The only comment that I would make here is that we should be smart
about how much internationalization/localization we do ourselves and
how much we leave for other people. Remember that Cosmo is behind
Chandler in terms of overall feature set, and internationalizability
is likely to be one are where we are behind until sometime after
preview. If, for example, it comes down to trading dashboard
features for internationalization, I'd prefer to have dashboard
features.
Ted
On Nov 22, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Mimi Yin wrote:
See in-line...
On Nov 22, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Matthew Eernisse wrote:
If we want to say that localizing Cosmo for a specific language
also requires special graphics tools like Photoshop/GIMP, that's a
significant departure from the approach we've taken so far. I'm
not saying it's the wrong approach, but it does raise the bar for
participation, and as an open-source project, it something we
should consider carefully I think.
The truth is with content like this, whoever does the translation
is going to have to have design skills, or work with someone who
does. Even the simplified version I mocked up will fail when it
gets translated into Finnish and most UIs don't look so hot when
they get localized into ideographic languages like Chinese. I don't
think we'll ever get to 100% with localization issues.
Mimi, Stick with you guns and go with the most visually appealing
proposal. At least that's my vote (if I may even do so)
Thanks Jeremy. At this point, I'm not particularly attached to
either design. we should pick whichever one gets us to Preview
first :) All things being equal, I would pick the 2nd one because
it allows us to have the collection name in the 'Add xxx to your
account' text.
Mimi
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
