of the Emacs/Elisp manuals the rest is a very verbose set of files and is in fact quite difficult to make sense of when you're not a native.

> "I would propose to focus on the user manual.  

In fact, I'd suggest the opposite. Emacs has already a huge volume of introductory and advanced materials on the web and in print and is thus quite accessible for non English speakers.

The Elisp reference is simply not that widely available.

Also, as I mentioned in an earlier mail, translators are generally good proofreaders. They can find a lot of errors, inconsistencies, hard to understand parts, etc. And this work would in fact contribute to native's access to the documentation.

But in the end, it really is up to the translators to decide what they want to work on.

> I am still not sure what I will be using. OmegaT uses Java, and being blind, I have had bad experiences with that in the past. So I will have to check and see if it is accessible. I will ask a blind translators list I heard of.

I've had a lot of exchanges with 

> 
> In any case, setting up the git repository and email list, and announcing it on the Emacs lists can attract some attention and possibly other translators.
> 
> Fernando
> 

Re: L10n deserves to be systematized

[Fernando Botelho]

"Maybe. But I'd focus on the GNU/FOSS translations groups that already 
exist in the various languages."

Ok, i will do some searching around. But if you are aware of l10n groups 
for Portuguese, Spanish, or Arabic, please let me know.

Fernando


On 05/05/2017 06:29 AM, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
>> Apologies Jean-Christophe. I did not mean to imply that I had learned nothing from the interaction on the list. It is clear to me that the usual translation of interface, etc, is beyond our current resources.
> I was not suggesting that, don't worry :)
>
>> This is what I was suggesting. A list focused on Emacs translation rather than coding. But like the github issue, we will need a GNU-approved host.
> Not really. What we need is to have a process that produces good translations and then a way to deliver the translations that is compatible with the GNU project.
>
>>  From Eli:
>> "Not sure why the mailing list is not in the CC."
> In CC here.
>
>> The Lisp reference manual is for programmers, and those usually have a much better control of English."
> That's a common misconception.
>
> Programmers rely first on ressources in their language and then try to make sense of the rest. In the case of the Emacs/Elisp manuals the rest is a very verbose set of files and is in fact quite difficult to make sense of when you're not a native.
>
>> "I would propose to focus on the user manual.
> In fact, I'd suggest the opposite. Emacs has already a huge volume of introductory and advanced materials on the web and in print and is thus quite accessible for non English speakers.
>
> The Elisp reference is simply not that widely available.
>
> Also, as I mentioned in an earlier mail, translators are generally good proofreaders. They can find a lot of errors, inconsistencies, hard to understand parts, etc. and translation directly contributes to native's access to a better documentation.
>
> But in the end, it really is up to the translators to decide what they want to work on.
>
>> I am still not sure what I will be using. OmegaT uses Java, and being blind, I have had bad experiences with that in the past. So I will have to check and see if it is accessible. I will ask a blind translators list I heard of.
> I've had a lot of exchanges with people on the Librté 0 list and it seems OmegaT is not very accessible. But there are other tools. Emacs and its po-mode are very basic, so it's better to look for other native tools for your platform.
>
>> In any case, setting up the git repository and email list, and announcing it on the Emacs lists can attract some attention and possibly other translators.
> Maybe. But I'd focus on the GNU/FOSS translations groups that already exist in the various languages.
>
> Jean-Christophe