Comments on: Why is WYSIWYG important for software localization? http://www.the-localization-tool.com/?p=14 Articles around software localization with Sisulizer by its users, friends, and makers Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:47:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Sisulizer http://www.the-localization-tool.com/?p=14&cpage=1#comment-1685 Sisulizer Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:31:11 +0000 http://www.delphi-localization-tool.com/?p=14#comment-1685 Hi Johnny, you are right. WYSIWYG is not everything. Most of the time you will translate in text mode. For an experienced translator it will not work out if he looks at the WYSIWYG display on every dialog for every detail. He will just not earn enough. But these little issues, like a "Finnish" :-) button can mean some lost of reputation to a software. Especially while evaluating a software this can mean the difference between a sale or none. The competition for software is hard in the Internet and your competition might have done a better job with localization. The story in the post really happened. We lost trust in the software because if the translation is done lazy why should the business logic be more accurate? Hi Johnny,

you are right. WYSIWYG is not everything. Most of the time you will translate in text mode. For an experienced translator it will not work out if he looks at the WYSIWYG display on every dialog for every detail. He will just not earn enough.
But these little issues, like a “Finnish” :-) button can mean some lost of reputation to a software. Especially while evaluating a software this can mean the difference between a sale or none. The competition for software is hard in the Internet and your competition might have done a better job with localization. The story in the post really happened. We lost trust in the software because if the translation is done lazy why should the business logic be more accurate?

]]> By: Johnny http://www.the-localization-tool.com/?p=14&cpage=1#comment-1684 Johnny Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:15:03 +0000 http://www.delphi-localization-tool.com/?p=14#comment-1684 The option to WYSIWYG the UI is really good, but if you are experienced you don't always need it. But the option to see the context is of course invaluable when in doubt. I recently received a screen dump from a wizard where the 'Finish' button had been translated as 'Finnish'. And that mistake had probably not been made in a WYSIWYG editor. :-) The option to WYSIWYG the UI is really good, but if you are experienced you don’t always need it. But the option to see the context is of course invaluable when in doubt.

I recently received a screen dump from a wizard where the ‘Finish’ button had been translated as ‘Finnish’. And that mistake had probably not been made in a WYSIWYG editor. :-)

]]> By: Christian Flury http://www.the-localization-tool.com/?p=14&cpage=1#comment-939 Christian Flury Fri, 18 May 2007 12:02:42 +0000 http://www.delphi-localization-tool.com/?p=14#comment-939 Nice article! However, I have to say that, having a translation background myself, I am a bit sceptical of WYSIWIG as a panacea to all localization issues. Of course, WYSIWIG is better than nothing, but in the long run I think it would be even more useful to abstract out the information relevant to the linguist (length restrictions, context, etc.) and integrate it into future translation environments. What's important for translation purposes is the structure and the purpose of the content, not the actual layout. I think this is an important distinction. As far as I know, XLIFF supports metadata regarding context, length restrictions etc. - hopefully, developers and CAT tool makers will leverage these features. I've noticed that especially for web content - or content that will be published in different forms, WYSIWIG tools may induce subtle errors in that the translation will be optimized for one particular medium (e.g. hard hyphens, ad-hoc abbreviations, normal spaces rather than non-breaking spaces etc.) and violate the principle of separation between content and layout, thus preventing easy content re-use. That being said, I believe that, considering the current state of translation technology, you're still spot on. Nice article! However, I have to say that, having a translation background myself, I am a bit sceptical of WYSIWIG as a panacea to all localization issues. Of course, WYSIWIG is better than nothing, but in the long run I think it would be even more useful to abstract out the information relevant to the linguist (length restrictions, context, etc.) and integrate it into future translation environments.
What’s important for translation purposes is the structure and the purpose of the content, not the actual layout. I think this is an important distinction.
As far as I know, XLIFF supports metadata regarding context, length restrictions etc. – hopefully, developers and CAT tool makers will leverage these features.
I’ve noticed that especially for web content – or content that will be published in different forms, WYSIWIG tools may induce subtle errors in that the translation will be optimized for one particular medium (e.g. hard hyphens, ad-hoc abbreviations, normal spaces rather than non-breaking spaces etc.) and violate the principle of separation between content and layout, thus preventing easy content re-use.
That being said, I believe that, considering the current state of translation technology, you’re still spot on.

]]> By: Claudia http://www.the-localization-tool.com/?p=14&cpage=1#comment-879 Claudia Tue, 01 May 2007 09:20:22 +0000 http://www.delphi-localization-tool.com/?p=14#comment-879 Thank you very much for the input! Thank you very much for the input!

]]>