[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Translation Methods comparsion
From:       Dashamir Hoxha <dashohoxha () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-03-22 6:49:23
Message-ID: CAMucfLz03U+n0RmartkFb_6KBe-zUpHg_AOydCA5UN=tztG9gA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Dear Feng,

I find your review of localization tools very useful.
I would summarize it like this:

- The best and most efficient way for KDE localization
  is Lokalize+SVN. But they are for experienced translators.

- Web based localization tools (like Pootle, Launchpad, Transifex,
  TranslateWiki, and maybe some others too) are a bit more easy
  for non-experienced translators. They can be good/useful
  to encourage the participation of new people in the translation
  process, and to increase the contributor base.

I totally agree with these conclusions.

From all the web-based tools that you have tried, you single out
Transifex as the best one. Personally, I would add to the list of
web-based tools B-Translator as well (although nobody here
has tried it, besides me), without claiming that it is the best.

I would like to share (again) my experience about how
a web based tool can be used together with Lokalize+SVN.

- First of all, the choice of which web based tool to use is up to
  the translation team (in case they would like to use one).
  There is no reason to use the same tool for all KDE translations.
  Also, the responsibility for managing it belongs to each
  translation team.

- Second, the web-based tool is always an extra addition to
  Lokalize+SVN. It can never be thought as a replacement for it.
  At the end, everything should be merged back to Localize+SVN.

- In order to integrate with Lokalize+SVN, the web-based tool should
  support easy import/export of PO files (I think that all of them do).

- From my experience, the best way to merge PO files exported from
  a web-based tool to the PO files managed by SVN is by using Lokalize.
  Lokalize has wonderful features for merging two PO files.

  This way, all the contributions coming from the web-based tools
  will also be checked and approved by experienced translators.
  This is very important because you can never guarantee the quality
  of the contributions coming from the web based tools (also due to
  the fact that they come from inexperienced translators).

It seems like an additional/extra burden to use a web-based tool
besides Lokalize+SVN. But if you can afford to manage one, it
can be worth, if nothing else, just to encourage the contributions
from new translators and to increase the translator base.

I hope that my input to this discussion topic was useful.

Best regards,
Dashamir


On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Leon Feng <rainofchaos@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am suprised to see KDE may use it for GUI translation in translationWiki
> newsletter. If there will exist a web translation interface, I am afraid the
> best choice will not be translatewiki but should be Transifex. Here is my
> experience about Launchpad /transifex/ Localize/ translatewiki to backup
> this choice.
>
> First is Launchpad. Use it at around (2006~2008). Top translator of zh_CN
> team at that time.
> Pro: Easy to start. So the contributor base is the largest at that time.
> Con: Very hard to make translation upstream. Most of the rot in Ubuntu.
>
> Lokalize: (2008~now)
> To make my KDE GUI translation upstream, I get involved with kde-cn and
> lokalize. And I get my KDE commit access shortly.
> Pro: Effiency - Offline Lokalize is much faster than web interface. In my
> experence, it  at least cut the time half. So I stop working on Launchpad
> quickly. Translation memory avoid duplicate work. The most import part is it
> make translation consistent which is more import in the GUI than Wiki text.
> Con: PO file is hard to work with. svn account and a minimal skill is
> needed. This did disappoint some translators in kde-cn and some left.
>
> Translatewiki: (2010~now) Mostly in Userbase and Techbase.
> Pro: Specially optimized for Wiki work flow. Easy to keep text sync with
> English.
> Con: Make the original English page hard to edit. Compare to Arch Wiki,
> Userbase and Techbase have a much much smaller user edits. I blame its ugly
> syntex. I myself spend almost 1 years before I dare to edit the page with
> "<!--T:6-->" marking :)
>
> Transifex: I joined many projects but do little translation. Because when I
> check my dash board, usually all the work is already done by someone else,
> in very good quality.
> Pro: Easy to start as Launchpad. Easy to make work upstream. Good svn git
> integration.
> Con: Need time to maintain, especially for project as large as KDE.
>
> Conclusion:
> I will keep using Lokalize in the future. But sometime I ask myself, will I
> enter KDE translation without experience in Launchpad when I am a novice.
> The answer is probably no. Have a web access to KDE GUI translation will
> increase our contributor base. Then we can guide them to use Lokalize for
> quality.
>
> TranslateWiki is absolutely the choice of Wiki translation. But I question
> its role in GUI translation. Po and  wiki have different, po files should be
> sync with svn repo everyday or at least every week. Believe me, it is very
> hard work. Suggestion: Let one l18n team to do a test run to defeat my
> concern above :)
>
> Feng Chao
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]